HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4a - Rental Housing Registry Item 4a
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4008
For Agenda of: 2/24/2026
Placement: Study Session
Estimated Time: 120 minutes
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: David Amini, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: RENTAL HOUSING REGISTRY STUDY SESSION
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation and conduct a study session on a rental housing registry.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The Community Development Department’s workplan for the 2025-2027 Budget includes
facilitating a study session on a potential future rental housing registry. This is in direct
response to feedback received from the community on the need to address safe and
stable housing for renters, and follows the October 28, 2025, study session on Renter
Protections.
One of the key findings of the Renter Protections study session was that the City can
gather basic data on households and housing stock via existing data sets but has limited
data on rental housing and renter demographics in the community.
The intent of this study session is to provide Council and the community with the
parameters of a potential future rental housing registry as well as discussion of resources
needed for establishment and ongoing maintenance of a rental registry. Staff’s discussion
includes rental registry examples from other cities with details regarding costs and
program roll-out, along with presenting three different options for rental registry
implementation with a detailed analysis of timing, cost, and the process for establishing
a registry program.
POLICY CONTEXT
Major City Goals
The 2025-2027 Major City Goals include a set of workplan items for the Housing and
Neighborhood Livability – Healthy, Safe, and Affordable Goal. Included within this goal
set is Strategy 3, to ensure housing is safe, healthy, and affordable, while facilitating
stronger protections for renters. This study session specifically implements Goal 3b:
“Conduct a study session with the City Council on potential Rental Housing Registry.”
Page 5 of 27
Item 4a
Housing Element
This study session is also part of the ongoing implementation of the Major City Goal work
plan to implement the City’s 6th Cycle General Plan Housing Element. Specifically, this
study session addresses Policy 1.2 to support and inform the public about fair housing
laws and programs that allow equal housing access for all city residents , as well as
Program 7.1 to continue to work directly with neighborhood groups and individuals to
address concerns pertaining to neighborhood needs, problems, trends, and opportunities
for physical improvements.
BACKGROUND
Rental Housing Statistics
City staff presented a Renter Protections Study Session on October 28, 2025, with a
comprehensive, in-depth overview of the City’s rental housing stock and challenges
facing renters and the community. Some of the key statistics are provided below for
context. One of the key findings was that the City can gather basic data on households
and housing stock via existing data sets but has limited data on rental housing and renters
in the community. A rental registry was identified as a potential solution to provide the
City with this data.
SLO has a homeownership rate of 38%, with 62% of households being renters 2.
California, as a whole, has a homeownership rate of 55.8%. 62% of the 23,984
housing units in the City equates to approximately 14,870 estimated rental units.
A community group comprised of property management companies in the City
counted 8,208 professionally managed units.
The City’s average rent is $3,200 per month1 – 39% higher than the state average
and 59% higher than the national average.
Over 55% of renter households are cost burdened, meaning that they pay more
than 30% of their income towards rent. Over 30 % of renter households are
severely cost burdened, meaning that they pay more than 50 % of their income
towards rent.2
What is a Rental Registry, and Why Are they Established?
Rental registries are databases maintained by localities that contain information about
rental properties and ownership. Depending on the registry’s design, rental property
owners may be required to provide their name and contact information; details about the
number, location, and types of units they lease; up-to-date rent levels and occupancy
statistics; eviction information; and/or other information as required by a municipality. The
majority of rental registries that were studied by staff as part of thi s report were
1 Zillow Rental Market Report - https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/san-luis-obispo-ca/
2 https://data.census.gov/profile/San_Luis_Obispo_city,_California?g=160XX00US0668154;
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2022.S2504?q=housing%20stock%20san%20luis%20obispo%20city&g=160XX
00US0668154
Page 6 of 27
Item 4a
implemented with the assistance of specialized software from a third-party vendor. The
different aspects of a rental registry and options for implementation are discussed further
below.
The majority of municipalities surveyed by staff utilize rental registry data to ensure
compliance with local renter protection regulations such as rent stabilization and tenant
protection laws. Some jurisdictions with a high student population, such as Berkeley,
Davis, and Isla Vista, utilize the rental registry tool to collect information on housing safety.
Berkeley and Davis both require a self-inspection checklist, inclusive of basic habitability
standards, to be completed by both landlord and tenant and submitted as part of the
annual registration process.
