San Luis Obispo City Council
October 3, 2023

Utilities Department –Solid Waste Division (General Fund) containers for highly utilized indoor City rental facilities, and procurement of additional basic Big Belly trash and recycling units installed in the downtown core.

Other Operating Expenditures – Other operating expenditures includes a substantial amount of unspent postage and office supplies budget as many outreach efforts were completed primarily via social media.

Advertising budget was used to increase outreach at public events with giveaway items, social media and radio ads for Clean Up Week and organics recycling, composting signage at the Emerson Park Community Gardens, and the development of Citywide recycling videos. Similar robust outreach efforts are anticipated for the next fiscal year.

Table 52 – Year-over-year carryover of AB 939 Revenue
Revenue Expenditures Carryover
FY 19-20 $169,642 $87,156 $82,486
FY 20-21 $181,337 $119,369 $61,968
FY 21-22 $190,196 $185,884 $4,312
FY 22-23 $392,845 $260,715 $132,130
Total $280,896
AB 939 revenue may only be used to pay for activities that divert waste from the landfill; therefore, any funds remaining at the end of the year are put into the General Fund "assigned” fund balance for this purpose. The table above identifies the unspent funds from prior fiscal years that will be allocated to the assigned designation account for eligible expenditures under AB 939 requirements.

TBID and Downtown Association
Tourism Business Improvement District
The Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) was established in 2008 in the City of San Luis Obispo at the request of the local lodging industry. The assessment is set at 2% of the lodging industry’s gross receipts and is used to defray the costs of services, activities and programs promoting tourism which benefit the operators of lodging establishments in the district through the promotion of scenic, recreational, cultural, and other attractions in the district as a tourist destination. Annually, the program sets an operating budget to match its forecasted yearly revenues.

A Year In Review
Tourism in the City remained strong in FY 2022-23, resulting in $10.8 million in Transient Occupancy Tax contribution into the general fund and outperforming the budget by 2%. The growth in occupancy at local hotels achieved a modest increase of 1% compared to last fiscal year but continues to show the positive signs of tourism recovery. The tourism promotion for the city continued to be led by the work of the City’s Tourism Business Improvement District, known as Visit San Luis Obispo. This year the compre hensive tourism marketing efforts focused on the first year of implementation of the 2022-24 TBID Strategic Marketing & Business Plan. To achieve this work, the TBID made greater investments with various marketing contractors, commitments in new partnerships like hosting the Luxury Forum with Visit SLO CAL, enhanced programs like funding for Keys for Trees with EcoSLO and the Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources, and continued promotions like The Midweekend. During the fiscal year, a support position of a Tourism Analyst was created for the TBID and funded through salary savings; however longterm staffing for the TBID will be adjusted as a component of the plan to reorganize the Office of Economic Development and Tourism which was approved in June of 2023 as part of the financial plan process. Under this reorganization, the office will have an Economic Development & Tourism Manager, Tourism & Community Promotions Manager, and Economic Development Analyst.

Table 53 - TBID Revenue and Expenditure Budget Variance Analysis

Staffing – The program ended the year with 19% savings due to the vacancy of the Tourism Coordinator position. Overthe course of the year, that position was reclassified as Tourism Analyst and filled in March.

Contract Services – 93% of the contract services budget was used delivering on the objectives and commitments outlined in the TBID Strategic Marketing and Business Plan.

FY 2021-22 FY 2023-24
Actual Budget Actual Funds
Available % Budget
Staffing $ 225,734 $ 226,463 $ 184,415 $ 42,048 19% $ 276,698 Contract Services $ 1,243,485 $ 1,878,884 $ 1,751,856 $ 127,028 7% $ 1,775,784 Other Operating Expenditures $ 11,559 $ 34,100 $ 28,961 $ 5,139 15% $ 34,100 Transfers $ 37,887 $ 34,544 $ 38,279 $ (3,734) -11% $ 42,816 TOTAL $ 1,518,666 $ 2,173,991 $ 2,003,510 $ 170,481 8% $ 2,129,398 TBID Revenue Actual Budget Actual Variance Projection
TOTAL $ 2,111,688 $ 2,122,800 $ 2,153,631 $ 30,831 1% $ 2,140,800 TBID Expenditures
FY 2022-23

TBID and Downtown Association
Other Operating Expenses – The program ended with a 15% savings due to the cost savings with various programs like tradeshow partnerships, and media hosting expenses.

Transfers- The 11% difference in transfers, accounts for the additional 2% service fee transfer out of the TBID operating budget as TBID revenues exceed the budgeted amount.

Downtown SLO Business Improvement District
The Downtown Business Improvement District (DBID) was established in 1975 as a parking and promotions district for the downtown area. As a special fee district, fees are collected from business license holders operating within a designated area and revenue supports the operations of Downtown SLO. The City and Downtown SLO (DSLO) agreed by contract that DSLO would provide various services for the economic, social, cultural, and environmental vitality and beautification of downtown San Luis Obispo.

The assessment is a special revenue and is administered in its separate and distinct fund. Actual expenditures will always be nearequal to revenues because all of the collected downtown assessment is remitted to Downtown SLO. Slight variances may occur due to the timing of revenue remittals.

Table 54 - Downtown Association Revenue and Expenditure Budget Variance Analysis FY 2021-22 FY 2023-24
Actual Budget Actual
Funds
Available % Budget
Pass-through Payments $ 222,141 $ 275,000 $ 271,977 $ (3,023) -1% $ 275,400 TOTAL $ 222,141 $ 275,000 $ 271,977 $ (3,023) -1% $ 275,000 Revenue Actual Budget Actual Variance % Projection
TOTAL $ 227,202 $ 275,000 $ 269,523 $ (5,477) -2% $ 275,400 Downtown Association
FY 2022-23

2022-23 Capital Improvement Plan in Review
Major Completed Projects
During Fiscal Year 2022-23, several major projects were completed. It is important to note that although some capital projects are highly visible to the community, others are not, including water and wastewater system improvements, open space maintenance, silt removal, information technology maintenance, facilities maintenance, and fleet procurement. The list below highli ghts some of the major accomplishments in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) during the fiscal year:

1. Orcutt Tank Farm Roundabout

2. Roadway Sealing 2022

3. Curb Ramp Improvements in Laguna Lake and Foothill/Chorro neighborhoods (Pavement Area 6 and 7)

4. Electric Bus Procurements

5. Parks and Recreation Interior Office Rehabilitation

6. Water Treatment Plan Power Storage Units with Tesla Battery Grant

7. Pedestrian Crosswalk Beacon at Ramona

8. WRRF Telemetry and Server Upgrade

9. 40 Prado Road Bus Shelter Relocation
Following project completion, staff will complete a financial closeout process to ensure all payments have been made and all invoices have been captured. This process will also return any remaining funds back to the appropriate account or fund balance where applicable.

Storm Projects
The City has made substantial progress but isstill working to address the creek and infrastructure impacts from the 2023 winter storms. This work includes storm drain repairs, creek erosion repair and protection, water and wastewater systemrepairs, debris removal, and roadway pothole repairs, among other capital assets. There remains uncertainty to the best and most financially viable long-term solution as staff begin the design and engineering process, with considerations around reimbursement eligibility with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Alongside the engineering and construction work is continued efforts by staff to identify and document storm related work to ensure FEMA reimbursement where possible, while continuing to meet the significant expectations of the community in delivering vital and meaningful infrastructure projects.

Following the storms, 204 public sites were identified for repair, rehabilitation, or debris removal. A large majority, or 180 of the 204 sites, have been addressed. 9 of the remaining projects are being managed by operating programs and 15 sites that require Capital Improvement Plan Engineering support.

Current estimates from storm damage alone ranges from $15 million to $27 million in repair costs, with costs able to be further refined as project scope, design and timing are solidified.

Upcoming Projects
The map below presents some of the active and ongoing capital projects which were identified during the financial planning processes, with activity taking place during the current fiscal year. In FY 2023-24, the City has programmed over $116 million in capital projects supporting all departments and services across the City.

Figure 10 - 2023-25 Major Projects
Project Carryover Balances
Capital projects often span over multiple years and even across financial plans. Due to the nature of capital projects, funding is carried over from year to year, with project close out activities taking place upon project completion. This may result in funding being made available for other uses if a project is completed under budget. Staff schedule delivery of the CIP based upon the resources available (staffing and funding) and, in some instances, the most appropriate time of the year for construction activities (such as paving in summer). With the adoption of the 2023-25 Financial Plan, many active and ongoing capital projects remain that were identified and funded for work during prior fiscal years. The tables below highlight the project carry over balances, or remaining funding for a given project that has been allocated with the adoption of prior budget documents. The tables below are organized based on project status or project progress, based on the following indicators:
 Complete (Pending Close)
 Construction
 Ready to Construct
 Ongoing – these are annual asset projects that provide funding support for other CIP’s or have several subprojects in different phases of delivery.
 Project Design
 Project Identification & Budgeting

Figure 11 - Project Carryover Balances by Status

Table 55 - Project Balances - Completed
Ref # Complete (Pending Close*) Carryover Balance
1 Project & Totals $1,774,281
2 Marsh at Santa Rosa Bridge Replacement [90480] $288,290 3 Railroad Safety Trail Taft to Pepper - 2018 [91375] $265,316 4 Monterey at Santa Rosa Paving and Signal Project [1000559] $262,511 5 Open SLO [1000155] $143,689
6 CIP Project Delivery Augmentation [1000500] $133,612
7 Orcutt/Tank Farm Roundabout Construction [1000164] $115,056 8 ERP Acquisition [91534] $114,724
9 Roadway Sealing 2022 [1000560] $87,725
10 Pedestrian Crossing Improvements [1000069] $81,266
11 Downtown Renewal [91320] $73,342
12 Edna Tank Maintenance [91152] $40,005
13 Council Hearing Room Improvements [1000055] $31,636
14 40 Prado Rd. Bus Shelter Relocation [1000566] $29,939 15 WRRF Telemetry and Server Upgrade [91726] $21,959
16 Meinecke Murray Easement [91735] $17,860
17 Parks and Recreation Interior Office Rehabilitation [91562] $14,485 18 WTP Power Storage Units Tesla Battery Grant [1000541] $13,933 19 Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Update [1000540] $13,498 20 WRRF California Resiliency Challenge [1000169] $10,000 21 Fleet Replacement: CDD [1000518] $6,284
22 New Bicycle Facilities [99615] $5,437
23 WTP Chemical System Maintenance [91731] $2,341
24 Infrastructure Renewal [91736] $1,228
25 Corporation Yard Fuel Island Siding [91632] $146
26 Laguna Lake Dredging [99110] $0
27 WTP Ozone System Maintenance [91730] $0
28 Pedestrian Crosswalk Beacon on Ramona [1000161] $0
29 Pavement Area 6 and 7 Curb Ramps [1000558] $0
30 Madonna Road Bike Path Landscaping Design [1000567] $0 31 Anholm Neighborhood Greenway Plan - Phase 1 [91619] $0 32 Urban Forest: Operating [91527] $0
*These are projects that are complete and pending close; however,there may besome final payments or minor work that still needs to occur, which explains some of the remaining balance.

Table 56- Project Balances - Construction
Table 57 - Project Balances - Ready to Construct
Ref # Construction Carryover Balance
1 Project & Totals $ 18,960,758
2 WRRF Facility Upgrade [91219] $ 10,415,588
3 Calle Joaquin Sewer Lift Station and Siphon Replacement [91118] $ 2,160,133 4 Whale Rock Major Maintenance [91335] $ 1,210,046
5 Anholm Neighborhood Greenway - Phase 2 [1000036] $ 1,199,812 6 Public Safety Power Shutoffs - Emergency Power [1000126] $ 934,515 7 North Broad Street Neighborhood Park [91683] $ 725,283 8 Transit Facility EV Charging Infrastructure [1000535] $ 630,214 9 Bus Yard Parking Lot Maintenance [1000102] $ 500,000
10 Buckley Sewer Lift Station [1000083] $ 377,234
11 2023 Streets Reconstruction & Resurfacing - Arterials $ 218,341 12 2022 Street Reconstruction and Resurfacing [90346] $ 198,509 13 Water TTHM Byproduct Reduction Project [1000044] $ 164,589 14 San Luis Creek Bank Stabilization near Pismo, Johnson [1000035] $ 142,609 15 Parking Enforcement Equipment at Gate Entry [1000525] $ 83,181 16 WTP Energy Efficiency [91566] $ 705
Ref # Ready to Construct Carryover Balance
1 Project & Totals $ 13,813,111.40
2 1106-1120 Walnut Street Real Property Acquisition [1000577] $ 5,768,778.00 3 Cultural Arts District Parking Structure [90435] $ 4,927,305.06 4 Parking Structure Maintenance [1000049] $ 3,090,260.53 5 Whale Rock Auto Control Valves [91718] $ 26,767.81

