CED Committee
July 22, 2025
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Jestin D. Johnson FROM: William A. Gilchrist,
City Administrator Director, Planning &
Building Department
SUBJECT: FY 2024-25, Quarter 1 and Quarter 2
Update on Code Enforcement’s
Activities
DATE: June 23, 2025
City Administrator Approval Date:
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends That The City Council Receive An Informational Report Regarding The Fiscal Year 2024-25 Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 Update On The Planning and Building Department's Code Enforcement Activities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The goal of Code Enforcement is to increase the safety, habitability, and livability of the built environment in the City of Oakland (City). This Informational Report provides current information on the code enforcement activities of the Planning and Building Department (PBD) for the first and second quarters of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 (July 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024).
The PBD's Code Enforcement Division enforces compliance with building, housing, and zoning codes and regulations. It is important to note that although many other departments within the City enforce property-related regulations, such as Economic Workforce and Development Department (EWDD), Oakland Public Works Department (OPW), Oakland Fire Department (OFD), and Oakland Police Department (OPD), the data and work activities described in this report only pertain to PBD's enforcement activities under the Oakland Municipal Code (OMC).
BACKGROUND / LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Purpose and Origin of Quarterly Code Enforcement Report
The City's FY 2015-17 Policy Budget contains a directive to provide an informational report on a quarterly basis to the City Council concerning the code enforcement activities of PBD. The purpose of this informational report is to update the City Council and the public on the range of code enforcement work being performed, the statistics related to those categories of enforcement, and key initiatives underway to improve the effectiveness of the Code Enforcement Division services.
Jestin Johnson (Jul 11, 2025 09:16 PDT)
Jul 11, 2025
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 1 & 2 Date: June 23, 2025 Page 2
CED Committee
July 22, 2025
At the Community and Economic Development Committee Meeting, on September 10, 2024, the Committee provided direction to present this report bi-annually; as opposed to quarterly, and this represents the second report that combines two quarters into one biannual report.
The Code Enforcement Division of PBD pursues the enhancement of livability in the community through the facilitation of neighborhood revitalization projects, focus on the reduction of blighted properties, and ensuring the health and safety of occupants in and around structures. This year, Code Enforcement has been a partner in the Neighborhood Enhanced Services Team (NEST) work in East, West, and Central Oakland to improve the quality of life in Oakland’s High Priority Equity communities. These interdisciplinary teams address multiple issues to create positive change. Code Enforcement’s current role is to focus on several problem properties within identified service areas. Additionally, Code Enforcement works with the Abandoned Auto Task Force to address illegal businesses that may be tied to vehicle thefts and vehicle stripping in Oakland; specifically, determining whether those business operations constitute a public nuisance and working to clean up Oakland’s streets through addressing a cause of the epidemic of stripped vehicles found within city limits. PBD has received an average of 1,716 complaints each Quarter over the last 4 fiscal years. The lowest number of complaints occurred in FY 2022- 23, Quarter 2, where 1,330 complaints were received and the highest number of complaints received was in Quarter 1 of FY 2024-25, where 2,314 complaints were received.
A primary goal of the City's Code Enforcement program is to resolve property maintenance, building maintenance and zoning code violations in a timely, effective, and efficient manner. The requirements and process for each are discussed in this report. The length of time to achieve compliance varies based upon several factors, such as the complexity or extent of the violation, cooperation of the property owner, or the extent to which the property owner pursues appeals of code enforcement determinations. The code enforcement program is primarily complaint-driven, and the number of complaints received vary over any given period as detailed in Attachment A, Slides 4 and 19.
Complaint Submittal and Processing
Complaints are received in various ways (via Oak311, via the Accela Online Permit Center, by phone, by email, etc.) and are referred to Code Enforcement administrative staff, who examine the reported complaint and initiate its routing through the enforcement process. Depending on the nature of the complaint, the property owner may be sent a Courtesy Notice, or staff will conduct a site visit, such as a first inspection. A site visit may then lead to the issuance of a Notice of Violation (NOV) if one or more violations of the Oakland Municipal Code are confirmed. See Slide 5 of Attachment A for the volume of first inspections from Quarter 1 of FY 2020-21 to Quarter 1 of FY 2024-25. See Slide 20 of Attachment A for the volume of first inspections from Quarter 2 of FY 2020-21 to Quarter 2 of FY 2024-25.
A Courtesy Notice is sent for initial reports of minor violations of blight and nuisance complaints, such as noise abatement, trash and debris left in the public view, and other non-hazardous conditions. No inspection of the property is conducted. The property owner has twenty-one days to respond to the notice and may certify that the violations are unfounded or have been corrected by returning the Property Owner Certification form with corroborating photographs.
