CED Committee
February 10, 2026
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Jestin D. Johnson, FROM: William A. Gilchrist,
City Administrator Director, Planning &
Building Department
SUBJECT: FY 2024-25, Quarter 3 and Quarter 4
Update on Code Enforcement’s
Activities
DATE: January 12, 2026
City Administrator Approval Date:
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends That The City Council Receive An Informational Report Regarding The Fiscal Year 2024-25 Quarter 3 and Quarter 4 Update On The Planning and Building Department's Code Enforcement Activities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The primary goal of Code Enforcement is to promote public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring compliance related to property standards and community well-being. Its key objectives include maintaining safe and healthy living conditions, preserving community quality and appearance, ensuring property maintenance compliance, safeguarding property values, and preventing crime and vandalism through the regulation of vacant and abandoned properties.
Overall, Code Enforcement plays a vital role in fostering safe, healthy, and attractive neighborhoods within 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 third and fourth quarters of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 (Jan 1, 2025, through June 30, 2025). 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 Semi-Annual 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 the report is to update the City Council and the public on the range of code Jestin Johnson (Jan 29, 2026 18:19:44 PST)
Jan 29, 2026
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 3 & 4 Date: January 12, 2026 Page 2
CED Committee
February 10, 2026
enf
orcement 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.
At t
he Community and Economic Development Committee Meeting, on September 10, 2024, the Committee provided direction to present this report semi-annually; as opposed to being presented on a quarterly basis, which has been the adopted practice since that direction.
The Code Enforcement Division of the Planning and Building Department (PBD) is dedicated to improving community livability through focused neighborhood revitalization efforts. Central to these initiatives is the reduction of blighted properties and the promotion of health and safety for residents and occupants of local structures. By having a direct focus on these concerns, Code Enforcement aims to foster a more vibrant and secure environment for all members of the Oakland community. During the current reporting period, Code Enforcement has played an active role as a collaborative partner in the Neighborhood Enhanced Services Team (NEST) program, which operates in East, West, and Central Oakland. The NEST initiative is designed to address the needs of High Priority Equity communities by deploying interdisciplinary teams that tackle a diverse array of neighborhood issues. Within NEST, Code Enforcement focuses its efforts on resolving problems related to several identified properties within specific service areas, thereby contributing to comprehensive strategies aimed at improving the quality of life for residents in these communities. Beyond its engagement with NEST, the Code Enforcement Division also coordinates with the Abandoned Auto Task Force and the Encampment Management Team to address distinct challenges within Oakland. Through its partnership with the Abandoned Auto Task Force, Code Enforcement works to confront illegal business activities associated with vehicle thefts and vehicle stripping, reducing the prevalence of dismantled vehicles and improving the overall condition of Oakland’s neighborhoods. Meanwhile, collaboration with the Encampment Management Team enables Code Enforcement to provide mutual support in addressing blighted private properties, including evaluating operations for potential public nuisance status and implementing measures to clean up private property and city streets. These coordinated strategies help enhance safety and appearance throughout the community.
PBD has r
eceived an average of 1,813 complaints each Quarter over the last 3 fiscal years. The lowest number of complaints occurred in FY 2022-23, Quarter 2, where 1,319 complaints were received and the highest number of complaints received was in Quarter 1 of FY 2024-25, where 2,315 complaints were received. Factors include climatic changes to include inclement weather.
This data can be found on Attachment A, Slide 5.
The C
ity's Code Enforcement program aims to quickly and efficiently resolve property, building, and zoning code violations. Compliance timelines depend on violation complexity, owner cooperation, and appeals. The complaint-driven program's caseload fluctuates each quarter, as shown in Attachment A, Slide 5.
Complaint Submittal and Processing
C
omplaints are received through various channels including: Oak311, the Accela Online Permit Center, phone calls, and emails. These complaints are then forwarded to Code Enforcement Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 3 & 4 Date: January 12, 2026 Page 3
CED Committee
February 10, 2026
administrative staff, who review each case and begin the enforcement process. Depending on the details of the complaint, the property owner may receive a Courtesy Notice, or staff may conduct an initial site inspection. For information about the number of first inspections conducted from Quarter 4 of FY 2021-22 to Quarter 4 of FY 2024-25, please refer to Slide 6 of Attachment A.
