HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5a - Study Session - Code Enforcement Priorities Item 5a
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4006
For Agenda of: 5/26/2026
Placement: Study Session
Estimated Time: 180 Minutes
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: John Mezzapesa, Code Enforcement Supervisor
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: CODE ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES – SAFE AND
LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation on the City’s Code Enforcement program, take public testimony,
and consider providing direction to staff regarding:
1. Concurrence on the existing Enforcement Priorities & Response Time Standards
that are currently in place for code enforcement matters;
2. Adding a work plan item to the 2027-29 Financial Plan to explore and implement
adjustments and simplifications to the Administrative Fine Structure fo r code
enforcement violations;
3. Adding a work plan item to the 2027-29 Financial Plan to analyze and develop an
alternative regulatory framework for Fraternity and Sorority Houses;
4. Continuing enforcement of Fraternity and Sorority land use violations consistent
with the existing Enforcement Priorities & Response Time Standards, prioritizing
violations that result in disturbance to others;
5. Undertaking an effort to analyze time-intensive code enforcement areas to identify
and implement operational efficiencies to address the rising case load of the team;
6. Whether there are any neighborhood wellness, property maintenance, or nuisance
standards the Council wishes to update in light of current operational challenges
and evolving community needs; and
7. Whether there are any future, topic-specific study sessions needed to support
more in depth policy development.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
This report provides an overview of the current state of the City’s Code Enforcement
Program, including the organizational structure, code enforcement process, workload and
metrics, impactful legislation, and enforcement priorities. Holding this study session is a
work plan item under the Major City Goal of “Housing and Neighborhood Livability –
Healthy, Safe, and Affordable”.
The City’s Code Enforcement Program has experienced substantial growth in workload
in recent years, driven by new legislation, increasing community expectations, and
Page 7 of 41
Item 5a
sharply rising complaint volume following implementation of AskSLO in 2022. In addition,
several enforcement areas now require significant staff time and policy attention, and
these areas are highlighted in this report. Fraternity and sorority enforcement has become
one of the fastest growing and most resource-intensive categories, with 169 investigation
requests and roughly 90 formal cases between 2024 and April 2026, often requiring
multi-department coordination. Safe Housing enforcement is similarly complex and is a
growing priority area for the department and community.
In order to address the increasing workload for the division, staff has developed several
recommendations that are meant to enhance code enforcement effectiveness by
addressing regulatory frameworks and/processes that may not be working effectively and
increase general efficiency of the program (see recommendations above). The report
concludes with several key focus questions for Council. These questions include:
1. Staff Recommendations. Does the City Council concur with the staff
recommendations outlined above related to
a. Affirming the current Enforcement Priorities and Response Time Standards,
b. Exploring a simplified Administrative Fine Structure,
c. Adding a work program item to create a new regulatory structure for
Fraternity and Sorority Houses,
d. Continuing the enforcement of fraternity and sorority land use violations
consistent with the Enforcement Priorities and Response Time Standards
while prioritizing violations that result in disturbance to others, and
e. Directing staff to undertake work to analyze time-intensive enforcement
areas to identify potential process efficiencies?
2. Neighborhood Wellness & Property Maintenance Standards. Are there any
neighborhood wellness, property maintenance, or nuisance standards the
Council wishes to update in light of current operational challenges and evolving
community needs?
3. Future Study Sessions. Would the Council like future, topic-specific study
sessions to support more in-depth policy development?
POLICY CONTEXT
The Code Enforcement Division of the Community Development Department is charged
with promoting health and safety in neighborhoods and increasing awareness and
information about city policies and codes. Code enforcement staff investigates potential
building and zoning code violations and works with property owners to gain compl iance
when a violation is identified. The Community Development Director is granted authority
to make decisions and interpretations regarding health and safety violations and
interpreting applications of the code in violations cited by Code Enforcement Off icials
(SLOMC 1.24). This authority is often delegated to the Deputy Director/Chief Building
Official to carry out such relevant duties.
Page 8 of 41
Item 5a
The California Health and Safety Code establish both the legal authority and the
mandatory responsibilities of local jurisdictions to protect the public from unsafe and
substandard conditions. Under State Housing Law (Health & Safety Code §§17920.3,
17960, and 17980), cities and counties are required t o designate a local enforcement
agency and to investigate and enforce violations affecting health, safety, and habitability.