When weighing whether to establish a rental registry, it is helpful to consider the goals
that the City Council has for housing in the community (such as stabilizing rents,
improving substandard housing, establishing eviction protections, etc.). The data
collected in a rental registry can be tailored towards these issues . Issues such as rent
stabilization and eviction protections often require additional ordinances and regulations.
Public Engagement
The intent of this study session is to provide Council and the community with the
parameters of a potential future registry as well as discussion of resources needed for
establishment and ongoing maintenance of a rental registry. The information provided in
the study session is informed by the many public comments the City has received over
the past two years regarding renter protections, including the desired implementation of
a rental registry. Staff also conducted proactive outreach to a variety of stakeholders who
were generous in giving their time to discuss a potential rental registry with staff, including
the entities listed below:
SLO Tenants Union
SLO Coastal Association of Realtors
SLO Chamber of Commerce
CDD Developers Roundtable
Cal Poly Off-Campus Housing Program
Cuesta College Basic Needs Center
Quaglino Enterprises
Private landlords of student and family housing
Property management companies
Various cities and counties in California that have implemented rental registries
The community groups gave wide-ranging feedback. While most groups agreed with the
need for more comprehensive data regarding rental units in the City, as well as the
challenges of maintaining affordability and safety in rental housing, there were varying
opinions regarding the necessity and scope of a rental registry as a tool to address this
need.
Community groups representing tenants supported the creation of a comprehensive,
Page 7 of 27
Item 4a
software-based rental registry, with mandatory participation required for all rental
properties. Under this approach, the registry would be updated yearly, with a fee charged
to cover the operation and maintenance of a registry. The long -term objectives of the
registry would be to identify every rental unit in the City, its ownership information, and
collect accurate data on rental costs Citywide, as well as data on evictions, unit turnover,
and safe housing issues. There would be a component for tenants to access and verify
the information collected regarding a particular unit in the registry.
Generally, groups representing property managers, realtors, and the business community
questioned the need for, and efficacy of, a software-based rental registry with mandatory
compliance. Some participants expressed a strong desire to utilize the City’s existing
business license database, as well as data from larger property management f irms, to
identify and conduct enforcement against unlicensed properties. The following concerns
about rental registries were identified:
Privacy and security of information collected, especially if there is a public -facing
component of the registry.
Accuracy of information collected from property owners.
Delays in collecting information due to communication barriers between property
owners, managers, and tenants.
Potential for rental registry fees to be passed on to tenants, thereby increasing
housing costs.
Landlords withdrawing properties from the market if required to register and
provide data to the City, thereby decreasing City rental housing stock and
availability.
Noncompliance from property owners, leading to an ineffective registration rate of
the rental registry.
Lack of tangible benefits to landlords and/or tenants realized through a rental
registry.
The possibility of a rental registry leading to further regulations imposed upon
rental properties, such as rent control.
In discussion with other cities that have implemented a rental registry, staff received
several process recommendations to ensure success of this tool should Council decide
to move forward. These included the following:
Robust levels of community engagement are necessary – providing multiple
opportunities for the community to provide feedback and understand the potential
impacts and requirements of a rental registry.
Staff capacity building and training well ahead of registry implementation is critical.
The additional staffing resources required to implement the registry are a
significant cost, and are discussed below.
A long roll-out process of the rental registry of a year or more to give the community
ample time to voluntarily provide information, before higher levels of enforcement.
Community workshops and “office hours” with staff to assist property owners with
signing up for the registry.
Page 8 of 27
Item 4a
Keeping the rental registry roll-out sequenced separately from implementation of
other rental protection strategies in order to prese rve staffing resources and keep
the community focused.
DISCUSSION
This section provides additional discussion on the information the City currently collects
through the existing business license process, as well as information regarding rental
registries, including the typical information collected as well as the different options
available for implementation.
Rental Registries in Other Communities
City staff researched jurisdictions in California that have established rental registries to
provide an overview to inform this discussion. This section discusses the basics of rental
registries in other communities. Over 35 jurisdictions in California have some form of a
rental registry. Several cities are exploring adding rental registries. On January 27, 2026,
the City of Santa Barbara instituted a temporary rent increase moratorium while their staff
works to develop a permanent rent stabilization program. This permanent program would
include a registration requirement for all rental units, a locally enforced cap on rent
increases, as well as locally enforced just cause eviction protections. A full list of cities
and counties with information about their rental registry programs can be found in
Attachment A.
Information Collected
Various jurisdictions in California have established rental registries. The information
collected in each registry varies, depending on the complexity of the registry, whether the
jurisdiction has other local renter protections, and what the desires of the community are.
