Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFW_ Delta Chi Appeal1 From:Corey, Tyler Sent:Monday, October 13, 2025 8:15 AM To:Cohen, Rachel; Patino, Mallory Subject:FW: Delta Chi Appeal Fyi- From: kathie walker < Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 2:02 PM To: Mezzapesa, John <JMezzape@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: Delta Chi Appeal Hi John and Tyler, I am not sure who is handling Delta Chi's appeal to the City Council on October 21st but want to provide the following relevant information: 1. Delta Chi previously appealed a noise citation issued 3/3/2025 and it was dismissed by a Hearing Officer. On June 25, 2025, SLOPD Deputy Chief Brian Amoroso explained to the Planning Commissioners that the Hearing Officer was wrongly dismissing valid noise citations because SLOPD's equipment is not calibrated to accurately record noise and is focused on the officer's conversation with the person in front of them. DC Amoroso said that even a gunshot will sound muffled on an officer's body cam video. I have attached the video clip of DC Amoroso's testimony to the Planning Commission. This problem was apparently explained to the Hearing Officer but I'm not sure how or if it has been resolved. The main point is that the noise citation received by Delta Chi on 3/3/2025 was a valid noise violation but was dismissed because of the way noise is / isn't recorded on SLOPD's body cameras. DC Brian Amoroso explains noise violations.mp4 2. Delta Chi had a large party on St. Fratty's Day 2025, even though Cal Poly told all Greek life that they were not allowed to have parties, so the party was not registered per Cal Poly Greek Life Event Registration Policies and Procedures. Delta Chi did not appeal that citation with the City. In previous years, if SLOPD cited a noisy party during St. Fratty's Day, but the persons claimed they were not holding the party and trespassers were responsible for the crowd on their property, the persons who got the citation communicated that information to SLOPD and the citations were dismissed, free of charge. One of my friends owns 306 Hathway and she said that happened to her tenants in 2024 after they received a citation when people overtook their yard and rooftop. They did not have to pay an appeal fee and SLOPD verified that they did not know any of the people in their yard or on their roof and called 911 multiple times. 2 On St. Fratty's Day 2025, Delta Chi had a party with a banner hanging in the courtyard that said "St. Frattys 2025" "Get Lucky" with Delta Chi's Greek letters. Some people at the party that morning took videos of the event and posted the videos to Snapchat, which caused larger crowds to show up outside the locked gates of the fraternity. The larger crowds outside the fraternity gates do not negate the fact that the fraternity did have a party that morning and there were over 100 guests there BEFORE uninvited crowds showed up. If Delta Chi didn't have a party, the other uninvited guests would not have gone to the fraternity. No other fraternity had a party that morning. (Sigma Nu planned a St. Fratty's Day party and had a banner painted, but canceled beforehand.) SLOPD's citation was sent to Cal Poly Student Rights and Responsibilities, and the matter was forwarded to the InterFraternity Council Judicial Board for resolution. That is how Cal Poly is now handling citations that are sent to Cal Poly from the City if the noise citation is associated with a fraternity address. The Fraternity Board, made up of fraternity members, found that Delta Chi was not responsible for hosting the event on St. Fratty's Day morning based on a presentation by the fraternity from their video surveillance of the crowds that showed up to the party outside their gates. They glossed over the fact tha t there was already a party at the fraternity house when those other people showed up. Delta Chi has attempted to use this ruling as a final disposition, as though they did not have a party that morning. But they did have a party and there is video of the party, with over 100 people calmly hanging around the courtyard, dancing, etc. No one is storming the courtyard at that point, and the party is in full swing. That documentation is included in my correspondence to the Planning Commission for the re-review of its CUP on 5/28/2025. Delta Chi also did not appeal the double-fine noise citation to the Hearing Officer or try to have it resolved by contacting SLOPD with their claim that crowds trespassed onto their property and they were not responsible for the party. 3. I have not asked SLOPD for an updated noise history of 1236 Monte Vista and all units within the complex. I saw that Delta Chi received another noise citation last weekend on 10/4/2025, only a few weeks into the academic year and despite the fraternity's upcoming appeal. The citation shows that someone called in a noise complaint at 1:45 a.m. SNAP was dispatched first because "P1" is shown as the responding units. It appears SNAP officers verified the noise and called SLOPD to the property. Officer Sanchez (unit 4215) issued a citation after 2:20 a.m. That means the noise was going on during those early morning hours for over 30 minutes before officers arrived to stop it and finally cleared the call at 2:38 a.m. 3 Also, SLOPD does not count people at events and they do not enter the property. Officers ask the person getting the citation how many people are there, so these numbers are usually much lower than the actual number of people. (e.g. A citation was issued at Delta Upsilon's satellite house at 281 Albert Drive on 5/2/2025 with 50 people listed on the citation when video posted by the fraternity on Instagram show 200-300 people at the live music event in the backyard. SLOPD didn't go into the yard or count people but relied on the person getting the citation to tell him how many people were at the party.) Hopefully, the person handling the appeal has checked with SLOPD for an updated list of all noise complaints for the property, including all units. 4. 1236 Monte Vista was sold a month ago to an attorney named Ira Rosenblatt who practices in Calabasas, CA and lives in Woodland Hills. He formed "SLO Ride 1236 LLC" for the property. I have noticed a trend with some LLCs from outside the area, often in other states, owning several fraternity properties in San Luis Obispo, mostly in R1 and R2 zones. I spoke with the property owners who own 281 Hathway and 322 Hathway. They are different owners and not LLCs and neither owner knew that a fraternity was operating at their properties. Kappa Sigma's main chapter house is at 281 Hathway. During our phone conversation the owners of 281 Hathway signed into Instagram and freaked out when they saw the photos and videos of the fraternity events at the house. She kept saying, "oh my god that's our house", "oh my god, look at that", etc. They live in Nevada and commented that they thought it was strange that they never heard any complaints whatsoever for years about the carpet or anything else. I think they're charging about $12,000/month for the house and have not done any maintenance. Easy money which is probably not easy to give up when the alternative is tenants who complain about things, cause expenditures for repairs, and may not be willing to pay as much monthly. You may already know that the property at 1236 Monte Vista was recently sold but I wanted to mention it, and the context that it is an investor from outside the area. If the investor wants to apply for a CUP, maybe different fraternities would have more respect for the neighborhood and follow the conditions of the CUP? I'm not really sure of the answer. Each of the Planning Commissioners have said that Cal Poly needs a Greek Row, and Cal Poly has previously had plans for a "Greek Village" but at the last SCLC meeting, Cal Poly gave a presentation on their housing development and there is no plan for that anymore. Jan Marx asked about it during the presentation at SCLC and Cal Poly said they might designate one floor of one dorm for Greek life members, but otherwise, there isn't any plan to house their fraternities and sororities on campus. I agree with the Planning Commissioners that the answer isn't having fraternities operating in the neighborhoods. It's not feasible for them to operate within the conditions of the CUPs for events, including rush and other parties. They should have a space, away from the neighborhoods, where they can have their events. There are 18 fraternities right now, not including Alpha Gamma Rho. Next year, another fraternity has been approved to join Cal Poly's campus and Cal Poly is moving to year round operations this summer to allow for increased enrollment. The ultimate solution is a bigger conversation but at some point, Cal Poly needs to understand their responsibility toward the neighborhoods and have some accountability for providing space for its fraternities to operate. It seems unfair that the City has to bear this burden. Thank you for your time. 4 -Kathie