San Luis Obispo City Council
May 26, 2026

City Council

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA

Tuesday, May 26, 2026, 5:30 p.m.

Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Council meeting may be viewed remotely on Channel 20, the City's YouTube Channel,and on the City's website under the Public Meeting Agendas. Attendees of City Council or Advisory Body meetings are eligible to receive one hour of complimentary parking; restrictions apply, visit Parking for Public Meetings for more details.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:

Public Comment prior to the meeting (must be received 3 hours in advance of the meeting):

Mail - Delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Address letters to the City Clerk’s Office at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401.

Email - Submit Public Comments via email to [email protected]. In the body of your email, please include the date of the meeting and the item number (if applicable). Emails will not be read aloud during the meeting.

Voicemail - Call (805) 781-7164 and leave a voicemail. Please state and spell your name, the agenda item number you are calling about, and leave your comment. Verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting. *All correspondence will be archived and distributed to councilmembers, however, submissions received after the deadline may not be processed until the following day.

Public Comment during the meeting:

Meetings are held in-person. To provide public comment during the meeting, you must be present at the meeting location. Verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes and may only address items listed on the agenda.

Electronic Visual Aid Presentation. To conform with the City's Network Access and Use Policy, Chapter 1.3.8 of the Council Policies and Procedures Manual, members of the public who desire to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentation must provide displayready material to the City Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Contact the City Clerk's Office at [email protected] or (805) 781-71114.

Pages

1. CLOSED SESSION (4:45 START)

1.a 1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Erica A. Stewart will call the Closed Session of the San Luis Obispo City Council to order at 4:45 PM in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.

1.b CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 54956.9: No. of potential cases: One.

The anticipated litigation arises out of an allegation that the City incorrectly deemed complete a project performed by contractor which resulted in a liquidated damages assessment constituting an improper penalty. Additional facts and circumstances of the anticipated litigation are set forth in a claim submitted by counsel for the contractor dated December 15, 2025, and is on file with the City of San Luis Obispo’s Clerk’s Office.

1.c ADJOURNMENT
The Council will hold a Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Council in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.

2. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Erica A. Stewart will call the Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council to order.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Erica A. Stewart will lead the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA ONLY
Public Comment will only be accepted for items listed on the agenda.

5. STUDY SESSION

5.a CODE ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES – SAFE AND LIVABLE
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING (180 MINUTES)
7 Recommendation:

Receive a presentation on the City’s Code Enforcement program, take public testimony, and consider providing direction to staff regarding:

Concurrence on the existing Enforcement Priorities &
Response Time Standards that are currently in place for code enforcement matters;

1. Adding a work plan item to the 2027-29 Financial Plan to explore and implement adjustments and simplifications to the Administrative Fine Structure for code enforcement violations;

2. Adding a work plan item to the 2027-29 Financial Plan to analyze and develop an alternative regulatory framework for Fraternity and Sorority Houses;

3. Continuing enforcement of Fraternity and Sorority land use violations consistent with the existing Enforcement Priorities & Response Time Standards, prioritizing violations that result in disturbance to others;

4. Undertaking an effort to analyze time-intensive code enforcement areas to identify and implement operational efficiencies to address the rising case load of the team;

5. Whether there are any neighborhood wellness, property maintenance, or nuisance standards the Council wishes to update in light of current operational challenges and evolving community needs; and

6. Whether there are any future, topic-specific study sessions needed to support more in depth policy development.

7. 6. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the City Council will be held on June 2, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.

LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES for the hearing impaired - see the Clerk.

The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7114 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.

City Council meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20 and the City's YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/CityofSanLuisObispo. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal business hours, and on the City’s website https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-andminutes. Persons with questions concerning any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7114.

Item 5a
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4006
For Agenda of: 5/26/2026
Placement: Study Session
Estimated Time: 180 Minutes
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: John Mezzapesa, Code Enforcement Supervisor SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: CODE ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES – SAFE AND

LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING

RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation on the City’s Code Enforcement program, take public testimony, and consider providing direction to staff regarding:

1. Concurrence on the existing Enforcement Priorities & Response Time Standards that are currently in place for code enforcement matters;

2. Adding a work plan item to the 2027-29 Financial Plan to explore and implement adjustments and simplifications to the Administrative Fine Structure for code enforcement violations;

3. Adding a work plan item to the 2027-29 Financial Plan to analyze and develop an alternative regulatory framework for Fraternity and Sorority Houses;

4. Continuing enforcement of Fraternity and Sorority land use violations consistent with the existing Enforcement Priorities & Response Time Standards, prioritizing violations that result in disturbance to others;

5. Undertaking an effort to analyze time-intensive code enforcement areas to identify and implement operational efficiencies to address the rising case load of the team;

6. Whether there are any neighborhood wellness, property maintenance, or nuisance standards the Council wishes to update in light of current operational challenges and evolving community needs; and

7. Whether there are any future, topic-specific study sessions needed to support more in depth policy development.

REPORT-IN-BRIEF
This report provides an overview of the current state of the City’s Code Enforcement Program, including the organizational structure, code enforcement process, workload and metrics, impactful legislation, and enforcement priorities. Holding this study session is a work plan item under the Major City Goal of “Housing and Neighborhood Livability – Healthy, Safe, and Affordable”.

The City’s Code Enforcement Program has experienced substantial growth in workload in recent years, driven by new legislation, increasing community expectations, and

Item 5a
sharply rising complaint volume following implementation of AskSLO in 2022. In addition, several enforcement areas now require significant staff time and policy attention, and these areas are highlighted in this report. Fraternity and sorority enforcement has become one of the fastest growing and most resource-intensive categories, with 169 investigation requests and roughly 90 formal cases between 2024 and April 2026, often requiring multi-department coordination. Safe Housing enforcement is similarly complex and is a growing priority area for the department and community.

In order to address the increasing workload for the division, staff has developed several recommendations that are meant to enhance code enforcement effectiveness by addressing regulatory frameworks and/processes that may not be working effectively and increase general efficiency of the program (see recommendations above). The report concludes with several key focus questions for Council. These questions include:

1. Staff Recommendations. Does the City Council concur with the staff recommendations outlined above related to
a. Affirming the current Enforcement Priorities and Response Time Standards, b. Exploring a simplified Administrative Fine Structure, c. Adding a work program item to create a new regulatory structure for Fraternity and Sorority Houses,
d. Continuing the enforcement of fraternity and sorority land use violations consistent with the Enforcement Priorities and Response Time Standards while prioritizing violations that result in disturbance to others, and e. Directing staff to undertake work to analyze time-intensive enforcement areas to identify potential process efficiencies?

2. Neighborhood Wellness & Property Maintenance Standards. Are there any neighborhood wellness, property maintenance, or nuisance standards the Council wishes to update in light of current operational challenges and evolving community needs?

3. Future Study Sessions. Would the Council like future, topic-specific study sessions to support more in-depth policy development?

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.

Item 5a
The California Health and Safety Code establish both the legal authority and the mandatory responsibilities of local jurisdictions to protect the public from unsafe and substandard conditions. Under State Housing Law (Health & Safety Code §§17920.3, 17960, and 17980), cities and counties are required to designate a local enforcement agency and to investigate and enforce violations affecting health, safety, and habitability.

The Code authorizes jurisdictions and their designated code enforcement officials to inspect properties, identify substandard or dangerous conditions, issue notices and orders to repair, rehabilitate, vacate, or demolish, and pursue administrative, civil, or criminal remedies when violations are not corrected. These provisions provide the statutory framework that enables local governments to address unsafe structures, public nuisances, and deteriorated housing conditions in order to protect occupants, neighboring properties, and the broader community.

The Chief Building Official serves as the City’s designated “code official” and the “authority having jurisdiction” for purposes of interpreting and enforcing the City’s adopted building and safety codes (SLOMC §15.04.010). In this role, the Chief Building Official is responsible for making determinations regarding compliance with applicable construction, safety, and property maintenance standards, and for ensuring consistent application of state and local regulations intended to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Because many code enforcement cases involve violations of adopted building standards, the Code Enforcement Program operates in close coordination with, and under the technical authority of, the Chief Building Official.

In addition, the Chief Building Official is granted the authority to exercise the powers authorized by California Penal Code §836.5(a), as adopted locally under SLOMC §1.16.060, which includes the authority to issue citations for violations of the Municipal Code. This authority provides the legal framework for administrative and enforcement actions related to building and safety violations identified through the code enforcement process.

DISCUSSION
Code Enforcement in San Luis Obispo
Code Enforcement Team
The current Code Enforcement Team is housed within the Building and Safety Division of the Community Development Department, with the Code Enforcement Supervisor reporting directly to the Chief Building Official. The team consists of one Code Enforcement Supervisor, two Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) positions, one Code Enforcement Technician II (CET II), one Code Enforcement Technician I (CET I), and one Stormwater Code Enforcement Officer. Together, these positions provide the operational framework necessary to address a wide range of responsibilities, including neighborhood code compliance, zoning and land use enforcement, safe housing outreach, constructionrelated investigations, public education, and stormwater regulatory enforcement.