The Code authorizes jurisdictions and their designated code enforcement officials to
inspect properties, identify substandard or da ngerous conditions, issue notices and
orders to repair, rehabilitate, vacate, or demolish, and pursue administrative, civil, or
criminal remedies when violations are not corrected. These provisions provide the
statutory framework that enables local governm ents to address unsafe structures, public
nuisances, and deteriorated housing conditions in order to protect occupants, neighboring
properties, and the broader community.
The Chief Building Official serves as the City’s designated “code official” and the
“authority having jurisdiction” for purposes of interpreting and enforcing the City’s adopted
building and safety codes (SLOMC §15.04.010). In this role, the Chief Building Official is
responsible for making determinations regarding compliance with applicable construction,
safety, and property maintenance standards, and for ensuring consistent application of
state and local regulations intended to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Because
many code enforcement cases involve violations of adopted b uilding standards, the Code
Enforcement Program operates in close coordination with, and under the technical
authority of, the Chief Building Official.
In addition, the Chief Building Official is granted the authority to exercise the powers
authorized by California Penal Code §836.5(a), as adopted locally under SLOMC
§1.16.060, which includes the authority to issue citations for violations of the Municipal
Code. This authority provides the legal framework for administrative and enforcement
actions related to building and safety violations identified through the code enforcement
process.
DISCUSSION
Code Enforcement in San Luis Obispo
Code Enforcement Team
The current Code Enforcement Team is housed within the Building and Safety Division
of the Community Development Department, with the Code Enforcement Supervisor
reporting directly to the Chief Building Official. The team consists of one Code
Enforcement Supervisor, two Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) positions, one Code
Enforcement Technician II (CET II), one Code Enforcement Technician I (CET I), and one
Stormwater Code Enforcement Officer. Together, these positions provide the operational
framework necessary to address a wide range of responsibilities, including neighborhood
code compliance, zoning and land use enforcement, safe housing outreach, construction -
related investigations, public education, and stormwater regulatory enforcement.
Page 9 of 41
Item 5a
Code Enforcement Technician (CET) and Code Enforcement Officer (CEO)
classifications both support the City’s overall code enforcement mission, but they serve
different functional roles, levels of complexity, and programmatic focus. Based on City job
classifications, CET positions are generally oriented toward neighborhood preservation,
safe housing outreach, visible property maintenance issues, and frontline enforcement of
more routine or readily identifiable violations. CET I staff primarily address neighborhood -
based concerns such as property maintenance standards, front yard parking, sign
regulations, nuisance abatement, and initial response to complaints, while also
conducting field observations, issuing warnings or citations, maintaining records, and
referring more complex zoning, construction, or land use violations to CEOs for further
investigation. CET II positions expand on this role by administering the Safe Housing
Education and Outreach Program, conducting residential inspections related to housing
standards, connecting at-risk residents with housing resources, and taking on broader
program coordination, outreach, and education responsibilities.
In contrast, CEO positions are generally responsible for more complex, technical, and
comprehensive enforcement functions involving municipal and state codes related to
construction, zoning, land use, public health and safety, and building compliance. CEOs
manage broader investigative caseloads, conduct inspections of residential, commercial,
and industrial properties, oversee compliance with approved construction plans, prepare
cases for prosecution or legal settlement, issue correction notices and stop work orders,
and coordinate directly with the City Attorney and other departments on higher -level
enforcement matters. CEO II positions further expand this responsibility through greater
independence, more advanced case management, staff training, public presentations,
and leadership in community education efforts. In practical terms, CETs often serve as
Page 10 of 41
Item 5a
the City’s frontline staff for neighborhood quality, property maintenance, safe housing
support, and proactive visible code issues, while CEOs typically handle more technical
investigations, construction and zoning enforcement, and legally complex cases requiring
deeper regulatory expertise.
The diversity and frequency of investigation requests received by the Code Enforcement
Team illustrate the breadth of responsibilities assigned to this staffing structure. The City
processes a wide range of complaint types spanning tra ditional neighborhood
preservation concerns, public nuisance issues, zoning and land use matters, housing and
safety cases, construction-related violations, and specialized regulatory enforcement.