The first inspection is the initial visit to the site once a complaint has been received. The purpose of this inspection is to verify whether the condition(s) reported in the complaint violate Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 1 & 2 Date: June 23, 2025 Page 3
CED Committee
July 22, 2025
the OMC. Whenever a violation is verified through a site visit, an NOV is issued that includes a list of the violations and of the corrections that must be made. NOVs are issued for a variety of reasons, such as work performed without permits, deteriorated and unsecured empty buildings, graffiti, hazardous and unsafe conditions on private property, and for repeated violations that have not been corrected. After NOV issuance, additional inspections, referred to as “re- inspections” and “monitoring inspections” are scheduled to verify abatement of the violations.
Those re-inspections and monitoring inspections are shown on Attachment A, Slides 6 and 21.
If the case does not constitute an imminent hazard, then the City allows corrective action to be taken without the assessment of fees for a 35-day period from the date of the NOV. For persistent non-compliance (when the owner does not abate the complaint by the compliance date stated on the NOV), the City initiates and continues to apply fines until abatement of the violation is achieved. The City will record the NOV with the County to alert potential interested parties to the existing violations. Properties that contain substandard conditions as defined by OMC 15.08.340 will escalate toward an Order to Abate or to a Declaration of Substandard and Public Nuisance. These actions carry substantial assessments and consequences, such as the demolition of a structure. The temporary or permanent relocation of occupants of a structure also may become necessary when there is unpermitted construction of a residential dwelling unit; depending on the extent of the corrections needed and the impact on habitability during construction.
Receivers of an NOV are given the right to appeal the violation(s). Such appeals must be filed within 21 days (plus five extra days for mailing) from the issuance date of the NOV. See Attachment A:
• Slides 7 to 10 for the “Average Case Management Duration” (or timeframe for abatement) for Quarter 1 of FY 2024-25 and Slides 11 to 14 for the “Average Case Management Duration” for Quarter 2 of FY 2024-25.
• Slides 15 and 30 for the “Enforcement Actions for Compliance and Abatement”.
• Slides 18 and 32 for “Abated and Closed” Cases Reported from Quarter 1 of FY 2023- 24 to Quarter 2 of FY 2024-25.
• Slides 17 and 33 for “Abated and Closed” Cases Distribution by year cases were Opened.
• Slides 16 and 34 for “Total Open Cases” for Quarters 1 and 2, respectively, of FY 2024- 25 (slides also contains data on abated/closed cases during the same periods).
• Slide 31 of Attachment A provides data on “Enforcement Fees Assessed” to gain compliance from Quarter 2 of FY 2023-24 to Quarter 2 of FY 2024-25.
ANALYSIS AND POLICY ALTERNATIVES
The PBD Code Enforcement Program directly relates to the Citywide priorities of 1) holistic community safety and 2) housing, economic, and cultural security by providing the means and methods to verify and correct violations of the OMC as they relate to minimum maintenance Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 1 & 2 Date: June 23, 2025 Page 4
CED Committee
July 22, 2025
standards for private property under the categories of property blight and graffiti, building maintenance, and zoning, as discussed below.
Code Enforcement Categories
Before describing Code Enforcement categories, it is necessary to discuss issues that do not fall under Code Enforcement’s jurisdiction. Issues that arise on public property do not involve Code Enforcement. For instance, a box spring left in the driveway of a private residence can be reported to Code Enforcement for abatement. That same box spring, if dumped on public property, such as in a park or on a sidewalk, is not reportable to Code Enforcement. Instead, it falls under the enforcement responsibility of OPW. The same concept holds true with graffiti and other issues on public property. Following is a discussion of Code Enforcement categories as they concern reportable violations upon private property.
Property Blight and Graffiti: It is unlawful for any person or corporation whether as owner or occupant in possession of the property to maintain any property in a blighted condition per OMC Chapter 8.24. A blighted property (i.e., residential, commercial, or industrial properties) is one that exhibits a lack of maintenance, livability, and appearance that does not promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Blight includes: abandoned or unsecured buildings and structures; abandoned construction projects; dilapidated, deteriorated buildings; broken or missing windows, doors, fencing, signs, retaining walls; defaced buildings; overgrown vegetation; trash and debris; unclean, unsanitary property; garbage bins left in public view; open storage; property that creates a dangerous condition (i.e., erosion controls); unstable soil conditions; parking and storage of trailers, campers, recreational vehicles, boats, unregistered, inoperative vehicles, appliances, furniture, etc. Per OMC Chapters 8.24.050 and 8.10.110, complaints regarding blight and graffiti on residential, industrial, or commercial properties, as well as privately-owned vacant lots are inspected and issued an NOV. As mentioned above, illegal dumping of items on the street and sidewalk is commonly reported to the Code Enforcement Division of PBD, but it falls under the enforcement responsibility of OPW. In those instances, a referral is made to OPW. Graffiti and other related issues on public property also fall under the enforcement responsibility of OPW.