Table 58 - Project Balances - Ongoing
Ref # Ongoing Carryover Balance
1 Project & Totals $ 14,724,937
2 Open Space Acquisition [99837] $ 2,929,604
3 Development Agreements [1000056] $ 1,652,750
4 Major Facilities Maintenance [1000075] $ 1,234,489
5 Parks Major Maintenance [91385] $ 1,022,262
6 Fleet Replacement: Public Works [1000520] $ 982,548
7 Public Safety IT Replacements [1000074] $ 976,380
8 WRRF Major Equipment Maintenance [1000077] $ 536,496
9 Whale Rock Pipe Assessment and Repairs [91617] $ 524,950 10 Fleet Replacement: Police [1000553] $ 438,698
11 Fleet Replacement: Fire [1000554] $ 436,996
12 Sidewalk Maintenance [90849] $ 323,216
13 Public Art Installation [1000510] $ 322,822
14 WTP Major Equipment Maintenance [99653] $ 250,205
15 Parking Lot Maintenance [1000031] $ 246,713
16 Neighborhood Traffic Improvements [91612] $ 227,976
17 Downtown Safety Enhancements [1000511] $ 218,278
18 Fleet Replacement: Utilities [1000521] $ 206,977
19 WTP Major Facility Maintenance [1000542] $ 198,390
20 Public Art Maintenance [1000503] $ 195,609
21 Traffic Safety Report Improvements [91607] $ 157,783 22 WRRF Asset Maintenance Management [1000077] $ 149,946 23 Playground Equipment Replacement [1000033] $ 149,190 24 Water Distribution Point Repairs [1000065] $ 147,574 25 Open Space Maintenance [91397] $ 128,488
26 Network IT Replacements [1000074] $ 128,014
27 Silt Removal [1000198] $ 115,882
28 Fleet Replacements - Citywide [1000047] $ 113,075
29 Fleet Replacement: Parks and Recreation [1000519] $ 88,500 30 Urban Forest Maintenance [1000027] $ 87,974
31 Banner Arms, Bench Rests, Signs [1000157] $ 85,460
32 Water Distribution Meters and Boxes [1000062] $ 66,637 33 Traffic Model Update [90949] $ 60,621
34 Street Lights [91616] $ 56,425
35 Vision Zero Program Implementation [1000073] $ 47,147 36 Sewer Lift Station Repairs [91628] $ 34,401
37 Sewer Utility Trench Repair [91740] $ 30,021
38 Utilities IT Replacements [1000074] $ 27,540
39 Traffic Signs and Striping Maintenance [90943] $ 25,700 40 Water Distribution Utility Trench Repair [91147] $ 25,031 41 LOVR Interchange Offsite Mitigation Agreement [1000182] $ 15,924 42 Enterprise IT Replacements [1000074] $ 14,168
43 Bridge Maintenance [1000029] $ 13,432
44 Fleet Services Vehicle Lift [1000181] $ 9,283
45 LAN Tablet System [91717] $ 8,092
46 Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway [1000032] $ 5,775
47 Wastewater Collections System - Point Repairs [1000527] $ 5,417 48 Major Facility Replacements [1000522] $ 5,293
49 Water Distribution Fire Hydrants [1000063] $ 2,562
50 Active Transportation Plan Implementation [1000502] $ 2,530 51 Sewer Maintenance Hole Cover Adjustments [1000084] $ 800 52 City Facility Energy Infrastructure Plan [1000507] $ 0 53 Storm Drains [90742] $ 0

Table 59 - Project Balances - Project Design
Ref # Project Design Carryover Balance
1 Project & Totals $ 33,199,885
2 Prado Road Bridge Widening [91252] $ 5,016,074
3 Development Related Parks Improvements [1000057] $ 4,866,599 4 Prado Road Interchange [91613] $ 2,783,734
5 Water Storage Tank Maintenance [1000034] $ 2,574,748
6 Emerson Park Amenity Upgrades and Beautification [1000514] $ 2,435,159 7 Foothill Sewer Lift Station Replacement [91224] $ 2,338,958 8 Airport Sewer Lift Station Replacement [91369] $ 1,965,918 9 Waterline Replacements : California Ave - Stafford to Mill [1000545] $ 1,715,976 10 Prado Road Extension Reimbursement [1000195] $ 1,698,184 11 Groundwater Well Development Program [91506] $ 1,142,579 12 Parking Pay Station Installation [1000574] $ 988,000 13 Mission Plaza Restroom Improvements [91439] $ 933,981 14 Higuera Widening at 50 Higuera [91294] $ 768,115
15 Broadband Plan $ 562,650
16 WRRF And Wastewater Collection Shop [1000550] $ 426,946 17 California & Foothill Railroad Crossing Upgrade [91293] $ 313,911 18 SGMA GSP (Groundwater Basin Management) [1000150] $ 295,352 19 Parks and Rec General Plan Implementation [1000526] $ 284,393 20 Higuera Street Widening to Elks [91610] $ 282,953
21 Sewer Replacement: Chorro & Murray [91639] $ 258,827 22 KVEC Tower [1000113] $ 257,589
23 Verde, Luneta, Ramona Wastewater collections System Improvements [1000091] $ 254,775 24 Electric Vehicle Charging Station at Various Facilities [1000513] $ 232,482 25 Mitchell Park Picketball Courts [1000188] $ 196,254
26 California Taft Roundabout [91503] $ 143,384
27 Reservoir No 2 Replacement [91368] $ 111,991
28 Transportation Impact Fee Program Update [1000165] $ 100,000 29 Multisite Energy Management [91574] $ 71,870
30 Mission Plaza Maintenance Improvements [1000562] $ 62,954 31 Mid-Higuera Bypass [90649] $ 44,900
32 Public Safety Center [91365] $ 35,377
33 Railroad Safety Trail Implementation [1000502] $ 25,000 34 City Hall Landing Repair [91532] $ 8,580
35 South Street Median Landscaping [1000037] $ 852
36 Transit Yard Solar [1000144] $ 817
37 Johnson - Iris to Bishop Pipeline Replacement [1000578] $ 2

Table 60 - Project Balances - Project Identification & Budgeting Funding Source Expenditure Summary
The Capital Improvement Program is supported by a variety of funding sources including the Local Revenue Measure, special funds, enterprise funds, grants, and more traditional government funds. Each fund or funding source serves different purposes, and, at times, comes with limitations and restrictions for eligible uses or expenses. Like the Project Carryover Balances section above, the table below outlines similar information but presented by funding source. As highlighted, the use of the Local Revenue Measure is a primary revenue source in supporting the delivery of capital projects.

Ref # Project Identification & Budgeting Carryover Balance 1 Project & Totals $ 16,462,548
2 Fleet Replacement: Transit 6 Gillig buses [1000505] $ 6,632,843 3 Islay, Henry, Sierra Way Wastewater Collections System Improvements [1000539] $ 1,830,535 4 Morro, Mill, Santa Rosa Wastewater Collections Systems Improvements [1000561] $ 1,515,285 5 Bob Jones Trail and RRST Solar Lighting [1000501] $ 1,449,941 6 Recycled Water Broad Street - Tank Farm to Aerovista [1000528] $ 1,061,031 7 City Facility Enhancements [1000575] $ 773,070
8 Fleet Replacement Transit -Protera/New Flyer Buses [1000058] $ 458,253 9 Bus Wash Replacement [1000053] $ 450,000
10 WRRF Safety Perimeter Fencing $ 347,500
11 Recycled Water Tank [1000530] $ 340,249
12 City Security Project [1000152] $ 282,527
13 Downtown Zig-Zag Lighting [1000512] $ 250,000
14 Whale Rock Intake Valve Replacement [1000176] $ 200,000 15 Recycled Water Systems Retrofits [1000573] $ 172,647 16 Buchon & Santa Rosa Intersection Improvements [1000052] $ 150,000 17 Sewer Inflow and Infiltration Reduction [91739] $ 131,915 18 Fire Station 3&4 Remodel Space Study and Design [1000516] $ 100,000 19 WRRF Power Cogeneration Upgrade [1000551] $ 100,000
20 Transit Supervisor ADA EV Van [1000536] $ 70,000
21 Golf Course Pro Shop Flood Damage Repairs [1000568] $ 50,181 22 Laguna Lake Golf Course Irrigation System Maintenance [1000030] $ 31,570 23 Taft, Hathaway, Phillips, Buena Vista, Loomis Wastewaster Collections System Improvements [1000570] $ 25,000 24 San Jose, Ramona, Monte Vista, California Wastewaster Collections System Improvements [1000571] $ 25,000 25 Transit Vault Room Addition Design Study [1000538] $ 15,000

Table 61 - Project Carryover by Funding Source
Use of Capital Reserve
In recent months, the City has worked to navigate unique economic conditions, including cost escalation and supply chain delays, which have impacted the City’s ability to deliver capital projects within budget and schedule. While the CIP budget has tripled due to the voters’ passage of Measure G20 (the City’s local sales tax measure), the increased revenues have proven invaluable for adapting to variable market conditions in recent years.

As a result, the City has established a Capital Projects Reserve Fund37 to account for unanticipated needs, project cost increases, or an urgent need (an emergency repair, for example). Per City Policy, a goal has been established that the amount of reserve fund equates to 20% of the LRM portion of the programmed CIP. This results in an approximate reserve of $4 million, which is set aside with a given budget cycle. The table below presents the use of the CIP Reserve during FY 2022-23.

Table 62 - Capital Reserve Balance

37 The City will maintain a committed reserve of 20% of capital improvement plan budget from the Local Revenue Measure for the purposes of offsetting unanticipated cost increases, unforeseen conditions, and urgent unanticipated projects to provide continued investment in infrastructure maintenance and enhancement. Use and allocations of funds from the Capital Projects Reserve Fund will be made to Capital Projects including Major Facility Replacement upon Council approval as necessary during any fiscal year.

Fund Source Carryover Balance
Local Revenue Measure $ 15,996,708
Capital Outlay $ 14,757,134
Grants $ 11,322,644
Parking Fund $ 9,254,332
Transit Fund $ 1,707,212
Water Fund $ 9,797,597
Sewer Fund $ 23,307,620
Whale Rock Fund $ 1,980,609
Impact Fee Funds $ 12,385,854
Total $ 100,509,709
Ref # Project Amount
1 Balance as of July 1, 2022 $ 4,008,708
2 Cerro San Luis Neighborhood Greenway $ (1,000,000)
3 Cheng Park Revitalization Project $ (200,000)
4 City Hall Meeting Room Tenant Improvements $ (160,000) 5 Fire Station 1 Roof Replacement $ (350,000)
6 Railroad Safety Trail $ (380,000)
7 SLO Creek Bank Repair Project $ (1,500,000)
8 North Broad Street Neighborhood Park $ (200,000)
9 North Chorro Neighborhood Greenway (Previously Cerro San Luis Neighborhood Greenway) $ (218,708)
10 Ending Balance $ -
11 12 Balance as of July 1, 2023 $ 4,000,000

Strategy
Major City Goal Update
The table below shows the Major City Goal tasks that were scheduled to be completed in the fourth quarter. In total, 17 tasks were completed. Because the 2023‐25 Major City Goals are the same, many of these efforts are ongoing and included in the 2023‐25 Financial Plan.

On track Problems emerged with no solution yet
Task delayed or potential setbacks with workable solutions Task
Status
Completion
Date
Updated
Completion
Date
Comments(if applicable)
Economic Recovery, Resiliency & Fiscal Sustainability

1.1 h. Update the City's Economic Development Strategic plan FY23 Q4 Complete

1.1 i.Review the Economic Development programstructure based on the outcome of the EDSP update. FY23 Q4 Complete
New structure approved in 2023‐25 Financial Flan. Changes to be implemented FY 2023‐24 Q2

1.1 c. Evaluate and potentially establish a City Leadership/Chamber of Commerce / Minority Business Owners’ roundtable. FY23 Q4 Complete Reviewed the valueand feasibility with potential partners and determined there were much higher priority initiatives.

1.1 d. Research, explore and potentially utilize innovative practices such as micro‐loans, targeted‐sector recruiting and promotion, City facilitated lending, grants, private support and crowdfunding to support businesses owned by or serving
underserved/underrepresented communities. The City will also leverage its partner network, including the Chamber, Downtown SLO, REACH and others to support the DEI initiatives as they relateto economic development including creation,retention and attraction efforts.

FY23 Q4 Complete

1.2 b‐4. Improve efficiency and transparency in the permitting process through implementation of paperless permitting, performance management reporting, and enhanced customer transparency tools.

FY23 Q4 Ongoing Carried over into 2023‐25 Major City Goals.

1.4 d‐8. Expansion to gateless parking structure to improvethe customer access and experience when visiting downtown. FY23 Q4 Ongoing 842 Palmhas been transitioned.Work effort to integrate Park Local Programcontinues.Marsh and 919 Palmto followonce
CIP staff are assigned.

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion

2.1 i.Consultant‐ DEI SME ‐ 360 total hours FY23 Q4 Complete

2.2 c. Present comprehensive plan to City Council for Adoption FY23 Q4 FY24 Q3
DEI Strategic Plan under development to be presented to Council in FY 2023‐24 Q3.

Strategy
Task
Status
Completion
Date
Updated
Completion
Date
Comments(if applicable)

2.2 a.Conduct needs, priority, and resource assessments. Create comprehensive DEI initiatives and programming for the
organization and community.

FY23 Q4 Ongoing
Ongoing effort to address City needs and impactin the
community.

2.2 d. Create project designs and implementation plans. Identify applicable qualitative and quantitativemetrics to measure impact of DEI projects and overall DEI program
FY23 Q4 Ongoing
Completed development of performanceoutcome measures,
which continue to be ongoing efforts to determine success and address needs.

2.4 j.Complete a planning study for gender‐inclusive restroomand sleeping facilities for FireStations 3 and 4. Proceed with design work pending results ofstudy.

FY23 Q4 FY26 Q3
Design work is underway for the FireStation 3 &4 dorm
remodel. The estimated completion date of the project
construction is FY 2025‐26 Q3.

2.7 e. Support feasibility study for Multicultural Center; provideCity liaison/staffsupport FY23 Q4 Complete Use of funding to execute a Multicultural Programmingcontractwith Cal Poly.

2.7 f. Contribute to planning /feasibility study FY23 Q4 Complete Use of funding to execute a Multicultural Programming contractwith Cal Poly.

2.7 j.Community Academy – second stage, longer program. Partner with Chamber, others. Test demand, develop. FY23 Q4 Complete

2.7 k. Develop “Undocu‐Friendly” logo for City documents, as allowableby law(costof internal resources) FY23 Q4 Complete

2.9 c.Establish a City Leadership/Chamber of Commerce / Minority Business Owners’ roundtable. FY23 Q4 Complete
Reviewed the valueand feasibility with potential partners and determined there were much higher priority initiatives.