While certain complaint categories such as abandoned shopping carts, substandard
rental housing, unpermitted construction, overgrown vegetation, waste containers, and
visible storage accounted for a substantial share of total requests during this period, the
program also addressed dozens of less frequent but often more technically complex
issues, including stormwater violations, unsafe occupancy, creek regulations, setback
compliance, and public health concerns. This distribution demonstrates that code
enforcement demand is not concentrated in a single service area but instead reflects a
broad operational scope requiring staff with varied skill sets capable of addressing both
high-volume neighborhood complaints and specialized investigations. The following chart
summarizes the top 25 investigation request categories from 2023 through 2025.
Code Enforcement Top 25 Investigation Request Types (2023–2025)
Page 11 of 41
Item 5a
Overall, the current state of Code Enforcement reflects a program that has evolved into
a comprehensive regulatory function addressing a wide range of public health, safety,
and neighborhood quality issues. The combination of increasing investigation requests,
expanded regulatory scope, and growing case complexity underscores the importance of
aligning program structure and enforcement tools with the City’s current and future
priorities.
Code Enforcement Process and Enforcement Philosophy
Traditional code enforcement activities form the foundation of the City’s program and are
focused on maintaining safe, healthy, and well-maintained properties consistent with
municipal and state requirements. Core functions include investigation and resolution of
property maintenance violations, nuisance conditions, zoning and land use compliance,
unpermitted construction, and health and safety concerns affecting occupants and
surrounding properties. These activities typically begin with receipt of a complaint,
followed by inspection, documentation, and notification to responsible parties. Staff then
work through a structured process intended to achieve voluntary compliance whe never
feasible. The majority of code enforcement cases processed by the City begin as
complaint-based investigations, meaning that a community member, tenant, property
owner, business owner, or other reporting party contacts the City regarding a potential
violation. Complaints may be received through email, telephone, in person, or the City’s
centralized resident inquiry system, AskSLO, and are assigned based on violation type
and Council-established priority levels (discussed later in this report). Cases may also
originate through proactive field observations, business inspections, bar checks, research
conducted during property inquiries, referrals from other City departments, or incidental
observations made by staff while performing other duties.
Once a request for investigation is received, staff review the complaint details, applicable
code sections, property history, and any prior enforcement activity to determine the nature
of the concern and assign an appropriate response. Code Enforcement Officers typically
begin by conducting an initial site inspection, which may include exterior observation from
publicly accessible areas, documentation of visible conditions, photographs, case notes,
and coordination with other City departments when issues involve bu ilding, zoning,
utilities, fire, or public works considerations. If violations are confirmed, responsible
parties are generally contacted through notices, warning letters, phone calls, or in -person
communication to explain the concern, applicable requirements, and corrective actions
needed. When access to private property or interior spaces is necessary in order to
determine the extent of suspected violations, and consent for inspection is not provided,
staff may pursue additional legal or administrative mechanisms consistent with municipal
authority, including inspection warrants or coordinated action with other authorized
agencies when warranted. Throughout the process, officers track case progress,
establish compliance deadlines, conduct follow-up inspections, and coordinate internally
with supervisors, the City Attorney’s Office, Building and Safety, or outside agencies as
needed depending on complexity and risk. Cases are typically closed once compliance
is verified, while unresolved or escalating violat ions may move into formal enforcement
pathways such as citations, abatement, or legal proceedings.
Page 12 of 41
Item 5a
This complaint-driven, compliance-first model is reflected in the City’s enforcement
outcomes over time. Since 2015, approximately 87% of closed code enforc ement cases
were resolved before any citation was issued, demonstrating that the majority of cases
achieve compliance through education, communication, corrective notices, and
cooperative resolution rather than punitive enforcement. This indicates that administrative
citations are typically reserved for situations involving continued noncompliance, repeat
violations, or more serious cases where lower -level interventions have not been effective.
The City’s enforcement philosophy emphasizes education, fairness, and proportional
response while maintaining a clear commitment to protecting public health and safety.