Building Maintenance: It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, convert, demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building, structure, portion thereof, or real property or cause or allow the same to be done in violation of this Chapter 15.08 of the OMC. The provisions of the Code apply to real property and to all residential and non-residential buildings used, or designed or intended to be used, for human occupancy and habitation and all accessory buildings and structures on the same lot or parcel. Such occupancies in existing buildings may continue as provided in the Oakland Building Construction Code, except where the Building Official has issued an order to vacate after such structures are found to be substandard and public nuisance as defined in this Chapter, 15.08.030 of the OMC. While enforcement of blight is commonly straight-forward, building maintenance issues may require extensive investigation and research, as well as coordination with other departments like OFD, EWDD and Housing and Community Development (HCD) and guidance from the City Attorney to confirm the City's options under a range of enforcement scenarios. The City Attorney is an essential partner in the successful enforcement and resolution of PBD’s cases.
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 1 & 2 Date: June 23, 2025 Page 5
CED Committee
July 22, 2025
Zoning: It is unlawful to establish, substitute, expand, construct, alter, move, paint, maintain or otherwise change any structure, or create or change lot lines, except in conformity with the Oakland General Plan per Chapter 17 of the OMC (Section 17.010.3). Regulations related to compliance and use for residential, commercial, and industrial zone designations include unpermitted business in residential areas, excessive signage/advertising signage, fencing height, construction noise, persistent noise, and other unapproved activity. Enforcement includes the issuance of Courtesy Notices, NOVs and enforcement noticing described under Building Maintenance to gain compliance.
Table 1 provides a general sample and categorization of the types of violations that come in as complaints, in descending order, by the frequency with which they are generally reported.
Table 1. Types of complaints by category*
Property Maintenance (Blight)
(OMC 8.24)
Building Maintenance
(OMC 15.08)
(Minor) Zoning
(OMC Title 17)
1. Trash / Debris 1. Unpermitted work 1. Business in
residential zone
2. Graffiti 2. Mold 2. Construction noise
outside of permitted
hours
3. Overgrown vegetation 3. Plumbing 3. Fencing
(height/other)
Abatement and Case Clearance Issues
During FY 2024-25 Quarters 1 and 2, Code Enforcement received 2,314 and 1,746 complaints, respectively. Slides 4 and 19 of Attachment A depict, for Quarters 1 and 2 of FY 2024-25: the caseload in each complaint category and show open cases at the end of the preceding quarters, new cases opened, cases abated and closed, as well as open cases at the end of both periods in question.
There is a tendency to think of Code Enforcement violations as monolithic, but each violation is different, and each requires different approaches and processes to abate.
As depicted in Table 2 below, at the end of Quarter 1, in the Property Maintenance (blight) category, open case volumes decreased by 8 percent from the previous quarter. Open case volumes decreased by 2 percent within the Building Maintenance category, while the number of open cases increased by 1 percent in the Zoning category. Mitigating growth in open cases is an identified focus area for the Code Enforcement Division.
Table 2. Growth of open cases by category: Quarter 1 of FY 2024-25 Property Maintenance
(Blight)
Building Maintenance (Minor) Zoning
Open cases fell by 8
percent in Quarter 1 from
the prior quarter, going
Open cases fell by 2
percent in Quarter 1 from
the prior quarter, going
Open cases increased by 1
percent in Quarter 1 going
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 1 & 2 Date: June 23, 2025 Page 6
CED Committee
July 22, 2025
from 3,099 open cases to
2,867 open cases.
In terms of abatement,
1,334 cases were opened
while 1,566 cases were
abated and closed.
from 3,499 open cases to
3,462 open cases.
In terms of abatement, 674
new cases were opened,
while 711 cases were
abated and closed.
from 744 open cases to 751
open cases.
In terms of abatement, 306
new cases were opened
while 299 cases were abated
and closed.
As further depicted in Table 3 below, at the end of Quarter 2, in the Property Maintenance (blight) category, open case volumes decreased by 26 percent from the previous quarter. Open case volumes decreased by 11 percent within the Building Maintenance category, while the number of open cases decreased by 11 percent in the Zoning category.
Table 3. Growth of open cases by category: Quarter 2 of FY 2024-25 Property Maintenance
(Blight)
Building Maintenance (Minor) Zoning
Open cases fell by 26
percent in Quarter 2 from the
prior quarter, going from
2,867 open cases to 2,132
open cases.
In terms of abatement, 908
cases were opened while
1,643 cases were abated
and closed.
Open cases fell by 11
percent in Quarter 2 from the
prior quarter, going from
3,462 open cases to 3,082
open cases.
In terms of abatement, 595
new cases were opened,
while 975 cases were abated
and closed.
Open cases fell by 11 percent
in Quarter 2 going from 751
open cases to 672 open
cases.
In terms of abatement, 243
new cases were opened while
322 cases were abated and
closed.
In the last report, PBD indicated that it would use an anticipated decrease in the number of complaints received during the colder months in Quarter 2 to make headway in reducing open case volumes. This report shows the dramatic impact of increased operational capacity and efficiency within Code Enforcement and the dramatic corresponding effects of being able to pivot the workload toward existing cases. A lower number of open cases bucks the trend of seemingly intractable growth in cases over time.