The information collected in a rental registry could include any of the following:
Owner information (owner name, address, etc.)
Tenant information including frequency of tenant turnover, eviction history
Property characteristics – age, number of units, square footage of units, number
of bedrooms in each unit
Rent amount
Lease language, or information about specific lease terms
Property rules and policies (ex: pets, smoking)
Fees not included in rent such as utilities, parking, pet surcharge, application
City code enforcement data, such as number of verified violations at a property,
etc.
City permitting data for each site or unit
Most of the information collected as part of a rental registry is for internal use of the
jurisdiction. Based on staff research, most cities do not publish the information collected
in a rental registry to the public. Some jurisdictions, such as Fresno, Berkeley, and Los
Angeles County, provide a searchable database of units where members of the public
can view unit addresses, number of occupants, rent amount, and the most recent date of
turnover. Other jurisdictions do not provide any public-facing data. Staff found that none
Page 9 of 27
Item 4a
of the public databases shared personally identifying information of landlords or tenants.
Below is a screenshot of how a property appears in Berkeley’s public rental registry
website.
Figure 1: Berkeley Rental Registry Public Website
Establishment and Implementation of Rental Registry
Most cities implement rental registries through adoption of a local ordinance, which
provides a regulatory framework in their municipal code outlining the requirements, fee
structure, as well as penalties for noncompliance. California cities that have adopted
rental registry ordinances in the past two years include Santa Monica (link to ordinance),
Monterey (link to ordinance), and Clearlake (link to ordinance). Many communities
establish a fee for registration for each unit that must be registered. These fees help
support the administration of the registry, typically covering the entirety of the software
costs and the majority of staffing costs through the annual fee revenue, particularly after
the program is well established and captures most of the city’s rental stock. The fees
Page 10 of 27
Item 4a
generally range from $25 to $250 per registered unit. For example, Culver City charges
$167 per unit per year. Monterey charges $50 per unit per year. A full list of cities and
their associated registry fees can be found in Attachment A.
Based upon staff research, the implementation of a mandatory registry can take at least
three years to achieve the goal of having 100% of rental properties captured in the City’s
registry. Below is a timeline of this process based on staff’s conversations with other cities
that have adopted a mandatory rental registry.
Draft and adopt an ordinance - six months to 1 year
Outreach and roll-out period designed to register the majority of properties through
repeated communication and offering reduced or no fees – 1-2 years from
adoption of the ordinance. There are significant staff resources required during
this period in order to secure all properties in the registry and respond to inquiries
from landlords and the community at large. Most cities surveyed by staff spent 1 -
2 years in this phase before the majority of properties were registered. Some cities
did choose to waive the registry fee during this time, which woul d delay the
realization of a revenue-neutral program.
Enforcement against properties that have not registered during the outreach and
roll-out period – 1-2 years after initial outreach and roll-out period. There is a
high level of staff resources needed from the CDD Housing division, City Attorney,
and Code Enforcement division during this phase to identify unregistered
properties, conduct enforcement and move through the administrative citation
process for properties that refuse to register. Most cities surveyed by staff reached
an 80-90% compliance rate after the outreach and roll-out period and entered the
enforcement phase after the first or second year to close the gap.
Rental Registry Technology
Once established, cities with registries use out-of-the-box software solutions from
providers such as 3Di, HdL, Tolemi, Deckard, and others. These companies have specific
software programs that are made for rental registries and can provide the following
components of a rental registry:
Identification of properties requiring registration through analysis of tax assessor
data, existing City data, as well as online data from Zillow/Craigslist
Website portal for property owners to enter information and pay fees associated
with registration
Ability to send mass email/mailing through the software to implement registry
and/or provide updates to all landlords/tenants, etc.
Customer service through phone, email, and chat to assist users
Automatically generated, customizable reports covering the various data points
collected and trends, such as average rent, ownership information, tenant turnover
Map-based interface showing all rental properties in the City and associated data
to facilitate data analysis
Page 11 of 27
Item 4a
These software solutions cost between $10,000-$50,000 per year, inclusive of start-up
costs and yearly subscription fees. Most cities surveyed by staff cover the costs of
software entirely through fee revenue from the rental registry.