Fines and Enforcement Tools
As noted above, the City’s enforcement philosophy emphasizes achieving compliance
through the lowest level of enforcement necessary. If voluntary compliance is achieved,
cases may be resolved without escalation. When compliance is not achieved, the primary
next step is typically issuance of a Notice of Violation (NOV), which formally identifies the
violation, establishes a correction deadline, and outlines potential enforcement
consequences if corrective action is not taken. Administrative citations are gen erally the
City’s principal enforcement tool, but they are only one component of a broader escalation
framework that may also include recordation of Notices of Violation on property, nuisance
abatement proceedings, civil remedies, criminal citations, or, in severe health and safety
situations, appointment of a receiver under Health and Safety Code §17980.7.The City’s
administrative citation framework has developed incrementally over time as Council has
adjusted enforcement tools in response to changing policy priorities and operational
needs. The original administrative citation schedule adopted in 2002 established fines of
$100 for a first violation, $200 for a second violation, and $500 for a third violation within
a 12-month period, which remains the baseline schedule for most Municipal Code
violations. In 2012, Resolution No. 10347 reduced fine amounts for Chapter 17.76
Neighborhood Services property maintenance violations1 to $50, $100, and $200
respectively, reflecting Council’s determination that many lower-level neighborhood
livability violations do not pose immediate public health or safety threats. In 2018, Council
established a higher fine tier for violations under Titles 8 (Health and Safety), 15 (Buildings
and Construction), and 17 (Zoning Regulations, excluding Chapter 17.76, which is
property maintenance standards), increasing fines to $100, $500, and $1,000 for first,
second, and third/subsequent violations respectively. Noise violations were separately
increased to $350, $700, and $1,000.
1 Neighborhood Services property maintenance violations include improper front yard paving, improper front
yard parking, broken fencing, waste containers, abandoned buildings, deteriorated paint and finish material,
deteriorated structures/equipment/machinery/pools, deteriorated parking areas, overgrown vegetation,
graffiti, violation of conditions per a use permit/planned development/architectural review approval/variance
or other land use entitlement, and m aintenance of property in such condition as to be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or general welfare in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance .
Page 13 of 41
Item 5a
Citation Amounts for Various Violation Categories
Citation escalation generally follows a structured timeline tied to the severity of the
violation and continued noncompliance. While the Municipal Code does not prescribe
specific minimum timeframes between enforcement steps, the City has histor ically
followed administrative practices intended to provide a reasonable opportunity for
corrective action and to align with the administrative citation appeal process established
by the Municipal Code.
For relatively minor violations, such as yard maintenance, visible storage, or parking-
related violations, the City typically allows approximately 10 days between issuance of a
Notice of Violation (NOV) or Notice to Correct and the issuance of an administrative
citation. For more complex violations, such as substandard housing, unpermitted
construction, or land use violations, compliance periods are typically longer, often
approximately 30 days, depending on the nature and extent of corrective work required.
The City also generally allows a minimum of 10 days between administrative citations.
This timeframe aligns with the appeal period established by the Municipal Code and helps
ensure that a recipient has an opportunity to contest the initial citation before additional
citations are issued. If a subsequent citation is issued before an appeal of the prior citation
is resolved, and the earlier citation is later dismissed due to insufficient evidence or other
procedural deficiencies, it may undermine the basis for subsequent citations tied to the
same ongoing violation.
Noise violations are handled differently from ongoing property maintenance or land use
violations because they are typically event-based violations that occur at a specific point
in time and generally do not involve an opportunity to cure before enforcement action is
taken. Under Chapter 9.12 of the Municipal Code, violations may be enforced through
immediate administrative citation or criminal enforcement when a violation is observed or
documented. The Municipal Code further provides that each hour a qualifying noise
violation continues may constitute a separate violation subject to additional penalties. In
addition, once a noise violation has been verified, property owners may be subject to
administrative action or citation for subsequent violations occurring within nine months of
the prior violation, provided notice requirements established by the Municipal Code have
been satisfied. Responsibility for fines and correction generally rests with the legally
responsible party, though this can vary based on the violation type. For most property-
based violations, including structural maintenance, zoning, property maintenance (such
as waste container storage, landscaping maintenance and yard parking), and nuisance -
related conditions, the property owner is ultimately legally responsible for correction and
associated fines, even where the cause of the violation may be tenant behavior. In
practice, staff often ensure both owners and occupants are notified, particularly for rental
Page 14 of 41
Item 5a
properties where violations such as refuse container screening, front yard parking, or
nuisance activity may be occupant-controlled. Business or operational violations may also
be directed to tenants, operators, or business owners depending on legal responsibility
under the applicable code section.
Property owners and responsible parties also retain due process rights. The City’s
Municipal Code provides a multi-step appeal process for contesting Notices of Violation
or administrative citations, beginning with Department Head review (Director’s
Determination) and potentially progressing to a hearing officer, administrative review
board, or Construction Board of Appeals depending on violation type. Judicial review may
also be pursued beyond administrative remedies. Administrative citation appeals are no t
appealable to City Council.
