HomeMy WebLinkAboutLoew Emails1
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Monday, November 17, 2025 4:49 PM
To:Michael Loew
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: 11-18-2025 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 7.a
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the
upcoming meeting.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Clerk I
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Michael Loew < >
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2025 8:33 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: 11-18-2025 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 7.a
Dear Mayor Stewart and Council Members,
I write to provide information relevant to the City’s consideration of new local amendments to the 2025
California Building Standards Code. The facts summarized below come directly from the City’s adopted
Financial Plans, the 2024 Fee Study, and the City’s own year-end performance reporting. It is important that
these discrepancies and performance indicators be transparently understood as the City evaluates
additional regulatory obligations for the Building & Safety Division, and in light the $4-million surplus.
I. Discrepancies Between the Fee Study and Adopted Budgets
The City’s adopted Financial Plans for FY 2019–2025 show that the Building & Safety Division was
programmed to generate a cumulative surplus of $7,271,935. These figures (presented in Exhibit A) reflect
actual planned revenue exceeding expenditures for fee-supported services over the six-year period.
2
By contrast, Exhibit B (page 11 of the City’s 2024 Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study) asserts that the
division recovers 96% of its costs, operates at a $145,474 deficit, and incurs approximately $3.9 million
annually in Building & Safety operational costs.
Review of historic expenditures shows that the division has never expended the $3.9 million in
annual “costs” attributed to it in the fee study. This discrepancy raises concerns under Government
Code §§ 66014 and 66016, which require that development fees reflect the reasonable cost of providing the
service and that cost-of-service data disclosed to the public be accurate and tied to actual expenditures.
Simply put: The 2024 fee study misrepresents the Building and Safety Division’s documented financial
history.
II. Surplus Understated and Unfunded Mandates
The Building & Safety Division’s surplus is further understated because its cost center includes Code
Enforcement, a citywide general service unrelated to fee-supported permit activity. Code Enforcement
expenditures exceed $500,000 annually (5 FTE). Removing this cost reveals a substantially greater surplus
generated by Building & Safety services than the budget alone indicates.
In addition, the City’s adoption of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, which
is being considered as part of the Municipal Code update in Section 15.02.140 of this draft ordinance,
requires the establishment of a Repair and Demolition fund, as set forth in Section 802.1 of the code. This
fund is intended to support mitigation, repair, or demolition of structures deemed hazardous to life and
safety. However, none of the City’s recently adopted budgets include any allocation to establish this fund.
III. Division Performance Relative to Council-Adopted Standards
The Year-End Performance Report presented to the Council on November 4, 2025 shows that Building &
Safety did not meet several of the service-level standards established by the City Council. According to the
report, only 60% of Code Enforcement cases were investigated within established timelines (target: 85%),
and only 59% of building permit reviews were completed within adopted cycle times across all departments
(target: 85%). These outcomes reflect constraints that have persisted across multiple budget cycles.
The report also documents spending reductions that were financial in nature rather than operational. It
states that “Contract Services expenditures came in 41% under budget,” due to contracts that were
“paused or not initiated, and subsequently closed out.” Staff were further directed to “complete more
work in-house to reduce costs.”
The Year-End Performance Report is what presents financial concerns as justification for withholding
resources from the Building & Safety Division. It reveals that the division is not meeting the Council’s own
service-level standards, yet the report describes its unspent funds as “savings” and documents contract
cancellations and spending pauses. These reductions occurred during the same period the City’s adopted
budgets show a cumulative $4 million surplus.
IV. City’s Response
The administration’s November 4, 2025 agenda-report memo includes statements that cast false aspersions
on my competence and motives. When such characterizations appear in an official, publicly distributed
agenda correspondence, they are defamatory because they create a materially false impression of my
actions and mislead the public about the issues raised.
3
Labor Code § 1102.5 prohibits retaliation or any action that deters an employee or former employee from
disclosing information they reasonably believe evidences a violation of law or noncompliance with
regulations. This protection applies to post-employment retaliation and includes attempts to discredit or
publicly disparage the individual who made the disclosure. The First Amendment likewise protects public
speech on matters involving public funds, legal compliance, and government operations.
Their response is not new to me and is a clear example of the kind of retaliatory conduct I endured during
my tenure as Chief Building Official when attempting to address these fiscal policy discrepancies and
practices impacting public safety outcomes. The administration took great offense to me raising these
concerns; however, regardless of any intent, conflicting financial figures and inaccurate representations
must be corrected so the City’s reporting is reliable, lawful, and clear to the public. This is precisely t he fiscal
oversight a City Council is elected to provide.
Sincerely,
Michael Loew, MPA, CBO
Exhibit A: Building and Safety Division Revenue vs. Expenditures
Fiscal
Year
Total Budgeted
Revenue
Actual Revenue Total Budgeted
Resources
Actual
Expenditures
Surplus
2024-
25
$4,008,849
2023-25
Financial Plan, p.
99
Not reported $3,194,956
2024-25
Supplement, p. 24
Not reported Planned:
$813,893
Actual:
Not
Reported
2023-
24
$3,821,743
2023-25
Financial Plan, p.
99
Not reported $3,085,371
2023-25 Financial
Plan, p. 168
Not reported Planned:
$736,372
Actual:
Not
Reported
2022-
23
$3,280,700
20-21
Supplement p.
29
Not Reported $2,133,870
2023-25 Financial
Plan, p. 168
$2,895,572
2024-25
Supplement, p. 24
Planned:
$1,146,830
Actual:
Not
Reported
2021-
22
$4,471,776
22-23
Supplement p.
29
$4,297,186
2023-25 Financial
Plan p. 99
$3,283,056
22-23 Supplement
p. 24
$3,235,392
2023-25 Financial
Plan, p. 168
Planned:
$1,188,720
Actual:
$1,061,794
4
2020-
21
$3,399,000
19-21 Financial
Plan p. 123
$4,815,383
2022-23
Supplement, p. 29,
Table G-8
$1,714,476
19-21 Financial
Plan, on page 160
$2,506,262
22-23 Supplement
p. 24
Planned:
$1,684,524
Actual:
$2,309,121
2019-
20
$3,339,000
19-21 Financial
Plan p. 123
$4,036,291
21-23 Financial Plan
p. 102
$1,637,404
19-21 Financial
Plan, on page 160
$2,475,372
21-23 Financial
Plan p. 152
Planned:
$1,701,596
Actual:
$1,560,919
2018-
19
Not Reported Not Reported $1,720,946
19-21 Financial
Plan, p. 160
Not Reported Not
Reported
2017-
18
Not Reported Not Reported $1,694,458
17-19 Financial
Plan p. D4-7
$1,834,809
19-21 Financial
Plan, on page 160
Not
Reported
2016-
17
Not Reported Not Reported $1,721,817
17-19 Financial
Plan p. D4-7
Not Reported Not
Reported
2015-
16
Not Reported Not Reported $1,871,444
15-17 Financial
Plan p. E-152
Not Reported Not
Reported
5
Exhibit B: May 17, 2024 Fee Study Page 11
6
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Monday, November 17, 2025 4:48 PM
To:Michael Loew
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: Public Comment on Item 6a
Attachments:FW_ Question about cost of registry.pdf
Hi Mike,
Please see the attached file regarding the estimated cost of the rental registry program.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Clerk I
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Michael Loew < >
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 8:08 AM
To: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Public Comment on Item 6a
Hi Andrea,
Is there any update on this request for those emails? It has now been 12 days since my request. Can I please
have copies of the emails sent to the Council?
Thank you,
Mike
On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 1:58 PM Michael Loew < > wrote:
Thanks Andrea,
Last night at the council meeting the city manager made reference to internal emails that were public
information, but only sent to the council. Can I please have copies of those emails?
Mike
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 5, 2025, at 9:22 AM, Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote:
7
Hi Mike,
There was no agenda correspondence not provided to City Council and publicly archived. Any
correspondence received and/or finalized after the deadline has since been publicly archived and sent
to City Council as of this morning.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Clerk I
<image001.png>
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Michael Loew < >
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 7:06 AM
To: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Public Comment on Item 6a
Hi Andrea,
Thank you for this.
Can I please have a copy of the communications sent to the Council leading up to the meeting
that were not posted to the archive as agenda correspondences?
