HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/11/2026 Item 4d, Walker, K.Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing regarding the 2025 General Plan Annual Report. Because the General Plan serves as the
City’s central policy document guiding land use and neighborhood protections, it is disappointing to
see this important item scheduled fourth on the agenda following three potentially lengthy and
emotionally charged matters. I hope the Commission will ensure that the Annual Report receives the
thoughtful consideration it deserves despite the demanding agenda.
After reviewing the report alongside the Land Use Element of the General Plan, I believe the Annual
Report does not fully address several important General Plan policies related to neighborhood
wellness, land use compatibility, and the protection of residential neighborhoods.
This omission matters because Land Use Element Policy 11.3 requires the City to prepare an annual
report on the status of the General Plan that includes summaries of development activity and major
public projects, together with brief analyses of how those activities helped meet General Plan goals.
The policy also calls for an overview of programs and recommendations on any new approaches that
may be necessary.
In that context, the Annual Report should meaningfully address signiflcant conditions affecting the
community, particularly where those conditions relate directly to adopted General Plan goals. In this
case, a major land use issue affecting residential neighborhoods in the City is not meaningfully
analyzed.
City Code Enforcement has identifled and documented approximately 40 to 50 properties operating as
fraternities in residential zones in violation of the City’s zoning regulations. The Grand Jury investigation
and report published in June 2025 similarly found that residential neighborhoods have experienced
ongoing disturbances related to student parties and fraternity activities occurring in areas not zoned
for those uses that have rendered the neighborhoods “almost unlivable for most residents.”
These flndings describe conditions that directly affect neighborhood livability and create confiicts with
the intended residential land use pattern. These conditions therefore directly implicate the General
Plan’s policies regarding neighborhood stability and land use compatibility. However, the 2025 General
Plan Annual Report does not meaningfully evaluate these conditions or analyze whether the policies
intended to address them are being successfully implemented.
The General Plan Annual Report also places signiflcant emphasis on the City’s “Neighborhood
Wellness” efforts. Neighborhood wellness cannot be meaningfully evaluated without considering the
land use conditions that most directly affect neighborhood stability and livability. Ongoing
disturbances associated with large parties and organizational activities occurring in residential zones
are fundamentally land use issues involving compatibility and intensity of use. When those conditions
are documented through Code Enforcement records and the Grand Jury report but are not analyzed
within the Annual Report, it becomes difficult to determine whether the City’s policies intended to
protect neighborhood character are achieving their intended outcomes.
The Land Use Element identifles the protection of established neighborhoods as a fundamental
objective of the General Plan. The document explains that the Land Use Element serves as the core of
the General Plan and provides a blueprint for the orderly development of land within the City’s
planning area. It emphasizes maintaining existing neighborhoods, protecting neighborhood character,
and ensuring that development occurs in patterns that are compatible with surrounding uses.
The General Plan also states that the City should maintain existing neighborhoods and ensure that
development occurs as part of a coherent neighborhood pattern. These policies refiect the City’s long-
standing commitment to protecting the quality of life in established residential neighborhoods.
The conditions identifled in the Grand Jury report raise clear questions about whether those policies
are being implemented in areas experiencing fraternity activity. When large gatherings and organized
social events occur repeatedly at numerous residential properties, the resulting intensity of use can
signiflcantly alter the character of a neighborhood and create land use confiicts with surrounding
residences.
One of the most relevant policies in this context is Land Use Element Policy 2.6.5, which states that
the City shall work with Cal Poly to provide on campus housing or facilities for fraternities and
sororities to reduce their impact on residential neighborhoods. The use of the word “shall” refiects a
directive policy within the General Plan. It establishes an expectation that the City will actively
coordinate with the university to relocate fraternity housing and activities to appropriate locations and
reduce their impact on surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Despite the importance and relevance of this policy, the 2025 General Plan Annual Report does not
evaluate progress toward implementing Policy 2.6.5. The report does not describe whether the City
has worked with Cal Poly to develop on campus housing or facilities for fraternities, whether relocation
of fraternity activities has been pursued, or whether conditions affecting nearby neighborhoods are
improving.
