HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/1/2026 Item 7a, Walker
kathie walker <kathiewalkerslo@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, August
To:E-mail Council Website
Cc:Sandra Rowley; Carolyn Smith; Brett Cross; Stewjenkins Info; Karen Adler
Subject:SLOPD Annual Report
Attachments:Emails Sandy and Christine re.Party Registration.pdf
Mayor and Councilmembers,
SLOPD’s 2025 Annual Report will be presented to the Council on September 1. The report states that
SLOPD received 1,510 “Noise Party Calls for Service” in 2025. That number does not include ALL calls
made by residents complaining about noisy parties in 2025.
When a party is registered in advance through Christine Wallace for SLOPD's Party Registration Program,
a complaint about that party is coded as CTA, or “citizen assist,” rather than NSPY, or “noisy party.” The
resident’s complaint is excluded from SLOPD’s annual noisy-party statistics, even though the resident
called SLOPD to complain about a noisy party.
When the first complaint is made for a party registered, dispatch calls the host of the registered party and
gives the host 20 minutes to quiet down. No officer is dispatched. If someone calls a second time
because the noise continues, SLOPD then dispatches an officer. That call may be cleared as a negative
violation or may result in a citation.
Ms. Wallace confirmed this reporting practice in a January 29, 2026 email: “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.” (See attached emails between RQN Chair Sandy Rowley and
Christine Wallace)
In 2025, 353 parties were registered and 50 of those parties received noise complaints. That means at
least 50 calls from residents complaining about actual party noise were coded as citizen assists and
excluded from the 1,510 calls reported to Council. The annual report does not disclose this. It simply
says SLOPD received 1,510 “calls related to noise (party calls),” making the number appear complete
when it is not.
There is another record the Council should see in this context.
On January 8, 2026, before presenting her annual noise report to the Student Community Liaison
Committee (SCLC), Christine Wallace emailed Cal Poly officials Courtney Kienow and Michelle
Crawford: “I’m on the agenda for next meeting; I’m doing my annual noise year in review slide deck. I’m
excited to hear how my data is wrong and that the neighborhoods are ‘hells kitchen, ground zero.’”
1
“Hell’s kitchen” and “ground zero” are words a longtime Alta Vista resident has used in emails to Council
while trying to convey how badly conditions in his neighborhood have deteriorated.
The City’s Neighborhood Outreach Manager privately mocked that resident’s description of his
neighborhood while also mocking anticipated concerns about the accuracy of her data. But the concerns
about the data were legitimate. Her presentation did not disclose that complaints about registered
parties were being coded as citizen assists and excluded from the reported noisy-party total, an issue
RQN had raised previously.
This is not how residents raising serious quality-of-life concerns should be discussed by the staff
member responsible for neighborhood outreach, particularly in communications with officials from the
institution whose students are responsible for much of the concentrated noise.
Unfortunately, this was not an isolated example. In the mayor's text exchange with one of those same
Cal Poly officials about the Grand Jury report, she said “It as though some of our local friends wrote
it.” Kienow understood the reference and responded: “It really is like the anti-student neighbors wrote
it.”
These private communications show a dismissive pattern toward residents who raise concerns about
the effects of student activity on their neighborhoods. Rather than treating those residents’ experiences
and evidence seriously, City and Cal Poly officials privately reduce them to “our local friends” and “anti-
student neighbors.” This is another example of the relationship between the City and Cal Poly in which
residents do not appear to be the priority. It also helps explain why some residents no longer trust City
leadership to fairly represent their interests.
The accuracy of the data is especially important because the City told the Grand Jury that the Party
Registration Program “has been successful in reducing noise complaints.” In another section of its
response, the City said the program has “proven to be very successful in reducing noisy parties.” The
City provided no program-specific data or measurements to support those claims. The City points to a
reduction in noise calls since 2010, but Party Registration did not begin until 2017. A decline that began
seven years before the program existed does not prove that this program caused it.
The relevant comparison tells a different story. SLOPD reported 1,541 noisy-party calls in 2016, before
Party Registration began. It reported 1,510 in 2025, but that number excludes the first complaints about
50 registered parties. When those omitted calls are included, residents made at least 1,560 calls about
party noise in 2025, more than before the program began.
2
The program may reduce police responses and help party hosts avoid fines. That is exactly how SLOPD
markets it to Cal Poly students. A slide from a presentation given by Ms. Wallace to Cal Poly students
says: “Register your event. Avoid a fine.” The presentation is shown below:
The presentation specifically discusses “lettered” fraternity houses and “satellite houses.” Although the
program may technically be available to everyone, SLOPD actively promotes it to Cal Poly students,
fraternities and student organizations. I am not aware of comparable outreach to other populations in
the city. That raises an equity issue. One population is specifically taught how to obtain a 20-minute
3
warning and avoid an immediate police response and possible fine, while other residents may never be
told that this option exists.
SLOPD’s noise maps show that noisy-party calls are concentrated in the northern part of the city, where
the student population is highest. These are neighborhoods that have experienced years of large parties,
excessive noise, traffic, trash, public intoxication and the continuing loss of residential livability. The
program gives the benefit to the party host while the neighboring resident absorbs the disturbance and
must call a second time before an officer will respond. The first complaint for the noisy party is not
disclosed in the noisy-party statistics.
Before accepting the annual report statistics for noisy party calls in 2025 (or continuing to call this
program successful) Council should ask SLOPD to disclose how many registered-party complaints were
coded as citizen assists, how many registered parties received second complaints, how those second
calls were classified, and how many registered-party complaints are included in the reported total of
1,510.
A call complaining about a noisy party is a noisy-party complaint. Changing its dispatch code does not
change the fact that someone was disturbed by a noisy party to such an extent that they called SLOPD to
complain.
A program that helps party hosts avoid enforcement, excludes complaints from the statistics and has
not reduced the overall number of noise complaints does not promote neighborhood livability. Mocking
the residents who question the data does not make the data accurate.
I respectfully request that the Council direct SLOPD to include all calls complaining about noisy parties,
including registered parties, in the annual noise statistics and clearly identify how each call was coded
and resolved.
Thank you,
Kathie Walker
4
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