Best,
Mike
8
On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 9:24 AM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public
archive for the upcoming meeting.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Clerk I
<image001.png>
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Michael Loew < >
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 6:45 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Public Comment on Item 6a
Dear Mayor Stewart and City Council Members,
My name is Michael Loew, I am a resident and homeowner in the city. I served as the City’s
Chief Building Official from June 2023 through June 2025. I am writing to provide
supplemental context regarding Building & Safety operations during that period and to
support the Council’s review of resource allocation, service delivery capacity, and policy
impacts on public safety.
9
Policy of Revenue Generation Over Service Delivery
The Building and Safety division's core challenge is a structural paradox embedded in the
city's fiscal policy. This was brought into sharp focus during the 2024 fee study. The City’s
contracted consultant's analysis, based on past years of the city's own spending data,
concluded that the division was under-resourced relative to the fees it collected. This resulted
in a calculation that proposed to reduce fee rates by 35%.
To avert a significant revenue loss, I was directed to develop an entirely new methodology,
one based on the time and resources it should take to properly administer and enforce the
building code. My analysis successfully justified maintaining the existing revenues, an action
that preserved approximately $1 million in annual revenue for the department. The logical
and ethical next step was to fund the division to the level its own fee-justification model
proved was necessary. I submitted corresponding significant operating budget requests of
over $500,000 (half of the calculation) to begin to align our resources with our mandated
responsibilities during the 24-25 fiscal year. Those requests were largely denied.
My efforts to align resources with responsibilities extended beyond those budget requests. I
identified a significant public safety risk and revenue opportunity in the City’s unaddressed
backlog of more than 2,000 expired permits since 2020. As part of the fee study, I developed
and proposed new fees specifically to address this backlog, which the Council subsequently
adopted. This initiative was not merely punitive; it was a strategic plan to generate an
estimated $1.2 million in revenue, designed explicitly to help the department weather the
exact kind of economic uncertainty in development that later prompted budget cuts.
However, despite Council approval, I was denied the resources and operational discretion to
implement this revenue-positive, public-safety initiative.
The Operational Consequences
As the report correctly notes, the City saw a "decline compared to previous years" in new
development, which was "reflected in permitting and inspection volumes." However, this
slowdown in revenue-generating activity was met with a historic surge in our non-revenue-
generating public-safety duties. The report confirms that "The Code Enforcement team
processed a record number of investigation requests."
Instead of shifting resources to meet this record-breaking demand for code enforcement, the
administration used the decline in permit revenue to justify system-wide austerity measures
that crippled our ability to function. At the same time, according to the report, the Planning
Division "achieved greater stability through the hiring of three interns and permanent staff,"
while the Building and Safety division was directed to "complete more work in-house to
reduce costs." This directive was coupled with a significant expansion of my own duties. I
was tasked with rebuilding another team by assuming the responsibilities of the vacant
Supervising Civil Engineer, overseeing the day-to-day operations and recruitment for the
Engineering Development Review Team, including the new Supervising Civil Engineer.
The strain on the building division was further compounded by the director's determination to
divert code enforcement resources away from core public-safety risks, such as dangerous
buildings and expired permit enforcement, and towards a new fraternity and sorority party
enforcement initiative. I was explicitly excluded from these efforts by the director and never
consulted or asked to speak to the grand jury on the matter. I was denied the staff required to
address the thousands of pending permit violations affecting the broader community's safety.
Public Hazard at 1150 Laurel Lane
10
1150 Laurel Lane represents a systemic failure by the City's handling of the "dangerous
building," a major public safety enforcement case.
My initial attempt at enforcement against the project began in June 2024, but was
halted by Director Tway who instructed me to extend the property's Temporary
Certificates of Occupancy.
For the next five months, I was consistently pressured to extend occupancy
authorizations, and Director Tway prevented me from issuing a Notice of Violation.
It was only when I refused to sign another TCO extension in November 2024 that the
administration was forced to confront the issue, and I was again directed not to send
the Notice of Violation until I met with the City Manager.
City Manager MacDonald met with me on December 18, 2024. The Fire Chief
declared the building too hazardous for his crews to enter in the event of an
emergency, and I presented detailed inspector reports confirming the building’s rapid
decay.
The response from leadership was not immediate action, but an instruction to delay
enforcement until after Christmas because issuing a notice before would be “immoral.”
It took an additional three months of internal pressure before I was finally able to issue
a formal Notice of Violation in March 2025, condemning parts of the structure.
Just days before the formal appeal hearing, on May 1, 2024, the City itself
undermined the condemnation by participating in the "Bike Month" event on the
hazardous property.
This case presents a serious and unmitigated public safety risk given its proximity to a public
elementary school and public parks. The 17 acre property was supposed to provide
hundreds of housing units in a core location for the city. However, any future prospect of
housing or development at this location will now be impeded by the millions of dollars worth
of substandard conditions of the 70-year-old building, and the over $50 million dollars of debt
that has been reported on the property.
Community-Wide Consequences
The culmination of a record-breaking enforcement workload, constrained resources, and
active administrative obstacles created an unsustainable work environment, leading to my
constructive discharge in June of this year. It is critical for the Council to know that I am the
eighth Building Official hired by the City in the last 12 years. This is not a series of
isolated departures; it is a clear pattern of institutional instability driven by flawed fiscal policy.
For over a decade, the City has collected an estimated $10 million more in fees for review
and inspection services than it has spent providing them. This is not a budget surplus, but
represents a decade of public funds collected for services that were not fully rendered. The
consequences are now etched into our community's landscape in the derelict and
11
uninhabitable properties like "The Sub," in the unresolved safety risks posed by thousands of
expired permits, in the dangerous conditions at 1150 Laurel Lane, and in the frequent reports
of substandard living conditions from local tenants. All the while, the City Council continues
to adopt new policies for the Building & Safety division to enforce, such as single-use plastics
and polystyrene restrictions, shopping cart management, and energy efficiency ordinances.
The City collects fees based on a promise of safety and service. It is imperative that the
Building & Safety division be fully equipped to deliver on that promise. I urge the Council to
interrogate the allocations of resources for the Community Development Department, and to
begin providing adequate funding for a public safety program that meets the needs and
demands of our community.
Sincerely,
Michael Loew, MPA, CBO
From:McDonald, Whitney
To:CityClerk
Subject:FW: Question about cost of registry
Date:Monday, November 17, 2025 10:28:07 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
From: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 8:27 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>;
Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Question about cost of registry
BCC: Mayor and Council
Dear Mayor and Council,
Timmi has provided some estimated costs of a rental registry program below, which I am
forwarding in case it is helpful as we head into the year-end budget report tomorrow. These
costs are estimates, and are broken out as start-up costs in year one of a program (approx.
$300,000) and then estimated ongoing costs thereafter (approx. $240,000/year).
Best,
Whitney
From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 2:37 PM
To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>;
Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>
Subject: Question about cost of registry
Hi team,
Here is some information that we have estimated related to the cost of a rental registry (this
is rough, and based on our conversations we have had with other jurisdictions thus far and
is based on a registry that uses an actual software platform, not an excel spreadsheet
generated through business license filing). The estimates below are the direct costs, there
would likely be non-direct costs that are harder to estimate (ongoing management level
support, depending on how registry roll out goes, etc.)
One time costs (annual estimate for roll-out): approx. $300,000
Software: $60-70k (software is more expensive first year because of
configuration, testing, training, and integration with existing systems necessary)
Outreach/education: $50k (mailers, outreach, advertisement, meetings, events)
Staffing: $180,000 (full time planner for program/policy development and
estimated ¼ IT staff and ¼ time legal staff)
Ongoing costs: (annual estimate for when program is established): approx. $240,000
Software: $40-50k annual (would increase over time, proposal I received for
estimate shows 5% increase in cost per year)
Staffing: $190,000 (full time admin specialist for public facing questions/running
the registry/outreach/enforcement and ½ time housing planner and ¼ legal staff
ongoing)
I hope this is helpful, if there is anything else you need let me know.
Timothea (Timmi) Tway
Director of Community Development
Community Development
919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E TTway@slocity.org
T 805.781.7187
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
12
From:Michael Loew < >
Sent:Monday, November 17, 2025 8:08 AM
To:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:Re: Public Comment on Item 6a
Hi Andrea,
Is there any update on this request for those emails? It has now been 12 days since my request. Can I please
have copies of the emails sent to the Council?
Thank you,
Mike
On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 1:58 PM Michael Loew < > wrote:
Thanks Andrea,
Last night at the council meeting the city manager made reference to internal emails that were public
information, but only sent to the council. Can I please have copies of those emails?