If citations remain unpaid, the City may pursue collection through administrative, legal, or
other means. Unpaid fines become delinquent after 30 days and accrue interest at 8%
per month under SLOMC 1.24.070(C). Additional consequences may include permit or
application suspension, referral to collections, and additional citations for continued
violations. While unpaid fines alone do not always immediately trigger enforcement,
repeated noncompliance can result in escalating citation cycles, daily fines in prolonged
cases, and eventual transition into stronger nuisance abatement or legal enforcement
tools. There are practical limitations on fine collection, including reduced use of liens and
special assessments following legal developments, meaning that nuisance abatement,
civil remedies, or direct corrective action may become more effective tools when fines
accumulate but compliance remains unachieved2.
For nuisance properties or chronic violators, administrative fines often b ecome only one
component of a broader enforcement strategy. Properties involving repeated violations,
dangerous structures, persistent public nuisance, unsafe occupancy, or unresolved
substandard housing may escalate into nuisance abatement proceedings, re corded
Notices of Violation, abatement by the City with cost recovery, civil litigation, criminal
proceedings, or court-appointed receivership. In these cases, the City’s enforcement
objective may shift from voluntary compliance and progressive deterrence toward direct
correction of dangerous or chronic conditions and long-term public protection. This
process can take from several months to several years, depending on the complexity of
the case and the willingness of the property owner to work with the City.
Potential Fine Changes Authorized by Recent State Law
Recent state legislation has expanded or clarified local authority to impose higher
administrative penalties in certain contexts. However, these statutes generally establish
maximum allowable penalty amounts; they do not automatically amend the City’s adop ted
administrative fine schedule. Under SLOMC Chapter 1.24, administrative fine amounts
2 Prior to 2016, some California jurisdictions utilized nuisance abatement liens and special assessments
to recover unpaid administrative fines related to code enforcement matters. However, in Mechammil v.
City of San Jacinto, the Ninth Circuit held that California law authorizes liens and special assessments for
nuisance abatement costs, but not for the collection of administrative fines or penalties. As a r esult, local
agencies generally may no longer rely on administrative liens or special assessments as a mechanism to
collect unpaid code enforcement fines absent separate statutory authority.
Page 15 of 41
Item 5a
are established by City Council resolution, meaning any increase to currently adopted
citation amounts would require future Council action through adoption of a resolution.
AB 2598 (2018) and SB 60 (2021) amended Government Code Section 36900 and
related provisions governing administrative fines and increased the maximum penalties
cities may impose for certain categories of violations.
Under this authority, for building and safety violations, cities may impose fines up to :
$130 for a first violation
$700 for a second violation
$1,300 for third and subsequent violations
$2,500 for subsequent violations within two years if the property is a commercial
property that has an existing building at the time of the violation and the violation
is due to failure by the owner to remove visible refuse or failure to prohibit
unauthorized use of the property
SB 60 (2021) also authorizes higher penalties for violations involving short-term rental
regulations up to:
$1,500 for a first violation
$3,000 for a second violation
$5,000 for third and subsequent violations
For most other municipal code violations, statutory ceilings remain:
$100 for a first violation
$200 for a second violation
$500 for third and subsequent violations
These higher short-term rental penalties apply only to violations that pose a threat to
public health or safety, such as unsafe occupancy conditions, life -safety violations, or
other circumstances where the operation of a short -term rental creates a significant risk
to occupants or the surrounding community. Collectively, these legislative updates
provide cities with greater discretion to adjust administrative fine schedules to better
reflect enforcement costs, improve deterrence for repeat violations, and address
emerging regulatory areas such as short-term rental compliance.
Staff recommend exploring increasing fine amounts where allowed under these newer
state laws and simplifying the fine structure to minimize confusion , if directed by Council
as part of a future work plan item. This work could be integrated into the work program
for the Community Development Department for the next Budget cycle (2027-29 Financial
Plan). If directed to do so by Council, staff would undertake a comprehensive review of
all administrative citation tiers rather than pursuing isolated adjustments. The objective
would be to evaluate allowable statutory maximums, assess enforcement effectiveness,
and determine whether simplification or consolidation of the current multi -tier structure
would improve clarity and deterrence.
Page 16 of 41
Item 5a
Legislation Relevant to Code Enforcement
Recent changes to California law continue to expand the responsibilities of local code
enforcement agencies, particularly in the areas of housing safety, habitability
enforcement, and structural safety of multifamily buildings. These legislative updates
have increased inspection obligations, documentation requirements, and coordination
with property owners, tenants, and other regulatory agencies.