2.9 d. Research, explore and potentially utilize innovative practices such as micro‐loans, targeted‐sector recruiting and promotion, City‐facilitated lending, grants, privatesupport and crowdfunding to support underserved/underrepresented communities.

Leverage City's partner network, including the Chamber, Downtown SLO, REACH and others to support the DEI initiatives as they relate to economic development including creation, retention and attraction efforts.

FY23 Q4 Complete
Housing and Homelessness

3.1 e. Subdivision Regulations Update (HE 6.20) Complete Climate Action, Open Space and Sustainable Transportation

4.3 m. Complete installation of adopted trail systems atthe Waddell Ranch addition to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve.

FY23 Q4 Ongoing
The coretrail network through Waddell Ranch is complete.

Additional trails will also be installed during the 2023‐25 Financial Plan and thereafter.

Strategy
Task
Status
Completion
Date
Updated
Completion
Date
Comments(if applicable)

4.3 b. Complete an Urban Forest Master Plan including a comprehensive update of tree inventory update, assessment of tree canopy coverage, and implementation of an ongoing tracking system, as called for by CAP Natural Solutions task 2.1.

FY23 Q4 Complete

4.3 j.Create the Righetti Hill Open SpaceConservation Plan in order to guidethe long‐term protection and appropriate publicuseof this new City Open Spaceproperty.

FY23 Q4 Complete

4.3 k. Implement priority projects atRighetti HillOpen Space consistent with the Conservation Plan.

FY23 Q4 Complete
Conservation Plan was adopted in Juneof 2023 and priority projects are now in process (initial summit trail and lower loop trail).

4.3 l.Complete installation of adopted trail systems and establish regular Ranger Service patrol at Miossi Open Space.

FY23 Q4 Complete
The coretrail network through Miossi Open Spaceis
complete, including the connection to Poly Canyon.

Additional trails will also beinstalled in 2023‐25and
thereafter.

4.3 h. Update the existing South Hills Natural ReserveConservation Plan (2007), including a contemporary natural resources inventory, mapping, policy review, and identification of land stewardship needs and priorities.

FY23 Q4 Not Complete
The existing conservation plan is sufficient to achieve conservation objectives as itincludes therecent addition of 71 acres that were dedicated from Tract 2428.

4.4 b. Prepare a Mobility as a Service Study to guide potential implementation of programs and software tools to create an integrated platformlinking accessto transit,futurebikeshare and ridesharing services, as called for in CAP Connected Communities task 1.2.

FY23 Q4 FY24 Q1
The study has been included in theTransitInnovation Study (4.4.c).

4.4 c. Prepare a Transit Innovation Study to provide a blueprint to guidethe transition to increased servicefrequency, electrification and feasibility of no‐fare servicefor students, seniors, and others as called for in CAP Connected Communities tasks 4.2, 4.3, and

4.4. FY23 Q4 FY24 Q1
The study is planned to be presented to Council in November of 2023.

Strategy
Task
Status
Completion
Date
Updated
Completion
Date
Comments(if applicable)

4.4 x. Development Agreements: Fund the City's share of costs associated with public infrastructure to beconstructed by private development projects per reimbursement agreements for the following projects:
‐ Avila Ranch ‐‐ City shareof Buckley Road Extension Class I Path ‐ 600 Tank Farm ‐‐ City shareof Tank Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout, Santa Fe Road Extension, and Design & Right‐of‐Way for Tank Farm Class I Path
FY23 Q4 FY26 Q1
City shareof Avila Ranch (Buckley Extension Class I Path) and initial share of 600 Tank Farm (Tank Farm/Santa Fe
Roundabout; Tank Farm Class I Path Design) fully funded based on initial cost estimates. However, additional funding appropriations will be needed for fully fund City's share of Tank Farm/Santa Fe Roundabout due to increased costs
identified through final design. This additional appropriation is planned for FY25‐27.

4.4 j. Complete construction of the California/Taft Roundabout, reducing congestion and auto emissions and improving access and safety for bicycles, pedestrians and drivers.

FY23 Q4 FY26 Q4
Final design and right‐of‐way phases funded and in progress.

Construction funding notprogrammed until 2025‐27 Financial Plan.

4.5 d. Replace or repair Open Space fencing that is currently in disrepair at Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve, Irish Hills Natural Reserve, Bowden Ranch Open Space, and the Bob Jones Trail. (Includes existing Creek and Flood Protection Staffing resources) FY23 Q4 Complete

4.5 f. Conduct a microgrid feasibility assessment to identify City properties that could add solar, battery storage, and controls to allow operation during times of electrical grid outages as an uninterruptable power supply.

FY23 Q4 Complete

R _____
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2023 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, TO DELEGATE APPROPRIATION AUTHORITY

TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE
MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1989 (AB939) AND SENATE BILL 1383 FEES WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 2023-25 Financial Plan on June 6, 2023, which established comprehensive financial and policy guidelines for Fiscal Years 2023- 24 and 2024-25; and
WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) and Senate Bill 1383 (SB1383) Short-Lived Climate Pollutants state that any AB939/SB1383 fees collected from the solid waste franchised hauler must be used exclusively to pay for state-mandated activities that reduce the amount of waste sent to the landfill (waste diversion); and
WHEREAS, the 2023-25 Financial Plan includes the Fund Balance & Reserve Policy, which delegates authority to the City Manager to transfer assigned fund balance into unassigned fund balance, such as between designation accounts, but does not delegate authority to the City Manager to appropriate the unassigned fund balance; and WHEREAS, the Solid Waste and Recycling Program is a General Fund program, but is funded by AB939/SB1383 fees; and
WHEREAS, a designation account was created to maintain proper accounting and monitoring of unspent AB939/SB1383 fees; and
WHEREAS, the State of California’s aggressive waste diversion goals of 75 percent organic waste diversion by 2025 and increased regulatory scrutiny make waste diversion activities difficult to predictably budget as part of the City’s usual budgetary practices; and
WHEREAS, necessary projects generated from unfunded mandates can be unexpected and urgent so City Manager approvals for use from the designation account allow timeliness of performing these unanticipated waste diversion tasks.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 2
R _____

1. That the above recitals are true and correct.

2. The City Manager is delegated authority to appropriate AB939/SB1383 fees from the undesignated fund balance, after transferring from the assigned fund balance, compliant with the Fund Balance & Reserve Policy and corresponding legislation.

3. That the Director of Finance shall take all necessary steps to implement these actions as soon as practical
Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 2023. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
______________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: October 3, 2023
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Michael Loew, Deputy Director/ Chief Building Official
John Mezzapesa, Code Enforcement Supervisor
VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM 8a - STUDY SESSION: CODE ENFORCEMENT UPDATE Staff received the following questions regarding the Code Enforcement Update, Item 8a.

The questions are below, with staff’s responses shown in italics:

1. How many code enforcement positions do our neighboring jurisdictions have? (Pismo, Paso, AG, etc?)
Paso Robles – No designated Code Enforcement Officers. A combination of Community Services Officers in the Police Department and Building Inspectors under Community Development respond to complaints.

Atascadero – One (1) full-time Code Enforcement Officer under the Police Department.

Morro Bay – One (1) part-time Code Enforcement Officer and one (1) fulltime Code Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector.

Pismo Beach – One (1) full-time Code Enforcement Officer under Community Development.

Grover Beach – One (1) full-time Code Compliance Officer under Community Development.

Arroyo Grande – One (1) full-time Community Services Specialist under Community Development.

2. On the tables on Page 143 and 167, can you clarify: 1) what the priority is for shopping carts, polystyrene, straws? And 2) who is responsible for shopping cart enforcement?
Shopping Carts – Priority 4 (72-hour response)
Polystyrene – Priority 4 (72-hour response)
Single Use Plastic Straws – Priority 4 (72-hour response) Code Enforcement Technicians are responsible for responding to reported abandoned shopping carts. When the complaint comes in, the business that owns the cart is notified through an automatic email. Code Enforcement Technicians are responsible for checking whether the correct business was notified (field

Item 8a. Code Enforcement Study Session Page 2
verification is often required), and whether the cart has remained three days after notification. If it remains, Public Works staff is notified to remove the cart. If a cart is removed by Public Works three times within a designated six-month period (Jan 1 thru June 30, or July 1 thru Dec. 31), then technicians will issue a citation for repeated violations.

3. It looks like CETs have almost the same level of responsibility for enforcement, but of different areas, than the CEOs from the table on 167. Is that true?
This is true. The enforcement procedures (issuance of violation notices, citations etc.) are the same for both CET and CEO positions.

CET and CEO positions differ in their level of experience, competence, and training provided to handle high-level code enforcement issues. CETs would only perform inspections from the public right of way and are not expected to enter onto private property to perform inspections, as they have less experience surrounding rights of entry and Fourth Amendment protections.

4. How many safe housing citations or notifications of violation have we given in the last few years? How much money (in revenue) has that equated to? (table on Page 161)
A manual work effort to individually sift through citations is required to determine the number of issued citations directly related to Safe Housing violations. The current software that staff uses does not allow for easy reporting on invoices by case type, such as what is being requested.

In general, when violations are identified as part of a safe housing situation, especially considering the complex landlord/tenant relationship, officers have placed an emphasis on gaining voluntary compliance by working closely with tenants and property owners in an effort to avoid the issuing of citations.

5. On page 150, I don’t see a notation for safe housing complaints. Are those included with one of the other categories?
Safe Housing Complaints are encompassed across the following categories shown on Figure 2.2 on page 150:
 Health & Safety Violations
 Unpermitted Construction (Completed)
 Substandard Rental Housing (Tenant Occupied)
 Substandard Housing (Owner Occupied)
 Unsafe Occupancy
Not all complaints within these categories will be considered “Safe Housing Complaints.” The number of “Safe Housing Complaints” have been isolated and reported in Section 3.2 of the report. Figure 3.1 depicts the number of Safe Housing related complaints and code enforcement cases for the past year.

Item 8a. Code Enforcement Study Session Page 3

6. I think you said, in relation to the table on page 152 that the number of total non-COVID code enforcement complaints has gone up in the last few years, but the number of neighborhood services complaints has gone down. Can you explain this and do neighborhood services complaints include safe housing? (I don’t think so, but just want to make sure I am understanding correctly.)
Neighborhood Services Complaints generally do not include safe housing issues.

The number of complaints or reported violations are shown in Figure 2.1 on page 149. Complaints only result in code enforcement cases after an officer determines the existence of a violation through an investigation. Overall, investigation requests for Fiscal year 2022-23 have increased by approximately 82% when compared to the average number of requests (excluding COVID related issues) for the previous six fiscal years. Factors for the increase in requests may be related to the implementation of the city’s new Resident Inquiry System (AskSLO), less proactive enforcement activities due to staff vacancies, and creation of the new Shopping Cart ordinance.

The table (Figure 2.4) on page 152 depicts the number of cases opened (or confirmed violations) over the past seven fiscal years. The data in Figure 2.4 shows a relatively comparable number of non-neighborhood services cases (“NSS” or Code Cases) opened and a drop in the number of neighborhood services cases for both proactive and reported violations. The decrease in NSS cases is related to the lack of available Code Enforcement Technicians to provide proactive enforcement and, in an effort to maintain a high level of service, the remaining Code Enforcement Officers worked to resolve NSS requests in the field.

7. How many units were inspected as part of the previous Rental Housing Inspection Program and what issues were identified?
Staff presented a report to Council on the program during the February 2017 Special Council Meeting. An attachment to that report contains information about properties that were inspected and can be found here:
http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=63043&dbid=0&repo=CityC lerk

8. Staff update and clarification for data in Figure 2.2 of the Council Agenda Report:

The numbers on this table do not match figure 2.2 on page 150 of the agenda report, as staff realized that requests received prior to the implementation of AskSLO in October of 2022 were not included in the data. This table has been updated to include all requests for the last fiscal year:

Item 8a. Code Enforcement Study Session Page 4

Item 8a
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4006
For Agenda of: 10/3/2023
Placement: Study Session
Estimated Time: 90 minutes
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Michael Loew, Deputy Director/Chief Building Official John Mezzapesa, Code Enforcement Supervisor
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: CODE ENFORCEMENT UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive a presentation on the current state of Code Enforcement; and

2. Provide comments and direction to staff.

POLICY CONTEXT
The Code Enforcement Division of the Community Development Department is charged with promoting health and safety in neighborhoods and increasing awareness and information about city policies and codes. Code enforcement staff investigates potential building and zoning code violations and works with property owners to gain compliance when a violation is identified. The Community Development Director is granted authority to make decisions and interpretations regarding health and safety violations and interpreting applications of the code in violations cited by Code Enforcement Officials (SLOMC 1.24). This authority is often delegated to the Deputy Director/Chief Building Official to carry out such relevant duties.

The Chief Building Official is granted authority to excise the powers authorized by Section 836.5(a) of the California Penal Code, which includes issuing citations for violations of the provisions of the municipal code (Title 1.16.060). The Chief Building Official is also the “code official” for the city and the “authority having jurisdiction,” as used in the City’s adopted codes, in making determinations regarding compliance with those codes. (Title

15.04.010).

REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The California Association of Code Enforcement Officers (CACEO) defines Code Enforcement as “the prevention, detection, investigation, and enforcement of violations of statutes or ordinances regulating public health, safety, and welfare, public works, business activities and consumer protection, building standards, land-use, or municipal affairs.” Recently, code enforcement related issues, especially those relating to safe housing, have been raised by members of the community and Councilmembers during City Council meetings.

Item 8a
This report provides an overview of the role that Code Enforcement plays within the City of San Luis Obispo community, discusses the intersection of Code Enforcement and safe housing, and requests feedback from the community and City Council.

