HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/7/2026 Item 7a, Walker
kathie walker <kathiewalkerslo@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April
To:E-mail Council Website; Marx, Jan; Francis, Emily; Stewart, Erica A; Boswell, Mike;
Shoresman, Michelle
Subject:Item 7a. Correction to GPAR and innacurrate graph on pg. 48
Attachments:RQN and SLOPD Wallace emails re.Party Registration (2).pdf
Dear City Councilmembers,
There is some misleading information in the General Plan Annual Report that deserves attention
regarding the data used to evaluate neighborhood disturbances from noisy parties, presented at the
bottom of page 47 and the graph at the top of page 48 of the GPAR.
First, the report states that the party registration program remains "an effective tool" but does not
evaluate whether the program is actually lowering noisy party calls. In its response to the Grand Jury, the
City claimed the program was "very successful" in lowering noisy party calls. However, it was later
pointed out to SLOPD and the Council that noise complaints made for noisy parties that are registered
are not counted as 'noisy party' calls, and are coded as 'citizen assist' instead. Technically, this lowers
the reported calls for noisy parties because the noise complaints for noisy parties that are registered are
not counted in SLOPD's annual statistics reported to the public, but in reality, they were noisy party
complaints that were simply not counted.
For example, in 2025, there were 453 party registration applications (the report incorrectly says 4,453),
353 applications were approved, and 50 of those resulted in complaints to SLOPD about the noisy
party. But those 50 noise complaints were coded by SLOPD at "citizen assist" or CTA, not "noisy party" or
NSPY, even though they were actual calls made by residents who were called SLOPD to complain about
a noisy party.
This loophole artificially reduces the actual number of complaints made for noisy parties to SLOPD each
year.
Second, the graph at the top of page 48 does not include the noisy party complaints made for registered
parties. The blue bars that show the monthly noisy party calls exclude the noisy party calls made by
residents calling to complain about a noisy party when the party was registered. It's a bit ironic that
the previous paragraph describes party registration as an effective tool but does not include the
complaints made for registered parties in the statistics shown on the chart.
1
When you add up the monthly calls, shown in the blue bars, the total is 1,510 annual calls. At the SCLC
meeting, Christine Wallace reported that the annual noisy party calls were 1,511 EXCLUDING the noisy
party complaints for registered parties. When you include those 50 calls cited in the previous paragraph,
the actual number of noisy party complaints is 1,561. This represents the highest number of noisy party
complaints in a decade.
The chart below shows the noisy party complaints made in conjunction with the party registration
program. The complaints after the program was implemented (except when it was suspended during the
pandemic) do not accurately reflect all noisy party complaints made to SLOPD because those made
when a party was registered were coded as 'citizen assist' instead of 'noisy party.' The 50 noisy party
complaints are shown in 2025 in red, which increases the annual total, and is not accurately reflected in
the graph on page 48 of the GPAR.
2
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 identifies 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 GPAR’s evaluation of General Plan
implementation.
Thank you,
Kathie Walker
3
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