Item 5a
Code Enforcement Technician (CET) and Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) classifications both support the City’s overall code enforcement mission, but they serve different functional roles, levels of complexity, and programmatic focus. Based on City job classifications, CET positions are generally oriented toward neighborhood preservation, safe housing outreach, visible property maintenance issues, and frontline enforcement of more routine or readily identifiable violations. CET I staff primarily address neighborhoodbased concerns such as property maintenance standards, front yard parking, sign regulations, nuisance abatement, and initial response to complaints, while also conducting field observations, issuing warnings or citations, maintaining records, and referring more complex zoning, construction, or land use violations to CEOs for further investigation. CET II positions expand on this role by administering the Safe Housing Education and Outreach Program, conducting residential inspections related to housing standards, connecting at-risk residents with housing resources, and taking on broader program coordination, outreach, and education responsibilities.

In contrast, CEO positions are generally responsible for more complex, technical, and comprehensive enforcement functions involving municipal and state codes related to construction, zoning, land use, public health and safety, and building compliance. CEOs manage broader investigative caseloads, conduct inspections of residential, commercial, and industrial properties, oversee compliance with approved construction plans, prepare cases for prosecution or legal settlement, issue correction notices and stop work orders, and coordinate directly with the City Attorney and other departments on higher-level enforcement matters. CEO II positions further expand this responsibility through greater independence, more advanced case management, staff training, public presentations, and leadership in community education efforts. In practical terms, CETs often serve as

Item 5a
the City’s frontline staff for neighborhood quality, property maintenance, safe housing support, and proactive visible code issues, while CEOs typically handle more technical investigations, construction and zoning enforcement, and legally complex cases requiring deeper regulatory expertise.

The diversity and frequency of investigation requests received by the Code Enforcement Team illustrate the breadth of responsibilities assigned to this staffing structure. The City processes a wide range of complaint types spanning traditional neighborhood preservation concerns, public nuisance issues, zoning and land use matters, housing and safety cases, construction-related violations, and specialized regulatory enforcement.

While certain complaint categories such as abandoned shopping carts, substandard rental housing, unpermitted construction, overgrown vegetation, waste containers, and visible storage accounted for a substantial share of total requests during this period, the program also addressed dozens of less frequent but often more technically complex issues, including stormwater violations, unsafe occupancy, creek regulations, setback compliance, and public health concerns. This distribution demonstrates that code enforcement demand is not concentrated in a single service area but instead reflects a broad operational scope requiring staff with varied skill sets capable of addressing both high-volume neighborhood complaints and specialized investigations. The following chart summarizes the top 25 investigation request categories from 2023 through 2025.

Code Enforcement Top 25 Investigation Request Types (2023–2025)

Item 5a
Overall, the current state of Code Enforcement reflects a program that has evolved into a comprehensive regulatory function addressing a wide range of public health, safety, and neighborhood quality issues. The combination of increasing investigation requests, expanded regulatory scope, and growing case complexity underscores the importance of aligning program structure and enforcement tools with the City’s current and future priorities.

Code Enforcement Process and Enforcement Philosophy
Traditional code enforcement activities form the foundation of the City’s program and are focused on maintaining safe, healthy, and well-maintained properties consistent with municipal and state requirements. Core functions include investigation and resolution of property maintenance violations, nuisance conditions, zoning and land use compliance, unpermitted construction, and health and safety concerns affecting occupants and surrounding properties. These activities typically begin with receipt of a complaint, followed by inspection, documentation, and notification to responsible parties. Staff then work through a structured process intended to achieve voluntary compliance whenever feasible. The majority of code enforcement cases processed by the City begin as complaint-based investigations, meaning that a community member, tenant, property owner, business owner, or other reporting party contacts the City regarding a potential violation. Complaints may be received through email, telephone, in person, or the City’s centralized resident inquiry system, AskSLO, and are assigned based on violation type and Council-established priority levels (discussed later in this report). Cases may also originate through proactive field observations, business inspections, bar checks, research conducted during property inquiries, referrals from other City departments, or incidental observations made by staff while performing other duties.

Once a request for investigation is received, staff review the complaint details, applicable code sections, property history, and any prior enforcement activity to determine the nature of the concern and assign an appropriate response. Code Enforcement Officers typically begin by conducting an initial site inspection, which may include exterior observation from publicly accessible areas, documentation of visible conditions, photographs, case notes, and coordination with other City departments when issues involve building, zoning, utilities, fire, or public works considerations. If violations are confirmed, responsible parties are generally contacted through notices, warning letters, phone calls, or in-person communication to explain the concern, applicable requirements, and corrective actions needed. When access to private property or interior spaces is necessary in order to determine the extent of suspected violations, and consent for inspection is not provided, staff may pursue additional legal or administrative mechanisms consistent with municipal authority, including inspection warrants or coordinated action with other authorized agencies when warranted. Throughout the process, officers track case progress, establish compliance deadlines, conduct follow-up inspections, and coordinate internally with supervisors, the City Attorney’s Office, Building and Safety, or outside agencies as needed depending on complexity and risk. Cases are typically closed once compliance is verified, while unresolved or escalating violations may move into formal enforcement pathways such as citations, abatement, or legal proceedings.

Item 5a
This complaint-driven, compliance-first model is reflected in the City’s enforcement outcomes over time. Since 2015, approximately 87% of closed code enforcement cases were resolved before any citation was issued, demonstrating that the majority of cases achieve compliance through education, communication, corrective notices, and cooperative resolution rather than punitive enforcement. This indicates that administrative citations are typically reserved for situations involving continued noncompliance, repeat violations, or more serious cases where lower-level interventions have not been effective.

The City’s enforcement philosophy emphasizes education, fairness, and proportional response while maintaining a clear commitment to protecting public health and safety.

Fines and Enforcement Tools
As noted above, the City’s enforcement philosophy emphasizes achieving compliance through the lowest level of enforcement necessary. If voluntary compliance is achieved, cases may be resolved without escalation. When compliance is not achieved, the primary next step is typically issuance of a Notice of Violation (NOV), which formally identifies the violation, establishes a correction deadline, and outlines potential enforcement consequences if corrective action is not taken. Administrative citations are generally the City’s principal enforcement tool, but they are only one component of a broader escalation framework that may also include recordation of Notices of Violation on property, nuisance abatement proceedings, civil remedies, criminal citations, or, in severe health and safety situations, appointment of a receiver under Health and Safety Code §17980.7.The City’s administrative citation framework has developed incrementally over time as Council has adjusted enforcement tools in response to changing policy priorities and operational needs. The original administrative citation schedule adopted in 2002 established fines of $100 for a first violation, $200 for a second violation, and $500 for a third violation within a 12-month period, which remains the baseline schedule for most Municipal Code violations. In 2012, Resolution No. 10347 reduced fine amounts for Chapter 17.76 Neighborhood Services property maintenance violations1to $50, $100, and $200 respectively, reflecting Council’s determination that many lower-level neighborhood livability violations do not pose immediate public health or safety threats. In 2018, Council established a higher fine tier for violations under Titles 8 (Health and Safety), 15 (Buildings and Construction), and 17 (Zoning Regulations, excluding Chapter 17.76, which is property maintenance standards), increasing fines to $100, $500, and $1,000 for first, second, and third/subsequent violations respectively. Noise violations were separately increased to $350, $700, and $1,000.

1 Neighborhood Services property maintenance violations include improper front yard paving, improper front yard parking, broken fencing, waste containers, abandoned buildings, deteriorated paint and finish material, deteriorated structures/equipment/machinery/pools, deteriorated parking areas, overgrown vegetation, graffiti, violation of conditions per a use permit/planned development/architectural review approval/variance or other land use entitlement, and maintenance of property in such condition as to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance.

Item 5a
Citation Amounts for Various Violation Categories
Citation escalation generally follows a structured timeline tied to the severity of the violation and continued noncompliance. While the Municipal Code does not prescribe specific minimum timeframes between enforcement steps, the City has historically followed administrative practices intended to provide a reasonable opportunity for corrective action and to align with the administrative citation appeal process established by the Municipal Code.

For relatively minor violations, such as yard maintenance, visible storage, or parkingrelated violations, the City typically allows approximately 10 days between issuance of a Notice of Violation (NOV) or Notice to Correct and the issuance of an administrative citation. For more complex violations, such as substandard housing, unpermitted construction, or land use violations, compliance periods are typically longer, often approximately 30 days, depending on the nature and extent of corrective work required.

The City also generally allows a minimum of 10 days between administrative citations.

This timeframe aligns with the appeal period established by the Municipal Code and helps ensure that a recipient has an opportunity to contest the initial citation before additional citations are issued. If a subsequent citation is issued before an appeal of the prior citation is resolved, and the earlier citation is later dismissed due to insufficient evidence or other procedural deficiencies, it may undermine the basis for subsequent citations tied to the same ongoing violation.