Contents of Report:

Part 1: Introduction to Code Enforcement

1.1 History of Code Enforcement in the City of San Luis Obispo

1.2 Current State of Code Enforcement

1.3 Roles and Responsibilities
Part 2: “Into the Weeds”

2.1 Investigation Requests and Case Assignment

2.2 Current and Past workload

2.3 Administrative Citation Process
Part 3: Safe Housing

3.1 History of Rental Housing Inspection Program (RHIP)

3.2 Current approach to Safe Housing
Part 4: Council Focus Questions
Several acronyms are used throughout this report in reference to positions within the division and other program related items. The following glossary helps to define these acronyms:

CACEO California Association of Code Enforcement Officers ZIC Zoning Investigations Coordinator
NSM Neighborhood Services Manager
CEC Code Enforcement Coordinator
CEO Code Enforcement Officer
NSS Neighborhood Services Specialist
CES Code Enforcement Supervisor
CEAA Code Enforcement Administrative Assistant
CET I Code Enforcement Technician I (synonymous with NSS) CET II Code Enforcement Technician II (synonymous with Safe Housing Specialist) NEO Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance
SCEO Stormwater Code Enforcement Officer

DISCUSSION
Part 1: Introduction to Code Enforcement
CACEO defines a Code Enforcement Officer as “a sworn or non-sworn inspector, officer or investigator, employed by a city, or county, or city and county, who possesses specialized training in, and whose primary duties are the prevention, detection, investigation, and enforcement of violations of laws regulating public nuisance, public health, safety, and welfare, public works, business activities, and consumer protection, building standards, land-use, or municipal affairs." This broad definition outlines the various duties that Code Enforcement Officers are tasked with across the state of California.

Item 8a
Code enforcement responsibilities are often divided amongst various specialized roles in jurisdictions throughout the country, which may vary depending on the issues that are common in each community. Examples of this include building inspectors enforcing “work without permits” violations, rental inspectors enforcing “substandard housing” violations, public works inspectors enforcing right-of-way encroachments, and environmental compliance inspectors enforcing creek violations. In the City of San Luis Obispo, code enforcement officers are tasked with maintaining the health and safety of neighborhoods in general and are also responsible for addressing specific types of violations that have been identified as being of interest to the community. With the exception of the Stormwater Code Enforcement Officer, the Code Enforcement team is made up of generalists who have been assigned the responsibility of enforcing municipal code violations, such as the ones listed above, with consultation from technical specialists when necessary.

1.1 History of Code Enforcement in the City of San Luis Obispo The organization, size, and duties of the Code Enforcement Division in the City of San Luis Obispo have changed over the past several decades, as the needs and priorities of the community have changed. Since 2015, over thirteen separate regulations and ordinances have been enacted or assumed via Service Level Agreements, that have elements which Code Enforcement staff is responsible for enforcing. Examples of regulations adopted by ordinance that Code Enforcement staff enforce include:
 Regulation of activities within creek and riparian areas  Smoking in certain areas
 Offensive odors
 Regulation of use of expanded polystyrene containers for prepared foods by food provider
 Regulation of single-use plastic water bottles on city property  Single-use straws
 Enforcement of abandoned shopping carts
 Review and approval of Abandoned Shopping Cart Prevention and Retrieval Plans
 Cannabis regulations (Personal cultivation)
 Regulation of cannabis establishments
 Graffiti abatement
Additionally, the Community Development Department has entered into a Service Level Agreement with Public Works to respond to and notify residents regarding tree/shrub growth and basketball hoops or other encroachments in the public right of way.

Since 2016, following the implementation and repeal of the Rental Inspection program, the Code Enforcement Division's organizational structure has changed several times to fit the needs of the Building & Safety Division and Community Development Department.

Intermittent vacancies and the introduction of new regulations which require code enforcement oversight for general compliance, required existing staff to fill gaps in enforcement as they developed.

Item 8a
Attachment A depicts a brief overview of the changes in staffing levels, job duties assigned to code enforcement officers, and the population change of the City over a span of 46 years. This attachment illustrates that, during this time, staffing has ranged from one code enforcement staff member to a peak of eight staff members (each position is represented by a circular graphic). The largest drop in the number of positions within Code Enforcement occurred when the Rental Housing Inspection Program was repealed in 2017. Currently, the team is comprised of six staff members, as described in more detail in this report.

1.2 Current State of Code Enforcement
Currently, the City of San Luis Obispo has one Code Enforcement Supervisor overseeing two Code Enforcement Officers, one Stormwater Code Enforcement Officer, and two Code Enforcement Technicians. The team currently resides in the Community Development Department, within the Building and Safety Division, and the Code Enforcement Supervisor reports to the Chief Building Official. The current organizational structure for the Code Enforcement team is included below as Figure 1.2.

The Code Enforcement Supervisor is tasked with developing and maintaining the programs associated with the code enforcement division as well as providing the necessary guidance, tools, and knowledge for the Code Enforcement Officers to implement the programs. The supervisor plays a direct supervisory role to ensure compliance with applicable regulations, procedures, and policies at the local level, as well as at the state and national levels where adopted by the Municipal Code (e.g., Section

12.23.030 which makes violations of various state codes a violation of the City’s creek regulations).

City of San Luis Obispo Code Enforcement Officers are non-sworn personnel who are responsible for investigating reports of potential violations relating to regulation of building, zoning, health & safety, neighborhood enhancement, and other miscellaneous standards. Potential violations are reported to the City by community members, and all reported violations are investigated (this process is explained in more detail in Part 2 of this report). Code Enforcement Officers are often involved in complex situations involving health, safety, and public nuisance in which they must navigate gaining compliance by utilizing the lowest level of enforcement required. In an effort to provide fair and equitable solutions, the personal and financial situations of property owners, business owners, and residents can play a role in decision making. The navigation of these aspects requires Code Enforcement Officers to have a high level of emotional intelligence, effective communication, and conflict-resolution skills.

The Stormwater Code Enforcement Officer position was created in 2021 in response to deficiencies noted in the City’s Stormwater inspection program related to active construction sites. This position is currently a full-time contract position that was added to the Building and Safety Division at the beginning of the FY21-23 financial plan. While this duty was originally assigned to the Building Inspection team and primarily focused on enforcing Best Management Practices (BMP) on active construction sites, the position is now part of the Code Enforcement team so that the citation process can be utilized to ensure compliance.

Item 8a
Unlike Code Enforcement Officers, who focus on reported violations, Code Enforcement Technicians proactively identify municipal code violations that can be seen from the public right of way. These positions also provide timely responses to minor complaints, and all reported abandoned shopping carts throughout the city. Additionally, the Code Enforcement Technician II position focuses on developing and implementing a Safe Housing Education and Outreach program. This position provides eviction prevention education consistent with the 2021-23 and 2023-25 Homelessness Major City Goal. This includes providing outreach to tenants and landlords and responding to all complaints regarding rental properties. The CET II position is tasked with using enforcement methods other than violation notices and citations, such as extended timelines for compliance, providing educational material, offering more accessible paths to obtain corrective building permits, and other methods to promote a cooperative approach with property owners to gain compliance.

The size of Code Enforcement Divisions throughout the State of California varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some studies have been done that calculate the average number of code enforcement officers per resident within communities. In 2019, a study conducted by the California County Planning Director’s Association (Attachment B) found that the average staffing level was 0.7 Code Enforcement Officers per 10,000 residents in unincorporated parts of California.

Item 8a
A similar survey was conducted by a member of CACEO in 2021 (the findings for which are displayed in Figure 1.3 below). The survey revealed an average of 0.5 Code Enforcement professionals per 10,000 residents amongst jurisdictions that participated in the survey.

Figure 1.3
Jurisdiction Staff Population Staff per
10,000
Amador county 1 CEO 40,446 0.02
City of Pittsburg 3 CEOs, 1 Intern 71,422 0.56
City of Monrovia 4 CEOs, 1 Manager 40,000 0.13
Simi Valley 4 CEOs, 1 Sr CEO, 1 CET, 1 Manager 130,000 + 0.54 City of Kerman 2 Code Compliance Officers 55,000 0.36
Ventura County 1 Director, 3 Sr CEOs, 7 CEOs, 2 CETs 324,000 0.40 City of El Cerrito 1 CEO 25,000 0.40
City of East Palo Alto 3 CEOs 30,000 1.00
Sutter County 2 CEOs 96,807 0.21
City of Goleta 2 CEOs, 1 PT admin 32,690 0.76
City of Tracy 4 CEOs, 2 Parking Intern 95,000 0.63
Healdsburg 1 PT CEO 12,000 0.83
City of Covina 2 CEOs, 1 PT CEO, 1 Volunteer, .25 Analyst 48,000 0.57 The City of SLO has roughly 1.24 employees in the Code Enforcement Division per 10,000 residents when fully staffed; however, the division has consistently had at least one vacancy across three positions over the last two years. While the allocation of Code Enforcement positions in the City is greater than the average, it should be noted that there are several factors in the City that require more code enforcement resources than another city of a similar size, including: a significant renter and student population, a number of specialized enforcement programs (such as creek area regulations, Styrofoam, straws, shopping cart enforcement, and proactive neighborhood enforcement), and the fact that the official population of the City does not accurately reflect the daytime population that includes visitors and those who work in the City but do not live here. It is also unclear whether the surveyed jurisdictions utilize specialists (i.e., stormwater) as described earlier in this report, or whether jurisdictions have similar tasks assigned to the respective Code Enforcement Divisions.

1.3 Roles & Responsibilities
Code Enforcement Technicians and Officers are responsible for the enforcement of several regulations including local ordinances and state codes. The responsibilities carried out by the Code Enforcement Officers are unique to the position, however, there are many instances in which CEOs will enforce those regulations typically managed by both CET positions. Additionally, those duties assigned to the Code Enforcement

Item 8a
Technician II position encompass several elements related to safe housing enforcement, outreach and education as well as all of the duties assigned to the Code Enforcement Technician I or Neighborhood Services Specialist position. Responsibilities of each position are outlined in Attachment C.

Part 2: “Into the Weeds”
The core services provided by Code Enforcement Officers focus on the resolution of complex and technically challenging issues. These issues typically require a high degree of technical expertise and investment of time to find equitable and achievable solutions.

Part two of this report outlines the details of how the code enforcement process works, the type and amount of work assigned to the team, and the strategies used to gain compliance.

2.1 Investigation Requests and Case Assignment
The majority of the code enforcement cases processed by the City are complaint-based cases, meaning that a community member contacted the City to report a potential code violation. Reported violations are received via email, telephone, in person, or through the city’s centralized resident inquiry system, AskSLO. Assignment of investigation requests are determined based on the type of violations reported and the priority level of the reported violation. Priority levels are determined by previously approved designations brought to council in 2017 as shown here:

Timeframe for
Response
Activities/Situations Covered
Priority 1:

Immediate Response
 Dangerous Buildings
 Dangerous Utilities or Materials
 Examples include car accidents that damage a
building, structure fires or assessment after an
earthquake, unpermitted construction that poses an
immediate public safety risk to occupants or
surrounding properties.

Priority 2:
24 Hour Response
 Active construction without a permit
 Substandard housing- no water, heat, unsafe use
 Illegal/Unsafe sewage/electrical/
gas/discharge/dumping
 Unsecured buildings- accessible to unauthorized
persons
 Public Nuisance- e.g., refrigerator left outside
 Unsafe Occupancy
Priority 3:
48 Hour Response
 Illegal/Unpermitted construction (completed)
 Garage conversion/non-habitable space used for
occupancy/commercial use in residential space/zone
 Grading without a permit
 Interior infestation of vermin
 Unsafe Occupancy- e.g., living in commercial building

Item 8a
Priority 4:
72 Hour Response
 Noise and odor violations
 Business License/TOT/Vacation Rentals
 Polystyrene/ Straws/Water bottles
 Signs
 Animals & waste
 Fence heights & locations
 Exterior infestation of vermin
Priority 4 (Proactive):
72 Hour Response
Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance (NEO) violations:
 Overgrown weeds
 Visible storage/abandoned vehicles/furniture on roof
 Front yard parking
 Screening of refuse containers
 Graffiti
 Premise identification
Priority 4 (Complaint
only):
72 Hour Response
Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance (NEO) violations:
 Front yard paving
 Fences
 Deteriorated Paint
 Parking lots
 Planning Permit violations
 Deteriorated pavement or pathways on private
property
While code enforcement cases primarily begin with a complaint filed with the City, cases are also discovered in ways other than direct complaints from the community. Sometimes a violation is identified when a property is researched by a resident, owner, or realtor.

Other violations are identified during routine safety inspections such as “business inspections” and “bar checks” conducted during operating hours to understand operational safety issues like overcrowding. Some are found incidentally by staff working in the community performing other tasks such as neighborhood parking enforcement, investigation of official police complaints, and other business activities of the City.

Once a complaint is received and assigned to a code enforcement officer, the officer will investigate to determine if an actual violation has occurred. This process depends on the type of violation but generally involves several preliminary steps to ensure a proper investigation. Prior to beginning any inspection, an officer will typically review current and historical property information for the parcel in which a violation is reported. This information includes active and approved land use and building permits, property ownership, active and past code enforcement activity, and any other pertinent research that will ensure accurate determinations while in the field. When research is complete, the officer will move forward with planning a site visit to attempt an inspection. Depending on the reported violation a site visit may require interior access to a building or yard or may be viewed from the public right of way. When an interior inspection is required, the officer must attempt to contact the resident or property owner by either performing an impromptu visit and requesting access or mailing a site inspection request. Factors such as officer safety, access to building entrances, and past interactions with residents may

Item 8a
play a role in determining the appropriate method of requesting access. In any case, code enforcement officers are required to comply with the Fourth Amendment when inspecting private property that cannot be observed from areas open to the public, which will generally require either the owner’s consent to enter or a warrant from the Court.