Mike
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 5, 2025, at 9:22 AM, Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Mike,
There was no agenda correspondence not provided to City Council and publicly archived. Any
correspondence received and/or finalized after the deadline has since been publicly archived and sent
to City Council as of this morning.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Clerk I
<image001.png>
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
<image002.png>
13
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Michael Loew < >
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 7:06 AM
To: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Public Comment on Item 6a
Hi Andrea,
Thank you for this.
Can I please have a copy of the communications sent to the Council leading up to the meeting
that were not posted to the archive as agenda correspondences?
Best,
Mike
On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 9:24 AM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public
archive for the upcoming meeting.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Clerk I
<image001.png>
14
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Michael Loew < >
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 6:45 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Public Comment on Item 6a
Dear Mayor Stewart and City Council Members,
My name is Michael Loew, I am a resident and homeowner in the city. I served as the City’s
Chief Building Official from June 2023 through June 2025. I am writing to provide
supplemental context regarding Building & Safety operations during that period and to
support the Council’s review of resource allocation, service delivery capacity, and policy
impacts on public safety.
Policy of Revenue Generation Over Service Delivery
The Building and Safety division's core challenge is a structural paradox embedded in the
city's fiscal policy. This was brought into sharp focus during the 2024 fee study. The City’s
contracted consultant's analysis, based on past years of the city's own spending data,
concluded that the division was under-resourced relative to the fees it collected. This resulted
in a calculation that proposed to reduce fee rates by 35%.
To avert a significant revenue loss, I was directed to develop an entirely new methodology,
one based on the time and resources it should take to properly administer and enforce the
building code. My analysis successfully justified maintaining the existing revenues, an action
that preserved approximately $1 million in annual revenue for the department. The logical
and ethical next step was to fund the division to the level its own fee-justification model
proved was necessary. I submitted corresponding significant operating budget requests of
over $500,000 (half of the calculation) to begin to align our resources with our mandated
responsibilities during the 24-25 fiscal year. Those requests were largely denied.
15
My efforts to align resources with responsibilities extended beyond those budget requests. I
identified a significant public safety risk and revenue opportunity in the City’s unaddressed
backlog of more than 2,000 expired permits since 2020. As part of the fee study, I developed
and proposed new fees specifically to address this backlog, which the Council subsequently
adopted. This initiative was not merely punitive; it was a strategic plan to generate an
estimated $1.2 million in revenue, designed explicitly to help the department weather the
exact kind of economic uncertainty in development that later prompted budget cuts.
However, despite Council approval, I was denied the resources and operational discretion to
implement this revenue-positive, public-safety initiative.
The Operational Consequences
As the report correctly notes, the City saw a "decline compared to previous years" in new
development, which was "reflected in permitting and inspection volumes." However, this
slowdown in revenue-generating activity was met with a historic surge in our non-revenue-
generating public-safety duties. The report confirms that "The Code Enforcement team
processed a record number of investigation requests."
Instead of shifting resources to meet this record-breaking demand for code enforcement, the
administration used the decline in permit revenue to justify system-wide austerity measures
that crippled our ability to function. At the same time, according to the report, the Planning
Division "achieved greater stability through the hiring of three interns and permanent staff,"
while the Building and Safety division was directed to "complete more work in-house to
reduce costs." This directive was coupled with a significant expansion of my own duties. I
was tasked with rebuilding another team by assuming the responsibilities of the vacant
Supervising Civil Engineer, overseeing the day-to-day operations and recruitment for the
Engineering Development Review Team, including the new Supervising Civil Engineer.
The strain on the building division was further compounded by the director's determination to
divert code enforcement resources away from core public-safety risks, such as dangerous
buildings and expired permit enforcement, and towards a new fraternity and sorority party
enforcement initiative. I was explicitly excluded from these efforts by the director and never
consulted or asked to speak to the grand jury on the matter. I was denied the staff required to
address the thousands of pending permit violations affecting the broader community's safety.
Public Hazard at 1150 Laurel Lane
1150 Laurel Lane represents a systemic failure by the City's handling of the "dangerous
building," a major public safety enforcement case.
My initial attempt at enforcement against the project began in June 2024, but was
halted by Director Tway who instructed me to extend the property's Temporary
Certificates of Occupancy.
For the next five months, I was consistently pressured to extend occupancy
authorizations, and Director Tway prevented me from issuing a Notice of Violation.
It was only when I refused to sign another TCO extension in November 2024 that the
administration was forced to confront the issue, and I was again directed not to send
the Notice of Violation until I met with the City Manager.
16
City Manager MacDonald met with me on December 18, 2024. The Fire Chief
declared the building too hazardous for his crews to enter in the event of an
emergency, and I presented detailed inspector reports confirming the building’s rapid
decay.
The response from leadership was not immediate action, but an instruction to delay
enforcement until after Christmas because issuing a notice before would be “immoral.”
It took an additional three months of internal pressure before I was finally able to issue
a formal Notice of Violation in March 2025, condemning parts of the structure.
Just days before the formal appeal hearing, on May 1, 2024, the City itself
undermined the condemnation by participating in the "Bike Month" event on the
hazardous property.
This case presents a serious and unmitigated public safety risk given its proximity to a public
elementary school and public parks. The 17 acre property was supposed to provide
hundreds of housing units in a core location for the city. However, any future prospect of
housing or development at this location will now be impeded by the millions of dollars worth
of substandard conditions of the 70-year-old building, and the over $50 million dollars of debt
that has been reported on the property.
Community-Wide Consequences
The culmination of a record-breaking enforcement workload, constrained resources, and
active administrative obstacles created an unsustainable work environment, leading to my
constructive discharge in June of this year. It is critical for the Council to know that I am the
eighth Building Official hired by the City in the last 12 years. This is not a series of
isolated departures; it is a clear pattern of institutional instability driven by flawed fiscal policy.
For over a decade, the City has collected an estimated $10 million more in fees for review
and inspection services than it has spent providing them. This is not a budget surplus, but
represents a decade of public funds collected for services that were not fully rendered. The
consequences are now etched into our community's landscape in the derelict and
uninhabitable properties like "The Sub," in the unresolved safety risks posed by thousands of
expired permits, in the dangerous conditions at 1150 Laurel Lane, and in the frequent reports
of substandard living conditions from local tenants. All the while, the City Council continues
to adopt new policies for the Building & Safety division to enforce, such as single-use plastics
and polystyrene restrictions, shopping cart management, and energy efficiency ordinances.
The City collects fees based on a promise of safety and service. It is imperative that the
Building & Safety division be fully equipped to deliver on that promise. I urge the Council to
interrogate the allocations of resources for the Community Development Department, and to
begin providing adequate funding for a public safety program that meets the needs and
demands of our community.
Sincerely,
Michael Loew, MPA, CBO
17
From:Michael Loew < >
Sent:Saturday, November 15, 2025 8:33 PM
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:11-18-2025 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 7.a
Dear Mayor Stewart and Council Members,
I write to provide information relevant to the City’s consideration of new local amendments to the 2025
California Building Standards Code. The facts summarized below come directly from the City’s adopted
Financial Plans, the 2024 Fee Study, and the City’s own year-end performance reporting. It is important that
these discrepancies and performance indicators be transparently understood as the City evaluates
additional regulatory obligations for the Building & Safety Division, and in light the $4-million surplus.
I. Discrepancies Between the Fee Study and Adopted Budgets
The City’s adopted Financial Plans for FY 2019–2025 show that the Building & Safety Division was
programmed to generate a cumulative surplus of $7,271,935. These figures (presented in Exhibit A) reflect
actual planned revenue exceeding expenditures for fee-supported services over the six-year period.
By contrast, Exhibit B (page 11 of the City’s 2024 Comprehensive Citywide User Fee Study) asserts that the
division recovers 96% of its costs, operates at a $145,474 deficit, and incurs approximately $3.9 million
annually in Building & Safety operational costs.
Review of historic expenditures shows that the division has never expended the $3.9 million in
annual “costs” attributed to it in the fee study. This discrepancy raises concerns under Government
Code §§ 66014 and 66016, which require that development fees reflect the reasonable cost of providing the
service and that cost-of-service data disclosed to the public be accurate and tied to actual expenditures.
Simply put: The 2024 fee study misrepresents the Building and Safety Division’s documented financial
history.
II. Surplus Understated and Unfunded Mandates
The Building & Safety Division’s surplus is further understated because its cost center includes Code
Enforcement, a citywide general service unrelated to fee-supported permit activity. Code Enforcement
expenditures exceed $500,000 annually (5 FTE). Removing this cost reveals a substantially greater surplus
generated by Building & Safety services than the budget alone indicates.