A Courtesy Notice is issued upon receipt of initial reports regarding minor blight or nuisance violations, such as noise disturbances, visible trash and debris, or other non-hazardous conditions. No property inspection is performed at this stage. Property owners are allotted twenty-one days to respond to the notice and may attest that the alleged violations are either unfounded or have been remedied by submitting the Property Owner Self-Certification form along with supporting photographs.
The initial inspection occurs upon receipt of a complaint and serves to determine if the reported conditions constitute violations of the OMC. Details regarding first inspections are provided in Attachment A, Slide 6. If a violation is confirmed during the site visit, a Notice of Violation (NOV) is issued, outlining both the violations and the corrective actions required. NOVs may be issued for various reasons, including unpermitted work, unsecured or deteriorated vacant buildings, graffiti, hazardous conditions on private property, and unresolved repeated violations.
Following the issuance of a NOV, subsequent inspections, known as "re-inspections" or "monitoring inspections," are conducted to verify that violations have been addressed. These follow-up inspections are detailed on Attachment A, Slide 7.
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 30-day period (plus five extra days for mailing) 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 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 whenever there is unpermitted construction of a residential dwelling unit depending on the extent of the corrections needed and the impact on habitability during the corrective construction.
Receivers of a 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:
• Slide 9 for the “Enforcement Actions for Compliance and Abatement”.
• Slide 10 for “Abated and Closed” Cases Reported between Quarter 4 of FY 2023-24 and Quarter 4 of FY 2024-25
• Slide 11 for “Abated and Closed” Cases Distribution by year cases were opened Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 3 & 4 Date: January 12, 2026 Page 4
CED Committee
February 10, 2026
• Slides 12 to 14 for the “Average Case Management Duration” (or timeframe for abatement), by category, for Quarters 3 and 4 of FY 2024-25.
• Slide 16 for “Total Open Cases” at the end of Quarter 4 of FY 2024-25.
• Slide 17 provides data on “Enforcement Fees Assessed” to gain compliance for Quarter 4 of FY 2023-24 to Quarter 4 of FY 2024-25.
• Slide 18 provides data on “Enforcement Fees Assessed and Collected” to gain compliance for Quarter 4 of FY 2023-24 to Quarter 4 of FY 2024-25; expressed as an amount of funds received, as well as a percentage of funds received based upon what has been assessed.
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
standards for private property under the categories of property blight and graffiti, building maintenance, and zoning, as discussed below.
Code Enforcement Categories
Before outlining Code Enforcement categories, it is important to clarify which violations fall outside its jurisdiction. Code Enforcement only handles issues on private property, for example, removing items left in a residence's driveway. If the same problem occurs on public property,like parks or sidewalks, it is managed by OPW. This also applies to the location of graffiti and similar violations. Below is an overview of Code Enforcement categories for reportable violations on 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 property) 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, or 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 a 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.
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 3 & 4 Date: January 12, 2026 Page 5
CED Committee
February 10, 2026
In those instances, a referral is made to OPW. Graffiti and other built environment-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.
Zoning: It is unlawful to establish, substitute, expand, construct, alter, move, paint, maintain or otherwise change any structure, or to 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.
Table 1. Types of complaints by category
Property Maintenance (Blight)
(OMC 8.24)
Building Maintenance
(OMC 15.08)
(Minor) Zoning
(OMC Title 17)
Trash / Debris Unpermitted work Business in
residential zone
Graffiti Mold Construction noise
outside of permitted
hours
Overgrown vegetation Plumbing Fencing
(height/other)
Abatement and Case Clearance Issues
During FY 2024-25 Quarters 3 and 4, Code Enforcement received 1,870 and 2,052 complaints, respectively. Slide 16 of Attachment A depicts, for Quarters 3 and 4 of FY 2024-25: the Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 3 & 4 Date: January 12, 2026 Page 6
CED Committee
February 10, 2026
caseload in each complaint category and shows open cases at the end of the last reporting period (Quarter 2 of FY 2024-25), new cases opened, cases abated and closed, as well as open cases at the end of both semi-annual reporting periods in question.
Code Enforcement violations are often viewed as similar, yet each case presents unique circumstances that necessitate distinct strategies and procedures for resolution.