Noise violations are handled differently from ongoing property maintenance or land use violations because they are typically event-based violations that occur at a specific point in time and generally do not involve an opportunity to cure before enforcement action is taken. Under Chapter 9.12 of the Municipal Code, violations may be enforced through immediate administrative citation or criminal enforcement when a violation is observed or documented. The Municipal Code further provides that each hour a qualifying noise violation continues may constitute a separate violation subject to additional penalties. In addition, once a noise violation has been verified, property owners may be subject to administrative action or citation for subsequent violations occurring within nine months of the prior violation, provided notice requirements established by the Municipal Code have been satisfied. Responsibility for fines and correction generally rests with the legally responsible party, though this can vary based on the violation type. For most propertybased violations, including structural maintenance, zoning, property maintenance (such as waste container storage, landscaping maintenance and yard parking), and nuisancerelated conditions, the property owner is ultimately legally responsible for correction and associated fines, even where the cause of the violation may be tenant behavior. In practice, staff often ensure both owners and occupants are notified, particularly for rental

Item 5a
properties where violations such as refuse container screening, front yard parking, or nuisance activity may be occupant-controlled. Business or operational violations may also be directed to tenants, operators, or business owners depending on legal responsibility under the applicable code section.

Property owners and responsible parties also retain due process rights. The City’s Municipal Code provides a multi-step appeal process for contesting Notices of Violation or administrative citations, beginning with Department Head review (Director’s Determination) and potentially progressing to a hearing officer, administrative review board, or Construction Board of Appeals depending on violation type. Judicial review may also be pursued beyond administrative remedies. Administrative citation appeals are not appealable to City Council.

If citations remain unpaid, the City may pursue collection through administrative, legal, or other means. Unpaid fines become delinquent after 30 days and accrue interest at 8% per month under SLOMC 1.24.070(C). Additional consequences may include permit or application suspension, referral to collections, and additional citations for continued violations. While unpaid fines alone do not always immediately trigger enforcement, repeated noncompliance can result in escalating citation cycles, daily fines in prolonged cases, and eventual transition into stronger nuisance abatement or legal enforcement tools. There are practical limitations on fine collection, including reduced use of liens and special assessments following legal developments, meaning that nuisance abatement, civil remedies, or direct corrective action may become more effective tools when fines accumulate but compliance remains unachieved2.

For nuisance properties or chronic violators, administrative fines often become only one component of a broader enforcement strategy. Properties involving repeated violations, dangerous structures, persistent public nuisance, unsafe occupancy, or unresolved substandard housing may escalate into nuisance abatement proceedings, recorded Notices of Violation, abatement by the City with cost recovery, civil litigation, criminal proceedings, or court-appointed receivership. In these cases, the City’s enforcement objective may shift from voluntary compliance and progressive deterrence toward direct correction of dangerous or chronic conditions and long-term public protection. This process can take from several months to several years, depending on the complexity of the case and the willingness of the property owner to work with the City.

Potential Fine Changes Authorized by Recent State Law
Recent state legislation has expanded or clarified local authority to impose higher administrative penalties in certain contexts. However, these statutes generally establish maximum allowable penalty amounts; they do not automatically amend the City’s adopted administrative fine schedule. Under SLOMC Chapter 1.24, administrative fine amounts

2 Prior to 2016, some California jurisdictions utilized nuisance abatement liens and special assessments to recover unpaid administrative fines related to code enforcement matters. However, in Mechammil v.

City of San Jacinto, the Ninth Circuit held that California law authorizes liens and special assessments for nuisance abatement costs, but not for the collection of administrative fines or penalties. As a result, local agencies generally may no longer rely on administrative liens or special assessments as a mechanism to collect unpaid code enforcement fines absent separate statutory authority.

Item 5a
are established by City Council resolution, meaning any increase to currently adopted citation amounts would require future Council action through adoption of a resolution.

AB 2598 (2018) and SB 60 (2021) amended Government Code Section 36900 and related provisions governing administrative fines and increased the maximum penalties cities may impose for certain categories of violations.

Under this authority, for building and safety violations, cities may impose fines up to :
 $130 for a first violation
 $700 for a second violation
 $1,300 for third and subsequent violations
 $2,500 for subsequent violations within two years if the property is a commercial property that has an existing building at the time of the violation and the violation is due to failure by the owner to remove visible refuse or failure to prohibit unauthorized use of the property
SB 60 (2021) also authorizes higher penalties for violations involving short-term rental regulations up to:
 $1,500 for a first violation
 $3,000 for a second violation
 $5,000 for third and subsequent violations
For most other municipal code violations, statutory ceilings remain:
 $100 for a first violation
 $200 for a second violation
 $500 for third and subsequent violations
These higher short-term rental penalties apply only to violations that pose a threat to public health or safety, such as unsafe occupancy conditions, life-safety violations, or other circumstances where the operation of a short-term rental creates a significant risk to occupants or the surrounding community. Collectively, these legislative updates provide cities with greater discretion to adjust administrative fine schedules to better reflect enforcement costs, improve deterrence for repeat violations, and address emerging regulatory areas such as short-term rental compliance.

Staff recommend exploring increasing fine amounts where allowed under these newer state laws and simplifying the fine structure to minimize confusion, if directed by Council as part of a future work plan item. This work could be integrated into the work program for the Community Development Department for the next Budget cycle (2027-29 Financial Plan). If directed to do so by Council, staff would undertake a comprehensive review of all administrative citation tiers rather than pursuing isolated adjustments. The objective would be to evaluate allowable statutory maximums, assess enforcement effectiveness, and determine whether simplification or consolidation of the current multi-tier structure would improve clarity and deterrence.

Item 5a
Legislation Relevant to Code Enforcement
Recent changes to California law continue to expand the responsibilities of local code enforcement agencies, particularly in the areas of housing safety, habitability enforcement, and structural safety of multifamily buildings. These legislative updates have increased inspection obligations, documentation requirements, and coordination with property owners, tenants, and other regulatory agencies.

One of the recent mandates involves inspection of Exterior Elevated Elements (EEE) under Senate Bill 721, enacted in 2018, and Senate Bill 326, enacted in 2019. These laws require periodic inspection of balconies, decks, stairways, and walkways, and similar elevated structural elements in multifamily and common-interest developments to ensure structural safety. Both laws required initial inspections to be completed by January 1, 2025, by a licensed architect, civil engineer, or structural engineer. Inspections must be performed proactively by property owners and homeowners associations (HOAs) and require the use of third-party qualified professionals to identify deterioration, water intrusion, or structural deficiencies that could pose a life-safety risk.

When inspections identify an immediate safety hazard, local enforcement agencies may be required to respond, review reports, and verify that unsafe conditions are corrected or appropriately mitigated. To date, the City has received four instances in which inspection reports prepared by the engineer or architect of record identified immediate safety hazards and/or indicated that recommended repairs had not been completed as advised.

These situations required staff review, coordination with property owners and design professionals, and follow-up enforcement to ensure that unsafe conditions were addressed.

These requirements have increased coordination between building officials, property owners, engineers, architects, HOAs, and enforcement staff and have expanded the Division’s role in monitoring structural safety conditions beyond traditional nuisance and property maintenance enforcement.

Assembly Bill 838, enacted in 2021, strengthened enforcement responsibilities related to substandard housing and tenant complaints. The law requires local agencies to conduct inspections when a tenant reports substandard living conditions or potential lead hazards, document violations, notify the property owner of required corrections, and schedule reinspection to verify compliance. It also requires agencies to provide inspection documentation to affected tenants and limits the ability to charge inspection fees unless material violations are confirmed. In addition, AB 838 requires agencies to respond to qualifying complaints within timelines comparable to final inspection requests, which for the City generally results in next-business-day response obligations. The legislation also removed local discretion to require tenants to first attempt resolution with the landlord prior to initiating an inspection request. This legislation has increased workload associated with habitability complaints, rapid response obligations, documentation, tenant communication, and follow-up inspections in rental housing cases.

Assembly Bill 548 (2023) expanded local enforcement agency responsibilities under State

Item 5a
Housing Law by requiring jurisdictions to develop formal policies and procedures for broader multifamily housing inspections when substandard conditions or violations identified in one unit may affect others in the same building. Effective January 1, 2025, local agencies must evaluate adjacent and potentially impacted units, provide notice to property owners, issue corrective orders, and conduct reinspection to verify compliance.

This legislation increases inspection scope, documentation requirements, and administrative workload, particularly in rental and multifamily housing cases where building-wide defects may exist. For example, in 2024 the City conducted comprehensive inspections at the Madonna Road Apartments after staff identified significant electrical hazards with the potential to affect multiple units and buildings within the complex. The inspection effort involved six Building and Safety staff members conducting inspections across 120 apartment units, 17 main electrical panels, five community laundry rooms, and one office/community room. As a result of the inspections, staff identified approximately 350 unique code violations, including 168 damaged electrical receptacles, 20 improperly wired receptacles, 17 malfunctioning switches, seven damaged or improperly wired subpanels, five malfunctioning panel breakers determined to present imminent danger conditions, 10 improperly wired main electrical panels, and 123 subpanels contaminated by paint or texture overspray. The inspections also identified unpermitted plumbing and electrical work associated with the creation of an in-unit laundry room.

These types of large-scale multifamily inspections require significant coordination between enforcement staff, building officials, tenants, property managers, contractors, and licensed design professionals, and illustrate the increased demands associated with expanded state housing inspection mandates.