During an inspection, officers are expected to collect the necessary evidence and documentation relating to the reported violation all while maintaining a high level of customer service and situational awareness to ensure the safety of the officer. After a site visit is completed, an officer will generally perform follow-up research such as web-based investigation, review of previously approved plans for past permits, research into applicable regulations, and discussions with appropriate city staff. Once these steps are completed, the officer will make a determination as to whether a violation exists. Not all complaints received by the City are actual violations. Those complaints determined to be unverified or unfounded are recorded via the AskSLO software. Once a violation is confirmed and a case is opened, the assigned officer is responsible for determining the best course of action in order to gain compliance. The goal of the officer is to gain compliance utilizing the lowest level of enforcement possible. The preferred outcome for any identified violation is to inform and educate the property owner in an effort to gain voluntary compliance. If voluntary compliance can be achieved using only education, then a case can be closed quickly without the use of escalating enforcement tactics.

When voluntary compliance is no longer an option, officers will evaluate each specific scenario to determine how to proceed. Typically, a notice of violation (NOV) will be issued, which provides notice to the owner of the violation, a time period to cure the violation, and possible next steps if the owner does not comply. In general, the available options to gain compliance are:
 Issuance of Administrative Fines
 Recordation of NOV on property
 Nuisance abatement proceedings
 Civil proceeding
 Criminal citation/proceedings
 Appointment of Receiver per Health & Safety Code § 17980.7 In most cases, the Administrative Citation Process (explained below) is the primary tool that is used to communicate with the property owner, identify the corrections that need to occur, and establish the penalties associated with non-compliance. This procedure relies on noticing, education, and face to face contact to avoid the need to escalate a problem to a citation and fine whenever possible. The property owner can contest the City's allegation of a code violation using a multi-part appeal process. The appeal process for disputing the alleged violation is spelled out in Section 1.24 of the City's Municipal Code and includes a review by the Department Head ("Director's Determination"), and progresses to a review by a hearing officer, administrative review board, or the Construction Board of Appeal (CBOA), as specified. There is also a process for court action that the property owner may pursue beyond those provided in the Municipal Code to seek review of the relevant reviewing officer or body’s decision. (Note, appeals of administrative citations issued under Section 1.24 are not appealable to the City Council.)

Item 8a

2.2 Administrative Citation Process
A City is authorized to develop an administrative citation process per Government Code section 53069.4. If a notice of violation is issued and staff does not receive a response, or the property owner responds but is unwilling to make the required corrections even after a director’s review upholds the notice of violation, then code enforcement officers have the discretion to issue an administrative citation, which includes a fee, to further encourage compliance. Citations are issued as a written letter and are posted at the building site and sent by regular and certified mail. The citations are due to be paid to the City within 10 days. A property owner has the right to appeal a citation. There is currently no explicit penalty for failure to pay within 10 days; however, a subsequent citation for an increased amount can be issued at the expiration of that 10-day period after staff confirms that the violation still exists. Eventually, a violation that is ignored could result in daily fines; however, most cases are resolved before this point, or staff identifies financial issues that make fines an ineffective method to achieve compliance.

In instances where code violations are resolved, but fines remain unpaid, the City may pursue all legal, equitable, and administrative remedies for the collection of unpaid civil administrative fines. Unpaid fines become delinquent after 30 days and are subject to interest accrual of 8% per month as stated in SLOMC 1.24.070(C). Failure to pay fines may also result in the suspension of any pending applications or permits and can be forwarded to a collection agency for payment.

The effectiveness of current collection practices is limited. Invoicing software used by the City does not allow for the automatic accrual of interest, collection agencies are unable to affect credit as with other debt, and the withholding or suspension of permits is not always an option. While the City does have the ability to pursue unpaid fines through civil proceedings, the amount of the unpaid fines does not normally warrant the staff time required for this process. Staff has been looking at options for invoicing to be completed via the finance department, as is the current process for administrative citations issued by the Police department. This shift may aid in the implementation of accrued interest in the future.

The administrative citation process and fines vary depending on the type of violation identified by the City as explained below.

Property Maintenance Standards Violations
The majority of citations issued are for Property Maintenance Standards (SLOMC 17.76) violations. The provisions of this code section are meant to protect the appearance, character, and conditions of neighborhoods in the City, and generally relate to property maintenance standards. Citations for property maintenance under SLOMC 17.76 have been issued for violations such as vehicles parked in a yard, overgrown vegetation, graffiti, screening of trash receptacles, furniture on a roof, and other violations as further detailed in the roles and responsibilities section above. As established per Resolution no. 10347, there are three escalating fine amounts for these citations as listed in the chart below.

Item 8a
Timing of Issuance
(minimum) Amount
1st Citation 10 days after notice to
correct/notice of violation
$50.00
2nd Citation 10 days after 1st citation $100.00
3rd Citation 10 days after 2nd citation $200.00
Repeat within 12 months Immediate issuance Restart @, 1st citation As a number of these violations occur at rental properties that are in the control of the tenant and are related to behaviors (e.g., unscreened trash cans, parking on the lawn), staff ensures that both the tenant and the property owner are fully aware of the violations.

Posting the notice of violation at the site and mailing it to the owner accomplishes the notification goal. Ensuring proper notification is imperative because the property owner is legally responsible for correcting all cited violations and payment of associated fines.

Building, Health and Safety, and Zoning Code Violations As established in via Resolution no. 10894, citations issued by code staff for violation of building, health and safety, and zoning codes (except 17.76) are currently subject to the following penalty amounts:

Timing of Issuance
(minimum) Amount
1st Citation 10 days after notice $100.00
2nd Citation 10 days after 1st citation $500.00
3rd Citation 10 days after 2nd citation $1000.00
Repeat within 12 months Immediate issuance Restart at 1st citation The citations above are issued for violation of the following regulations, described in more detail below:
 SLOMC Title 8 is the Health and Safety code for the city and includes the regulations for expanded polystyrene, offensive odors, secondhand smoke control, plastic water bottles, plastic straw regulations and Abandoned shopping carts.  SLOMC Title 9 is the Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare code and includes regulations for cannabis cultivation & operator permits, noise control, and cardroom provisions.
 SLOMC Title 10 is the Vehicles & Traffic code and includes regulations for the abatement of inoperative vehicles.
 SLOMC Title 12 is the Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places code and includes provisions for creek regulations and urban stormwater management.  SLOMC Title 14 is the Community Preservation code and includes regulations regarding the historic preservation ordinance.

Item 8a
 SLOMC Title 17 is the zoning code and includes land use regulations, setbacks, fence height regulations, night sky preservation, parking space requirements, performance standards, use permit conditions (Exclusive of SLOMC 17.76).  SLOMC Title 15 includes the following adopted Building and Property Maintenance standards as modified for local use:

California Building Code California Energy Code
California Residential Code California Green Building Standards Californian Fire Code California Historical Code
California Electrical Code California Existing Building Code California Mechanical Code 2021 International Property Maintenance Code
California Plumbing Code 1997 Uniform Housing Code
1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement
of Dangerous Buildings

2.3 Current and Past Workload
Since the implementation of a centralized resident inquiry system (AskSLO) at the end of calendar year 2022, requests for investigation have increased 65% when compared to the average of the three fiscal years prior to the COVID pandemic. Requests received during the COVID pandemic were not reflective of a typical fiscal year as the Code Enforcement division was tasked with responding to all complaints regarding state health regulations in addition to general requests. The city experienced an atypical increase in total requests received during the 2019-20, 2020-21 fiscal years; however, requests for investigation related to “COVID regulations” became the priority and a decrease in general requests was seen as shown in figure 2.1. The types of requests received vary from year to year, but to a certain degree, the ratios of request types remain consistent.

A general idea of the types of requests received within a fiscal year can be found in figure

2.2.

Item 8a
Figure 2.1 - Code enforcement requests for past seven fiscal years Requests for Investigation
Fiscal
Year
2016-
17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
2022-
23 Normal COVID Normal COVID
Jul 64 72 39 60 0 29 95 42 48
Aug 62 62 42 55 0 34 94 36 59
Sep 63 53 30 55 0 35 49 41 38
Oct 54 32 50 54 0 73 72 28 80
Nov 38 34 63 39 0 39 91 30 80
Dec 25 44 48 17 0 68 128 40 110
Jan 32 39 33 40 0 38 43 45 83
Feb 35 54 45 35 0 39 17 27 61
Mar 59 50 52 18 25 50 23 47 75
Apr 45 86 43 28 59 39 18 32 100
May 55 57 38 23 33 31 8 23 103
Jun 43 54 37 28 77 46 0 39 115
452 194 521 638
TOTALS 575 637 520 646 1159 430 952

Item 8a
Figure 2.2 - Code enforcement requests for investigation for fiscal year 2022-23 Requests for Investigation -FY 2022-23
Abandoned Shopping Carts 170 Use Permit Violations 8
Overgrown Vegetation (Dead,
Decayed, Infested, Diseased) 64 Maintenance of Private Drainage 7 Health & Safety Violations 53 Inoperative Vehicle in Public View 6 Unpermitted Construction (Active) 53 Creek Regulations 6 Fence/Wall/Hedge Height 52 Temporary Signs Violation 6
Waste Containers 41 Basketball Hoops in Street or
Sidewalk 5
Graffiti & Vandalism 38 Expanded Polystyrene 4
Transient Encampment on Private
Property 33 Setback/Height Regulations 4
Visible Storage 30 Deteriorated Structures &
Machines 3
Unpermitted Construction (Completed) 30 Recreational Vehicle Used as Residence 3
Shrubs/Trees in Right of Way 25 Substandard Housing (Owner Occupied) 3
Other Violations 25 Vision Clearance at Intersections 3 Noise Violation 23 Furniture on Roof 2
Substandard Rental Housing (Tenant
Occupied) 20 Parking Space Requirements 2
Land Use Violation 13 Maintenance of Vacant Structures
or Land 2
Lighting & Night Sky Preservation 11 Animals 2
Front Yard Parking 11 Offensive Odors 2
Unsafe Occupancy 11 Deteriorated Paint & Finish 1
Fences/Walls/Hedges Maintenance 10 Front Yard Paving 1
Unpermitted Signs 9 Unsecured Buildings 1
TOTAL 793
Actual response times in which requests are addressed depend on several factors; however, the most important factor tends to be existing staffing levels. For fiscal year 2022-23, the overall response rate, or number of requests that were addressed within the timeframe established by priority level, was 75.9%. The response rate for the previous fiscal year 2021-22 was 79.8%. The numbers for both most recent fiscal years fell short of the division’s target goal of an 85% response rate. This shortcoming appears to be directly correlated to staffing levels, as shown in figure 2.3.

Item 8a
Figure 2.3 - Isolated date ranges showing response rate based on staffing level.

Date Range Staffing Status
Percent of Code
Enforcement cases
investigated on-time
07/01/21– 10/14/21 Fully Staffed 87.2%
10/14/21– 07/21/22 Missing CET II and CEO (serving
dual roles - Supervisor & Officer) 75.6 %
07/21/22– 01/13/23 Fully Staffed 86.1%
01/13/23– 06/30/23 Missing CET I & CET II 62.6%
The number of code enforcement cases opened after initial investigation over the past seven fiscal years are shown in figure 2.4. The data shows a sharp decrease in the number of cases after the 2019-2020 fiscal year. While it is difficult to identify the exact reasons for this decrease, the combined lack of staff and shift in focus during and after the COVID pandemic may have contributed. For example, limitations on the enforcement of sign regulations and a prioritization of voluntary compliance were put in place to meets the needs of the community during the pandemic. Additionally, as a result of the CET I vacancy and enactment of the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan in January 2023, the workload of the CET I shifted to the two existing Code Enforcement Officers and, in an effort to maintain the level of service expected from the community regarding responses to reported violations, all proactive neighborhood wellness enforcement was placed on hold The decline in neighborhood services (NSS) cases can be seen at the bottom of Figure 2.4, where the total cases for each fiscal year are separated by type of case. This breakdown shows that the number of non-neighborhood wellness cases (Code cases) are comparable to pre-COVID numbers while the number of NSS cases have declined compared to pre-COVID numbers.

Item 8a
Figure 2.4 - Code enforcement cases for past seven fiscal years Opened Cases
Fiscal Year  2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 Jul 66 67 46 83 35 31 37
Aug 107 86 84 89 40 35 32
Sep 119 80 60 81 68 66 80
Oct 103 65 94 102 29 42 62
Nov 103 68 86 65 38 43 34
Dec 85 44 77 31 23 33 46
Jan 75 55 84 74 48 47 23
Feb 83 75 82 88 53 54 15
Mar 132 53 87 67 103 79 18
Apr 96 68 91 128 106 41 23
May 117 74 86 81 38 35 36
Jun 47 42 50 38 75 45 22
Total Cases 1133 777 927 927 656 551 428
Proactive
NSS 561 407 537 573 408 297 109
Reported
NSS 308 159 139 120 82 79 108
Code Cases 264 211 251 234 166 175 211
Part 3: Safe Housing
This section outlines the evolution of the Safe Housing program which includes a history of a previously implemented Rental Housing Inspection Program (RHIP), the repeal of that program, and the current complaint-based approach. Safe housing remains a top priority for staff. As previously stated above, unsafe housing is considered a level 2 priority that prompts staff to respond to complaints within 24 hours.

3.1 History of Rental Housing Inspection Program in the City San Luis Obispo ranks among the top eight percent of California cities with a population exceeding 25,000 in terms of the percentage of housing units that are rental units, according to data from the 2020 Census. The number of rental units in the city is about 61 percent of all housing units, compared to the statewide average rental rate of 45 percent. The safety of available residential rental units within the city has been a subject of concern for the past two decades. In March 2005, Council considered a Rental Property Inspection Program, but elected to limit the program to state-mandated fire safety inspections of multifamily rental units. Council again considered aspects of a program in 2009 but did not pursue expanding the existing fire safety inspection program.