Frequency of Information Collection
Cities typically collect information on an annual basis to capture changes in rent and
tenant turnover. This information is typically collected from the landlord. Some cities, such
as Beverly Hills, provide notices to all tenants in registered units of the landlord’s inputted
information to ensure that it is confirmed by the tenant. There is a process for tenants to
formally dispute the information; for example, if the landlord underreports the actual rent,
tenants can file a certified appeal that is then heard by a hearing off icer. Since Beverly
Hills has a local rent stabilization ordinance, rent increases are limited by local ordinance,
which necessitates the hearing officer and rent appeal process. Beverly Hills also requires
that landlords update their registrations any time that there is a new tenant, change in
ownership, or change in property management.
In order to collect information, upon establishment of a registry, a jurisdiction must first
identify properties that need to be registered. This can be accomplished through analysis
of data such as tax assessment rolls, the existing business license database, and other
City data sources. Software solutions are available to automate this process. After
identifying properties, jurisdictions typically notify property owners of their requirement to
register through mail, email, and media campaigns.
Enforcement of Rental Registry
Cities typically conduct enforcement against non-compliant properties who fail to register
through the administrative citation process in the municipal code. If a mandatory rental
registry is implemented through a local ordinance, failure to register a property would
constitute a violation of the City’s municipal code. Upon receiving information regarding
a potential violation from the rental registry software provider or through a complaint
received from the public, the city’s code enforcement division would need to investigate
and verify the violation and then provide notices of violation to the property owner with a
corresponding fine. There is an allowance in the City’s code for the property owner to
contest the violation and request an administrative hearing.
Cities have varying fee structures for violations of their municipal code and rent registry
ordinances. The City of Davis, for example, has an escalating fee structure of $100 for
the first violation, $200 for the second violation, and $500 for the third and subsequent
violations. The City of Monterey imposes additional late fees if properties fail to register,
topping out at an additional 50% after one month of failure to register.
Cities also may take legal action against the property owner to collect fees for violations
of their municipal code and rent registry ordinances. This effort requires the coordination
between the city’s code enforcement as well as city attorney’s office to collect information
and move through the court process.
Page 12 of 27
Item 4a
Resources and Costs for Rental Registry Implementation
The implementation and enforcement of a rental registry would require additional staffing
resources as well as ongoing software costs. Below are the direct staffing requirements
of other cities to administer their local rental registry and associated renter protection
regulations, as well as the approximate costs to operate the registry inclusive of software
and staffing. It should be noted that there are also indirect costs associated with
administering a registry, such as costs associated with legal, administrative, and
information technology support. Many cities surveyed by staff cover the direct and indirect
costs of the rental registry through the annual registration fee revenue.
Culver City established a rental registry program in October of 2020, in tandem
with permanent rent control and tenant protection regulations. The rent registry is
managed by two full-time staff members from the Housing and Human Services
Department. The rent registry, rent control, and tenant protection programs incur
approximately $1.3 million in staffing and software costs annually. Revenue from
the annual registration fee of of $167 per unit fully funds the costs of the program.
Santa Ana established a Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance in
November of 2024 that included a rental registry program. This program currently
employs three full-time staff members from the Housing team, two full-time staff
members from Code Enforcement, and two full-time staff members from the City
Attorney’s Office. The program incurs approximately $1.6 million in staffing and
software costs annually. Revenue from the annual registration fee of $100 per unit
fully funds the costs of the program.
Monterey established a Rental Inventory Program in 2023 to provide more robust
data to the City regarding their rental housing stock. The rental registry collects
data regarding rent, ownership, tenant turnover, and basic housing characteristics.
This program does not include rent stabilization or eviction protection measures.
The program is overseen by three full-time staff members from the four-person
Housing team, each dedicating partial time to oversight of the program . The rent
registry program has incurred approximately $236,000 in staffing and software
costs annually. After two years of the program’s adoption, approximately 82% of
properties are registered and compliant. The revenue from the $50 annual
registration fee is currently covering over 90% of the staffing and software costs.
Davis established a Rental Resources program in 2017, consisting of a mandatory
rental registry for all single-family and multi-family rental units, as well as a
mandatory inspection program for all rental properties with 1-4 units, with a
mandatory move-in inspection requirement for larger multifamily properties with
more than 5 units. The program utilizes one half-time staff member, with one
supervising manager from the seven-person Social Services and Housing
Department to operate the registry program. Additional Code Enforcement,
Finance Department, and Planning Department support is used as needed. The
Rental Resources program has incurred approximately $250,000 in direct staffing
and software costs annually. The revenue from the $105 annual registration fee
fully funds the staffing and software costs of the program.