Senate Bill 1465 (2024) further expanded local code enforcement responsibilities under California’s State Housing Law by broadening the definition and enforcement scope of substandard buildings, strengthening tenant protections, and increasing procedural obligations for local agencies. The bill clarifies that substandard building standards apply regardless of zoning designation or approved use (i.e., applies also to commercial buildings) and expands enforcement authority to address conditions that endanger not only occupants, but also nearby residents and the public. SB 1465 also explicitly incorporates municipal code violations into State Housing Law enforcement proceedings, reinforces requirements for timely abatement actions, and increases obligations to provide notices and documentation to affected tenants. In addition, the bill strengthens legal remedies available when owners fail to correct violations, including expanded receivership authority, cost recovery mechanisms, relocation assistance requirements, and continued court oversight to ensure compliance. Collectively, these changes increase the administrative, legal, and inspection burden on local enforcement agencies by requiring more comprehensive case management, broader habitability oversight, and enhanced follow-through on complex substandard property cases, particularly where unsafe occupancy, chronic violations, or tenant displacement are involved. The changes also reflect a statewide shift toward stronger housing safety enforcement, increased protection for tenants, and proactive identification of structural hazards. These additional statutory responsibilities do not necessarily create more cases for the Code Enforcement team but have been incorporated into current operations.

Item 5a
City Established Code Enforcement Priorities and Goal Response Times The Code Enforcement Division operates within a policy framework in which available staffing resources must be aligned with community priorities, life-safety obligations, and regulatory mandates. State mandates, such as housing habitability enforcement, substandard housing response, and structural safety requirements, are non-discretionary and consume baseline staff capacity before local discretionary priorities can be addressed. Once these mandated issues are addressed, staff then prioritizes response to requests based on the Council adopted priority levels. As workload has expanded and diversified, establishing clear priorities has become increasingly important to ensure staff time is directed toward the most critical issues.

Expected response times establish how quickly staff are expected to respond to reported violations, and these response times are currently set by Council policy (see table below).

For purposes of Code Enforcement performance tracking, a case is generally considered “responded to” once staff complete the initial required action based on the nature of the complaint. For violations that are readily visible from the public right-of-way or that do not require access to private property, a response is considered complete once an officer conducts an inspection of the site. For complaints that require access to a residence, interior space, or otherwise inaccessible private property areas, a response is considered complete when staff make a reasonable attempt to contact the resident, property owner, or tenant to investigate the complaint. This distinction is important because response time measures initial action taken, rather than full case resolution or correction of the violation.

Maintaining City established response standards requires staff to consistently prioritize new incoming complaints, which can reduce flexibility to address longer-term investigations, proactive enforcement initiatives, and follow-up on unresolved cases. As investigation volume has increased in recent years, strict response timelines have increasingly directed staff resources toward reactive work, reducing capacity for preventative or strategic code compliance efforts. The following table identifies the currently adopted priority classifications for specific complaint types and their associated target response timeframes. This was most recently reviewed and adopted by Council in 2017 (Council Agenda Report, Council Action). At this time, staff does not recommend making changes to the priority classification and response timeframes, as they help staff prioritize complaints and they provide clarity to the public and staff regarding the program’s priorities. As new issues emerge that are not clearly defined in the priority list, staff uses judgement to categorize them in the most appropriate tier based on potential neighborhood impacts or impacts to health and safety. It should be noted that “land use” violations are not specifically called out in the response times framework, as they cover a wide variety of potential violations. Again, when requests for inspection for these types of violations are received, they are prioritized based on potential impacts.

Item 5a
Current Goal Response Timeframe and Priority Ranking for Code Enforcement Cases 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 with doors on 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- i.e. living in commercial building
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
* “Public nuisance” is a broad enforcement category that may include a wide range of conditions affecting public health, safety, or neighborhood livability. Some nuisance conditions, such as unsecured structures, exposed utilities, unsafe occupancy, illegal sewage discharge, or appliances and equipment that create an attractive nuisance hazard (such as abandoned refrigerators with doors attached), present immediate lifesafety concerns and are therefore assigned higher response priorities. Other nuisance conditions, such as ongoing noise, odor, property maintenance, or unpermitted construction cases, may require longer-term investigation and compliance efforts and are prioritized based on the severity of the condition, immediacy of the risk, and potential impacts to occupants or the surrounding community.

It should be noted that, even with increased workload, staff always prioritizes immediate health and safety related items first. For example, staff will always make every effort to address immediately response priority level items immediately, even on weekends or during evenings, etc. Other items that are health and safety related will be prioritized over those that are not. As workloads increase, the items that tend to be deprioritized are those that are not immediate health and safety items.

Item 5a
Metrics and Current Workload
The Code Enforcement Division monitors workload using several key performance indicators (KPI), including Requests for Investigation (complaints received), cases opened, cases resolved, and response time performance. Together, these measures provide insight into service demand, operational trends, and the overall balance between incoming workload and available staffing resources. Of these metrics, the primary KPI regularly reported to Council is response time performance, which is included in the Department’s Performance and Workload Measures as part of the annual budget review process. Council has established an operational goal that 85% of complaints be responded to within the adopted Expected Response Times framework. This KPI serves as the Division’s primary externally reported performance benchmark and reflects how effectively staff are meeting Council-adopted service expectations.

While response time compliance is the principal Council-facing KPI, additional internal KPIs including total complaints received, cases opened, and cases resolved are used administratively to evaluate operational workload, staffing demand, and officer productivity. These internal measures are important because they provide context for response time performance by illustrating fluctuations in complaint volume, case complexity, and investigative burden that may contribute to response time shortfalls. For example, increases in complaints received or more resource-intensive investigations may reduce the Division’s ability to maintain the 85% on-time response target, even where staff productivity remains high.

Requests for Investigation
Requests for Investigation represent the primary driver of workload and reflect community demand for service. Using calendar-year totals, investigation requests increased from approximately 566 in 2017 to 1,259 in 2025, representing roughly 122 percent growth.

After remaining relatively stable through 2019 and temporarily disrupted during the pandemic period, request volume began increasing sharply in 2022 and has remained elevated through 2023–2025. Through May 15 of 2026, the City has received 547 requests for investigation so far. A detailed review of requests from September 2022 through the present confirms this sustained increase in demand. Requests rose significantly in 2024 compared to 2023 and remained at similarly elevated levels in 2025, indicating that increased workload reflects a structural shift rather than a temporary spike.

This sustained growth corresponds with expanded community use of the AskSLO reporting system in 2022, broader regulatory responsibilities, and continued reliance on complaint-driven enforcement.

Review of requestor data from 2023 through 2025 indicates that the City received approximately 3,613 total investigation requests from approximately 666 unique complainants during that period. An additional 795 requests were submitted anonymously. This data reflects broad community utilization of the reporting system while also demonstrating that some individuals submit multiple requests over time related to ongoing neighborhood, housing, or property maintenance concerns. The following chart illustrates the investigation requests, without Covid-specific related requests, in order to illustrate the changes over time.

Item 5a
Recent request data and case review show that Code Enforcement activity is largely driven by property maintenance and neighborhood condition issues3, which account for roughly 40 percent of total workload. Common requests include abandoned shopping carts, housing and habitability concerns, unpermitted construction, vegetation and rightof-way maintenance, refuse issues, and exterior property conditions. The remaining 60 percent of cases cover a broad range of general compliance issues such as accessory structures, minor building violations, illegal occupancy, signage, and abandoned vehicles, many of which are resolved quickly, though some require ongoing monitoring. For requests received between 2023 and 2025, most fall within Priority 4 (72-hour response), accounting for 3,220 requests, or approximately 74 percent of all request topics. Priority 2 and Priority 3 requests accounted for 801 and 301 requests respectively, while Priority 1 immediate-response requests represented a comparatively small share with 15 requests.

Priority Level of Requests between 2023 and 2025
Priority Level Total
Requests
Percent of total
Requests
Priority 1 –Immediate Response 15 0.3%
Priority 2 – 24 Hour Response 801 18.5%
Priority 3 – 48 Hour Response 301 6.9%
Priority 4 – 72 Hour Response 3,220 74.2%

3 “Property maintenance and neighborhood condition issues” generally refer to quality-of-life or aesthetic conditions that may affect neighborhood appearance, livability, or compatibility, but do not typically present an immediate threat to public health or safety. Examples may include overgrown vegetation, refuse container storage, front or side yard parking, exterior storage, abandoned shopping carts, minor signage violations, fence maintenance, landscaping maintenance, and similar property upkeep concerns.

Item 5a
Response Times
Response performance provides important insight into operational capacity, workload pressure, and the Code Enforcement Division’s ability to meet Council-established response expectations. Fiscal year analysis based on the actual and expected response dates as defined per the priority levels previously discussed (July 1–June 30) shows that on-time response performance was generally strongest during earlier years of the program, with rates commonly ranging from approximately 72 to 81 percent between FY 2014–2015 and FY 2020–2021. Beginning in FY 2021–2022, available historical reporting indicates that approximately 79.8 percent of requests were appropriately responded to on or before the expected due date across roughly 430 investigation requests. However, due to a transition in citizen request management systems and a partial data gap between approximately May 2022 and October 2022, detailed post-deadline closure metrics (such as completion within 1, 3, or 14 days past due) are not fully available for FY 2021–2022 and portions of FY 2022–2023.