One of the recent mandates involves inspection of Exterior Elevated Elements (EEE)
under Senate Bill 721, enacted in 2018, and Senate Bill 326, enacted in 2019. These laws
require periodic inspection of balconies, decks, stairways, and walkways, and similar
elevated structural elements in multifamily and common-interest developments to ensure
structural safety. Both laws required initial inspections to be completed by January 1,
2025, by a licensed architect, civil engineer, or structural engineer. Inspections must be
performed proactively by property owners and homeown ers associations (HOAs) and
require the use of third-party qualified professionals to identify deterioration, water
intrusion, or structural deficiencies that could pose a life -safety risk.
When inspections identify an immediate safety hazard, local enforcement agencies may
be required to respond, review reports, and verify that unsafe conditions are corrected or
appropriately mitigated. To date, the City has received four instances in which inspection
reports prepared by the engineer or architect of record identified immediate safety
hazards and/or indicated that recommended repairs had not been completed as advised.
These situations required staff review, coordination with property owners and design
professionals, and follow-up enforcement to ensure that unsafe conditions were
addressed.
These requirements have increased coordination between building officials, property
owners, engineers, architects, HOAs, and enforcement staff and have expanded the
Division’s role in monitoring structural safety conditions beyond traditional nuisance and
property maintenance enforcement.
Assembly Bill 838, enacted in 2021, strengthened enforcement responsibilities related to
substandard housing and tenant complaints. The law requires local agencies to conduct
inspections when a tenant reports substandard living conditions or potential lead hazards,
document violations, notify the property owner of requi red corrections, and schedule re-
inspection to verify compliance. It also requires agencies to provide inspection
documentation to affected tenants and limits the ability to charge inspection fees unless
material violations are confirmed. In addition, AB 838 requires agencies to respond to
qualifying complaints within timelines comparable to final inspection requests, which for
the City generally results in next-business-day response obligations. The legislation also
removed local discretion to require tenants to first attempt resolution with the landlord
prior to initiating an inspection request. This legislation has increased workload
associated with habitability complaints, rapid response obligations, documentation,
tenant communication, and follow-up inspections in rental housing cases.
Assembly Bill 548 (2023) expanded local enforcement agency responsibilities under State
Page 17 of 41
Item 5a
Housing Law by requiring jurisdictions to develop formal policies and procedures for
broader multifamily housing inspections when substandard conditions or violations
identified in one unit may affect others in the same building. Effective January 1, 2025,
local agencies must evaluate adjacent and potentially impacted units, provide notice to
property owners, issue corrective orders, and conduct reinspection to verify compliance.
This legislation increases inspection scope, documentation requirements, and
administrative workload, particularly in rental and multifamily housing cases where
building-wide defects may exist. For example, in 2024 the City conducted comprehensive
inspections at the Madonna Road Apartments after staff identified significant electrical
hazards with the potential to affect multiple units and buildings within the complex. The
inspection effort involved six Building and Safety staff members conducting inspections
across 120 apartment units, 17 main electrical panels, five community laundry rooms, and
one office/community room. As a result of the inspections, staff identified approximately
350 unique code violations, including 168 damaged electrical receptacles, 20 improperly
wired receptacles, 17 malfunctioning switches, seven damaged or improperly wired
subpanels, five malfunctioning panel breakers determined to present imminent danger
conditions, 10 improperly wired main electrical panels, and 123 subpanels contaminated
by paint or texture overspray. The inspections also identified unpermitted plumbing and
electrical work associated with the creation of an in-unit laundry room.
These types of large-scale multifamily inspections require significant coordination
between enforcement staff, building officials, tenants, property managers, contractors,
and licensed design professionals, and illustrate the increased demands associated with
expanded state housing inspection mandates.