The absence of this analysis is particularly notable given the flndings of the Grand Jury and the
conflrmation by Code Enforcement of the ongoing illegal fraternity operations throughout residential
neighborhoods. The Grand Jury report documents ongoing zoning violations involving fraternity-
sponsored activities occurring in residential neighborhoods where fraternities are not permitted under
the municipal code. These conditions directly relate to the General Plan goal of preserving the stability
and livability of residential neighborhoods.
The Land Use Element also emphasizes the importance of interagency coordination in addressing
regional planning issues. The General Plan calls for regular coordination among planning agencies,
including Cal Poly, in order to address issues that affect the community. Given that fraternity activities
are closely connected to university organizations and student housing patterns, coordination with Cal
Poly is an essential component of addressing these land use confiicts.
However, the Annual Report does not evaluate whether coordination with Cal Poly has resulted in
progress toward implementing Policy 2.6.5 or reducing the impacts of fraternity activities in residential
neighborhoods.
SLOPD’s Party Registration Program Eliminates Noisy Party Complaints from Annual Statistics
Another issue that deserves attention in the Annual Report is the completeness of the data used to
evaluate neighborhood disturbances from noisy parties, presented at the top of page 47 of the General
Plan Annual Report. An essential component of SLOPD’s Party Registration Program is missing from
the report.
Noise complaints associated with “registered parties” are not included in SLOPD’s official Noisy Party
statistics unless a second call is made for the registered party and a citation is issued. When someone
calls SLOPD to report a disturbance from a noisy party, and the party is registered, that complaint is
coded as CTA or “Citizen Assist” rather than NSPY or “Noisy Party,” even though the resident is
reporting a noisy party.
As a result, the totals reported in annual City noise statistics undercount the actual number of “Noisy
Party” disturbance calls occurring in neighborhoods. The program may therefore appear successful in
reducing Noisy Party calls because those complaints are coded differently and excluded from
SLOPD’s annual statistics. That does not necessarily mean the program actually reduces the number
of complaints for noisy parties.
During 2025, there were 453 applications for party registration and 353 were approved. Of those, there
were 50 complaints made by residents who were disturbed by noise from the registered party. Those
“flrst call” complaints are excluded from the annual calls made to SLOPD for noisy parties and are not
coded as NSPY (Noisy Party).
When someone calls SLOPD to complain about a noisy party that is registered, SLOPD dispatch
contacts the party host and tells them they have 20 minutes to quiet down. If the noise continues
beyond 20 minutes and someone calls SLOPD again about ongoing noise from the party, an officer will
be dispatched.
SLOPD has not reported how many of those second calls are cleared as negative violations, so it is not
clear how many residents called a second time. There are numerous occasions when the SLOPD
dispatch log shows a second call for a registered party being cleared as a negative violation. Aside
from those second calls that were cleared as negative violations, there were eight citations issued for
second calls for registered parties in 2025.
At the SCLC presentation of SLOPD’s annual Noisy Party complaints, the Public Affairs Manager,
Christine Wallace, reported 1,511 noisy party complaints in 2025, but it appears that this total does
not include the 50 noisy party complaints associated with registered parties. The chair of RQN emailed
Ms. Wallace about this discrepancy, and Ms. Wallace’s response was that it “is not my decision”
whether those complaints should be included in the annual totals. (See attached email.)
If the calls made for noisy parties that were registered parties were counted, the total number of
complaints would potentially be 1,561. This would represent the highest number of noisy party
complaints in a decade.