In addition, the City’s adoption of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, which
is being considered as part of the Municipal Code update in Section 15.02.140 of this draft ordinance,
requires the establishment of a Repair and Demolition fund, as set forth in Section 802.1 of the code. This
fund is intended to support mitigation, repair, or demolition of structures deemed hazardous to life and
safety. However, none of the City’s recently adopted budgets include any allocation to establish this fund.
III. Division Performance Relative to Council-Adopted Standards
The Year-End Performance Report presented to the Council on November 4, 2025 shows that Building &
Safety did not meet several of the service-level standards established by the City Council. According to the
18
report, only 60% of Code Enforcement cases were investigated within established timelines (target: 85%),
and only 59% of building permit reviews were completed within adopted cycle times across all departments
(target: 85%). These outcomes reflect constraints that have persisted across multiple budget cycles.
The report also documents spending reductions that were financial in nature rather than operational. It
states that “Contract Services expenditures came in 41% under budget,” due to contracts that were
“paused or not initiated, and subsequently closed out.” Staff were further directed to “complete more
work in-house to reduce costs.”
The Year-End Performance Report is what presents financial concerns as justification for withholding
resources from the Building & Safety Division. It reveals that the division is not meeting the Council’s own
service-level standards, yet the report describes its unspent funds as “savings” and documents contract
cancellations and spending pauses. These reductions occurred during the same period the City’s adopted
budgets show a cumulative $4 million surplus.
IV. City’s Response
The administration’s November 4, 2025 agenda-report memo includes statements that cast false aspersions
on my competence and motives. When such characterizations appear in an official, publicly distributed
agenda correspondence, they are defamatory because they create a materially false impression of my
actions and mislead the public about the issues raised.
Labor Code § 1102.5 prohibits retaliation or any action that deters an employee or former employee from
disclosing information they reasonably believe evidences a violation of law or noncompliance with
regulations. This protection applies to post-employment retaliation and includes attempts to discredit or
publicly disparage the individual who made the disclosure. The First Amendment likewise protects public
speech on matters involving public funds, legal compliance, and government operations.
Their response is not new to me and is a clear example of the kind of retaliatory conduct I endured during
my tenure as Chief Building Official when attempting to address these fiscal policy discrepancies and
practices impacting public safety outcomes. The administration took great offense to me raising these
concerns; however, regardless of any intent, conflicting financial figures and inaccurate representations
must be corrected so the City’s reporting is reliable, lawful, and clear to the public. This is precisely t he fiscal
oversight a City Council is elected to provide.
Sincerely,
Michael Loew, MPA, CBO
Exhibit A: Building and Safety Division Revenue vs. Expenditures
Fiscal
Year
Total Budgeted
Revenue
Actual Revenue Total Budgeted
Resources
Actual
Expenditures
Surplus
2024-
25
$4,008,849
2023-25
Financial Plan, p.
99
Not reported $3,194,956
2024-25
Supplement, p. 24
Not reported Planned:
$813,893
Actual:
Not
Reported
19
2023-
24
$3,821,743
2023-25
Financial Plan, p.
99
Not reported $3,085,371
2023-25 Financial
Plan, p. 168
Not reported Planned:
$736,372
Actual:
Not
Reported
2022-
23
$3,280,700
20-21
Supplement p.
29
Not Reported $2,133,870
2023-25 Financial
Plan, p. 168
$2,895,572
2024-25
Supplement, p. 24
Planned:
$1,146,830
Actual:
Not
Reported
2021-
22
$4,471,776
22-23
Supplement p.
29
$4,297,186
2023-25 Financial
Plan p. 99
$3,283,056
22-23 Supplement
p. 24
$3,235,392
2023-25 Financial
Plan, p. 168
Planned:
$1,188,720
Actual:
$1,061,794
2020-
21
$3,399,000
19-21 Financial
Plan p. 123
$4,815,383
2022-23
Supplement, p. 29,
Table G-8
$1,714,476
19-21 Financial
Plan, on page 160
$2,506,262
22-23 Supplement
p. 24
Planned:
$1,684,524
Actual:
$2,309,121
2019-
20
$3,339,000
19-21 Financial
Plan p. 123
$4,036,291
21-23 Financial Plan
p. 102
$1,637,404
19-21 Financial
Plan, on page 160
$2,475,372
21-23 Financial
Plan p. 152
Planned:
$1,701,596
Actual:
$1,560,919
2018-
19
Not Reported Not Reported $1,720,946
19-21 Financial
Plan, p. 160
Not Reported Not
Reported
2017-
18
Not Reported Not Reported $1,694,458
17-19 Financial
Plan p. D4-7
$1,834,809
19-21 Financial
Plan, on page 160
Not
Reported
20
2016-
17
Not Reported Not Reported $1,721,817
17-19 Financial
Plan p. D4-7
Not Reported Not
Reported
2015-
16
Not Reported Not Reported $1,871,444
15-17 Financial
Plan p. E-152
Not Reported Not
Reported
Exhibit B: May 17, 2024 Fee Study Page 11
21
From:Michael Loew < >
Sent:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 1:58 PM
To:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:Re: Public Comment on Item 6a
Thanks Andrea,
Last night at the council meeting the city manager made reference to internal emails that were public
information, but only sent to the council. Can I please have copies of those emails?
Mike
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 5, 2025, at 9:22 AM, Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Mike,
There was no agenda correspondence not provided to City Council and publicly archived. Any
correspondence received and/or finalized after the deadline has since been publicly archived and sent
to City Council as of this morning.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Clerk I
<image001.png>
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Michael Loew < >
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 7:06 AM
22
To: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Public Comment on Item 6a
Hi Andrea,
Thank you for this.
Can I please have a copy of the communications sent to the Council leading up to the meeting
that were not posted to the archive as agenda correspondences?
Best,
Mike
On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 9:24 AM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public
archive for the upcoming meeting.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Clerk I
<image001.png>
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
23
From: Michael Loew < >
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 6:45 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Public Comment on Item 6a
Dear Mayor Stewart and City Council Members,
My name is Michael Loew, I am a resident and homeowner in the city. I served as the City’s
Chief Building Official from June 2023 through June 2025. I am writing to provide
supplemental context regarding Building & Safety operations during that period and to support
the Council’s review of resource allocation, service delivery capacity, and policy impacts on
public safety.
Policy of Revenue Generation Over Service Delivery
The Building and Safety division's core challenge is a structural paradox embedded in the
city's fiscal policy. This was brought into sharp focus during the 2024 fee study. The City’s
contracted consultant's analysis, based on past years of the city's own spending data,
concluded that the division was under-resourced relative to the fees it collected. This resulted
in a calculation that proposed to reduce fee rates by 35%.
To avert a significant revenue loss, I was directed to develop an entirely new methodology,
one based on the time and resources it should take to properly administer and enforce the
building code. My analysis successfully justified maintaining the existing revenues, an action
that preserved approximately $1 million in annual revenue for the department. The logical and
ethical next step was to fund the division to the level its own fee-justification model proved
was necessary. I submitted corresponding significant operating budget requests of over
$500,000 (half of the calculation) to begin to align our resources with our mandated
responsibilities during the 24-25 fiscal year. Those requests were largely denied.
My efforts to align resources with responsibilities extended beyond those budget requests. I
identified a significant public safety risk and revenue opportunity in the City’s unaddressed
backlog of more than 2,000 expired permits since 2020. As part of the fee study, I developed
and proposed new fees specifically to address this backlog, which the Council subsequently
adopted. This initiative was not merely punitive; it was a strategic plan to generate an
estimated $1.2 million in revenue, designed explicitly to help the department weather the
exact kind of economic uncertainty in development that later prompted budget cuts. However,
despite Council approval, I was denied the resources and operational discretion to implement
this revenue-positive, public-safety initiative.
The Operational Consequences
As the report correctly notes, the City saw a "decline compared to previous years" in new
development, which was "reflected in permitting and inspection volumes." However, this
slowdown in revenue-generating activity was met with a historic surge in our non-revenue-
generating public-safety duties. The report confirms that "The Code Enforcement team
processed a record number of investigation requests."