Item 8a
As part of the 2013-15 Neighborhood Wellness Major City Goal, staff was directed to pursue the creation of a Rental Housing Inspection Program (RHIP) to address growing concerns regarding the safety of residential rental units in the city. In May 2015, staff provided an in-depth report outlining a fiscally sustainable program that led to the adoption of Ordinance 1616 (2015 Series) establishing a RHIP. In the following months, a Code Enforcement Supervisor and Administrative Assistant were hired to begin the implementation of the program elements. The elements of the program included application, registration, fee collection, notification of inspection and inspection procedures, inspection and re-inspection, self-certification, and annual fee collection and reporting. The two new staff members worked to create a database of approximately 5,000 rental units subject to the RHIP within the city and began sending notices of registration requirements and upcoming inspections.

In May 2016, two Code Enforcement Technician II positions were filled to serve as the inspectors for the Rental Housing Inspection Program and began performing inspections shortly thereafter. From May 2016 until the repeal of the RHIP ordinance in February of 2017, inspectors performed inspections of approximately 915 rental units. Of the 915 inspected units, 62 percent passed (16 percent after one inspection, 46 percent after two inspections), while 37 percent had outstanding corrections and/or missing permits for construction. In early 2017, Council made the decision to repeal the RHIP ordinance in its entirety (Ordinance No. 1632 (2017 Series).) Without the program and associated fees, there was no fiscal support to maintain the four positions created for the program. The Administrative Assistant, Code Enforcement Supervisor, and Code Enforcement Technician II positions were phased out by June of 2017. Following the repeal of the RHIP and phase-out of positions funded by the program, any properties with open violations were forwarded to the remaining code enforcement staff to ensure compliance.

Following the repeal of the Rental Housing Inspection Program (RHIP), staff was directed to evaluate opportunities to promote safe housing in the community without the use of mandatory inspections. City staff conducted a series of individual community interviews to gather feedback and input on code enforcement priorities and the focus of the program post-RHIP. Seventeen interviews were conducted of members of the public who signed up for the opportunity to have a one-on-one discussion with members of City staff on the subject. In general, the responses were supportive of the staff’s recommendation to develop a program that focuses on safe housing and prioritize code enforcement activities and responses related to unsafe occupancies.

Staff appeared before Council in November of 2017 to present, take public testimony, and request Council direction regarding the following items:
 Overall code enforcement priorities to guide the allocation of staff time and other resources in the Building and Safety Division of the Community Development Department (CDD);
 Direction regarding the use of enforcement tools - such as recorded notices of violation and increased and new fees and fines - to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of code enforcement activities;
 The scope and priority of a Safe Housing Outreach and Education Program for landlords and tenants; and

Item 8a
 Additional enforcement activities and programs to pursue as resources permit.

As a result of the November 2017 City Council meeting, staff received support for all recommendations except for pursuance of a safe housing voluntary inspection program and/or self-certification program. Additionally, direction from Council resulted in a reclassification of an existing Code Enforcement Technician I position as Code Enforcement Supervisor and the rewriting of the job duties for the Code Enforcement Technician II to encompass the current duties of the Safe Housing Specialist.

The newly re-written Code Enforcement Technician II/Safe Housing Specialist position was briefly filled from November 2021 through February 2022 and, after a short vacancy, again from April 2022 through January 2023. During the timeframes in which the CET II position was filled, a significant work effort to develop the Safe Housing Outreach and Education Program was completed. With the goal of providing proactive education and outreach for the empowerment of tenants to recognize, and work with property owners and/or code enforcement staff, to abate substandard conditions, staff set out to connect with stakeholders such as CalPoly, SLO Coastal Association of Realtors, People’s SelfHelp Housing, and local property management groups to discuss the potential for meetings, presentations, and distribution of information. In late 2022, staff also completed three focus group sessions with participants such as property owners, tenants, and local property management groups to begin open dialogue on the expectations of safe housing and to collect input on what aspects of a proposed program may yield a high level of participation (Attachment D).

3.2 Current Approach to Safe Housing
Program development was expected to continue into 2023 with additional community outreach, development of clear policies and procedures, and implementation of a pilot program; however, due to the vacancy of the CET II position beginning in January, enactment of the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan with associated hiring chill from January through August of this year, and the vacancy of the CET I position requiring existing staff to assume additional work duties, all program development was placed on hold. A recruitment for the CET II position is currently underway. Prior to this position becoming vacant in January of 2023, staff was exploring developing a program that focused on communicating renter rights, mediation services, tenant and landlord responsibilities, and venues to share this information.

In anticipation of the filling of the CET II position, and in response to public comment received by the City, staff has already begun identifying actions related to safe housing that can be completed in the near-term as part of the Safe Housing program. This includes the creation of a guide for tenants/landlords regarding safe housing (Attachment E) and the creation of a tenant/landlord webpage where both tenants and landlords can find pertinent information and resources. However, other than these types of outreach assignments, all other responsibilities of the CET II position are currently being completed by Code Enforcement Officers. These responsibilities have been limited to reactive response to reported violations.

Item 8a
The Code Enforcement Division received 84 requests for investigation relating to substandard housing between October 20, 2022, and September 21, 2023. Of those received requests, 24 code enforcement cases were opened after violations were confirmed and 5 were resolved on site. The remaining requests were either determined to be unfounded or unable to be verified as depicted in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 – Requests for investigation dispositions
The primary responsibility of the Safe Housing Specialist (CET II) position is to investigate substandard housing in rental units. These investigations only occur when staff is notified of a condition through a complaint. Currently, anyone from the public can submit a complaint, and complaints can be submitted anonymously. However, due to the direction staff received from City Council in November 2017, staff has not pursued any noncomplaint-based enforcement actions for rental units. Code Enforcement Officers have continued prioritizing the investigation of substandard housing complaints even with the current vacancy.

The City of SLO Fire Department performs annual inspections of multifamily residential buildings. California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.2 mandates that local fire departments inspect all apartments annually. An apartment complex consists of three or more attached units and excludes all duplex and townhome buildings as defined by code.

These annual inspections include verifying the functionality of fire suppression systems, fire alarms, and general life and safety requirements such as adequate means of egress.

However, unless invited in by tenants, fire inspectors do not enter nor inspect individual dwelling units. The Fire Department presented its 2022 annual report on these inspections to Council in June 2023.

Code Cases
Created/
Resolved
29 Unfounded/
Unable to Verify
54 SUBSTANDARD HOUSING COMPLAINTS
OCTOBER 2022 - SEPTEMBER 2023

Item 8a
Part 4: Council Focus Questions
This study session is an opportunity for the City Council and community to hear about code enforcement in the City. In addition, staff will be available at the City Council meeting to answer questions about the contents of this report. The City Council may wish to consider the following broad questions during the Study Session.

1. Is the program achieving the outcomes of the council and community?

2. What information can the Community Development Department provide to help the community navigate the code enforcement process and services?

3. What information would be most helpful to provide specifically for landlords and tenants in the City?

4. Do you generally concur with the existing priority hierarchy of cases? Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
As described in this report, the City Council has discussed code enforcement and safe housing issues extensively in the past. Previous actions are noted below.  March 1, 2005 – City Council Meeting (Council Agenda Report) o Item Discussed: Rental property inspection program.
 Review and discuss options for rental property inspections.  Provide staff with direction on which options to pursue, with a focus on full cost recovery regardless of which option the Council selects. o Action: Limit program to state mandated fire safety inspections of multifamily rental units. (Minutes)
 September 29, 2009 – City Council Meeting (Council Agenda Report) o Item Discussed: Strategies to reduce neighborhood noise and party disturbances.
 Receive a report outlining various strategies to reduce the occurrences of neighborhood disturbances created by excessive noise and party activity;  Provide direction to staff regarding the following strategies and programs:
a. Noise ordinance modifications
b. Unruly gathering ordinance
c. Nighttime curfew ordinance
d. Strategic use of Safety Enhancement Zone Ordinance
e. Residential rental property licensing options
 Direct to staff to return to Council in January 2010 with any recommended ordinances and procedural changes.
o Action: Council direction staff to move forward with options B, C and D and to return to Council in January 2010 with recommended ordinances and procedural changes. (Minutes)

Item 8a
 December 16, 2014 – City Council Meeting (Council Agenda Report) o Item Discussed: Review of rental housing inspection program options.  Receive a presentation on Rental Housing Inspection Program policy options.
 Provide direction to staff regarding initiation of an ordinance and specific options to pursue.
o Action: Council vote to create a Rental Housing Inspection Program for single – family and duplex rental within the following parameters (Minutes):

1. Scope of Inspection: Both exterior and interior inspections.

2. Frequency of Inspection: 3 years.

3. Incentives:
a. Self- certification after passing initial inspection. b. System and standards to authorize self -certification period.

4. Disincentives: High fines or re-inspection fees.

5. Potential Exemptions:
a. Owner – occupied units (or occupancy by an immediate family member without other renters).
b. Units in mobile home parks.
c. Publicly owned or managed housing.
d. Units governed by homeowner associations.

6. Set fees at full cost recovery.
 May 5, 2015 – City Council Meeting (Council Agenda Report) o Item Discussed: Rental housing inspection program.
 Adopt an Ordinance amending Title 15 of the Municipal Code by adding Chapter 15.10 establishing a Rental Housing Inspection Program; and Adopt a Resolution establishing fees to implement the Rental Housing Inspection Program; and Adopt a Resolution establishing an amnesty program for one year for properties subject to the proposed Rental Housing Inspection Program who voluntarily report and abate health and safety violations.
o Action: Ordinance (#1616) & Resolutions (#10613 & #10614) adopted. (Minutes)
 February 16, 2017 – Special Meeting of the City Council (Council Agenda Report) o Item Discussed: Workshop to allow community members to provide input regarding issues and solutions for the RHIP.
o Action: Council voted to suspend new mandatory inspections and conclude existing code compliance cases under the program. (Minutes)  March 7, 2017 – City Council Meeting (Council Agenda Report) o Item Discussed: An ordinance repealing chapter 15.10 rental housing inspection program of title 15 of the municipal code.
 Introduce an Ordinance to repeal Chapter 15.10 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regarding Rental Housing Inspection.
o Action: Council voted to introduce Ordinance No. 1632 entitled, " An Ordinance

Item 8a
of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, repealing chapter

15. 10 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regarding Rental Housing Inspection." (Minutes)
 March 7, 2017 – City Council Meeting (Council Agenda Report) o Item Discussed: Process to develop code enforcement priorities for proactive and complaint-based enforcement activities.
 Receive Direction on the following questions:
 Council Direction Item #1: Does the City Council support the use of the “Consult” level of public engagement to gain feedback from the public on revised code enforcement priorities and approaches to achieving compliance with standards and regulations?
 Council Direction Item #2: Are there specific code enforcement programs/approaches that the Council would like staff to focus on or exclude during the effort to revise priorities, with the baseline being the ideas presented at the February 16, 2017, workshop or that have otherwise emerged?
 Council Direction Item #3: Does the City Council wish to evaluate modifying existing enforcement tools to promote health and safety objectives, including changing the City’s cost recovery objectives for code enforcement? Increased cost recovery associated with its code enforcement activities could be a way of supporting current or additional proactive approaches, such as renter/property owner education efforts, or to support program staffing. \
 Council Direction Item #4: Should mandatory fines be associated with violations rather than using discretion to determine when to issue a citation and collect a fine?
 Council Direction Item #5: The City’s experience with respect to the most common types of violations will inform the priorities it proposes to the City Council in the future. Are there any types of violations that the City Council does not consider a priority for enforcement? o Action: By consensus, Council directed staff to receive and file a presentation on the status of Community Development code enforcement activities in the City of San Luis Obispo and provided staff with direction on the development of revised code enforcement priorities for the 2017- 19 Financial Plan. (Minutes)
 November 21, 2017 – City Council Meeting (Council Agenda Report) o Item Discussed: Code enforcement priorities.
 Receive a presentation, take public testimony, and provide direction to staff regarding:
 Overall code enforcement priorities to guide the allocation of staff time and other resources in the Building and Safety Division of the Community Development Department (CDD); and
 Direction regarding the use of enforcement tools - such as recorded notices of violation and increased and new fees and fines - to

Item 8a
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of code enforcement activities; and
 The scope and priority of a Safe Housing Outreach and Education Program for landlords and tenants; and
 Additional program activities and enhancements to pursue as resources permit.
o Action: Council supported staff's recommendation without the voluntary inspections program and self -certification program. Staff to return with Ordinances and/ or Resolutions to implement the changes to the code enforcement process and a new fine structure. (Minutes)  May 15, 2018 – City Council Meeting (Council Agenda Report) o Item Discussed: An ordinance amending chapter 1.24 (administrative code enforcement procedures) of title 1 to the San Luis Obispo municipal code; and a resolution of the City Council of the city of San Luis Obispo, California, amending the amount of administrative fines payable under certain citations.  Introduce an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Chapter 1.24 (Administrative Code Enforcement Procedures) of Title 1 to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code”; and
 Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending the amount of administrative fines payable under certain citations” to adopt and implement the recommended amended administrative fine schedule for violations of Titles 8, 15, and 17 (except Chapter 17.17).
o Action: Council supported staff's recommendation without the voluntary inspections program and self -certification program. Staff to return with Ordinances and/ or Resolutions to implement the changes to the code enforcement process and a new fine structure.
o Action: Council voted to adopt both the introduced ordinance (#1648) and resolution (#10894). (Minutes)
 May 7, 2019– City Council Meeting (Council Agenda Report) o Item Discussed: Resolution establishing authorizing designated staff to waive administrative fines resulting from code enforcement action. o Action: Council voted to adopt proposed resolution (#11007). (Minutes)

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
No specific outreach was conducted for this study session; however, the following outreach was conducted regarding safe housing:

May 2017 – Voluntary interviews with participating members of the public to discuss community perspective of Code Enforcement priorities and safe housing self-certification program.