It is also important to analyze whether the Party Registration Program is achieving its stated goal of
reducing noise impacts on neighborhoods. Based on the available information, that conclusion
cannot be reached. While the program may help police coordinate with party hosts and track planned
events, the data used to evaluate its success is incomplete because noise complaints associated with
registered parties are coded differently and excluded from the City’s reported “Noisy Party” totals. As a
result, the program may appear administratively successful, but it cannot be objectively shown to
reduce noise impacts on neighborhoods.
Accurate and complete data is essential to evaluating whether City policies are working. If certain
categories of complaints are excluded from official statistics, it becomes difficult for policymakers
and the public to understand the true scale of neighborhood impacts or to determine whether existing
policies are achieving their intended results.
Because the Land Use Element identifles the preservation of neighborhood character and land use
compatibility as core planning objectives, the absence of analysis regarding these conditions leaves
an important gap in the Annual Report’s evaluation of General Plan implementation.
Overall Evaluation
A comprehensive evaluation of neighborhood conditions should include several elements that are
currently missing from the report.
First, the report should acknowledge the land use compatibility issues identifled by Code Enforcement
and in the Grand Jury report and describe the extent to which fraternity-related activities are occurring
in residential neighborhoods.
Second, the report should evaluate the implementation of Policy 2.6.5 and describe what actions have
been taken to work with Cal Poly to develop on-campus fraternity housing or otherwise relocate
fraternity activities away from residential neighborhoods.
Third, the report should provide complete and transparent data regarding neighborhood disturbances,
including noise complaints associated with registered parties or other events that may not currently
appear in official statistics.
Fourth, the report should analyze whether existing enforcement practices are effectively protecting
residential neighborhoods from uses that are not permitted under the zoning code.
Finally, if existing policies and programs are not achieving the intended results, the report should
identify potential policy responses or new approaches that may be necessary to protect neighborhood
livability.
The General Plan is intended to guide long-term decisions about land use and the protection of
neighborhood quality of life. For the Annual Report to fulflll its role, it must provide a candid evaluation
of conditions affecting residents and assess whether the City is implementing the policies it has
adopted.
Addressing the issue of fraternity activities in residential neighborhoods within the Annual Report
would provide a more accurate picture of neighborhood conditions and would help the Planning
Commission evaluate whether additional policy direction or coordination with Cal Poly is needed to
implement the General Plan’s goals.
Thank you for your consideration and for your continued work to ensure that San Luis Obispo’s
residential neighborhoods remain safe, stable, and consistent with the goals established in the
General Plan.
Respectfully,
Kathie Walker
From: Sandra Rowley <
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 12:46 PM
To: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>
Cc: Schafer, Aaron <ASchafer@slocity.org>
Subject: Monthly Noise Report
Hi Christine,
I don't know why I or someone else didn't notice this before, but when Party Registration
began, that additional designation was not added to the monthly Party Noise Report. The
report only contains Noise Party and Noise Police calls. Thus, when a registered party
receives a noise call it does not show up on the Noise Report -- whether it received a No
Report, Negative Violation or Citation.
I don't know if it's worthwhile to go back to the date that Party Registrations began (2017
pilot/2018 permanent) in order to pick up these additional noise calls; that's a decision for
SLOPD. But now that we know these party calls are not being counted, it seems proper to
begin to include them - whether beginning January 1, 2026 or going back to September 1,
2025.
Thanks,
Sandy
From: Wallace, Christine <cwallace@slocity.org>
To: Sandra Rowley <
Cc: Schafer, Aaron <aschafer@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 at 01:23:23 PM PST
Subject: RE: Monthly Noise Report
Hi Sandy,
The noise calls for registered parties are logged as a CTA – citizen assist. If they end up with
a citation, the call gets changed to NSPY and the clearance code shows up as a CIT. I’m
unsure if there’s a way to run a report for CTA where the party reg calls can be separated
out, we do a lot of CTA calls for many things. I’ll speak with Marjorie in Records and see
what kind of report can be run. If you are also asking to include the party reg calls into the
totals, that is not my decision.
Thanks,
Christine