Instead of shifting resources to meet this record-breaking demand for code enforcement, the
administration used the decline in permit revenue to justify system-wide austerity measures
that crippled our ability to function. At the same time, according to the report, the Planning
24
Division "achieved greater stability through the hiring of three interns and permanent staff,"
while the Building and Safety division was directed to "complete more work in-house to
reduce costs." This directive was coupled with a significant expansion of my own duties. I
was tasked with rebuilding another team by assuming the responsibilities of the vacant
Supervising Civil Engineer, overseeing the day-to-day operations and recruitment for the
Engineering Development Review Team, including the new Supervising Civil Engineer.
The strain on the building division was further compounded by the director's determination to
divert code enforcement resources away from core public-safety risks, such as dangerous
buildings and expired permit enforcement, and towards a new fraternity and sorority party
enforcement initiative. I was explicitly excluded from these efforts by the director and never
consulted or asked to speak to the grand jury on the matter. I was denied the staff required to
address the thousands of pending permit violations affecting the broader community's safety.
Public Hazard at 1150 Laurel Lane
1150 Laurel Lane represents a systemic failure by the City's handling of the "dangerous
building," a major public safety enforcement case.
1. My initial attempt at enforcement against the project began in June 2024, but was
halted by Director Tway who instructed me to extend the property's Temporary
Certificates of Occupancy.
2. For the next five months, I was consistently pressured to extend occupancy
authorizations, and Director Tway prevented me from issuing a Notice of Violation.
3. It was only when I refused to sign another TCO extension in November 2024 that the
administration was forced to confront the issue, and I was again directed not to send
the Notice of Violation until I met with the City Manager.
4. City Manager MacDonald met with me on December 18, 2024. The Fire Chief
declared the building too hazardous for his crews to enter in the event of an
emergency, and I presented detailed inspector reports confirming the building’s rapid
decay.
5. The response from leadership was not immediate action, but an instruction to delay
enforcement until after Christmas because issuing a notice before would be “immoral.”
6. It took an additional three months of internal pressure before I was finally able to issue
a formal Notice of Violation in March 2025, condemning parts of the structure.
7. Just days before the formal appeal hearing, on May 1, 2024, the City itself undermined
the condemnation by participating in the "Bike Month" event on the hazardous
property.
This case presents a serious and unmitigated public safety risk given its proximity to a public
elementary school and public parks. The 17 acre property was supposed to provide hundreds
of housing units in a core location for the city. However, any future prospect of housing or
25
development at this location will now be impeded by the millions of dollars worth of
substandard conditions of the 70-year-old building, and the over $50 million dollars of debt
that has been reported on the property.
Community-Wide Consequences
The culmination of a record-breaking enforcement workload, constrained resources, and
active administrative obstacles created an unsustainable work environment, leading to my
constructive discharge in June of this year. It is critical for the Council to know that I am the
eighth Building Official hired by the City in the last 12 years. This is not a series of
isolated departures; it is a clear pattern of institutional instability driven by flawed fiscal policy.
For over a decade, the City has collected an estimated $10 million more in fees for review
and inspection services than it has spent providing them. This is not a budget surplus, but
represents a decade of public funds collected for services that were not fully rendered. The
consequences are now etched into our community's landscape in the derelict and
uninhabitable properties like "The Sub," in the unresolved safety risks posed by thousands of
expired permits, in the dangerous conditions at 1150 Laurel Lane, and in the frequent reports
of substandard living conditions from local tenants. All the while, the City Council continues to
adopt new policies for the Building & Safety division to enforce, such as single-use plastics
and polystyrene restrictions, shopping cart management, and energy efficiency ordinances.
The City collects fees based on a promise of safety and service. It is imperative that the
Building & Safety division be fully equipped to deliver on that promise. I urge the Council to
interrogate the allocations of resources for the Community Development Department, and to
begin providing adequate funding for a public safety program that meets the needs and
demands of our community.
Sincerely,
Michael Loew, MPA, CBO
26
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 9:22 AM
To:Michael Loew
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: Public Comment on Item 6a
Hi Mike,
There was no agenda correspondence not provided to City Council and publicly archived. Any correspondence
received and/or finalized after the deadline has since been publicly archived and sent to City Council as of this
morning.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Clerk I
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Michael Loew < >
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 7:06 AM
To: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Public Comment on Item 6a
Hi Andrea,
Thank you for this.
Can I please have a copy of the communications sent to the Council leading up to the meeting that were not
posted to the archive as agenda correspondences?
Best,
Mike
On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 9:24 AM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Michael,
27
Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the
upcoming meeting.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Clerk I
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Michael Loew < >
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 6:45 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Public Comment on Item 6a
Dear Mayor Stewart and City Council Members,
My name is Michael Loew, I am a resident and homeowner in the city. I served as the City’s Chief Building
Official from June 2023 through June 2025. I am writing to provide supplemental context regarding Building
& Safety operations during that period and to support the Council’s review of resource allocation, service
delivery capacity, and policy impacts on public safety.
Policy of Revenue Generation Over Service Delivery
The Building and Safety division's core challenge is a structural paradox embedded in the city's fiscal
policy. This was brought into sharp focus during the 2024 fee study. The City’s contracted consultant's
analysis, based on past years of the city's own spending data, concluded that the division was under-
resourced relative to the fees it collected. This resulted in a calculation that proposed to reduce fee rates by
35%.
To avert a significant revenue loss, I was directed to develop an entirely new methodology, one based on
the time and resources it should take to properly administer and enforce the building code. My analysis
successfully justified maintaining the existing revenues, an action that preserved approximately $1 million in
annual revenue for the department. The logical and ethical next step was to fund the division to the level its
28
own fee-justification model proved was necessary. I submitted corresponding significant operating budget
requests of over $500,000 (half of the calculation) to begin to align our resources with our mandated
responsibilities during the 24-25 fiscal year. Those requests were largely denied.
My efforts to align resources with responsibilities extended beyond those budget requests. I identified a
significant public safety risk and revenue opportunity in the City’s unaddressed backlog of more than 2,000
expired permits since 2020. As part of the fee study, I developed and proposed new fees specifically to
address this backlog, which the Council subsequently adopted. This initiative was not merely punitive; it
was a strategic plan to generate an estimated $1.2 million in revenue, designed explicitly to help the
department weather the exact kind of economic uncertainty in development that later prompted budget
cuts. However, despite Council approval, I was denied the resources and operational discretion to
implement this revenue-positive, public-safety initiative.
The Operational Consequences
As the report correctly notes, the City saw a "decline compared to previous years" in new development,
which was "reflected in permitting and inspection volumes." However, this slowdown in revenue-generating
activity was met with a historic surge in our non-revenue-generating public-safety duties. The report
confirms that "The Code Enforcement team processed a record number of investigation requests."
Instead of shifting resources to meet this record-breaking demand for code enforcement, the administration
used the decline in permit revenue to justify system-wide austerity measures that crippled our ability to
function. At the same time, according to the report, the Planning Division "achieved greater stability through
the hiring of three interns and permanent staff," while the Building and Safety division was directed to
"complete more work in-house to reduce costs." This directive was coupled with a significant expansion
of my own duties. I was tasked with rebuilding another team by assuming the responsibilities of the vacant
Supervising Civil Engineer, overseeing the day-to-day operations and recruitment for the Engineering
Development Review Team, including the new Supervising Civil Engineer.
The strain on the building division was further compounded by the director's determination to divert code
enforcement resources away from core public-safety risks, such as dangerous buildings and expired permit
enforcement, and towards a new fraternity and sorority party enforcement initiative. I was explicitly
excluded from these efforts by the director and never consulted or asked to speak to the grand jury on the
matter. I was denied the staff required to address the thousands of pending permit violations affecting the
broader community's safety.
Public Hazard at 1150 Laurel Lane
1150 Laurel Lane represents a systemic failure by the City's handling of the "dangerous building," a major
public safety enforcement case.
My initial attempt at enforcement against the project began in June 2024, but was halted by Director
Tway who instructed me to extend the property's Temporary Certificates of Occupancy.
For the next five months, I was consistently pressured to extend occupancy authorizations, and
Director Tway prevented me from issuing a Notice of Violation.
It was only when I refused to sign another TCO extension in November 2024 that the administration
was forced to confront the issue, and I was again directed not to send the Notice of Violation until I
met with the City Manager.
29
City Manager MacDonald met with me on December 18, 2024. The Fire Chief declared the building
too hazardous for his crews to enter in the event of an emergency, and I presented detailed
inspector reports confirming the building’s rapid decay.
The response from leadership was not immediate action, but an instruction to delay enforcement until
after Christmas because issuing a notice before would be “immoral.”