Note that the next biannual report is anticipated to cover the time of year when complaint volumes typically rise. The ability to focus on reducing case volumes is expected to become more difficult and less dramatic reductions, or even reversals in progress are anticipated in the coming report. Resources and staffing may present their own challenges with the City’s budget- balancing efforts underway as of the writing of this report.
Along with staffing and other internal resource issues, there are continuous issues with property owners who fail to respond to notices in a timely manner; as a result, the paperwork and administrative effort involved with bringing those properties into compliance becomes a time- consuming process. The combination of staff vacancies and delayed property-owner compliance results in a slowly growing backlog of blight, building maintenance, and, to a lesser extent, zoning cases; while this report highlights a glowing interruption of that long-term trend.
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 1 & 2 Date: June 23, 2025 Page 7
CED Committee
July 22, 2025
To address the existing backlog of cases, it is imperative to add more inspectors and administrative staff to manage current caseloads and close out older cases. See the “Staff Coordination, Training and Hiring” section of this report for more information on current hiring needs. The use of contractors was a feature of the past few reports, and in this period, the use of contractors was curtailed. At the time, contractors allowed more experienced staff the time to research and work toward resolving open cases.
Code Enforcement Fees
Slide 31 of Attachment A reflects the volume of violations that necessitated enforcement and associated fees. As depicted in that same slide, enforcement fees collected have increased as the Code Enforcement Division’s capacity increased. Notably, between Quarters 1 and 2, while the number of cases declined in Quarter 2 as compared to the previous quarter, fees assessed actually increased. When compliance is not obtained from property owners, fees and penalties increase and accumulate in order to encourage property owners to abate code violations, as well as to cover the cost of additional inspections and concomitant administrative services.
The City recovers the administrative and logistical costs of bringing property owners into compliance via these fees, ensuring a safer and more resilient City in the process. Time spent conducting field inspections, sending letters and notices to property owners, issuing fines, and abating properties that will not otherwise come into compliance can be laborious. When fees are applied, Code Enforcement has already made attempts to communicate with the property owner and to exhaust the administrative process. It is an unfortunate reality that some property owners would not make needed changes and/or repairs without the imposition of fees and penalties. On the other hand, to protect property owners, there are statutory limits to fees, fees are assessed incrementally to gradually disincentivize inaction, and there are formal appeal processes in place to dispute fees and notices.
Invoicing and Fees:
Three hundred seventy (370) cases had been invoiced in Quarter 1 while three hundred forty- nine were invoiced in Quarter 2 in order to induce property owners to abate code violations. This work ensures that the costs of cleaning and rehabilitating those properties that generate public complaints are borne by non-responsive property owners who choose not to appeal the violation notices that they receive beforehand.
Key Initiatives
The bullet points that follow represent a brief discussion of the key initiatives, including methods, partnerships, technical trainings, personnel changes, and newly implemented programs and standards that will impact the Code Enforcement Division’s ability to reduce the numbers of open cases.
These bullet points include programs that will increase Code Enforcement ’s caseload (in the short-term) and those that are expected to reduce the number of complaints in the future. For example, successful recruitment of new Inspectors decreases collective caseloads, while enforcing new Building Maintenance Code standards around lead-based paint are expected to increase caseloads.
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 1 & 2 Date: June 23, 2025 Page 8
CED Committee
July 22, 2025
Nevertheless, with increased recruitment and tighter interdepartmental coordination, we remain confident that future biannual reports will show a gradual decline in the number of open cases.
Having more Inspectors is critical. In this regard, the Planning and Building Department remains prioritized for additional hiring support from the Human Resources Department through a continuous recruitment of candidates to fill Inspector positions. The goal is to reduce the number of vacant positions and increase staffing in Code Enforcement and generally increase departmental capacity.
Staff Coordination, Training and Hiring
o The Code Enforcement Division holds bi-weekly internal staff meetings and facilitates a scheduled bi-weekly meeting with other City departments including OFD’s Fire Prevention Bureau, City Attorney’s Office, EWDD, and HCD to address effective and timely responses for complex cases.
o The Code Enforcement Division’s Principal Inspection Supervisor and Senior Inspectors also attend numerous topic or case specific meetings joined by the Building Official, Principal Civil Engineer, and other staff on a continuous basis to consult with the City Attorney’s Office, OPW, and other departments and divisions to clarify the action plan for compliance or escalation of enforcement depending on the issues involved.
o Code Enforcement Inspectors also participate in regular training to enhance knowledge and skills relative to their duties, such as Effective Customer Service, Mold Enforcement, and Situational Awareness to name a few. This internal training forum allows code enforcement staff to sharpen their skill set, stay on top of ever changing legislation, enforcement efforts, and tools and techniques to assist them in finding the nexus between a code violation and successful compliance.
o To increase efficiency while responding to changes in staffing, Inspectors are being cross trained in other focus areas and, in some instances, have been reassigned to different units (i.e. Residential Inspections, Code Enforcement, or Commercial Inspections).
o The recruitment for Specialty Combination Inspectors to fill vacancies within the Building Bureau is now a continuous job posting until all positions are filled. There was no change in the number of Inspectors in Quarters 1 and 2.
o At present there is one Senior Public Service Representative and 1 Administrative Analyst. In Quarter 1, two Administrative Assistant I positions were filled in the Inspection Administration section. Filling these two positions helped to increase Code Enforcement’s capacity to close out open cases by taking some of the load off existing administrative staff.