Page 13 of 27
Item 4a
Palo Alto established a standalone rental registry program in 2023 with the intent
to provide more information to their Council regarding the 11,400 rental units in the
city. The program is overseen by one full-time staff member in the City’s Planning
Division, with the partial efforts of other staff members to conduct enforcement ,
process registration payments, and outreach efforts. The city’s software and
services costs total $443,256 for a four-year contract period. The revenue from the
$35 annual registration fee is intended to fully cover the staffing and software costs
of the program. The city opted to waive the annual registration fee in the first year
of the program’s roll-out to incentivize participation and register the highest amount
of properties.
Of the cities noted above, Monterey, Davis, and Palo Alto have a rental registry, but no
additional local rent stabilization regulations (although Davis does have an inspection
aspect), which is likely the reason that the staffing requirements and total costs of program
operations are lower than the other cities.
Rental registry costs primarily lie in the staffing costs necessary for administration and
enforcement. Staff found that cities charge anywhere from $25 to $200 per unit on a yearly
basis to register each unit. Many cities surveyed by staff cover the entirety of staffing and
software costs through this annual fee revenue, particularly after the roll-out period where
the majority of rental units are identified and accounted for in the registry.
Rental Registry Options
There are a number of factors to study and consider when establishing a potential rental
registry. The following information is being provided to outline three potential types of
registries that the City could establish if there is Council direction to move forward. Each
option is outlined below, with additional information about resource needs to implement
the options.
Option 1: Utilize Existing Business License Database
Through discussions with the community on the issue of a rental registry, staff has
received comments that the City should utilize the existing business license process to
gather information about rental units, instead of creating a separate rental registry.
The Business License and Tax program is currently administered by the Finance
Department. Under this tax program, businesses, including residential rentals, generating
revenue in the City are required to obtain a business license and on an annual basis,
remit a tax payment based on gross receipts earned in the previous calendar year. In its
current state, the business license and tax program is considered administrative and
would require significant changes and resources to have the ability to address issues of
a regulatory nature. There would need to be additional staffing resources, training, and
enforcement necessary to take the business license program from its current state to a
more robust program dedicated to proactively identifying all rentals in the city.
The City currently collects about $300,000 per year in business taxes from residential
rental businesses, with the minimum tax being $25 per licensed operator per year. The
Page 14 of 27
Item 4a
total amount of business taxes collecte d across all business types is approximately $3
million annually. The business license program is administered primarily by one full-time
staff member who is responsible for the intake of information from all business license
applicants, with no current capacity or structure for identifying unlicensed rentals or
collecting more significant housing data. During the annual business license renewal
season, staff from other divisions within the department help to support the revenue
management division as they manage the increased workload.
The Business License and Tax program does not currently have the regulations
established through an ordinance nor a proactive process dedicated to identifying
unlicensed rentals. The Finance Department is creating a form as an addendum to the
Business License Application form to collect additional rental location information from
residential rental operators. It is important to note that the information gathered with the
form is provided voluntarily by the residential rental operators. The Finance Department
does not have a means for validating that the information submitted is correct and
complete. There would need to be additional analysis performed by a trained staff
member with the assistance of outside software to verify this information. Per the City’s
latest active business license report, there are 2,619 active business licenses for
residential rentals in the City (inclusive of both long-term rentals and homestays). Many
businesses include multiple addresses/units under one license. When considering that
there are an estimated 14,970 rental units in the City, staff estimates that there may be
9,000-12,000 rental units not captured under an active business license.
As noted above, several community members and groups have requested that the City
consider utilizing the existing business license process to address the identified need to
collect more data. This option would necessitate changes to the City’s existing business
license and tax program (including adoption of ordinance amendments to require
operators to provide certain additional information when obtaining and/or renewing a
Business License), updates to the business license database, and would require
significant staff as well as consultant resources dedicated to identifying rental properties
that are unlicensed and conducting outreach to those property owners informing them of
their requirement to secure a business license.
There would be difficulty in providing meaningful data beyond addresses from this
database, such as unit size, information on rent trends, map-based insights, demographic
information, or safe housing information. Additionally, properties removed from the rental
market would not be accurately tracked, as some business licenses cover multiple
properties and units, and there is not a regulatory requirement in place to notify the City
when a unit is taken off the market.
It is anticipated that this effort would require significant additional City staffing resources
across the Finance Department, Housing Division, Code Enforcement, and City
Attorney’s Office. The staffing levels necessary to implement this effort would be
equivalent to or greater than that of a mandatory, software -based registry, without the
guaranteed data and information that a software-based registry can provide. Additionally,
without the additional revenue from an annual registration fee, the software an d staffing
Page 15 of 27
Item 4a
costs may not be fully recovered by business license revenue alone.