Item 8a
November 2022 – Focus Groups (See Attachment D)
Upon filling of the Safe Housing Specialist (CET II) position identification of opportunities for proactive outreach will commence. Opportunities may include:
 Participation in CalPoly programs related to off-student housing,  Providing information regarding safe housing to tenants and landlords.  Providing brochures and information regarding safe housing to property management companies for distribution.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. As a study session, this item is informational only and is not binding on future actions.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2023-24
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $ $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $ $ $ $
This study session itself does not have any direct fiscal impacts as it is for informational purposes only. The table below shows the revenues produced by the Code Enforcement team over the last six fiscal years. In 2016, the City reevaluated its use of special assessments and property liens to collect administrative fines in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Mechammil vs. City of San Jacinto. Prior to the decision in this case, citations could be attached as a lien to real property and collected at the same time and in the same manner as property taxes. Though the Mechammil decision was not published, the legislative history supporting the decision is substantial, and it would likely be upheld at the state level, so the City has since refrained from utilizing the special assessment and property lien process to collect administrative fines.

Item 8a
The table below reflects the revenues that staff was able to collect through the process outlined in Part 2.2 of this report, despite not being able to place liens on real property.

The decrease in revenues during fiscal year 2021-22 is consistent with staff’s enforcement approach during the Covid-19 pandemic. The further decrease in revenues for fiscal year 2022-23 is consistent with staff vacancies and a lack of proactive code enforcement by Neighborhood Services Specialist positions. The fee structure (listed above) was last updated by City Council in 2018.

Code Enforcement Fees
Fiscal Year 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 Revenues $108,947 $80,328 $86,562 $90,879 $61,695 $46,560

ALTERNATIVES
There are no alternative actions as this presentation is an overview of Code Enforcement in the City of San Luis Obispo.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Historical timeline of Code Enforcement
B - California County Planning Director’s Association Survey C - Responsibilities of Code Enforcement positions
D - Focus Group Agendas
E - Safe Housing Education and Outreach Brochure

2015
2010
2017
2022
Abandoned shopping cart
enforcement
Review, and enforcement
of Abandoned Shopping
Cart Prevention and
Retrieval Plans
Graffiti abatement
2018
2020
2023
1990
2000
2010
2020
2021
1980
1970
2023
1977
Authority to designate Zoning Officer and Chief
Building Official as public officers for code
enforcement
Staffing History
Smoking in certain areas
Offensive odors
Polystyrene regulations

CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
1995
Office of Neighborhood Services established in
CDD. Zoning Investigations Coordinator retitled
to Neighborhood Services Manager
Zoning Investigations Coordinator position
established
2000
Neighborhood Services Manager transferred to
PD. Code Enforcement Coordinator position
established.
2012
Two (2) Neighborhood Services Specialists hired
2007
A second Code Enforcement Officer position is
established.
2015
Rental Housing Inspection Program adopted.

Code Enforcement Supervisor position
established
Code Enforcement Administrative Assistant
position established.
2016
Two (2) Code Enforcement Technician II positions
established
Neighborhood Services Specialist positions
retitled to Code Enforcement Technician I
2017
Rental Housing Inspection Program repealed.

Code Enforcement Supervisor, Administrative
Assistant and (2) Code Enforcement Technician
II positions eliminated.

Code Enforcement Technician I position vacant.

Job
Duties
Creek Regulations
Regulation of Single-use
plastic water bottles on city
property
Single-use straw regulation
Cannabis Regulations
(Personal cultivation)
Regulation of Cannabis
establishments
Shrubs/trees in PROW
Basketball hoops in PROW
Stormwater compliance
2023
Stormwater Code Enforcement Officer
transferred to Code Enforcement Division
CET I & CET II positions approved to fill, expected
to be filled by end of year.
2018
Reclassification of Code Enforcement
Technician I position to Code Enforcement
Supervisor position. Code Enforcement
Technician II position left vacant to offset
funding for supervisor position.
2021
Code Enforcement Supervisor position filled by
existing Code Enforcement Officer on interim
basis. Code Enforcement Officer position left
vacant during interim status. Code
Enforcement Technician II (Safe Housing
Specialist) position filled.

ZIC
NSM
CEC

CEO CEO

CEO CEO NSS NSS

CEO CEO NSS NSS

CES CEAA
CETI

CES CEAA CETII CETII

CEO CEO CETI

CEO CEO CETI

CES CEO CEO CETI

CES CEO CEO CETI
CETII
2022
Code Enforcement Supervisor position filled
permanently. Code Enforcement Officer I
position filled permanently.

Historical Duties
Uniform housing code
International Property
Maintenance Code
CA Building,
Residential, Fire,
Electrical, Plumbing,
Mechanical Codes.

Building, housing and
maintenance code
standards
Zoning regulations
Land use regulations
Neighborhood
preservation standards
Sign Regulations
Noise regulations
Miscellaneous regulations
Population
41,000
44,400
45,100
47,100
47,500
34,250
28,000
48,400
CETI

CETII SCEO

CES CEO CEO
CETI
CETII

CES CEO CEO CETI
CETII

2019 Statistics regarding Code Enforcement Staffing – Counties in California (Information from California County Planning Director’s Association list serve) County Number of
Staff
2019
Unincorporated
Population
Staff per 1,000
Mono 2 5,612 0.36
Napa 7 26,158 0.27
Ventura 22 96,377 0.23
Mendocino 7 59,776 0.12
Mariposa 2 18,068 0.11
Sonoma 14 141,781 0.10
Calaveras 4 41,277 0.10
Sacramento 53 594,216 0.09
San Luis Obispo 11 121,855 0.09
Butte 6 78,702 0.08
Los Angeles 76 1,046,858 0.07
Madera 5 74,375 0.07
Monterey 8 107,946 0.07
Orange 9 129,128 0.07
Tulare 8 144,741 0.06
Alameda 8 149,536 0.05
San Diego 25 515,403 0.05
El Dorado 7 158,131 0.04
Merced 3 96,214 0.03
Yolo 2 61,586 0.03
Kern 7 318,006 0.02
Santa Barbara 3.5 144,503 0.02
Fresno 4 175,561 0.02
Alpine 0 1,162 0.00
Sierra 0 2,469 0.00
TOTALS 293.5 4,309,441 Mean/Median 0.07

Code Enforcement Technician I
(Neighborhood Service
Specialist)
Code Enforcement
Technician II
(Safe Housing
Specialist)
Code Enforcement Officer I/II Stormwater Code
Enforcement Officer
Property Maintenance Standards
(SLOMC 17.76)
• Front yard paving (SLOMC

17.76.030)
• Front yard parking (SLOMC

17.76.040)
• Fences/walls/hedge
Maintenance (SLOMC

17.76.050)
• Neighborhood preservation
(SLOMC 17.76.060)
 Abandoned buildings
 Paint and finish materials
 Structures and Machines
 Parking areas
 Vegetation
 Graffiti
 Violations of use permit or
approval
 Public Nuisance
Roofs (SLOMC 17.76.090)
Screening (SLOMC 17.76.100)
International Property Maintenance
Code (via SLOMC 15.02.010,

15.02.130)
• Vacant structures and land
(IPMC 301.3)
• Inoperative vehicles (as seen
from PROW) (IPMC 302.8)
• Premise ID (Address
Numbers) (IPMC 304.3)
• Broken Windows (IPMC
304.13)
SLOMC Title 15
• Sign Regulations (SLOMC

15.40)
 Prohibited signs (SLOMC

15.40.300)
o Attention getting
devices
o Banners
o Outdoor displays/off-site
signs
• Sandwich board signs
(SLOMC 15.40.470)
Other SLOMC regulations
• Shrubs/trees in public rightof-way (SLOMC 12.24.100) • Encroachments (Basketball
hoops) (SLOMC 12.04.020)
2021 International
Property Maintenance
Code (IPMC)
1997 Uniform Housing
Code (UHC)
Uniform Code for the
Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings
CA Health & Safety Code
California Building Codes
• Building Code
• Residential
Code
• Existing
Building Code
• Fire Code
• Electrical Code
• Plumbing
Code
• Mechanical
Code
Education and Outreach
• Create
opportunities
for education
for rental unit
stakeholders
(Owners,
tenants,
property
management,
realtors etc.)
 Presentations
 Educational
materials
 Checklists
 Events
SLOMC Title 6 - Animals
SLOMC Title 8 – Health and Safety
• Polystyrene
• Single-use straws
• Secondhand smoke control
• Offensive odors
SLOMC Title 9 – Public Peach, Morals
and Welfare
• Cannabis regulations
• Noise control
• Cardroom
SLOMC Title 10 – Vehicles and Traffic
• Inoperative vehicles
SLOMC Title 12 – Streets, Sidewalks
and Public Places
• Encroachments (Basketball
hoops, fences)
• Stormwater (privately owned
drainage maintenance)
• Creek regulations (within
private property)
• Tree regulations (vegetation
growing into PROW)
SLOMC Title 14 - Historic preservation
ordinance
SLOMC Title 15 – Building and
Construction
• Adoption & amendments of
the following:
o 2021 International
Property Maintenance
Code (IPMC)
o 1997 Uniform Housing
Code (UHC)
o Uniform Code for the
Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings
o CA Health & Safety
Code
o California Building
Codes
o Building Code
o Residential Code
o Existing Building Code
o Fire Code
o Electrical Code
o Plumbing Code
o Mechanical Code
SLOMC Title 17 – Zoning regulations
• Use regulations
• Setbacks/height regulations
• Creek setbacks
• Fences, walls, hedges
• Lighting and night sky preservation
• Vision clearance triangle at
intersections
• Parking space requirements
• Performance standards
o Air contaminants
o Discharges to sewer system
o Energy conservation
o Hazardous materials
o Heat & humidity
o Light & glare
o Noise
o Solid waste
o Vibration
• Property Maintenance Standards
(NSS Duties)
• Uses requiring permits and violations
of issued permits such as:
o Use permits
o Planned development permit
o Architectural review approval
o Variance
o Development agreements
o or other land use permit
• Specific Land Use Regulations
o Cannabis
o Convenience Stores
o Day Care
o Food Trucks
o Fraternities and Sororities
o Home occupation permit
o Homestay permit
o Household pets boarding
kennels
o Outdoor sales on commercial
and residential lots
o Recreational vehicles – use as
dwelling on private lots
o Recycling facilities
o Safe parking
o Schools
o Service/fueling stations
o Vending machines
o Wireless telecommunication
facilities
SLOMC Title 12.08 – Urban
Storm Water Quality
Management and Discharge
Control
• Unlawful discharge into
storm drain system
(SLOMC § 12.08.090)
• Unlawful connection to
storm drain
system/publicly owned
treatment works
(POTW) (SLOMC §

12.08.110)
• Unlawful deposit of
waste/pollution
(SLOMC §

12.08.120(A))
• Unlawful sidewalk
cross drainage
(SLOMC §

12.08.120(B))
• Failure to comply with
NPDES permit
(SLOMC § 12.08.140)
• Failure to maintain
premises, Prevention
of pollutants (SLOMC §

12.08.160(A))
• Failure to maintain
adequate BMPs at
construction sites
(SLOMC §

12.08.160(B))
• Failure to maintain
waterway on private
property (SLOMC §

12.08.170(A))
• Failure to maintain
private structures near
waterways (SLOMC §

12.08.170(B)
• Performance of
maintenance causing
adverse impact to
waterway species
(SLOMC §

12.08.170(C))
• Failure to comply with
federal/state agencies
(SLOMC §

12.08.170(C))

City of San Luis Obispo, City Admini stration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 934 01-3249, 8 05.78 1.711 4, slocity.org Housing Community Meeting 1
What is Safe Housing: Thursday November 30st, 2022, 9:00 am – 11:00 am Library Community Room: 995 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

PURPOSE
The Housing Community Meetings will assess stakeholder input and incorporate recommendations in the City's proposed initiative in providing a voluntary Certified Safe Housing Program to community members. The goal of these meetings is to identify clear objectives and feasible incentives for voluntary participation.

DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES

1. Get to know one another, establish trust

2. Confirm understanding of the City’s approach to code enforcement and safe housing

3. Share input, establish expectations

4. Recognize unique and diverse perspectives

5. Serve as a starting point for future focus groups
AGENDA
9:00am Coffee, light snacks served
9:10am Introductions: Michael Codron (5m) & Mike Loew (5m) Housing and Homelessness as a Major City Goal – Michael C.

Agreements, Expectations & Ground Rules – Mike L.
9:20am Staff-led discussion about the City’s approach: Austin & John (10m) 9:30am Overview, Introductions and Icebreaker: Austin (20m) 9:50am Divide group into two focus groups: John and Austin (5m) 9:55am Discussion in focus groups (40m)
10:35am Break (10m)
10:45am Reflection activity: Austin (5m)
10:50am Next Steps (5m)
10:55am Questions, feedback, departures (5m)

City of San Luis Obispo, City Admini stration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 934 01-3249, 8 05.78 1.711 4, slocity.org

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Housing Community Meetings
What is an Ideal Tenant? | December 7, 2022

City of San Luis Obispo, City Admini stration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 934 01-3249, 8 05.78 1.711 4, slocity.org City of San Luis Obispo Housing Community Meetings
Meeting #2 Page 1

MEETING AGENDA
Housing Community Meeting 2
What is an Ideal Tenant: Wednesday December 7
th, 2022, 9:00 am – 11:00 am

PURPOSE
The Housing Community Meetings will assess stakeholder input and incorporate recommendations in the City's proposed initiative in providing a voluntary Certified Safe Housing Program to community members. The goal of these meetings is to identify clear objectives and feasible incentives for voluntary participation.

DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES

1. Get to know one another, establish trust

2. Confirm understanding of the City’s approach to code enforcement and safe housing

3. Share input, establish expectations

4. Recognize unique and diverse perspectives

5. Serve as a starting point for future focus groups
AGENDA
9:00am Coffee, light snacks served
9:10am Introductions: Michael Codron (5m) Mike Loew (5m) The City’s Historic Approach to Tenant Education – Michael C.

Complexities of Moving into Rental Market from Out of State – Mike L. 9:20am Overview and Icebreaker: Austin (15m)
9:35am Divide into focus groups: Austin (5m)
9:40am Discussion in focus groups: Austin, John and Mike (50m) 10:30am Break (10m)
10:40am Closing Activity: Austin (5m)
10:45am Next Steps: Austin (5m)
10:50am Questions, feedback, departures (15m)

City of San Luis Obispo, City Admini stration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 934 01-3249, 8 05.78 1.711 4, slocity.org City of San Luis Obispo Housing Community Meeting 2: What is an Ideal Tenant? Meeting #2 Page 2

HOUSING COMMUNITY MEETING OVERVIEW
9:20-9:35 am
WHO
A wide range of community stakeholders concerned about the rental housing community in San Luis Obispo.

WHERE + WHEN
• Library Community Room on 12/7/22.
• One additional meeting in 2022 (Monday, December 12).

WHAT
The Housing Community Meetings will support the City of San Luis Obispo as it works to develop a program centered around certifying residential rental units as Safe Housing. The Housing Community Meetings will contribute to the success of these early phases and will support the implementation and success of the program itself.

OBJECTIVES
• Develop trust and long-term relationships
• Learn from your experience working as stakeholder and issues in our community • Learn about the opportunities and challenges of creating a voluntary certification program • Collaboratively develop the foundation of the City’s proposed voluntary safe housing certification program
• Incorporate feedback and discussion points into program planning

FOCUS GROUP MEETING AGREEMENTS
• Participate and share your ideas and opinions
• Voluntarily here, we need your participation
• Spark more discussion and gather your perspective
• To establish a program that helps achieve certified safe housing • Practice active listening and avoid interrupting others • Start and end meetings on time

City of San Luis Obispo, City Admini stration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 934 01-3249, 8 05.78 1.711 4, slocity.org City of San Luis Obispo Housing Community Meeting 2: What is an Ideal Tenant? Meeting #2 Page 3
Focus Group Questions
9:40 – 10:30 am

1. How would you describe the rental market in San Luis Obispo? a. What is your role in this market?

2. How do you currently interact with tenants in San Luis Obispo?

3. What are the most challenging aspects of renting property in San Luis Obispo?

4. What is your understanding of your rights as a landlord?

5. What are effective communication methods you utilize in reaching out to your tenants? a. What method is the most effective?

6. Please define an ideal tenant in your own words?
a. What methods have you implemented to obtain "ideal" tenants if relevant

7. What actions or role do you see the City taking in assisting you finding the ideal tenant?

8. What actions or role do you see the City taking in assisting you with your current tenants?

9. Is there something more that you would like to see the City doing in regards to tenants or prospective tenants other than what has already been discussed?

10. Would you consider providing City communication to your tenants? a. If you answered no, why not consider providing communication to tenants?

11. What information, provided from the City, would you be comfortable relaying to your tenants?
Potential types of information:
a. Tenant rights and responsibilities
b. Landlord rights and responsibilities
c. Safe housing regulations
d. Checklist of safe housing items

13. Open ended: In regards to what has been discussed, would you like to add anything else to this discussion?

City of San Luis Obispo, City Admini stration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 934 01-3249, 8 05.78 1.711 4, slocity.org City of San Luis Obispo Housing Community Meeting 2: What is an Ideal Tenant? Meeting #2 Page 4
CLOSING: HEAD, HEART, HANDS
10:40 - 10:45 am

QUESTIONS, FEEDBACK, DEPARTURES
10:50 – 11:00 am

CA TENANTS GUIDE
www.tinyurl.com/CATenants
(https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California-Tenants-Guide.pdf)

City of San Luis Obispo, City Admini stration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 934 01-3249, 8 05.78 1.711 4, slocity.org

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Housing Community Meetings
How Should the City Administer This Proposed Program?
December 12, 2022

City of San Luis Obispo, City Admini stration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 934 01-3249, 8 05.78 1.711 4, slocity.org City of San Luis Obispo Housing Community Meetings
Meeting #2 Page 1

MEETING AGENDA
Housing Community Meeting 3
How Should City Administer: Monday December 12th, 2022, 9:00 am – 11:00 am

PURPOSE
The Housing Community Meetings will assess stakeholder input and incorporate recommendations in the City's proposed initiative in providing a voluntary Certified Safe Housing Program to community members. The goal of these meetings is to identify clear objectives and feasible incentives for voluntary participation.

DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES

1. Get to know one another, establish trust

2. Confirm understanding of the City’s approach to code enforcement and safe housing

3. Share input, establish expectations

4. Recognize unique and diverse perspectives

5. Serve as a starting point for future focus groups
AGENDA
9:00am Coffee, light snacks served
9:10am Introductions: John Mezzapesa (5m)
Professional Experience Being the Code Enforcement Supervisor and a Landlord – John M.
9:15am Icebreaker: Austin (10m)
9:25am Divide into focus groups: Austin (5m)
9:30am Discussion in focus groups: Austin, John and Mike (60m) 10:30am Break (10m)
10:40am Next Steps: Austin (5m)
10:45am Questions, feedback, departures (15m)

City of San Luis Obispo, City Admini stration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 934 01-3249, 8 05.78 1.711 4, slocity.org City of San Luis Obispo Housing Community Meeting 2: What is an Ideal Tenant? Meeting #2 Page 2

HOUSING COMMUNITY MEETING OVERVIEW
WHO
A wide range of community stakeholders concerned about the rental housing community in San Luis Obispo.

WHERE + WHEN
• Library Community Room 12/12/22.
• Survey to be sent out to participants and other stakeholders WHAT
The Housing Community Meetings will support the City of San Luis Obispo as it works to develop a program centered around certifying residential rental units as Safe Housing. The Housing Community Meetings will contribute to the success of these early phases and will support the implementation and success of the program itself.

OBJECTIVES
• Develop trust and long-term relationships
• Learn from your experience working as stakeholder and issues in our community • Learn about the opportunities and challenges of creating a voluntary certification program • Collaboratively develop the foundation of the City’s proposed voluntary safe housing certification program
• Incorporate feedback and discussion points into program planning

FOCUS GROUP MEETING AGREEMENTS
• Participate and share your ideas and opinions
• Voluntarily here, we need your participation
• Spark more discussion and gather your perspective
• To establish a program that helps achieve certified safe housing • Practice active listening and avoid interrupting others • Start and end meetings on time

City of San Luis Obispo, City Admini stration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 934 01-3249, 8 05.78 1.711 4, slocity.org City of San Luis Obispo Housing Community Meeting 2: What is an Ideal Tenant? Meeting #2 Page 3
Focus Group Questions
9:30 – 10:30 am

1. What role would you say the City has in ensuring safe housing for rentals?

1. (In regards to the built environment.)

2. What is reasonable oversight in regards to what has been discussed? – How do you think the City should administer ?

3. What means do you think the City should employ to carry out a Safe Housing Education and Outreach Program?

4. What are some of your hesitations and concerns about the City's involvement in your rental business?

1. How best could the City address your concerns and hesitations?

5. What would incentivize participation and engagement from you? / What would be of value to your business in participating in a City administered safe housing program?

6. Considering that outreach and education is a directive for this program and that Building and Safety is an inspection based division, what would be a reasonable approach for the City to certify your rental property as "safe housing"? (Note: Any proposed inspections or site visits would be voluntary and by request only.)

7. What issues might you foresee for a voluntary program of this type?

1. In what ways would you recommend the City address these issues?

8. What considerations and concerns would you like City staff to research for incorporation into a safe housing certification program?

9. Would you consider being a part of a trial run for "safe housing" certification?

1. Please explain.

10. Open ended: In regards to what has been discussed, would you like to add anything else to this discussion?

City of San Luis Obispo, City Admini stration, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 934 01-3249, 8 05.78 1.711 4, slocity.org City of San Luis Obispo Housing Community Meeting 2: What is an Ideal Tenant? Meeting #2 Page 4
CLOSING: AFFIRMATION WHIP AND NEXT STEPS
10:40 - 10:45 am

QUESTIONS, FEEDBACK, DEPARTURES
10:45 – 11:00 am

CA TENANTS GUIDE
www.tinyurl.com/CATenants
(https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California-Tenants-Guide.pdf)

CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/code-enforcement

COM MUN I T Y

DE VE LOPM E NT
Code Enforcement
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
93401 (805) 540-1581
[email protected]
SAFE &

HEALTHY
RENTAL

HOUSING

PROGRAM
• To make necessary or agreed-upon
repairs.
• First and subsequent waterbed installation
and inspections to ensure the installation
meets the law’s requirements.
• To show the rental unit to prospective
tenants, purchasers, lenders, or to provide
inspection before the end of tenancy.
• If directed by a court of law.

OWNER’S RIGHT TO ENTER &

TENANT RIGHTS
In most cases, the owner or property
manager must provide the tenant with prior
written notice to enter the tenant’s rental
home. Written notice is considered
reasonable if it is provided at least 24 hours
in advance. A written notice is required in the
following situations:

R EQU ES T A FIELD

I N VEST IGATIO N

P R I O R W R I T T E N N O T I C E

I S N O T R E Q U I R E D I N T H E
FOLLOWING SITUATIONS:
• In an emergency.
• Under consent of tenant or other legal
occupant(s).
• After tenant has abandoned or
surrendered the rental home.
• Upon verbal agreement to allow the
owner to make agreed-upon repairs, or
to supply services.

PERMITS AR E R E Q U I R E D
F O R WO RK S UCH AS :
• Electrical, plumbing or mechanical
alterations or additions.
• Structural additions or alterations
such as stairs, walls, and decks
requiring steps.

Safe Housing Staff is available to assist in
identifying and remedying deficiencies
related to rental housing. Requested
inspections will focus on those areas at the
requesting party’s direction. Identified
deficiencies will be documented and Safe
Housing Staff will collaborate with property
management or owners to facilitate
remediation of all deficiencies.

If Safe Housing Staff is unable to facilitate
remediation within a reasonable timeline,
remaining deficiencies may be forwarded as
violations to Code Enforcement Staff.

During inspection and/or consultations Safe
Housing Staff will provide tenants and
landlords guidance on applicable state and
local regulations related to safe housing as
well informational materials and safety
checklists.

R E T A L I A T I O N I S

AGAINST THE LAW
A rental owner or property manager may not evict or
threaten to evict a tenant for exercising a legal right, such as requesting habitability repairs per Section 1942.5 of the California Civil Code. Tenants may protect their contractual rights by filing civil action.
• Maintain a clean and sanitary rental home.
• Properly dispose of garbage or trash.
• Properly operate all electrical, gas and plumbing
fixtures.
•
•
Refrain from damaging or defacing the home
or allowing anyone else to do so (tenants are
responsible for all repairs of damage caused by the
tenant, the tenant’s family, guests or pets).

Use the premises as a place to live, and use the
rooms for their intended purposes.
•
•
•
Report broken door or window locks.

Contact the owner or property manager immediately
to report any problems with your rental home—
especially any water damage or leaks.

Cooperate with repair workers/pest control
operators in preparing rental home for service or
repairs.
• Contact the owner or property manager first.
• Document your request in writing and keep a copy
if there is water intrusion, a leak, or any water
damage.
•
•
Allow a reasonable period of time for repair. Current
law indicates that 30 days is a reasonable period of
time to address most repairs, though the nature of
some repairs may require a longer timeframe.

Contact the City of San Luis Obispo Code
Enforcement to file a complaint if you have waited a
reasonable period of time, yet the requested repair
has not been made. Call (805) 540-1581 or email
[email protected].
• Brief inspections ensuring health and safety
of rental units performed by city technician
• Checklist and feedback given to tenants for
the purpose of reporting issues to their
landlord/property managers
• Contact us at
[email protected]
TENANT

RESPONSIBILITIES

MAINTENANCE &

REPAIRS
Owners and property managers want to know if there
is an item in need of repair in your home. If you have
a problem with any of the items listed, you should:

There must be a permanently installed
heating source able to provide a room
temperature of 65ºF. Heating devices
must conform to applicable laws and
fuel-burning must be properly ventilated.

Roof, exterior walls, windows and doors
must prevent water leakage into living
areas; repairs must be permanent and
use accepted construction methods.

Roof, floors, walls, foundations and all
other structural components must be in
good condition and capable of providing
designed support.

Electrical systems shall be in good
working order and conform to applicable
law at the time of installation. Repairs
must be permanent and through
generally-accepted electrical methods.

Plumbing systems must be in safe and
sanitary condition, free of defects, leaks
and obstructions; repairs must be
permanent and use accepted plumbing
methods.

C A TE N ANTS GUIDE
A guide to residential tenant's
and landlords' rights and responsibilities
https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/
California-Tenants-Guide.pdf
REQUEST A SAFETY INSPECTION Each unit must have an approved and working smoke detector and carbon
monoxide detector installed and
maintained in accordance with
applicable codes.

Every dwelling unit must be maintained
free of rodents and other infestations.

Hot water system capable of producing
water of at least 110ºF.

Doors and windows must be in operable
condition and be equipped with working
locks.

Working toilet, wash basin, bathtub and/
or shower.

Kitchen with a working sink.

Safe fire or emergency exit.

Bathroom ventilation.

General maintenance - no major
cracking or missing pieces of counter
tops, vent screens, secure handrails,
maintained vegetation and paint.