Digital Enhancements
Inspections App: The Code Enforcement Division in collaboration with PBD Digital Division has completed development of the Code Enforcement Inspector App, which went live on March 1, Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 1 & 2 Date: June 23, 2025 Page 9
CED Committee
July 22, 2025
2024. The app has since been used exclusively for all field work, and the automation has shown to reduce the time inspectors spend in the office typing notices and has allowed for gradual increases in inspection capacity as we continue to adopt the app.
The use of the app and creation of automated notices of violation have led the code enforcement division to discover the need for Address Parcel Owner (APO) information to have more frequent updates to ensure that any changes in legal ownership are captured in a timely manner. Currently, the contract between Accela and the City only allows for APO information to be updated quarterly.
The code enforcement division needs at minimum monthly updates to comply with legal noticing requirements as per OMC 15.08.110. Doing so would also reduce the number of corrections and remailing of notices that administrative staff have to undertake, thereby reducing a source of additional delays in the process of property owner notification. Addkitionally, minor issues, such as incorrect routing data, auto assignments, and coordinate data have been identified which are being corrected. Highlights of the Code Enforcement Inspector App include:
• Reduced time spent by inspectors in the office generating NOVs manually. • Ability to create an NOV instantaneously upon resulting inspection in the field. • Checklist based violation documentation based on OMC with specific violation images and corrective action for each violation identified.
• Ability to create favorites for common notes for staff to copy and paste their most used inspection results and streamlined process to easily result the inspection in the field. • Ability for emergency structural assessment responders dispatched byOFD to easily document and create cases in the field during their response.
Finally, there are plans underway to expand the Code Enforcement Inspector App’s capabilities by adding Exterior Elevated Element enforcement as per the legal requirements of SB721 and SB326.
Implementation of Recent Laws and Regulations
Code Enforcement operations are regularly impacted by the adoption of new or revised Municipal Codes or by new State or Federal laws and programs. The adoption of superseding jurisdictional laws can lead to adjustments in how complaints may be legally processed, how complaints are categorized, the manner in which inspections are performed, and the l egal requirement for prioritization, escalation, or penalties for certain violations. The most recent laws and programs include:
• Lead Based Paint Hazard Abatement Standards adopted into the OMC in December 2022: require all residential properties built before 1978 to obtain permits to confirm practices consistent with federal and state regulations are followed when presumed lead-based paint is disturbed due to painting and or construction activities.
• Standards for Delayed Enforcement for Accessory Dwelling Units and Joint Live/Work Quarters (JLWQ) adopted into the OMC in December 2022: when correction of violations is not necessary for health and safety, this Delay of Enforcement provides properties with non-compliant spaces to obtain a five-year period to bring the property into full compliance as long as minimum health and safety regulations are in place, as required by state law.
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 1 & 2 Date: June 23, 2025 Page 10
CED Committee
July 22, 2025
Proactive Rental Inspection Program (PRIP): Development of the PRIP is being coordinated with the Equitable Lead Hazard Abatement Program (ELHAP), which will guide how to distribute $14 million of lead-based paint settlement funds, including the enforcement cases related to PRIP inspections that find lead-based paint. The ELHAP will help leverage additional funding to sustain City-County joint lead abatement efforts. For the coordination efforts, see the staff report to the Life Enrichment Committee meeting on June 25, 2024. The Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department hired a consultant, Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, to lead the technical aspect of the lead abatement work. Additionally, HCD was awarded a grant from Partnership for the Bay's Future (PBF) to fund a two-year fellow to work in HCD to support the development of lead hazard abatement and proactive rental inspection initiatives Through this work, ELHAP has established a tentative timeline, with the program expected to be operational by Spring 2026. In parallel, PBD is aligning the PRIP’s objectives, scope, and methodology with the ELHAP for operational integration, so that both programs launch concurrently and synergistically.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the preparation of this Informational Report.
PUBLIC OUTREACH / INTEREST
No public outreach has been conducted for this informational report beyond the required posting to the City’s website.
COORDINATION
This report was prepared in coordination with the City Administrator’s Office and the Office of the City Attorney.
SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES
This is an informational report, so there are no actions requested of the Council. The following areas of impact and opportunity are noted for further consideration.
Economic: Code enforcement activities have economic benefits by preserving quality of life and ensuring safety for Oakland residents, business owners, and visitors.