Overall Resource Need: High
Software Costs: $10,000-$50,000 per year
Staffing Need: 3.00 FTE ($300k-600k per year)
0.5 FTE of Finance Department Leadership time to develop and implement new
regulations, ordinance, and enforcement procedures
1 FTE of Finance Analyst time for intake of business license applications
0.5 FTE of Housing Coordinator time to assist Finance Department to develop and
implement new regulations, ordinance, and enforcement procedures
0.5 FTE of Code Enforcement Specialist time for conducting enforcement
0.25 FTE of City Attorney/Deputy City Attorney time for conducting enforcement
0.25 FTE of Marketing/Communications Coordinator time for outreach/roll -out
media campaign
Option 2: Software-Based, Voluntary Rental Registry
This option would employ a software provider to roll-out a rental registry, without a
mandatory registration requirement implemented through City ordinance. The registration
rate would likely be low. This option would have a much lower impact on staff ing needs,
as the software provider would handle all registration by volunteer properties without the
need for staff to conduct outreach associated with a mandatory program, enforcement, or
facilitate a large volume of registrations.
Before pursuing this option, the City Council should consider the intent of establishing a
registry. If the intent is to have a complete picture of the rental landscape, then a voluntary
registry will likely not achieve this goal. Software providers have indicated that in cities
with voluntary programs, after the first year only 20% of properties end up registered.
Overall Resource Need: Low
Software Costs: $10,000-$50,000 per year
Staffing Need: 0.5 FTE ($60k per year)
0.5 FTE of Housing Coordinator time to manage software and roll-out of registry
Option 3: Software-Based, Mandatory Rental Registry
This option would implement a rental registry ordinance requiring all rental properties to
register with the City, and employ the administrative citation process in the Municipal
Code to penalize non-compliant properties and owners.
If this option is pursued, staff recommends implementing an initial roll-out process of at
least a year where enforcement would not occur in the interest of registering the maximum
number of properties possible. This roll-out period would require a high level of staff time
from the Housing Division, with an estimated 14,000 rental units needing to be registered.
While software providers have large-scale customer service teams able to handle a high
level of inquiries, it is likely that there would still be a high volume of inquiries from property
owners to the City directly through email, phone calls, and in-person visits that would
Page 16 of 27
Item 4a
need to be redirected by City staff to the software provider.
The City could explore waiving or reducing the initial registration fee in order to in centivize
participation. This would come at a significant cost to the City of approximately $200,000
per year in potential fee revenue that could cover the software and staffing costs of the
registry program. Once the initial roll-out period is complete, enforcement and the
collection of fees would begin to support the program’s operations. Staff found that most
jurisdictions cover the cost of software entirely through fee revenue, along with a
significant portion of the staff time spent on program administration. As mentioned above,
the City of Monterey is currently covering 90% of their rental registry program costs after
2 years of the program’s existence. There would also be a financial benefit to the City of
recovering missing business license tax revenue through the rental registry.
Additional staffing would be necessary in the City’s Housing Division , City Attorney’s
Office, as well as Code Enforcement Division in order to successfully implement, operate
and manage the program.
Overall Resource Need: High
Software Costs: $10,000-$50,000 per year
Staffing Need: 3.00 FTE ($300k-500k per year)
1 FTE of Housing Analyst time for software and overall program administration
0.5 FTE of Code Enforcement Specialist time for conducting enforcement
0.25 FTE of City Attorney/Deputy City Attorney time for conducting enforcement
0.25 FTE of Marketing/Communications Coordinator time for outreach/roll -out
media campaign
1 FTE of CDD Customer Service Rep time for responding to landlord/tenant
inquiries and community inquiries regarding the program
The highest costs will be incurred in the first several years due to the need to set up the
program and conduct extensive outreach and education. After 1-2 years, the program
could be self-supporting through revenue from annual registration fees.