As depicted in Table 2 below, at the end of Quarter 4, in the Property Maintenance (blight) category, open case volumes increased by 9 percent from the previous reporting period
(Quarter 1 and Quarter 2). Open case volumes increased by 5 percent within the Building Maintenance category, while the number of open cases increased by 13 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 3 and 4 of FY 2024-25 Property Maintenance
(Blight)
Building Maintenance (Minor) Zoning
Open cases grew by 9
percent through Quarter 4
from the last report, going
from 2,132 open cases to
2,339 open cases.
In terms of abatement,
2,052 cases were opened
while 1,845 cases were
abated and closed.
Open cases grew by 5
percent through Quarter 4
from the prior report, going
from 3,082 open cases to
3,227 open cases.
In terms of abatement,
1,226 new cases were
opened, while 1,081 cases
were abated and closed.
Open cases increased by 13
percent through Quarter 4,
going from 672 open cases
to 769 open cases.
In terms of abatement, 644
new cases were opened
while 547 cases were abated
and closed.
The previous report for Quarters 1 and 2 of FY 2024-25 highlighted a significant drop in open cases. In contrast, this report reflects an ongoing rise in cases. Although Code Enforcement improved its operational capacity and efficiency, which helped slow down the increase in open cases, there was still notable growth, especially in zoning. One likely reason is the fifteen percent jump in zoning complaints during this period: 644 complaints were filed in Quarters 3 and 4, compared to 549 in Quarters 1 and 2.
While it was anticipated in the last report that seasonal variations in complaints would cause open case volumes to rise, it would not be sustainable for this rise to continue at this pace.
Oakland is mirroring a national trend. It is anticipated that the next semi-annual report will show a reversal or a mitigation of this trend, due to that same seasonal variation described along with continued internal efficiencies.
Equally, it should be noted that delays in compliance create larger workloads for City staff, as processing the legal paperwork for escalated enforcement increases. The combination of staff vacancies coupled with delayed property-owner compliance are essential factors to consider in explaining the existence of a slowly growing backlog of blight, building maintenance, and zoning cases.
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 3 & 4 Date: January 12, 2026 Page 7
CED Committee
February 10, 2026
To address the backlog of cases, PBD actively monitors metrics to assess staffing level increases for Inspectors and administrative staff.
Code Enforcement Fees
Slides 17 and 18 of Attachment A reflects the volume of cases with violations that necessitated the imposition of fees and fines, over a one-year period. As depicted in those slides, enforcement fees collected have generally increased as the Code Enforcement Division’s capacity increased; with the exception of the previous reporting period (Quarters 1 and 2), where fee amounts assessed were lower than they were in the other quarters depicted on those same slides. Even the collection of monies owed from delinquent property owners is generally increasing, with the end of the previous reporting period; Quarter 2, having the highest percentage of funds collected based upon actual fees assessed. Why that particular quarter saw a higher amount collected can be explained by contributing factors such as the fact that Code Enforcement transferred Priority Lien amounts to the County of Alameda late in Quarter 1.
Amounts owed to the City then, theoretically, get paid along with property taxes in November (or Quarter 2). Code Enforcement is committed to ensuring that the costs of services provided are fully covered by fees and fines paid by delinquent property owners, and not the public at large.
Fees and penalties increase for property owners who don't comply, helping the City recover inspection and administrative costs. These charges are imposed only after communication efforts fail. The appeals process helps establish protections for property owners' rights.
Invoicing and Fees:
In Quarter 3, 626 cases were invoiced, while in Quarter 4, this number increased to 965 cases, reflecting a generally linear upward trend. Attachments A, Slides 17 and 18, illustrate approximately a thirty-five percent increase in invoiced cases from Quarter 3 to Quarter 4. To emphasize this point, these fees and fines encourage property owners to address and abate code violations. The fees and fines assessed and collected are directly related to the costs incurred in remedying properties that generate public complaints. Ultimately, these costs are borne by non-responsive property owners who either: 1) do not appeal the violation notices they receive, or 2) lack valid reasons to contest those notices.
Key Initiatives
The following bullet points briefly outline key initiatives—such as new methods, partnerships, technical training, personnel updates, and programs—that will affect the Code Enforcement Division’s ability to close cases. Some of those key initiatives are highlighted in Attachment A, Slide 19. Some programs will temporarily increase Code Enforcement’s caseload, while others should reduce complaints over time. For example, hiring additional Inspectors and staff helps lower individual workloads, whereas enforcing new standards for lead-based paint and Exterior Elevated Elements (EEE) is likely to raise the caseload.