Environmental: Code enforcement activities have environmental benefits by enforcing codes designed to protect the environment and residents from adverse environmental impacts.
Race & Equity: Enforcement activities can have equity implications. For example, with the current complaint-based system, people with access to the system are more likely to submit complaints. Conversely, historically marginalized communities living in substandard conditions may be reluctant to submit complaints and may need outside assistance to make their buildings Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 1 & 2 Date: June 23, 2025 Page 11
CED Committee
July 22, 2025
safer. With AB 548, PBD will take an incremental step towards proactive inspection to supplement the current complaint-based system to better achieve equity in safe, affordable, and healthy housing.
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council receive an Informational Report regarding the FY 2024- 25 Quarters 1 and 2 update on the Planning and Building Department’s Code Enforcement activities.
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 1 & 2 Date: June 23, 2025 Page 12
CED Committee
July 22, 2025
For questions regarding this report, please contact Lonell Butler, Chief Building Official, at 510- 238-6435.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM A. GILCHRIST
Director, Planning and Building Department
Reviewed by:
Cecilia Muela, Acting Chief Building Official
Planning and Building Department
Sandra Smith
Management Assistant
Planning and Building Department
Prepared by:
Michael Johnson, Administrative Analyst II
Planning and Building Department
Hoang Banh, Program Analyst III
Planning and Building Department
Attachments (1):
A: Quarterly Code Enforcement Data and Statistics FY 2024-25, Quarters 1 and 2.
Attachment A
Code Enforcement Quarterly Report
FY 2024-25
Quarter 1: July – Sept 2024
Quarter 2: Oct – Dec 2024
Cecilia Muela
Acting Building Official/Deputy Director
Planning and Building Department
City of Oakland 2
• Complaints Received Quarterly, by Category
• First Inspections and Follow-Up Inspections, by Category • Case Management Duration
• Enforcement Actions
• Enforcement Fees Assessed
• Abated/Closed Cases
• Total Open Cases at the End of Quarter
• Additional Online Resources
Contents
City of Oakland 3
Top Complaints by Category
Blight / Property
Maintenance
[OMC 8.24]
Housing
Maintenance
[OMC 15.08]
Zoning
[OMC Title 17]
1. Trash / Debris 1. Unpermitted work 1. Business in residential zone
2. Graffiti 2. Mold
2. Construction
noise outside of permitted
hours
3. Overgrown vegetation 3. Plumbing 3. Fencing (height/other) City of Oakland 4
Complaints Received by Category
FY 2021 Q1 – FY 2025 Q1
769 614
877
569
865 705 851 1,033 1,003
705 670
1,069 1,048
827 841
1,202 1,334
500
587
879
1,184 495
447
468
435 455
387 559
544 589
514 648
648
674
142 141
186 118
441
216
281
336 328
238
167
223 273
200
226
349
306
1,411 1,342
1,942 1,871 1,801
1,368
1,600
1,804 1,786
1,330 1,396
1,836 1,910
1,541
1,715
2,199 2,314
FY21
Q1
FY21
Q2
FY21
Q3
FY21
Q4
FY22
Q1
FY22
Q2
FY22
Q3
FY22
Q4
FY23
Q1
FY23
Q2
FY23
Q3
FY23
Q4
FY24
Q1
FY24
Q2
FY24
Q3
FY24
Q4
FY25
Q1
Blight Housing Maintenance Zoning
City of Oakland 5
First Inspections
FY 2021 Q1 – FY 2025 Q1
301 296 255 272 238 307 357 498 485 405 331 426 586
410 436 582
1,026340 330 284 348 338 344 377
380 364
339 483
484
667
450
648
564
674
66 60 74 65 70 82
154
145 193
149 91
111
187
110
147 148
159
707 686 613 685 646 733
888
1,023 1,042
893 905
1,021
1,440
970
1,231 1,294
1,859
FY21
Q1
FY21
Q2
FY21
Q3
FY21
Q4
FY22
Q1
FY22
Q2
FY22
Q3
FY22
Q4
FY23
Q1
FY23
Q2
FY23
Q3
FY23
Q4
FY24
Q1
FY24
Q2
FY24
Q3
FY24
Q4
FY25
Q1
Blight Housing Maintenance Zoning
City of Oakland 6
Enforcement
Category
Blighted
Property
(Including
graffiti)
Housing
Maintenance
Zoning
(Including
Noise)
Total
First
Inspections 1,026 674 159 1,859
Re-Inspections
and Monitoring
Inspections
1,447 2,395 368 4,210
Total
Inspections 2,473 3,069 527 6,069
Inspections (site visits)
Q1 July – Sept 2024
City of Oakland 7
Case Management Duration
Q1 July – Sept 2024
Average time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
34.4 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
4.5 Days 3.8 Days 26.1 Days