For FY 2022–2023, based on departmental summary figures rather than the incomplete case-level dataset, approximately 75.9 percent of 952 requests were appropriately responded to on time. This represents a moderate decline from FY 2021–2022 but remains substantially stronger than subsequent years. On-time response performance then declined significantly as requests for investigation increased, falling to approximately

60.2 percent in FY 2023–2024 and 59.8 percent in FY 2024–2025. For FY 2025–2026 (partial year through April 2026), current reporting indicates modest improvement to approximately 63.3 percent. Differences between total requests filed, total requests responded to, and year-to-date response calculations in the current partial year likely reflect cases that remain open, were initiated late in the reporting window, or have not yet reached final disposition. This decline in on-time performance corresponds closely with substantial growth in annual requests for investigation.

It is also important to note that response time expectations are measured in calendar days rather than working days, while current staffing does not include routine weekend coverage. As a result, requests received later in the workweek—particularly on Thursdays or Fridays—may not receive an initial response until the following Monday. This timing dynamic can artificially extend measured response times by two to three days, even when staff are responding at the earliest practical opportunity during normal business operations. Accordingly, a portion of responses categorized as “past due” may reflect scheduling limitations rather than delayed action, and this factor should be considered when evaluating overall performance trends.

Although a smaller percentage of requests are completed strictly by the assigned due date, most are still resolved relatively soon thereafter. In FY 2023–2024, approximately 78 percent of requests were responded to appropriately within one day past due, 90 percent within three days, and 98 percent within 14 days. In FY 2024–2025, approximately 77 percent were responded to appropriately within one day, 89 percent within three days, and 97 percent within 14 days. In FY 2025–2026 (partial year), approximately 82 percent have been responded to appropriately within one day, 92 percent within three days, and 99 percent within 14 days. These figures indicate that while increasing workload has affected the Division’s ability to consistently meet formal due

Item 5a
dates, the overwhelming majority of requests continue to be responded to within a relatively short period. Delays may reflect field verification, investigative complexity, coordination with property owners or tenants, time allowed for voluntary compliance, and staff workload distribution.

Response Times for Requests Between 2021 and 2026
Fiscal Year Total
Requests
Responded on
or Before Due
Within 1 Day
Past Due
Within 3 Days
Past Due
Within 14 Days
Past Due
FY 2021–2022* 430 79.80% — — —
FY 2022–2023* 952 75.90% — — —
FY 2023–2024 1,130 60.20% 78% 90% 98%
FY 2024–2025 1,421 59.80% 77% 89% 97%
FY 2025–2026
(partial) 1,111 63.30% 82% 92% 99%
*FY 2021–2022 and FY 2022–2023 include known reporting limitations due to system transition and incomplete case-level continuity.

Because of system transitions and reporting limitations, FY 2021–2022 and FY 2022– 2023 should be interpreted cautiously when making direct comparisons to later years.

Case Duration
For purposes of this analysis, case duration refers to the total amount of time between when a case is opened and when it is fully resolved and closed. Analysis of case duration timelines indicates that most code enforcement cases are fully resolved within a relatively short timeframe, while a smaller number of complex cases remain open for extended periods. Of approximately 7,371 closed code enforcement and safe housing cases between 2017 and 2025, about 64% were resolved within 30 days, nearly 78% were resolved within 60 days, and roughly 89% were resolved within six months. Median case duration was 19 days, demonstrating that most complaints are addressed quickly.

However, a smaller share of cases, typically involving housing, structural, land use, repeat violations, or situations requiring legal escalation, remain open significantly longer, with approximately 6% lasting more than one year. These longer-duration cases often demand substantially more staff time, coordination, inspections, and follow-up, contributing disproportionately to overall workload despite representing a relatively small portion of total cases. Staff estimates that approximately 10 percent of the team’s time is allocated to a handful of longer-duration cases at any given time. Some of the longest-duration cases have been open for several years due to legal issues and/or challenges with working with the property owner. This pattern reflects a program that generally resolves routine complaints efficiently while also managing a smaller but resource-intensive portfolio of prolonged enforcement actions.

Item 5a
Case Duration Between 2017 and 2025
Time Case is Open Number of Cases % of Closed Cases
Closed within 1 month (≤30 days) 4,750 64.40%
1–2 months (31–60 days) 989 13.40%
2–6 months (61–180 days) 834 11.30%
6–12 months (181–365 days) 350 4.70%
1–2 years (366–730 days) 259 3.50%
Over 2 years (>730 days) 189 2.60%
Emerging Themes and New Challenges in Code Enforcement
Over the past several years, new themes have emerged in Code Enforcement, and priorities have begun to shift based on input from the community and changes in regulations. The most impactful of these are noted in this section.

Fraternity and Sorority House Enforcement
Overview of Enforcement
Enforcement of Fraternity and Sorority house land use regulations has become one of the fastest growing areas of code enforcement in the past three years, due in large part to a dramatic increase in the number of requests for investigation received by the Department. Fraternity and Sorority Houses are required to have Conditional Use Permits granted by the City of San Luis Obispo and can only be located in R-3 and R-4 zones (SLOMC 17.10.020/17.86.130). Houses that are used as Fraternity or Sorority houses that are operating without a Conditional Use Permit are violating the municipal code and subject to enforcement. In addition, fraternity and sorority houses that are operating with Conditional Use Permits but violating the conditions of these permits are subject to rereview of the permit and potential revocation, pursuant to the terms of the use permits.

Review of investigation and enforcement activity since March of 2024 indicates that more than 100 unique properties or reported locations have been associated with suspected fraternity or sorority land use or use permit violations, reflecting the broad scope of this enforcement issue citywide.

Code Enforcement responds to complaints and proactively identified violations related to fraternity and sorority houses using the same standardized investigation and enforcement process used for other types of violations. Complaints may be received through the City’s request system, hotline, email, in-person reporting, or referral from the Police Department. Upon receipt, staff document all relevant details, including complainant information, descriptions, photographs, and any supporting evidence. An initial assessment is conducted to determine whether sufficient information exists to proceed, followed by a formal investigation to verify that a violation has occurred. This includes

Item 5a
confirming that an event took place, determining whether it was sponsored by a fraternity or sorority, and verifying that members of the organization reside at the subject property.

If evidence is insufficient, the request is closed. If a violation is confirmed, a formal code enforcement case is opened and a Notice of Violation (NOV) is issued to the property owner, with copies provided to occupants, affiliated organizations, and university representatives. Cases remain open for monitoring and repeat violations within a 12- month period result in escalation to administrative citations and potential further enforcement action.

Coordination with the Police Department has become a key component of enforcement efforts related to fraternity and sorority houses. Code Enforcement staff receive a weekly report identifying all noise citations and warnings issued by the Police Department during the prior week. These reports are systematically reviewed to identify locations that may be associated with fraternity or sorority activity. If a listed location has been previously identified, suspected to be affiliated with a fraternity or sorority, or is known to have an approved Conditional Use Permit, staff initiate follow-up investigation. This includes reviewing available police reports, conducting additional research, and evaluating whether the noise violation may have resulted from a fraternity- or sorority-sponsored event. Staff routinely review social media and other publicly available information to determine whether events were advertised or promoted by a fraternity or sorority, and conduct site visits to interview residents regarding the nature of the gathering associated with the noise citation. This process allows staff to convert otherwise isolated noise violations into documented land use violations when appropriate, strengthening enforcement cases and improving overall compliance monitoring.

Beginning in 2026, this coordination effort was expanded through the implementation of a formal weekly notification process to the University’s Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities. Following review of the Police Department’s weekly noise citation and warning reports, Code Enforcement prepares and transmits a structured summary identifying properties that meet defined criteria, including locations previously identified as fraternity or sorority residences or properties operating under an approved Conditional Use Permit that received a noise citation or warning during the prior week. These notifications provide additional context regarding municipal code requirements and potential violations, including the relationship between noise violations and Conditional Use Permit compliance, and are intended to support University review of potential violations of student organization policies and event registration requirements. This ongoing information-sharing process enhances coordination between the City and University, improves accountability, and supports more comprehensive enforcement of both municipal regulations and applicable university conduct standards.

Enforcement involving fraternity and sorority properties often requires coordination across multiple departments, including between CDD and the Police Department which respond to noise complaints and may involve repeat violations, structural safety concerns, or highoccupancy conditions. These enforcement actions represent one of the most complex and resource-intensive components of the Code Enforcement program in the last few years. This work includes enforcement of conditional use permit requirements for permitted fraternity and sorority houses, investigation of land use violations associated

Item 5a
with unpermitted fraternities and sororities, and enforcement related to meetings, gatherings, and events conducted at these properties. Unlike typical nuisance or property maintenance violations, fraternity and sorority enforcement frequently involve repeat violations, multiple enforcement actions at a single property, events that occur after hours and on weekends when Code Enforcement staff are not typically scheduled to work, and escalation to administrative citations or Planning Commission review.