Additional Information and Focus Questions
This study session provided three options for Council’s consideration when deciding on
future efforts towards the establishment a rental registry – utilization of the existing
business license database, a software-based voluntary registry, and a software-based
mandatory registry. The work plan for the current budget cycle does not identify any
further efforts, beyond this study session, to establish a rental registry during the 2025-
27 Financial Plan. To implement a rental registry during the current financial plan, current
work plan items would need to be reevaluated and postponed to provide staff capacity
and funding for this new effort. Future and ongoing work plan items in the 2025-27
Financial Plan for Community Development that would need to be re-evaluated and
postponed include all of the following:
1.a. Organize a focus group to explore barriers to residential infill development —
including specific discussions about the Downtown Core—and produce a memo
Page 17 of 27
Item 4a
to Council to help guide updates to the Zoning Regulations.
1.d. Implement actions and requirements of the State Fire Hazard Severity maps.
2.a. Conduct an educational forum and improve the implementation of Below
Market Rate (BMR) best practices to market and streamline the purchase and
rental process for BMR units.
2.c. Annually, or as needed for compliance, and by obtaining information from
housing partners, complete updates to the Zoning Regulations to implement state
law and to address identified barriers to affordable housing and housing
production.
2.d. Work with SLOCOG to determine the City's RNHA allocation for the 7th Cycle
Housing Element Update.
2.e. Initiate an update to the 7th Cycle Housing Element through the creation of
an RFP for consultant services, and present RFP to the City Council with a study
session on potential scoping for Land Use and Circulation Element Update.
3.d. Create a strategic plan for the safe housing program, and conduct outreach
and engagement with a focus on both tenants and landlords.
4.a. Initiate an update to the Tree Regulations to streamline housing projects.
4.b. Conduct a study session with Council on Code Enforcement priorities related
to safe/livable neighborhoods and receive feedback on priorities. Discuss potential
updates to property maintenance standards.
4.d. Create a project plan and standard operating procedures for Community
Development enforcement of zoning code regulations pertaining to Greek houses.
Consider potential updates to zoning code to facilitate efficient regulation of Greek
houses.
The work plan items above are primarily conducted by the Housing, Planning, and Code
Enforcement Staff in Community Development, which are the groups that would likely be
involved in development of a rental registry program, in addition to staff in the City
Attorney’s Office and the Finance Department. Some of the work program items cannot
be postponed or removed because they are state mandated, such as the work related to
the Housing Element. Council could direct staff to develop future work plan items for the
2027-29 Financial Plan if moving forward with a rental registry is of interest.
Focus questions identified for consideration of the proposed strategic direction are
summarized below:
1. What is the goal of establishing a registry, and what is the issue that the registry is
meant to address?
2. Which of the rental registry options, if any, presented in the report warrant further
consideration?
3. Is there additional data or analysis that would be beneficial to Council in order to
determine next steps?
4. Should staff re-evaluate and postpone the work plan items in the current 2025 -27
Financial Plan to accommodate the implementation of a rental registry?
5. Should staff develop future work program items for the 2027-29 Financial Plan to
implement a rental registry?
Page 18 of 27
Item 4a
Next Steps
Should Council decide to move forward with a rental registry option, staff will conduct
additional research, develop a scope of work and solicit cost estimates so this information
can be utilized during the 2027-29 Financial Plan budget process.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
Previous City Council actions applicable to this study session work program item include:
Rental Inspection Program Adoption in May 2015
Rental Inspection Program Repeal in March 2017
6th Cycle Housing Element Adoption in November 2020
Homelessness Response Strategic Plan Adoption in March 2023
Housing Needs and Opportunities Study Session in March 2023
Prohousing Designation Program Authorization in June 2023
Code Enforcement Update Study Session in October 2023
Public Memorandum on Renter Protections in July 2024
Renter Protections Study Session in October 2025
CONCURRENCE
The City Attorney’s Office, Finance Department, as well as Code Enforcement Division,
have reviewed and concur with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended
actions in this report because the actions do not constitute a “Project” under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15378. If a rental registry ordinance is implemented, it will be
evaluated to determine if the project or program or any of its components requires
environmental review under CEQA prior to adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes 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 $ $ $ $
State
Federal
Page 19 of 27
Item 4a
Fees
Other:
Total $0 $ $ $
There are no fiscal impacts directly associated with this study session. If Council decides
to direct staff to pursue one of the rental registry options, staff will conduct additional
research, develop a scope of work, and solicit cost estimates so this information can be
utilized during the 2027-29 Financial Plan budget process.