However, with increased recruitment efforts and improved interdepartmental coordination, we remain confident that future semi-annual reports will reflect a gradual decline in the number of open cases. Expanding the Inspector staff is essential. To support this effort, the Planning and Building Department continues to prioritize ongoing hiring assistance from the Human Resources Department through a continuous recruitment process for Inspector positions. The Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 3 & 4 Date: January 12, 2026 Page 8
CED Committee
February 10, 2026
goal is to reduce vacancies, strengthen staffing levels within Code Enforcement, and increase overall departmental capacity.
Additionally, PBD is projecting the onboarding of three ELDE Code Enforcement Inspector Assistants to help manage the workload more effectively. We are also planning to fill additional Office Assistant II positions, along with one Administrative Assistant, to further bolster the department’s staffing resources.
At the end of Quarter 4, the department filled three Office Assistant II positions; half of the six positions budgeted. The increasing number of unresolved, open cases during this period is primarily attributed to staffing shortages. The department remains committed to expanding its staffing resources to better address the growing volume of cases.
As a result of staffing shortages, we have experienced some minor service delays such as the issuance of notices. This staffing constraint helps explain why it can take an average of seventeen to thirty-eight days to resolve complaints related to blight, building maintenance, and zoning violations, as shown in Attachment A, Slides 12 to 14.
Staff Coordination, Training and Hiring
o The Code Enforcement Division holds 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.
• The Principal Inspection Supervisor and Senior Inspectors in the Code Enforcement Division frequently participate in meetings with the Building Official, Acting Inspections Manager, other staff, and representatives from the City Attorney’s Office, OPW, and various departments and divisions. These ongoing meetings help to clarify strategies for
ensuring compliance or determining whether to escalate enforcement actions on complex cases, depending on the specific issues involved.
Code Enforcement Inspectors regularly participate in training to improve their knowledge and skills related to their duties. This includes customer service training, Situational Awareness Training, and collaborations with Alameda County Public Guardian (Adult Protective Services and Children and Family Services) and the Oakland Police Encampment Management Team (EMT) unit. These training sessions help inspectors better navigate the complexities and interpersonal dynamics inherent in their profession.
To enhance efficiency and adapt to staffing changes, Inspectors and administrative staff are continually cross trained in different focus areas. In some cases, team members have been reassigned to various units, such as Residential Inspections, Code Enforcement, or Commercial Inspections.
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 3 & 4 Date: January 12, 2026 Page 9
CED Committee
February 10, 2026
o There was no change in the number of Inspectors in Quarters 3 and 4. During the reporting period, there was also: one Senior Public Service Representative, one Administrative Analyst, three Administrative Assistants, and four Office Assistants assigned to work on the abatement of the 3,473 cases that have been abated and closed during this period, detailed on Attachment A, Slide 10.
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, 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 improve the app. This is best reflected in Attachment A, Slide 6 where the quarterly number of first inspections began to rise (beginning in Quarter 3 of FY 2023-24) above the long-term trend to settle at more than 1,200 to 1,300 inspections per quarter.
The use of the app and the 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 in Accela, to ensure that any changes in legal ownership are captured in a timelier 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, amendments, and the re-mailing of notices that administrative staff must undertake, thereby reducing a source of additional delays in the process of property owner notification. As of this reporting period, this is still an on-going conversation.
Notwithstanding this operating constraint and minor issues, work continues to take place with the app to improve efficiency and accuracy. Highlights of the Code Enforcement Inspector App include:
• Reduced time spent by inspectors in the office generating Notices of Violations manually.
• Ability to create a NOV instantaneously upon resulting inspection in the field. • Checklist-based violation documentation based on the OMC, with specific violation images and corrective action populated for each violation identified. • The ability to create “favorites” for common notes for staff to copy and paste their most used inspection results and a streamlined process to easily result the inspection in the field.
• The ability for emergency structural assessment responders dispatched by Oakland Fire 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
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 3 & 4 Date: January 12, 2026 Page 10
CED Committee
February 10, 2026
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 way inspections are performed, and the legal 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.
• Adoption of AB 838 – This requires local agencies to promptly respond to tenant complaints about substandard or unsafe housing conditions when a complaint is reported to the City.
• 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.