Review of investigation and enforcement records indicates that staff have responded to 176 investigation requests associated with fraternity and sorority land use and use permit violations between 2015 and April 2026, resulting in approximately 90 formal code enforcement cases across 66 unique properties. Prior to 2024, requests related to fraternity and sorority land use violations were relatively infrequent, with only eight identified investigation requests between 2015 and 2023 combined. All received requests since 2023 were submitted by a total of eight unique complainants, including one anonymous complaint.

Investigation requests increased significantly beginning in 2024, with 37 requests received in 2024, 63 in 2025, and 68 additional requests received in just the first four months of 2026, illustrating rapidly increasing demand, concentrated enforcement periods, and expanding workload. These investigation requests include both requests to investigate suspected unpermitted fraternity and sorority houses based on events that resulted in noise violations or police calls, as well as requests related to publicly advertised events that did not ultimately result in a noise violation. Formal code enforcement cases similarly increased from 23 in 2024 to 59 in 2025, with cases continuing into 2026.

Together, these figures demonstrate that fraternity enforcement has evolved from an occasional land use issue into a major operational category requiring sustained investigative, administrative, and enforcement resources. Enforcement actions have included numerous advisory notices, repeated Notices of Violation, escalating administrative citations, and several cases advancing to Planning Commission review resulting in modification or revocation of use permits. During this time, two Conditional Use Permits were voided due to inactivity, and an additional three use permits were revoked by the Planning Commission.

In addition to reactive complaint-based enforcement, the Division has undertaken proactive enforcement efforts, particularly during 2025, to identify violations that may not have been formally reported. These efforts included systematic monitoring of social media platforms for advertised fraternity and sorority events, cross-referencing event dates and times with known or suspected locations and conducting coordinated inspection campaigns following identified events. Staff also engaged directly with fraternity and sorority organizations through outreach and education, including attending campus events to communicate City regulations and request voluntary compliance. Through these proactive efforts, staff documented dozens of events across multiple locations, many of which had not been reported through traditional complaint channels, significantly expanding the scope of enforcement activity.

Item 5a
These proactive investigations required a substantial investment of staff time. As an example, over a concentrated three-week enforcement period in 2025, staff dedicated more than 100 hours to research, monitoring, field inspections, evidence collection, and follow-up investigation activities. This level of effort was necessary to establish verifiable evidence of violations, particularly in cases where events occurred outside normal working hours or where responsible parties were unwilling to confirm activity. This time commitment is significantly higher than that required for typical nuisance or property maintenance cases and illustrates the resource-intensive nature of this enforcement category.

Financial penalties issued through these enforcement actions are significant and increasing. Review of City citation records from January 1, 2024, through May 2, 2026, indicates that fraternity/sorority-related code cases resulted in 34 administrative citations across 26 separate code cases, totaling approximately $24,100 in assessed fines.

Citation activity increased sharply from just one citation totaling $100 in 2024 to 23 citations totaling approximately $8,500 in 2025, with 10 additional citations totaling approximately $15,500 already issued during the first four months of 2026 alone. This trend reflects both intensified enforcement activity and increasing use of higher-tier penalties for repeat or ongoing violations. Several repeat-violation fraternity properties accumulated more than $2,500 in fines each, demonstrating that a relatively small number of chronic violators can require disproportionate staff resources, repeated enforcement cycles, and escalating penalties.

In total, enforcement actions during this period have included dozens of Notices of Violation issued to property owners and responsible parties, 34 administrative citations resulting in monetary penalties, and multiple cases escalated to the Planning Commission for consideration of Conditional Use Permit modification or revocation. These outcomes reflect a graduated enforcement approach that begins with voluntary compliance and escalates to financial penalties and land use entitlement actions when violations persist.

It should be noted that the City is also taking steps to educate students about regulations pertaining to Fraternity and Sorority housing including attending meetings of fraternity and sorority leadership groups to provide information, and meeting with individual organizations to discuss rules and procedures. The City is also working with Cal Poly administration to discuss this complex issue and explore potential actions that can be taken to ensure better compliance with regulations. These actions include looking into how events could be moved onto campus, whether there are alternative venues in town for Fraternity and Sorority events, and assessing how the University and City educate students on regulations.

Interestingly, data that was recently analyzed appears to show that noise complaints decreased fairly significantly during the same time that a large number of beds opened to students on campus. This could indicate that housing more students on campus addresses some of the neighborhood compatibility and noise issues, and the City and Cal Poly will continue to analyze this data. The following figure, created using noise data from the Police Department and student housing data from Cal Poly, illustrates that the

Item 5a
City experienced a fairly significant decrease in Noise Party4 complaints (blue line) from 2,896 in 2007 to 1,729 in 2013. Around the same time, a significant number of beds (yellow line) opened on Cal Poly campus. In 2006, 3,600 students lived on campus (about 20 percent of enrolled students) and 2013, 7,241 students lived on campus (about 37 percent of enrolled students). It appears that the small dip in Noise Party complaints that occurred immediately prior to 2020 could be at least partially related to the opening of the yakʔitʸutʸu dorm in academic year 2018-19, which houses more than 1,400 students. The drop in students living on campus in 2020 is an anomaly caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Challenges with Fraternity and Sorority House Enforcement and Impact on Code Enforcement Program
There are several aspects of Fraternity and Sorority House zoning enforcement that are unique and make enforcement particularly time consuming and challenging. First, enforcement frequently occurs in concentrated periods tied to academic and event cycles (such as Rush week). For example, during January and February 2025, numerous investigation requests and enforcement actions were generated within short timeframes related to reported unpermitted events. Similarly, during late September and early October enforcement periods, staff documented violations across a large number of

4 Noise Party complaints are specific to noises such as loud music and loud voices, and are distinct from other noise issues like barking dogs or loud construction noise, which are classified differently by the Police Department.

Item 5a
properties associated with fraternity activity. This episodic pattern means enforcement demand is not evenly distributed throughout the year but instead occurs in sudden spikes that require rapid intake, land use analysis, field investigation, evidence documentation, interdepartmental coordination, and enforcement follow-up over compressed timeframes.

In addition, the time commitment associated with fraternity enforcement is significantly higher than for typical nuisance or maintenance cases. Individual properties may require repeated inspections, tracking of violations across multiple dates, coordination with Police Department and City Attorney’s Office, and preparation of administrative enforcement documentation. Repeat violations and escalation procedures further increase staff time, particularly when cases advance to administrative hearings or Planning Commission review. The scale of this work -169 investigation requests, approximately 90 code cases, and 34 citations totaling more than $24,000 in roughly two years—demonstrates that fraternity enforcement now represents a major specialized workload category within the Code Enforcement Division.

In addition, violations are frequently event-based and recurring. It can require significant staff time to confirm event-based violations (such as hosting a Fraternity sponsored event), especially since Code Enforcement staff do not generally work during the hours that the events are occurring (evening hours/weekends), so they cannot be confirmed at the time of the event. This requires Code Enforcement staff to investigate and assemble information from a variety of sources to confirm a violation, as code enforcement is not determining whether a noise violation occurred (that is determined by the Police Department at the time of the event) but is using information to determine if a land use violation has occurred. The recurring nature of these events also requires ongoing monitoring rather than one-time correction. Determining whether a property meets the municipal definition of a fraternity (see SLOMC 17.156.014) can require detailed investigation and documentation, and student behavior changes, which requires constant change in investigatory tools or processes.

At this time, staff does not have evidence that the extensive effort to address Fraternity and Sorority land use violations has resulted in measurable change in the number of unpermitted houses and/or Fraternity and Sorority events occurring in unpermitted houses. As potential land use violations without an immediate health and safety impact, unpermitted Fraternity or Sorority houses currently fall under Priority 4 of the Enforcement Priorities & Response Time Standards, and the same is true of noise violations occurring at either permitted or un-permitted houses. Given the level of staff effort seen since 2024 and the episodic but intensive nature of this work, it is recommended that Code Enforcement staff continue to investigate and respond to complaints associated with these activities consistent with existing Enforcement Priorities & Response Time standards while focusing first on violations that result in disturbance to others (such as instances where a noise citation has been issued by the Police Department).

Overlay Zones and Other Regulatory Tools for Fraternity and Sorority Houses In response to ongoing concerns regarding neighborhood livability, code compliance, and the concentration of Fraternity and Sorority houses in specific areas of the City, the idea of an overlay zone has been raised by various members of the community as a potential

Item 5a
tool for regulation. This concept was also identified in the 2025 Grand Jury Report on Greek Housing as a potential strategy to better manage the localized impacts associated with these uses. This section of the staff report is meant to provide high-level information about this concept and to seek direction on a potential future work plan item related to changing Fraternity/Sorority regulations in the municipal code.

An overlay zone is a zoning mechanism that applies additional or different standards or requirements to a defined geographic area, that is imposed on top of the underlying base zoning. Overlay zones are typically used to address unique or area-specific issues that are not effectively managed through citywide regulations (for example, issues that may arise near a college campus). In the context of Fraternity and Sorority housing, an overlay zone could be structured to address operational and neighborhood compatibility concerns.

Potential regulatory approaches within an overlay zone could include:
 Enhanced performance standards related to noise, outdoor gatherings, and property maintenance;
 Tailored operational requirements (e.g., management plans, point-of-contact requirements, or event protocols);
 Proactive or geographically focused code enforcement strategies; and  Administrative permitting requirements tied to ongoing compliance.