Senate Bill 1465 (2024) further expanded local code enforcement responsibilities under
California’s State Housing Law by broadening the definition and enforcement scope of
substandard buildings, strengthening tenant protections, and increasing procedural
obligations for local agencies. The bill clarifies that substandard building standards apply
regardless of zoning designation or approved use (i.e., applies also to commercial
buildings) and expands enforcement authority to address conditions that endanger not
only occupants, but also nearby reside nts and the public. SB 1465 also explicitly
incorporates municipal code violations into State Housing Law enforcement proceedings,
reinforces requirements for timely abatement actions, and increases obligations to
provide notices and documentation to affected tenants. In addition, the bill strengthens
legal remedies available when owners fail to correct violations, including expanded
receivership authority, cost recovery mechanisms, relocation assistance requirements,
and continued court oversight to ensure compliance. Collectively, these changes increase
the administrative, legal, and inspection burden on local enforcement agencies by
requiring more comprehensive case management, broader habitability oversight, and
enhanced follow-through on complex substandard property cases, particularly where
unsafe occupancy, chronic violations, or tenant displacement are involved. The changes
also reflect a statewide shift toward stronger housing safety enforcement, increased
protection for tenants, and proactive identification of structural hazards. These additional
statutory responsibilities do not necessarily create more cases for the Code Enforcement
team but have been incorporated into current operations.
Page 18 of 41
Item 5a
City Established Code Enforcement Priorities and Goal Response Times
The Code Enforcement Division operates within a policy framework in which available
staffing resources must be aligned with community priorities, life -safety obligations, and
regulatory mandates. State mandates, such as housing habitability enforcement,
substandard housing response, and structural safety requirement s, are non-discretionary
and consume baseline staff capacity before local discretionary priorities can be
addressed. Once these mandated issues are addressed, staff then prioritize s response
to requests based on the Council adopted priority levels. As workload has expanded and
diversified, establishing clear priorities has become increasingly important to ensure staff
time is directed toward the most critical issues.
Expected response times establish how quickly staff are expected to respond to reported
violations, and these response times are currently set by Council policy (see table below).
For purposes of Code Enforcement performance tracking, a case is generally considered
“responded to” once staff complete the initial required action based on the nature of the
complaint. For violations that are readily visible from the public right -of-way or that do not
require access to private property, a response is considered complete once an officer
conducts an inspection of the site. For complaints that require access to a residence,
interior space, or otherwise inaccessible private property areas, a response is considered
complete when staff make a reasonable attempt to contact the resid ent, property owner,
or tenant to investigate the complaint. This distinction is important because response time
measures initial action taken, rather than full case resolution or correction of the violation.
Maintaining City established response standards requires staff to consistently prioritize
new incoming complaints, which can reduce flexibility to address longer-term
investigations, proactive enforcement initiatives, and follow-up on unresolved cases. As
investigation volume has increased in recent years, strict response timelines have
increasingly directed staff resources toward reactive work, reducing capacity for
preventative or strategic code compliance efforts. The following table identifies the
currently adopted priority classifications for specific complaint types and their associated
target response timeframes. This was most recently reviewed and adopted by Council in
2017 (Council Agenda Report, Council Action). At this time, staff does not recommend
making changes to the priority classification and response timeframes, as they help staff
prioritize complaints and they provide clarity to the public and staff regarding the
program’s priorities. As new issues emerge that are not clearly defined in the priority list,
staff uses judgement to categorize them in the most appropriate tier based o n potential
neighborhood impacts or impacts to health and safety. It should be noted that “land use”
violations are not specifically called out in the response times framework, as they cover
a wide variety of potential violations. Again, when requests for inspection for these types
of violations are received, they are prioritized based on potential impacts.
Page 19 of 41
Item 5a
Current Goal Response Timeframe and Priority Ranking for Code Enforcement Cases
Timeframe for Response Activities/Situations Covered
Priority 1:
Immediate Response
• Dangerous Buildings
• Dangerous Utilities or Materials
• Examples include car accidents that damage a
building, structure fires or assessment after an
earthquake, unpermitted construction that poses an
immediate public safety risk to occupants or
surrounding properties.
Priority 2:
24 Hour Response
• Active construction without a permit
• Substandard housing- no water, heat, unsafe use
• Illegal/Unsafe sewage/electrical/
gas/discharge/dumping
• Unsecured buildings- accessible to unauthorized
persons
• Public Nuisance*- e.g. refrigerator with doors on left
outside
• Unsafe Occupancy
Priority 3:
48 Hour Response
• Illegal/Unpermitted construction (completed)
• Garage conversion/non-habitable space used for
occupancy/commercial use in residential space/zone
• Grading without a permit
• Interior infestation of vermin
• Unsafe Occupancy- i.e. living in commercial building
Priority 4:
72 Hour Response
• Noise and odor violations
• Business License/TOT/Vacation Rentals
• Polystyrene/ Straws/Water bottles
• Signs
• Animals & waste
• Fence heights & locations
• Exterior infestation of vermin
* “Public nuisance” is a broad enforcement category that may include a wide range of conditions affecting
public health, safety, or neighborhood livability. Some nuisance conditions, such as unsecured structures,
exposed utilities, unsafe occupancy, illegal sewage discharge, or appliances and equipment that create an
attractive nuisance hazard (such as abandoned refrigerators with doors attached), present immediate life -
safety concerns and are therefore assigned higher response priorities. Other nuisance conditions, such as
ongoing noise, odor, property maintenance, or unpermitted construction cases, may require longer -term
investigation and compliance efforts and are prioritized based on the severity of the condition, immediacy of
the risk, and potential impacts to occupants or the surrounding community.