• Adoption of AB 548 which enhances code enforcement procedures as they relate to inspection protocols when a substandard condition is found in multi-unit residential buildings. This bill requires that Code Enforcement Divisions reasonably attempt to inspect other units at a property where an affected unit has been found. • Proactive Rental Inspection Program (PRIP): The development of the Proactive Rental Inspection Program (PRIP) is underway and is being coordinated to align with the launch of the Equitable Lead Hazard Abatement Program (ELHAP). Similarly, the Planning and Building Department (PBD) is collaborating closely with Housing and Community Development (HCD) colleagues to ensure seamless integration and effective interface between both programs.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the preparation of this Informational Report.
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 3 & 4 Date: January 12, 2026 Page 11
CED Committee
February 10, 2026
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 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 recommend that the City Council receive an Informational Report regarding the FY 2024- 25 Quarters 3 and 4 update on the Planning and Building Department’s Code Enforcement activities.
For questions regarding this report, please contact Cecilia Muela, Chief Building Official, at 510- 238-6315.
Respectfully submitted,
William Gilchrist
William Gilchrist (Jan 29, 2026 15:32:18 PST)
WILLIAM A. GILCHRIST
Director, Planning and Building Department
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Code Enforcement Quarterly Report: FY 2024-25, Quarters 3 & 4 Date: January 12, 2026 Page 12
CED Committee
February 10, 2026
Reviewed by:
Cecilia Muela, Chief Building Official
Planning and Building Department
Prepared by:
Michael Johnson, Administrative Analyst II
Planning and Building Department
Anita Dharnidharka, Business Analyst III
Planning and Building Department
Luke Gunari, Specialty Combination Inspector
Planning and Building Department
Attachments (1):
A: Quarterly Code Enforcement Data and Statistics FY 2024-25, Quarters 3 and 4.
Attachment A
Code Enforcement Bi-Annual Report
FY 2024-25
Quarter 3: Jan – Mar 2025
Quarter 4: Apr – Jun 2025
Cecilia Muela
Chief Building Official
Planning and Building Department
Code Enforcement: Before & After #1
City of Oakland 3
• 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 4
Top Complaints by Category
Blight / Property
Maintenance
[OMC 8.24]
Housing
Maintenance
[OMC 15.08]
Zoning
[OMC Title 17]
Trash / Debris Unpermitted work Business in residential zone Graffiti Mold Fencing (height, other)
Overgrown vegetation Lack of adequate heat Construction noise outside of permitted hours
Trash/recycle bins left
curbside past collection day Plumbing Equipment setback Use of gas-powered leaf
blower Electrical Livestock, e.g. roosters
City of Oakland 5
Complaints Received by Category
FY 2022 Q4 – FY 2025 Q4
1060 1011
695 669
1070 1070
850 840
1202 1334
908 918
1134
442 458
387 559
544 599
522 648
648
675
595 664
562
302 328
237
167
224 278
200
226
349 306
243 288
3561,804 1,797
1,319 1,395
1,838
1,947
1,572
1,714
2,199 2,315
1,746 1,870
2,052
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
Blight Housing Maintenance Zoning
FY22 FY 23 FY 23 FY 23 FY 23 FY 24 FY 24 FY 24 FY 24 FY 25 FY 25 FY 25 FY 25 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 City of Oakland 6
First Inspections
FY 2022 Q4 – FY 2025 Q4
502 491 404 335 425 420 410 436 583
1026
598 465 506
385 369
342 483
475 514 441
651
565
674
737
623 572
152 194
149 91
110 153
110
147 149
159
154
167 2001,039 1,054
895 909 1,010 1,087
961
1,234 1,297
1,859
1,489
1,255 1,278
FY22
Q4
FY23
Q1
FY23
Q2
FY23
Q3
FY23
Q4
FY24
Q1
FY24
Q2
FY24
Q3
FY24
Q4
FY25
Q1
FY25
Q2
FY25
Q3
FY25
Q4
Blight Housing Maintenance Zoning
City of Oakland 7
Enforcement
Category
Blighted
Property
(Including
graffiti)
Housing
Maintenance
Zoning
(Including
Noise)
Total
First
Inspections 971 1,195 367 2,533
Re-Inspections
and Monitoring
Inspections
2,579 6,089 806 9,474
Total
Inspections 3,550 7,284 1,173 12,007
Inspections (site visits)
Q3 and Q4 Jan – Jun 2025
City of Oakland 8
Code Enforcement: Before & After #2
City of Oakland 9
Enforcement
Action Definition Cases
Clean-up
Contract
An agreement with the owner agreeing to pay
the cost of City-facilitated clean-up. 2
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 58
Compliance
Plan
A path to compliance that includes fees and
abatement measures. 31
Enforcement Actions for Compliance or Abatement
Q3 and Q4 Jan through Jun 2025
City of Oakland 10
Abated & Closed*
FY 2024 Q4 – FY 2025 Q4
*Includes non-actionable (referred to other agencies)
and referred cases (multiple complaints)
942 1565 1,641 913 932
582
714 965
528 553
277
298 322
230 317
1,801
2,577 2,928
1,671 1,802
FY 24 Q4 FY 25 Q1 FY 25 Q2 FY 25 Q3 FY 25 Q4
Blight Housing Maintenance Zoning
City of Oakland 11
Abated & Closed
FY 2021-22 to FY 2024-25
Distribution by Year Case was Opened
4.1%
93 9.1%
208
31.2%
716
55.7%
1,277
FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25
Each Bar represents the percentage of
cases, opened in various fiscal years, that
were abated and closed in Quarters 3 and
4 of FY 2024-25.