It should be noted that the City’s ability to regulate college related neighborhood compatibility issues through zoning is significantly constrained by California state housing law. The City cannot adopt regulations that would:
 Reduce allowable residential density below what is permitted by the base zoning;  Impose occupancy limits based on relationships among residents (i.e., regulate who may live together);
 Impose occupancy limits beyond what the state law allows (i.e. regulate how many people can live together)5;
 Establish minimum parking requirements beyond what is allowed under state law;  Indirectly constrain housing supply;
 Discriminate against a class of residents (e.g., students) in a manner inconsistent with fair housing requirements.

The City’s current process incorporates many of the possible regulatory tools of an overlay zone mentioned above, as Fraternity and Sorority houses are only allowed in designated areas (R-3 and R-4 zones) and are required to adhere to certain standards and obtain a regulatory permit. As described above, if there was interest in moving toward a different regulatory scheme for Fraternity and Sorority houses, it would take time to carefully craft new regulations considering the goals of the overlay zone as well as the legal limitations that exist, and staff recommends adding this as a work plan item for the

5 Current standards for occupancy limits are complex and regulated by the International Property Maintenance Code. In short, every bedroom occupied by more than one person shall contain not less than 50 square feet of floor area for each occupant. In addition, for efficiency units (no bedroom) a unit occupied by one person shall have at least 120 square feet, a unit occupied by two persons shall have at least 190 square feet, and a unit occupied by three persons shall have at least 260 square feet.

Item 5a
next financial plan.

Comparative Case Studies
Staff reviewed several jurisdictions that have implemented geographically targeted strategies to address Greek or student housing impacts. These examples illustrate a range of approaches.
 Chico, CA – The City of Chico has established a Fraternity and Sorority Overlay Zone (FS) that limits where recognized Greek organizations may locate and is primarily in the South Campus Area adjacent to California State University, Chico.

Greek houses are permitted in this area, but are also subject to a separate permit process administered by the City (A Fraternity and Sorority House Permit). The Permit required is granted for a period of one year and requirements that the names and contact information for officers of the fraternity/sorority are submitted to the City as well as written authorization from the property owner granting permission to operate a fraternity/sorority at the location. This permit does not appear to be discretionary. This is similar to the current regulatory system in San Luis Obispo, where Greek Houses are allowed in certain zones (although the City does not use an overlay zone, they are only allowed in R-3 and R-4 zones) and subject to an additional permit process; however, the City of San Luis Obispo CUP process is more onerous, more expensive, and includes more conditions regulating operation of Greek houses. The CUP also runs with the land, meaning it does not expire after a period of time, unless the use is discontinued for at least a year.
 Davis, CA – The City of Davis utilizes a “Residential Restricted” (R-R) zoning district intended to preserve neighborhood character in areas with high student populations. The district includes limitations on certain high-intensity residential uses, for example, by requiring that single-family homes have five or fewer bedrooms to be allowed without a conditional use permit. The zoning district does not specifically address Greek housing; however, a conditional use permit can be granted for a “living groups or other organized groups of university students, faculty members or employees, who have elected officers, who are self-governed and who do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion or national origin”.  Santa Clara, CA - Santa Clara has adopted a proactive, partnership-driven, geographically focused enforcement model to support neighborhood wellness around Santa Clara University (Santa Clara University Area Enforcement). In this defined area, the tools used in this model include proactive code enforcement that include coordinated efforts between the City, the university, and the police department, with an emphasis on early intervention and ongoing compliance of municipal code standards. The program also includes an “annual walkabout” with university staff and students, police and code enforcement. Groups of these individuals walk door-to-door to discuss being good neighbors. This program does not specifically address Fraternity or Sorority houses, but is a geographically based program addressing university related neighborhood wellness concerns.

Item 5a
Based on this cursory review, overlay zones are relatively uncommon as a standalone regulatory tool and appear to be most commonly paired with permitting and enforcement mechanisms such as required discretionary permits for Greek or group houses. City staff is recommending that a work plan item for the Community Development Department and any future work on studying or changing the municipal code regulations pertaining to Fraternity and Sorority Houses would need to be carefully undertaken with special attention paid to enforceability of regulations.

Short-Term Rental Enforcement
Short-term rental enforcement focuses on identifying unpermitted operations, ensuring compliance with homestay regulations, and maintaining fairness in housing and tax compliance. These cases often involve investigative work, documentation, follow-up monitoring, and coordination with licensing and planning functions. Enforcement can be challenging because online rental platforms do not list addresses of rentals, and obscure specific location related data, which can make it difficult to identify where short-term rentals are operating.

As of the writing of this report, staff is not proactively monitoring short-term rental violations, but instead responds on a complaint basis, consistent with other code enforcement matters. When a member of the public submits information regarding a suspected short-term rental, the complaint is investigated, and if warranted, a case is opened. Review of investigation request data indicates that the City has received approximately 36 short-term rental or homestay-related investigation requests between 2023 and May 2026, including 7 in 2023, 20 in 2024, 7 in 2025, and 2 additional requests through May 2026.

City staff does currently have a subscription for specialized software, Rentalscape, that helps identify short-term rentals in the community. This software gathers data from a variety of sources to identify the probable addresses of short-term rentals (this is necessary as most short-term rental listings do not contain the address). The software can also facilitate proactive large-scale enforcement of suspected rentals through automated mailings to property owners that appear to be operating short term rentals without proper permits. Staff has not fully utilized the proactive capabilities of the software given the current staff capacity and focus on neighborhood wellness, safe housing, and fraternity and sorority compliance.

In addition, Senate Bill 346 (Short-Term Rental Facilitator Act of 2025), enacted in October 2025, authorizes local agencies to adopt ordinances requiring short-term rental platforms to provide physical address information, listing identifiers, license numbers, and transient occupancy tax certification data for rentals operating within their jurisdictions.

This legislation may provide the City with a new enforcement mechanism to improve identification of unpermitted rentals, strengthen transient occupancy tax compliance, and reduce investigative time associated with locating suspected violations. Importantly, SB 346 does not automatically impose these requirements; local implementation would require Council adoption of an ordinance establishing reporting requirements and enforcement provisions. City staff are currently looking into whether a local ordinance based on the new legislation would be beneficial to enforcement efforts. Preliminary

Item 5a
discussions with those familiar with the field and research has indicated that local ordinances are likely to draw legal challenges. As of early 2026, relatively few California jurisdictions have formally adopted implementing ordinances pursuant to SB 346; Cathedral City appears to be potentially the only City that has adopted an ordinance in response to SB 346, though several cities with existing short-term rental enforcement programs already maintain similar reporting and platform compliance frameworks.

Safe Housing Education and Enforcement
Safe Housing enforcement addresses substandard rental conditions, unsafe occupancy situations, and minimum habitability requirements for housing units. This work includes both enforcement and education components, helping ensure rental units meet State and local safety standards while providing tenants and property owners with information about compliance.

Safe Housing enforcement is guided by a combination of California Health and Safety Code, the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), and the building and residential codes adopted by the City through Chapter 15.02 of the Municipal Code. The City has formally adopted the California Building Code, California Residential Code, and related codes (Title 24), as well as the International Property Maintenance Code, which together establish minimum standards for both the construction and ongoing maintenance of structures.

The IPMC serves as the primary standard for evaluating existing housing conditions and requires that structures be maintained in a safe, sanitary, and habitable condition. These standards address essential life-safety and habitability requirements, including structural soundness, safe electrical and plumbing systems, adequate heating and ventilation, weather protection, and the provision of basic facilities such as hot and cold running water, sanitary fixtures, and adequate space for occupancy. The IPMC also regulates occupancy limits, maintenance of building systems, and the general condition of interior and exterior environments to ensure they do not pose a risk to occupants.

In parallel, the California Building Code and Residential Code establish requirements for construction and building systems and require that most construction, alteration, repair, or modification of a structure be performed under a valid permit. Pursuant to Section 105.1 of the California Building Code and Section R105.1 of the California Residential Code, property owners must obtain permits prior to constructing, enlarging, altering, repairing, moving, demolishing, or changing the occupancy of a structure, as well as for modifications to electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing systems. This process ensures that work is reviewed and inspected for compliance with applicable safety standards.

While certain minor work is exempt from permit requirements under Sections 105.2 and R105.2, these exemptions do not authorize work that violates code requirements or creates unsafe conditions. In practice, Code Enforcement staff frequently encounter unpermitted work—such as garage conversions, unapproved electrical or plumbing installations, or structural alterations—that contribute directly to substandard housing conditions. These cases often require both correction of unsafe conditions and retroactive compliance with permitting requirements.

Item 5a
Under California Health and Safety Code, a building is considered “substandard” when conditions exist that endanger the life, health, or safety of occupants or the public. These conditions include inadequate sanitation (such as lack of plumbing fixtures, hot water, or heating), structural hazards (such as deteriorated foundations, walls, or roofs), faulty weather protection (including water intrusion), unsafe building systems, pest infestation, mold, accumulation of debris or waste, and inadequate fire safety or exiting conditions.