It took an additional three months of internal pressure before I was finally able to issue a formal
Notice of Violation in March 2025, condemning parts of the structure.
Just days before the formal appeal hearing, on May 1, 2024, the City itself undermined the
condemnation by participating in the "Bike Month" event on the hazardous property.
This case presents a serious and unmitigated public safety risk given its proximity to a public elementary
school and public parks. The 17 acre property was supposed to provide hundreds of housing units in a core
location for the city. However, any future prospect of housing or development at this location will now be
impeded by the millions of dollars worth of substandard conditions of the 70-year-old building, and the over
$50 million dollars of debt that has been reported on the property.
Community-Wide Consequences
The culmination of a record-breaking enforcement workload, constrained resources, and active
administrative obstacles created an unsustainable work environment, leading to my constructive discharge
in June of this year. It is critical for the Council to know that I am the eighth Building Official hired by the
City in the last 12 years. This is not a series of isolated departures; it is a clear pattern of institutional
instability driven by flawed fiscal policy.
For over a decade, the City has collected an estimated $10 million more in fees for review and inspection
services than it has spent providing them. This is not a budget surplus, but represents a decade of public
funds collected for services that were not fully rendered. The consequences are now etched into our
community's landscape in the derelict and uninhabitable properties like "The Sub," in the unresolved safety
risks posed by thousands of expired permits, in the dangerous conditions at 1150 Laurel Lane, and in the
frequent reports of substandard living conditions from local tena nts. All the while, the City Council continues
to adopt new policies for the Building & Safety division to enforce, such as single-use plastics and
polystyrene restrictions, shopping cart management, and energy efficiency ordinances.
The City collects fees based on a promise of safety and service. It is imperative that the Building & Safety
division be fully equipped to deliver on that promise. I urge the Council to interrogate the allocations of
resources for the Community Development Department, and to begin providing adequate funding for a
public safety program that meets the needs and demands of our community.
Sincerely,
Michael Loew, MPA, CBO
30
From:Michael Loew < >
Sent:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 7:06 AM
To:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Subject:Re: Public Comment on Item 6a
Hi Andrea,
Thank you for this.
Can I please have a copy of the communications sent to the Council leading up to the meeting that were not
posted to the archive as agenda correspondences?
Best,
Mike
On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 9:24 AM Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the
upcoming meeting.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Clerk I
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Michael Loew < >
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 6:45 PM
31
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Public Comment on Item 6a
Dear Mayor Stewart and City Council Members,
My name is Michael Loew, I am a resident and homeowner in the city. I served as the City’s Chief Building
Official from June 2023 through June 2025. I am writing to provide supplemental context regarding Building
& Safety operations during that period and to support the Council’s review of resource allocation, service
delivery capacity, and policy impacts on public safety.
Policy of Revenue Generation Over Service Delivery
The Building and Safety division's core challenge is a structural paradox embedded in the city's fiscal
policy. This was brought into sharp focus during the 2024 fee study. The City’s contracted consultant's
analysis, based on past years of the city's own spending data, concluded that the division was under-
resourced relative to the fees it collected. This resulted in a calculation that proposed to reduce fee rates by
35%.
To avert a significant revenue loss, I was directed to develop an entirely new methodology, one based on
the time and resources it should take to properly administer and enforce the building code. My analysis
successfully justified maintaining the existing revenues, an action that preserved approximately $1 million in
annual revenue for the department. The logical and ethical next step was to fund the division to the level its
own fee-justification model proved was necessary. I submitted corresponding significant operating budget
requests of over $500,000 (half of the calculation) to begin to align our resources with our mandated
responsibilities during the 24-25 fiscal year. Those requests were largely denied.
My efforts to align resources with responsibilities extended beyond those budget requests. I identified a
significant public safety risk and revenue opportunity in the City’s unaddressed backlog of more than 2,000
expired permits since 2020. As part of the fee study, I developed and proposed new fees specifically to
address this backlog, which the Council subsequently adopted. This initiative was not merely punitive; it
was a strategic plan to generate an estimated $1.2 million in revenue, designed explicitly to help the
department weather the exact kind of economic uncertainty in development that later prompted budget
cuts. However, despite Council approval, I was denied the resources and operational discretion to
implement this revenue-positive, public-safety initiative.
The Operational Consequences
As the report correctly notes, the City saw a "decline compared to previous years" in new development,
which was "reflected in permitting and inspection volumes." However, this slowdown in revenue-generating
activity was met with a historic surge in our non-revenue-generating public-safety duties. The report
confirms that "The Code Enforcement team processed a record number of investigation requests."
Instead of shifting resources to meet this record-breaking demand for code enforcement, the administration
used the decline in permit revenue to justify system-wide austerity measures that crippled our ability to
function. At the same time, according to the report, the Planning Division "achieved greater stability through
the hiring of three interns and permanent staff," while the Building and Safety division was directed to
"complete more work in-house to reduce costs." This directive was coupled with a significant expansion
of my own duties. I was tasked with rebuilding another team by assuming the responsibilities of the vacant
Supervising Civil Engineer, overseeing the day-to-day operations and recruitment for the Engineering
Development Review Team, including the new Supervising Civil Engineer.
32
The strain on the building division was further compounded by the director's determination to divert code
enforcement resources away from core public-safety risks, such as dangerous buildings and expired permit
enforcement, and towards a new fraternity and sorority party enforcement initiative. I was explicitly
excluded from these efforts by the director and never consulted or asked to speak to the grand jury on the
matter. I was denied the staff required to address the thousands of pending permit violations affecting the
broader community's safety.
Public Hazard at 1150 Laurel Lane
1150 Laurel Lane represents a systemic failure by the City's handling of the "dangerous building," a major
public safety enforcement case.
My initial attempt at enforcement against the project began in June 2024, but was halted by Director
Tway who instructed me to extend the property's Temporary Certificates of Occupancy.
For the next five months, I was consistently pressured to extend occupancy authorizations, and
Director Tway prevented me from issuing a Notice of Violation.
It was only when I refused to sign another TCO extension in November 2024 that the administration
was forced to confront the issue, and I was again directed not to send the Notice of Violation until I
met with the City Manager.
City Manager MacDonald met with me on December 18, 2024. The Fire Chief declared the building
too hazardous for his crews to enter in the event of an emergency, and I presented detailed
inspector reports confirming the building’s rapid decay.
The response from leadership was not immediate action, but an instruction to delay enforcement until
after Christmas because issuing a notice before would be “immoral.”
It took an additional three months of internal pressure before I was finally able to issue a formal
Notice of Violation in March 2025, condemning parts of the structure.
Just days before the formal appeal hearing, on May 1, 2024, the City itself undermined the
condemnation by participating in the "Bike Month" event on the hazardous property.
This case presents a serious and unmitigated public safety risk given its proximity to a public elementary
school and public parks. The 17 acre property was supposed to provide hundreds of housing units in a core
location for the city. However, any future prospect of housing or development at this location will now be
impeded by the millions of dollars worth of substandard conditions of the 70-year-old building, and the over
$50 million dollars of debt that has been reported on the property.
Community-Wide Consequences
The culmination of a record-breaking enforcement workload, constrained resources, and active
administrative obstacles created an unsustainable work environment, leading to my constructive discharge
in June of this year. It is critical for the Council to know that I am the eighth Building Official hired by the
City in the last 12 years. This is not a series of isolated departures; it is a clear pattern of institutional
instability driven by flawed fiscal policy.
33
For over a decade, the City has collected an estimated $10 million more in fees for review and inspection
services than it has spent providing them. This is not a budget surplus, but represents a decade of public
funds collected for services that were not fully rendered. The consequences are now etched into our
community's landscape in the derelict and uninhabitable properties like "The Sub," in the unresolved safety
risks posed by thousands of expired permits, in the dangerous conditions at 1150 Laurel Lane, and in the
frequent reports of substandard living conditions from local tena nts. All the while, the City Council continues
to adopt new policies for the Building & Safety division to enforce, such as single-use plastics and
polystyrene restrictions, shopping cart management, and energy efficiency ordinances.
The City collects fees based on a promise of safety and service. It is imperative that the Building & Safety
division be fully equipped to deliver on that promise. I urge the Council to interrogate the allocations of
resources for the Community Development Department, and to begin providing adequate funding for a
public safety program that meets the needs and demands of our community.