This compares to 33.6 Business Days for Q4
City of Oakland 8
Blight Case Management Duration
Q1 July – Sept 2024
Average time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
31.8 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
5.1 Days 3.3 Days 23.3 Days
This compares to 32.8 Business Days for Q4
City of Oakland 9
Housing Case Management Duration
Q1 July – Sept 2024
Average time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
40.3 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
2.8 Days 4.8 Days 32.6 Days
This compares to 34.7 Business Days for Q4
City of Oakland 10
Zoning Case Management Duration
Q1 July – Sept 2024
Average time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
34 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
5 Days 4.3 Days 24.7 Days
This compares to 34.4 Business Days for Q1
City of Oakland 11
Case Management Duration
Q1 July – Sept 2024
Median time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
31 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
4 Days 3 Days 24 Days
City of Oakland 12
Blight Case Management Duration
Q1 July – Sept 2024
Median time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
31 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
4.5 Days 2.5 Days 24 Days
City of Oakland 13
Housing Case Management Duration
Q1 July – Sept 2024
Median time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
32 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
3Days 3 Days 26 Days
City of Oakland 14
Zoning Case Management Duration
Q1 July – Sept 2024
Median time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
31 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
2 Days 4 Days 25 Days
City of Oakland 15
Enforcement
Action Definition Cases
Clean-up
Contract
An agreement with the owner agreeing to pay
the cost of City-facilitated clean-up. 4
Notice of
Repeat
Violation
The same or similar violation has been verified
within 24 months. 2
Stop Work
Order Stops unpermitted work or work beyond scope 30
Compliance
Plan Plan made with owner about fees and Abatement 12
Enforcement Actions for Compliance or Abatement
Q1 July – Sept 2024
City of Oakland 16
Type
Open
Cases
Previous
Quarter
New Cases
Current
Quarter
Abated
and
Closed
Open Cases
End of
Quarter
Blight 3,099 1,334 1,566 2,867
Maintenance 3,499 674 711 3,462
Zoning 744 306 299 751
Total 7,342 2,314 2,576 7,080
Total Open Cases
Q1 July – Sept 2024
City of Oakland 17
Abated & Closed
Q1 July – Sept 2024
0.0%
1 0.0%
1 0.0%
1 0.0%
1 0.0%
1 0.0%
1 0.0%
1 0.0%
1 0.1%
2 0.1%
2 0.2%
6 0.3%
7 0.7%
19 1.4%
35 1.6%
42 2.4%
63 3.8%
98 3.6%
93 8.1%
208
27.8%
716
49.6%
1,277
FY
96 FY
03 FY
05 FY
06 FY
07 FY
09 FY
10 FY
11 FY
13 FY
14 FY
15 FY
16 FY
17 FY
18 FY
19 FY
20 FY
21 FY
22 FY
23 FY
24 FY
25 Distribution by Year Case Opened
City of Oakland 18
Abated & Closed*
FY 2024 Q1 – FY 2025 Q1
*Includes non-actionable (sent to other agencies)
and referred cases (multiple complaints)
883 728
1,573
949
1566
494 403
575
598
711
206 232
324
277
299
1,583 1,363
2,472
1,824
2,576
FY 24 Q1 FY 24 Q2 FY 24 Q3 FY 24 Q4 FY 25 Q1
Blight Housing Maintenance Zoning
City of Oakland 19
Complaints Received by Category
FY 2021 Q2 – FY 2025 Q2
614
877
569
865 705 851 1,033 1,003
705 670
1,069 1,048
827 841
1,202 1,334
908
587
879
1,184 495
447
468
435 455
387 559
544 589
514 648
648
674
595141
186 118
441
216
281
336 328
238
167
223 273
200
226
349
306
243
1,342
1,942 1,871 1,801
1,368
1,600
1,804 1,786
1,330 1,396
1,836 1,910
1,541
1,715
2,199 2,314
1,746
FY21
Q2
FY21
Q3
FY21
Q4
FY22
Q1
FY22
Q2
FY22
Q3
FY22
Q4
FY23
Q1
FY23
Q2
FY23
Q3
FY23
Q4
FY24
Q1
FY24
Q2
FY24
Q3
FY24
Q4
FY25
Q1
FY25
Q2
Blight Housing Maintenance Zoning
City of Oakland 20
First Inspections
FY 2021 Q2 – FY 2025 Q2
296 255 272 238 307 357 498 485 405 331 426 586
410 436 582
1,026
598
330 284 348 338 344 377
380 364
339 483
484
667
450
648
564
674
736
60 74 65 70 82
154
145 193
149 91
111
187
110
147 148
159
153
686 613 685 646 733
888
1,023 1,042
893 905
1,021
1,440
970
1,231 1,294
1,859
1,487
FY21
Q2
FY21
Q3
FY21
Q4
FY22
Q1
FY22
Q2
FY22
Q3
FY22
Q4
FY23
Q1
FY23
Q2
FY23
Q3
FY23
Q4
FY24
Q1
FY24
Q2
FY24
Q3
FY24
Q4
FY25
Q1
FY25
Q2
Blight Housing Maintenance Zoning
City of Oakland 21
Enforcement
Category
Blighted
Property
(Including
graffiti)
Housing