ALTERNATIVES
Continue consideration to a future meeting. If the City Council does not have sufficient
information to provide direction to staff, or if additional time is needed for discussion, the
Council can continue consideration of the item to a future meeting. If the City Council
decides to continue the meeting, direction should be provided to staff on any additional
information needed to complete the discussion.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Rental Registry Case Study Matrix
Page 20 of 27
Attachment A – Rental Registry Case Study Matrix
City and
Population
Link to
Ordinance/Website
Rental Registry
Type
Costs
Cost
Recovery
Annual
Fees
Additional Renter
Protections
Alameda
78,280
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$2.6M
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$114-$170
per unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Antioch
115,291
Website
Mandatory, software
based
N/A – program not set up Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Berkeley
124,321
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$8.7M
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$212-$344
per unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Rental inspection program
Beverly Hills
32,701
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$2.1M
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$31.05 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Canyon Lake
11,082
Website
Mandatory, uses paper
form submission
unknown $161 per
unit
Rental inspection program
Clearlake
16,685
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$25,000
annually for
software
$105 per
property
Rental inspection program
Page 21 of 27
City and
Population
Link to
Ordinance/Website
Rental Registry
Type
Costs
Cost
Recovery
Annual
Fees
Additional Renter
Protections
Cudahy
22,811
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$300,000
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$126 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Concord
124,016
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$1.1M
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$29-$47
per unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Culver City
40,779
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$1.3M
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$167 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Davis
66,850
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$250,000
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$30 per
single-
family
home
$40-$100
for
multifamily
properties
Rental inspection program
Page 22 of 27
City and
Population
Link to
Ordinance/Website
Rental Registry
Type
Costs
Cost
Recovery
Annual
Fees
Additional Renter
Protections
El Cerrito
25,962
Website
Mandatory, software-
based
$300,000
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$49 per
unit
Rental inspection program
Elk Grove
176,124
Website
Mandatory, uses online
form submission
Unknown $10 per
unit
None, registry only
Fresno
542,107
Website
Mandatory, software-
based
$2.9M
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
No cost Rental inspection program
Half Moon Bay
11,795
Website
Mandatory, software-
based
$25,000
annually for
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$75 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Hesperia
99,818
Website
Mandatory, uses online
form submission
Unknown No cost Rental inspection program
Huntington Park
54,813
Website
Mandatory, software-
based
$879,000
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$156 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Page 23 of 27
City and
Population
Link to
Ordinance/Website
Rental Registry
Type
Costs
Cost
Recovery
Annual
Fees
Additional Renter
Protections
Inglewood
107,762
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$3.1M
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$184 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Isla Vista
15,500
Website
Mandatory, software
based
Unknown No fees
currently
Rental inspection program
Los Angeles County
9,757,179
Website
Mandatory, software
based
Unknown $90 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Marin County
262,231
Website
Mandatory (for rent-
stabilized units only),
uses online form
submission
Unknown No fees Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Maywood
25,138
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$250,000
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$90 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Monterey
30,218
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$236,000
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$50 per
unit
None, registry only
Page 24 of 27
City and
Population
Link to
Ordinance/Website
Rental Registry
Type
Costs
Cost
Recovery
Annual
Fees
Additional Renter
Protections
Mountain View
82,376
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$2.3M
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$130 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Oakland
440,646
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$7.5M
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$137 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Palo Alto
68,572
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$443k for four
years of
software
costs
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$35 per
unit
None, registry only
Pasadena
138,699
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$3.8M
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$238 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Page 25 of 27
City and
Population
Link to
Ordinance/Website
Rental Registry
Type
Costs
Cost
Recovery
Annual
Fees
Additional Renter
Protections
Richmond
116,448
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$3.8M
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$106 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Sacramento
524,943
Website
Mandatory, uses mail-
in form submission
unknown $20 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Rental inspection program
Salinas
163,542
Website
Mandatory, software
based
unknown $29 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
San Francisco
827,526
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$14.5M
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$59 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
San Jose
997,368
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$600,000
annually for
staffing
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
unknown Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
San Pablo
32,127
Website
Mandatory, software
based
unknown $20 per
account,
$7 per unit
None, registry only
Page 26 of 27
City and
Population
Link to
Ordinance/Website
Rental Registry
Type
Costs
Cost
Recovery
Annual
Fees
Additional Renter
Protections
Santa Ana
310,227
Website
Mandatory, software
based
$2 million
annually for
staffing and
software
Fully funded
by fee
revenue
$100 per
unit
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Santa Cruz
62,956
Website
Mandatory, uses form
submission
unknown $64 per
property
Rental inspection program
Santa Monica
93,076
Website
Mandatory, software
based
Not yet
established
Not yet
established
Local rent stabilization and
tenant protection ordinance
Page 27 of 27