Sincerely,
Michael Loew, MPA, CBO
34
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Monday, November 3, 2025 10:06 AM
To:Michael Loew
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: City Claim
Hi Michael,
Your claim has been received and forwarded to the City Attorney’s Office for processing. If you have questions
regarding the process, please reach out to their office directly at (805) 781-7140 or city_attorney@slocity.org.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Clerk I
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Michael Loew < >
Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2025 3:00 PM
To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>
Subject: City Claim
Please find my completed claim form attached.
Thank you,
Michael Loew
35
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Monday, November 3, 2025 9:25 AM
To:Michael Loew
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: Public Comment on Item 6a
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the
upcoming meeting.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Deputy City Clerk I
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Michael Loew < >
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 6:45 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Public Comment on Item 6a
Dear Mayor Stewart and City Council Members,
My name is Michael Loew, I am a resident and homeowner in the city. I served as the City’s Chief Building
Official from June 2023 through June 2025. I am writing to provide supplemental context regarding Building
& Safety operations during that period and to support the Council’s review of resource allocation, service
delivery capacity, and policy impacts on public safety.
Policy of Revenue Generation Over Service Delivery
The Building and Safety division's core challenge is a structural paradox embedded in the city's fiscal policy.
This was brought into sharp focus during the 2024 fee study. The City’s contracted consultant's analysis,
based on past years of the city's own spending data, concluded that the division was under-resourced
relative to the fees it collected. This resulted in a calculation that proposed to reduce fee rates by 35%.
To avert a significant revenue loss, I was directed to develop an entirely new methodology, one based on
the time and resources it should take to properly administer and enforce the building code. My analysis
36
successfully justified maintaining the existing revenues, an action that preserved approximately $1 million in
annual revenue for the department. The logical and ethical next step was to fund the division to the level its
own fee-justification model proved was necessary. I submitted corresponding significant operating budget
requests of over $500,000 (half of the calculation) to begin to align our resources with our mandated
responsibilities during the 24-25 fiscal year. Those requests were largely denied.
My efforts to align resources with responsibilities extended beyond those budget requests. I identified a
significant public safety risk and revenue opportunity in the City’s unaddressed backlog of more than 2,000
expired permits since 2020. As part of the fee study, I developed and proposed new fees specifically to
address this backlog, which the Council subsequently adopted. This initiative was not merely punitive; it was
a strategic plan to generate an estimated $1.2 million in revenue, designed explicitly to help the department
weather the exact kind of economic uncertainty in development that later prompted budget cuts. However,
despite Council approval, I was denied the resources and operational discretion to implement this revenue-
positive, public-safety initiative.
The Operational Consequences
As the report correctly notes, the City saw a "decline compared to previous years" in new development,
which was "reflected in permitting and inspection volumes." However, this slowdown in revenue-generating
activity was met with a historic surge in our non-revenue-generating public-safety duties. The report confirms
that "The Code Enforcement team processed a record number of investigation requests."
Instead of shifting resources to meet this record-breaking demand for code enforcement, the administration
used the decline in permit revenue to justify system-wide austerity measures that crippled our ability to
function. At the same time, according to the report, the Planning Division "achieved greater stability through
the hiring of three interns and permanent staff," while the Building and Safety division was directed to
"complete more work in-house to reduce costs." This directive was coupled with a significant expansion
of my own duties. I was tasked with rebuilding another team by assuming the responsibilities of the vacant
Supervising Civil Engineer, overseeing the day-to-day operations and recruitment for the Engineering
Development Review Team, including the new Supervising Civil Engineer.
The strain on the building division was further compounded by the director's determination to divert code
enforcement resources away from core public-safety risks, such as dangerous buildings and expired permit
enforcement, and towards a new fraternity and sorority party enforcement initiative. I was explicitly excluded
from these efforts by the director and never consulted or asked to speak to the grand jury on the matter. I
was denied the staff required to address the thousands of pending permit violations affecting the broader
community's safety.
Public Hazard at 1150 Laurel Lane
1150 Laurel Lane represents a systemic failure by the City's handling of the "dangerous building," a major
public safety enforcement case.
My initial attempt at enforcement against the project began in June 2024, but was halted by Director
Tway who instructed me to extend the property's Temporary Certificates of Occupancy.
For the next five months, I was consistently pressured to extend occupancy authorizations, and
Director Tway prevented me from issuing a Notice of Violation.
It was only when I refused to sign another TCO extension in November 2024 that the administration
was forced to confront the issue, and I was again directed not to send the Notice of Violation until I
met with the City Manager.
37
City Manager MacDonald met with me on December 18, 2024. The Fire Chief declared the building
too hazardous for his crews to enter in the event of an emergency, and I presented detailed inspector
reports confirming the building’s rapid decay.
The response from leadership was not immediate action, but an instruction to delay enforcement until
after Christmas because issuing a notice before would be “immoral.”
It took an additional three months of internal pressure before I was finally able to issue a formal
Notice of Violation in March 2025, condemning parts of the structure.
Just days before the formal appeal hearing, on May 1, 2024, the City itself undermined the
condemnation by participating in the "Bike Month" event on the hazardous property.
This case presents a serious and unmitigated public safety risk given its proximity to a public elementary
school and public parks. The 17 acre property was supposed to provide hundreds of housing units in a core
location for the city. However, any future prospect of housing or development at this location will now be
impeded by the millions of dollars worth of substandard conditions of the 70-year-old building, and the over
$50 million dollars of debt that has been reported on the property.
Community-Wide Consequences
The culmination of a record-breaking enforcement workload, constrained resources, and active
administrative obstacles created an unsustainable work environment, leading to my constructive discharge
in June of this year. It is critical for the Council to know that I am the eighth Building Official hired by the
City in the last 12 years. This is not a series of isolated departures; it is a clear pattern of institutional
instability driven by flawed fiscal policy.
For over a decade, the City has collected an estimated $10 million more in fees for review and inspection
services than it has spent providing them. This is not a budget surplus, but represents a decade of public
funds collected for services that were not fully rendered. The consequences are now etched into our
community's landscape in the derelict and uninhabitable properties like "The Sub," in the unresolved safety
risks posed by thousands of expired permits, in the dangerous conditions at 1150 Laurel Lane, and in the
frequent reports of substandard living conditions from local tenants. All the while, the City Council continues
to adopt new policies for the Building & Safety division to enforce, such as single-use plastics and
polystyrene restrictions, shopping cart management, and energy efficiency ordinances.
The City collects fees based on a promise of safety and service. It is imperative that the Building & Safety
division be fully equipped to deliver on that promise. I urge the Council to interrogate the allocations of
resources for the Community Development Department, and to begin providing adequate funding for a
public safety program that meets the needs and demands of our community.
Sincerely,
Michael Loew, MPA, CBO
38
From:Michael Loew < >
Sent:Sunday, November 2, 2025 6:45 PM
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Public Comment on Item 6a
Dear Mayor Stewart and City Council Members,
My name is Michael Loew, I am a resident and homeowner in the city. I served as the City’s Chief Building
Official from June 2023 through June 2025. I am writing to provide supplemental context regarding Building
& Safety operations during that period and to support the Council’s review of resource allocation, service
delivery capacity, and policy impacts on public safety.
Policy of Revenue Generation Over Service Delivery
The Building and Safety division's core challenge is a structural paradox embedded in the city's fiscal policy.
This was brought into sharp focus during the 2024 fee study. The City’s contracted consultant's analysis,
based on past years of the city's own spending data, concluded that the division was under-resourced
relative to the fees it collected. This resulted in a calculation that proposed to reduce fee rates by 35%.
To avert a significant revenue loss, I was directed to develop an entirely new methodology, one based on
the time and resources it should take to properly administer and enforce the building code. My analysis
successfully justified maintaining the existing revenues, an action that preserved approximately $1 million in
annual revenue for the department. The logical and ethical next step was to fund the division to the level its
own fee-justification model proved was necessary. I submitted corresponding significant operating budget
requests of over $500,000 (half of the calculation) to begin to align our resources with our mandated
responsibilities during the 24-25 fiscal year. Those requests were largely denied.
My efforts to align resources with responsibilities extended beyond those budget requests. I identified a
significant public safety risk and revenue opportunity in the City’s unaddressed backlog of more than 2,000
expired permits since 2020. As part of the fee study, I developed and proposed new fees specifically to
address this backlog, which the Council subsequently adopted. This initiative was not merely punitive; it was
a strategic plan to generate an estimated $1.2 million in revenue, designed explicitly to help the department
weather the exact kind of economic uncertainty in development that later prompted budget cuts. However,
despite Council approval, I was denied the resources and operational discretion to implement this revenue-
positive, public-safety initiative.