City of Oakland 12
Blight Case Management Duration
Q3 and Q4 Jan to Jun 2025
Average time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
26 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
7 Days 15 Days 56 Days
City of Oakland 13
Housing Case Management Duration
Q3 and Q4 Jan to Jun 2025
Average time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
38 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
4 Days 22 Days 78 Days
City of Oakland 14
Zoning Case Management Duration
Q3 and Q4 Jan to Jun 2025
Average time from complaint intake, first inspection, NOV, to violation abatement within the quarter:
17 Business Days
ABATEMENTCASE
INTAKE
FIRST
INSPECTION
NOTICE OF
VIOLATION
SENT
5 Days 23 Days 56 Days
City of Oakland 15
Code Enforcement: Before & After #3
City of Oakland 16
Type
Open
Cases at
End of Q2
New Cases
through Q4
Abated
and
Closed
Open Cases
End of
Quarter 4
Blight 2,132 2,052 1,845 2,339
Maintenance 3,082 1,226 1,081 3,227
Zoning 672 644 547 769
Total 5,886 3,922 3,473 6,335
Total Open Cases
FY 2024-25 Q3 and Q4 - Jan through Jun 2025
City of Oakland 17
Enforcement Fees Assessed
Quarter Cases
Invoiced
Fees
(Includes
Bonds)
Bonds for
Compliance
Plan
FY24 Q4 723 $2,469,040 $16,000
FY25 Q1 434 $1,946,728 $55,000
FY25 Q2 370 $2,046,324 $23,000
FY25 Q3 626 $2,348,799 $103,500
FY25 Q4 965 $2,852,366 $81,000
FY 2023-24 Q4 – FY 2024-25 Q4
City of Oakland 18
Enforcement Fees Assessed/Collected
Quarter Cases
Invoiced
Fees
(Includes
Bonds)
Funds
Received
Percentage
of Funds
Collected
FY24 Q4 723 $2,469,040 $734,556 30%
FY25 Q1 434 $1,946,728 $477,210 25%
FY25 Q2 370 $2,046,324 $1,282,540 62%
FY25 Q3 626 $2,348,799 $674,246 29%
FY25 Q4 965 $2,852,366 $1,186,950 42%
FY 2023-24 Q4 – FY 2024-25 Q4
City of Oakland 19
• Digital Enhancements: Code Enforcement Inspector App - Reduces Inspector time on tedious administrative tasks
• Proactive Rental Inspection Program: Coordinated with Equitable Lead Hazard Abatement Program and focusing on older rental housing and marginalized tenants within that type of housing.
• Collaborative work with the EMT to address blighted properties where an encampment exists or where there may be a
potential for encampment growth.
Key Initiatives
City of Oakland 20
• Notice of Violations available to public at
https://aca.accela.com/OAKLAND/Cap/CapHome.as
px?module=Enforcement&TabName=Enforcement
• Previous Code Enforcement Reports are
available at https://www.oaklandca.gov/Planning-
Building/Code-Enforcement-Services/City-of-
Oakland-Quarterly-Building-Code-Enforcement-
Reports
Additional Information