Maintenance
Zoning
(Including
Noise)
Total
First
Inspections 598 736 153 1,487
Re-Inspections
and Monitoring
Inspections
1,747 2,977 421 5,145
Total
Inspections 2,345 3,713 574 6,632
Inspections (site visits)
Q2 Oct – Dec 2024
City of Oakland 22
Case Management Duration
Q2 Oct – Dec 2024
Average time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
29.7 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
1.4 Days 2.3 Days 26 Days
This compares to 34.4 Business Days for Q1
City of Oakland 23
Blight Case Management Duration
Q2 Oct – Dec 2024
Average time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
25.8 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
1.5 Days 1.4 Days 22.5 Days
This compares to 31.8 Business Days for Q1
City of Oakland 24
Housing Case Management Duration
Q2 Oct – Dec 2024
Average time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
39 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
1 Day 11 Days 27 Days
This compares to 40.3 Business Days for Q1
City of Oakland 25
Zoning Case Management Duration
Q2 Oct – Dec 2024
Average time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
47 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
1 Day 6 Days 40 Days
This compares to 34 Business Days for Q1
City of Oakland 26
Case Management Duration
Q2 Oct – Dec 2024
Median time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
26.5 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
1 Day 1 Day 24.5 Days
City of Oakland 27
Blight Case Management Duration
Q2 Oct – Dec 2024
Median time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
25.5 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
1 Day 1 Day 23.5 Days
City of Oakland 28
Housing Case Management Duration
Q2 Oct – Dec 2024
Median time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
39 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
1 Day 11 Days 27 Days
City of Oakland 29
Zoning Case Management Duration
Q2 Oct – Dec 2024
Median time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
47 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
1 Day 6 Days 40 Days
City of Oakland 30
Enforcement
Action Definition Cases
Clean-up
Contract
An agreement with the owner agreeing to pay
the cost of City-facilitated clean-up. 3
Notice of
Repeat
Violation
The same or similar violation has been verified
within 24 months. 0
Stop Work
Order Stops unpermitted work or work beyond scope 34
Compliance
Plan Plan made with owner about fees and Abatement 5
Enforcement Actions for Compliance or Abatement
Q2 Oct – Dec 2024
City of Oakland 31
Enforcement Fees Assessed
Quarter Cases
Invoiced
Fees
(Includes
Bonds)
Bonds for
Compliance
Plan
FY25 Q2 349 $804,657 $23,000
FY25 Q1 370 $721,834 $64,000
FY24 Q4 457 $552,938 $20,000
FY24 Q3 294 $451,803 $24,000
FY24 Q2 299 $390,741 $17,500
FY 24 Q2 – FY 25 Q2
City of Oakland 32
Abated & Closed*
FY 2024 Q2 – FY 2025 Q2
*Includes non-actionable (sent to other agencies)
and referred cases (multiple complaints)
728
1,573
949
1566 1643403
575
598
711 975
232
324
277
299
322
1,363
2,472
1,824
2,576 2,940
FY 24 Q2 FY 24 Q3 FY 24 Q4 FY 25 Q1 FY 25 Q2
Blight Housing Maintenance Zoning
City of Oakland 33
Abated & Closed
Q2 Oct – Dec 2024
0.1%
4 0.1%
2 0.4%
12 0.4%
11 0.1%
2 0.2%
6 0.1%
4 0.2%
6 0.1%
2 0.2%
6 0.3%
10 0.2%
6 0.2%
5 0.1%
2 0.3%
9 0.3%
9 0.1%
4 0.4%
13 0.1%
4 0.5%
16 0.7%
22 2.3%
67 2.0%
58 1.5%
45 3.5%
103
7.6%
222 5.3%
157
9.0%
266
15.0%
441
48.5%
1,426
FY
96 FY
97 FY
98 FY
99 FY
00 FY
01 FY
02 FY
03 FY
04 FY
05 FY
06 FY
07 FY
08 FY
09 FY
10 FY
11 FY
12 FY
13 FY
14 FY
15 FY
16 FY
17 FY
18 FY
19 FY
20 FY
21 FY
22 FY
23 FY
24 FY
25 Distribution by Year Case Opened
City of Oakland 34
Type
Open
Cases
Previous
Quarter
New Cases
Current
Quarter
Abated
and
Closed
Open Cases
End of
Quarter
Blight 2,867 908 1,643 2,132
Maintenance 3,462 595 975 3,082
Zoning 751 243 322 672
Total 7,080 1,746 2,940 5,886
Total Open Cases
Q2 Oct – Dec 2024
City of Oakland 35
• Notice of Violations available to public at
https://aca.accela.com/OAKLAND/Cap/CapH
ome.aspx?module=Enforcement&TabName=
Enforcement
• Previous Code Enforcement Reports are
available at
https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/city-
of-oakland-quarterly-building-code-
enforcement-reports
Additional Information