The Operational Consequences
As the report correctly notes, the City saw a "decline compared to previous years" in new development,
which was "reflected in permitting and inspection volumes." However, this slowdown in revenue-generating
activity was met with a historic surge in our non-revenue-generating public-safety duties. The report confirms
that "The Code Enforcement team processed a record number of investigation requests."
Instead of shifting resources to meet this record-breaking demand for code enforcement, the administration
used the decline in permit revenue to justify system-wide austerity measures that crippled our ability to
function. At the same time, according to the report, the Planning Division "achieved greater stability through
the hiring of three interns and permanent staff," while the Building and Safety division was directed to
"complete more work in-house to reduce costs." This directive was coupled with a significant expansion
of my own duties. I was tasked with rebuilding another team by assuming the responsibilities of the vacant
39
Supervising Civil Engineer, overseeing the day-to-day operations and recruitment for the Engineering
Development Review Team, including the new Supervising Civil Engineer.
The strain on the building division was further compounded by the director's determination to divert code
enforcement resources away from core public-safety risks, such as dangerous buildings and expired permit
enforcement, and towards a new fraternity and sorority party enforcement initiative. I was explicitly excluded
from these efforts by the director and never consulted or asked to speak to the grand jury on the matter. I
was denied the staff required to address the thousands of pending permit violations affecting the broader
community's safety.
Public Hazard at 1150 Laurel Lane
1150 Laurel Lane represents a systemic failure by the City's handling of the "dangerous building," a major
public safety enforcement case.
My initial attempt at enforcement against the project began in June 2024, but was halted by Director
Tway who instructed me to extend the property's Temporary Certificates of Occupancy.
For the next five months, I was consistently pressured to extend occupancy authorizations, and
Director Tway prevented me from issuing a Notice of Violation.
It was only when I refused to sign another TCO extension in November 2024 that the administration
was forced to confront the issue, and I was again directed not to send the Notice of Violation until I
met with the City Manager.
City Manager MacDonald met with me on December 18, 2024. The Fire Chief declared the building
too hazardous for his crews to enter in the event of an emergency, and I presented detailed inspector
reports confirming the building’s rapid decay.
The response from leadership was not immediate action, but an instruction to delay enforcement until
after Christmas because issuing a notice before would be “immoral.”
It took an additional three months of internal pressure before I was finally able to issue a formal
Notice of Violation in March 2025, condemning parts of the structure.
Just days before the formal appeal hearing, on May 1, 2024, the City itself undermined the
condemnation by participating in the "Bike Month" event on the hazardous property.
This case presents a serious and unmitigated public safety risk given its proximity to a public elementary
school and public parks. The 17 acre property was supposed to provide hundreds of housing units in a core
location for the city. However, any future prospect of housing or development at this location will now be
impeded by the millions of dollars worth of substandard conditions of the 70-year-old building, and the over
$50 million dollars of debt that has been reported on the property.
Community-Wide Consequences
The culmination of a record-breaking enforcement workload, constrained resources, and active
administrative obstacles created an unsustainable work environment, leading to my constructive discharge
in June of this year. It is critical for the Council to know that I am the eighth Building Official hired by the
City in the last 12 years. This is not a series of isolated departures; it is a clear pattern of institutional
instability driven by flawed fiscal policy.
For over a decade, the City has collected an estimated $10 million more in fees for review and inspection
services than it has spent providing them. This is not a budget surplus, but represents a decade of public
funds collected for services that were not fully rendered. The consequences are now etched into our
40
community's landscape in the derelict and uninhabitable properties like "The Sub," in the unresolved safety
risks posed by thousands of expired permits, in the dangerous conditions at 1150 Laurel Lane, and in the
frequent reports of substandard living conditions from local tenants. All the while, the City Council continues
to adopt new policies for the Building & Safety division to enforce, such as single-use plastics and
polystyrene restrictions, shopping cart management, and energy efficiency ordinances.
The City collects fees based on a promise of safety and service. It is imperative that the Building & Safety
division be fully equipped to deliver on that promise. I urge the Council to interrogate the allocations of
resources for the Community Development Department, and to begin providing adequate funding for a
public safety program that meets the needs and demands of our community.
Sincerely,
Michael Loew, MPA, CBO
41
From:Michael Loew < >
Sent:Saturday, November 1, 2025 3:00 PM
To:CityClerk
Subject:City Claim
Attachments:Nov 1 2025.pdf
Please find my completed claim form attached.
Thank you,
Michael Loew
42
From:Michael Loew <michael@ichiplan.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 2, 2025 2:11 PM
To:Lehman, Chris
Subject:Re: Lunch
A legitimate Taco Tuesday, nice.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 2:09 PM Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org> wrote:
Thanks, Mike! Just sent an update to meet 10/14.
Safe travels,
-Chris
From: Michael Loew <michael@ichiplan.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 2:01 PM
To: Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Lunch
Hi Chirs, I am actually going out of town Thursday afternoon. I'm free M-W next week, or M, T, Th the following.
Hope you get better!
-Mike
On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 1:55 PM Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Hate to punt our meeting again, but I’ve been struggling this week with a cold. Are you available for lunch on 10/9?
Chris Lehman
Deputy Director - Wastewater
43
Public Utilities
879 Morro st., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314
E clehman@slocity.org
T 805.781.7039
C 805.431.4372
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
-----Original Appointment-----
From: Lehman, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 2:05 PM
To: Lehman, Chris; michael@ichiplan.com
Subject: Lunch
When: Friday, October 3, 2025 12:00 PM-1:00 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).
Where: Taqueria El Guero -1122 Chorro Street
Sensitivity: Private
44
From:Lehman, Chris
Sent:Thursday, October 2, 2025 2:09 PM
To:Michael Loew
Subject:RE: Lunch
Thanks, Mike! Just sent an update to meet 10/14.
Safe travels,
-Chris
From: Michael Loew <michael@ichiplan.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 2:01 PM
To: Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Lunch
Hi Chirs, I am actually going out of town Thursday afternoon. I'm free M-W next week, or M, T, Th the following.
Hope you get better!
-Mike
On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 1:55 PM Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Hate to punt our meeting again, but I’ve been struggling this week with a cold. Are you available for lunch on 10/9?
Chris Lehman
Deputy Director - Wastewater
Public Utilities
879 Morro st., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314
E clehman@slocity.org
T 805.781.7039
C 805.431.4372
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
45
-----Original Appointment-----
From: Lehman, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 2:05 PM
To: Lehman, Chris; michael@ichiplan.com
Subject: Lunch
When: Friday, October 3, 2025 12:00 PM-1:00 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).
Where: Taqueria El Guero -1122 Chorro Street
Sensitivity: Private
46
From:Michael Loew <michael@ichiplan.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 2, 2025 2:01 PM
To:Lehman, Chris
Subject:Re: Lunch
Hi Chirs, I am actually going out of town Thursday afternoon. I'm free M-W next week, or M, T, Th the following.
Hope you get better!
-Mike
On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 1:55 PM Lehman, Chris <clehman@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Hate to punt our meeting again, but I’ve been struggling this week with a cold. Are you available for lunch on 10/9?
Chris Lehman
Deputy Director - Wastewater
Public Utilities
879 Morro st., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314
E clehman@slocity.org
T 805.781.7039
C 805.431.4372
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
-----Original Appointment-----
From: Lehman, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 2:05 PM
To: Lehman, Chris; michael@ichiplan.com
Subject: Lunch
When: Friday, October 3, 2025 12:00 PM-1:00 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).
Where: Taqueria El Guero -1122 Chorro Street
Sensitivity: Private
47
48
From:Lehman, Chris
Sent:Thursday, October 2, 2025 1:55 PM
To:michael@ichiplan.com
Subject:RE: Lunch
Sensitivity:Private
Hi Mike,
Hate to punt our meeting again, but I’ve been struggling this week with a cold. Are you available for lunch on 10/9?
Chris Lehman
Deputy Director - Wastewater
Public Utilities
879 Morro st., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314
E clehman@slocity.org
T 805.781.7039
C 805.431.4372
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
-----Original Appointment-----
From: Lehman, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 2:05 PM
To: Lehman, Chris; michael@ichiplan.com
Subject: Lunch
When: Friday, October 3, 2025 12:00 PM-1:00 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).
Where: Taqueria El Guero -1122 Chorro Street
Sensitivity: Private