Code Enforcement staff use these criteria, in conjunction with IPMC standards, to evaluate and document violations during inspections.

In practice, Safe Housing enforcement focuses on ensuring that rental housing remains safe for occupancy by addressing both ongoing maintenance violations and underlying building deficiencies. This includes correcting life-safety hazards such as exposed wiring or structural instability, resolving sanitation issues such as lack of water or sewage service, addressing environmental concerns such as mold or pest infestation, and ensuring that any construction or alterations have been properly permitted and inspected.

Together, these standards establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for safe and habitable housing and form the basis for enforcement actions.

Safe Housing cases are among the most complex and time-consuming handled by the Division. They often involve structural, electrical, plumbing, or habitability issues, and may require extended case management, coordination with Building and Fire staff, and ongoing monitoring. In addition to enforcement, staff spend significant time providing education and guidance to tenants and property owners. The primary challenge is balancing the high resource demand of these cases with broader enforcement responsibilities. Unlike many exterior nuisance cases, Safe Housing matters also frequently involve interior conditions, tenant-landlord dynamics, and structural or building system deficiencies that require technical evaluation and sustained case management.

Based on calendar-year reporting, the Division received 68 substandard rental housing complaints in 2023, 95 in 2024, and 96 in 2025, with 30 complaints received to date in 2026. During the same period, total Code Enforcement investigation requests were 1,090 in 2023, 1,451 in 2024, 1,336 in 2025, and 483 to-date in 2026. As a result, Safe Housing complaints have consistently accounted for approximately 6 to 7 percent of all investigation requests annually. It should be noted that renters can be hesitant to submit requests for investigation regarding safe housing issues due to retaliation from landlords, which may impact the number of requests received by the City.

A substantial share of Safe Housing complaints result in formal enforcement action, though annual totals vary significantly based on the nature and scale of individual cases.

In 2023, 19 substandard housing code cases were opened. In 2024, 58 substandard housing cases were opened, representing a substantial year-over-year increase; notably, 14 of these cases were associated with a large apartment complex involving approximately 120 individual units with identified substandard conditions, which significantly amplified enforcement workload despite being grouped into a limited number of case files. In 2025, 36 substandard housing cases were opened, remaining above 2023 levels but below the unusually high 2024 volume. These figures demonstrate that raw

Item 5a
case counts alone may not fully capture program workload, as certain cases—particularly large multi-unit properties—can require extensive inspections, documentation, coordination, and follow-up comparable to dozens of smaller individual cases. ‘Safe Housing’ Complaints
Calendar Year Safe Housing
Complaints Received
Total Investigation
Requests
Safe Housing % of
All Requests
Substandard Housing
Code Cases Opened
2023 68 1,090 6.20% 19
2024 95 1,451 6.50% 58¹
2025 96 1,336 7.20% 36
2026 (to date) 30 483 6.20% 15
¹ Of the 58 cases opened in 2024, 14 were associated with a large apartment complex involving approximately 120 individual units with identified substandard housing violations,
Safe Housing enforcement also includes an education and outreach component. Staff have participated in Cal Poly’s Off-Campus Housing & Resource Fair to provide students with information regarding tenant rights, complaint procedures, and minimum housing standards. Education is routinely provided directly to tenants and property owners during complaint investigations. However, outreach remains largely reactive and case-specific.

Because the City does not maintain a comprehensive inventory of rental properties, the Division does not have a complete picture of where rental housing is located, limiting the ability to conduct targeted communication, trend analysis, or preventative outreach.

Long-Duration and High Resource Cases impacting neighborhood wellness Some code enforcement cases remain open for extended periods due to complexity, financial hardship, structural issues, or repeated non-compliance. These cases often involve unsafe housing conditions, unpermitted construction, zoning violations, or longterm monitoring requirements. While relatively small in number, they require sustained staff attention and can significantly affect workload distribution. Examples of these cases include 1150 Laurel Lane, which has required a significant amount of staff time from multiple departments over the past year. Other examples include a large scale inspection of the Madonna Road Apartments, which took place over 5 days in an effort to inspect 120 residential units to identify potential electrical hazards. Inspection required collaboration with apartment management and electrical contractors who were on site and able to correct many of the required repairs the same day they were identified.

Another example is a property located at the corner of Casa Street and Murray Street in which staff identified a vacant property that had been unlawfully occupied by several transient individuals. Staff documented the deterioration over several months, issued several citations as a result of non-compliance and eventually, due to the imminent danger posed by the property and the lack of response by the property owner, moved to board all structures on site to prevent further unauthorized entry. The property was declared a public nuisance after a public hearing was held in which staff presented on the documented conditions. These efforts were the result of a two and half year process in

Item 5a
which the property owner only complied after a public nuisance hearing. The case remains open and is currently being reassessed for continuing violations.

Long-duration cases often require repeated inspections, coordination with multiple departments, and legal or administrative processes. The primary challenge is balancing continued management of these complex cases while maintaining response to new complaints. Council direction may clarify whether long-term case resolution should be prioritized relative to rapid response to new investigations.

Summary
The staff report illustrates that there is expanding volume of requests and increasing complexity of cases, particularly those involving safe housing, fraternity and sorority enforcement, and multifamily structural safety.

This increase in requests impacts staff’s ability to engage in broader strategic and program-development work that would strengthen long-term outcomes. As such, staff has made several recommendations in this report that address the need to prioritize analysis and implementation of program efficiencies.

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. • Staff Recommendations. Does the City Council concur with the staff recommendations outlined above related to
a. Affirming the current Enforcement Priorities and Response Time Standards, b. Exploring a simplified Administrative Fine Structure, c. Adding a work program item to create a new regulatory structure for Fraternity and Sorority Houses,
d. Continuing the enforcement of fraternity and sorority land use violations consistent with the Enforcement Priorities and Response Time Standards while prioritizing violations that result in disturbance to others, and e. Directing staff to undertake work to analyze time-intensive enforcement areas to identify potential process efficiencies?
• Neighborhood Wellness & Property Maintenance Standards. Are there any neighborhood wellness, property maintenance, or nuisance standards the Council wishes to update in light of current operational challenges and evolving community needs?
• Future Study Sessions. Would the Council like future, topic-specific study sessions to support more in-depth policy development?
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
As described in this report, the City Council has discussed code enforcement and safe

Item 5a
housing issues extensively in the past. Previous actions are noted below.  2005 – City Council Meeting
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
 2009 – City Council Meeting
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.
 2014 – City Council Meeting
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:
 Scope of Inspection: Both exterior and interior inspections.  Frequency of Inspection: 3 years.
 Incentives:
 Self- certification after passing initial inspection.  System and standards to authorize self -certification period.  Disincentives: High fines or re-inspection fees.
 Potential Exemptions:
 Owner - occupied units (or occupancy by an immediate family member without other renters).

Item 5a
 Units in mobile home parks.
 Publicly owned or managed housing.
 Units governed by homeowner associations.
 Set fees at full cost recovery.
o 2015 – City Council Meeting
o Item Discussed: Rental housing inspection program
 Adopt an Ordinance amending Titles 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 & Resolutions adopted.
 2017 – Special Meeting of the City Council
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.
 2017 – City Council Meeting
o Item Discussed: An ordinance repealing chapter 15.10 rental housing inspection program of title 15 of the municipal code.
o Action: Council voted to introduce Ordinance No. 1632 entitled, " An Ordinance 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."
 2017 – City Council Meeting
o Item Discussed: Process to develop code enforcement priorities for proactive and complaint-based enforcement activities.
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.  2017 – City Council Meeting
o Item Discussed: Code enforcement priorities.
o 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

Item 5a
 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; 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.
 2018 – City Council Meeting
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. o Action: Council voted to adopt both the introduced ordinance and resolution.  2019– City Council Meeting
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.
 2023– City Council Meeting
o Item Discussed: Study session: Code enforcement update  Council Direction Item #1: Is the program achieving the outcomes of the council and community?
 Council Direction Item #2: What information can the Community Development Department provide to help the community navigate the code enforcement process and services?
 Council Direction Item #3: What information would be most helpful to provide specifically for landlords and tenants in the City?  Council Direction Item #4: Do you generally concur with the existing priority hierarchy of cases?
o Action: By consensus, the City Council provided the following comments for staff on the Code Enforcement Division, no formal action was taken.

1. Careful balance, the goal is safe housing and compliance

2. Outreach, Brochure, and Meet CalPoly halfway

3. Follow up with notes from Stakeholder Meetings

4. Make sure to reach out to tenant groups and marginalized groups

5. Reach out Cuesta College 6. How to use Ask SLO Video? Public Engagement
City Staff informed interested parties about the study session including Cal Poly, Interfraternity Council, the SLO Tenants Union, the Chamber of Commerce, local

Item 5a
Realtors, the Developer’s Roundtable, and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods. In addition, social media posts provided information about the study session to the public.

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: N/A Budget Year: 2025-26
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $0 $0 $0 $0
This study session itself does not have any direct fiscal impact as it is for informational purposes only. Any future changes in staffing may result in fiscal impacts.

ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may provide feedback not contemplated in the Focus Questions above.