It should be noted that, even with increased workload, staff always prioritizes immediate
health and safety related items first. For example, staff will always make every effort to
address immediately response priority level items immediately, even on weekends or
during evenings, etc. Other items that are health and safety related will be prioritized over
those that are not. As workloads increase, the items that tend to be deprioritized are those
that are not immediate health and safety items.
Page 20 of 41
Item 5a
Metrics and Current Workload
The Code Enforcement Division monitors workload using several key performance
indicators (KPI), including Requests for Investigation (complaints received), cases
opened, cases resolved, and response time performance. Together, these measures
provide insight into service demand, operational trends, and the overall balance between
incoming workload and available staffing resources. Of these metrics, the primary KPI
regularly reported to Council is response time performance, which is included in the
Department’s Performance and Workload Measures as part of the annual budget review
process. Council has established an operational goal that 85% of complaints be
responded to within the adopted Expected Response Times framework. This KPI serves
as the Division’s primary externally reported performance benchmark and reflects how
effectively staff are meeting Council-adopted service expectations.
While response time compliance is the principal Council-facing KPI, additional internal
KPIs including total complaints received, cases opened, and cases resolved are used
administratively to evaluate operational workload, staffing demand, and officer
productivity. These internal measures are important because they provide context for
response time performance by illustrating fluctuations in complaint volume, case
complexity, and investigative burden that may contribute to r esponse time shortfalls. For
example, increases in complaints received or more resource -intensive investigations may
reduce the Division’s ability to maintain the 85% on -time response target, even where
staff productivity remains high.
Requests for Investigation
Requests for Investigation represent the primary driver of workload and reflect community
demand for service. Using calendar-year totals, investigation requests increased from
approximately 566 in 2017 to 1,259 in 2025, representing roughly 122 pe rcent growth.
After remaining relatively stable through 2019 and temporarily disrupted during the
pandemic period, request volume began increasing sharply in 2022 and has remained
elevated through 2023–2025. Through May 15 of 2026, the City has received 547
requests for investigation so far. A detailed review of requests from September 2022
through the present confirms this sustained increase in demand. Requests rose
significantly in 2024 compared to 2023 and remained at similarly elevated levels in 2025,
indicating that increased workload reflects a structural shift rather than a temporary spike.
This sustained growth corresponds with expanded community use of the AskSLO
reporting system in 2022, broader regulatory responsibilities, and continued reliance on
complaint-driven enforcement.
Review of requestor data from 2023 through 2025 indicates that the City received
approximately 3,613 total investigation requests from approximately 666 unique
complainants during that period. An additional 795 requests we re submitted
anonymously. This data reflects broad community utilization of the reporting system while
also demonstrating that some individuals submit multiple requests over time related to
ongoing neighborhood, housing, or property maintenance concerns. The following chart
illustrates the investigation requests, without Covid-specific related requests, in order to
illustrate the changes over time.
Page 21 of 41
Item 5a
Recent request data and case review show that Code Enforcement activity is largely
driven by property maintenance and neighborhood condition issues3, which account for
roughly 40 percent of total workload. Common requests include abandoned shopping
carts, housing and habitability concerns, unpermitted construction, vegetation and right -
of-way maintenance, refuse issues, and exterior property conditions. The remaining 60
percent of cases cover a broad range of general compliance issues such as accessory
structures, minor building violations, illegal occupancy, signage, and abandoned vehicles ,
many of which are resolved quickly, though some require ongoi ng monitoring. For
requests received between 2023 and 2025, most fall within Priority 4 (72-hour response),
accounting for 3,220 requests, or approximately 74 percent of all request topics. Priority
2 and Priority 3 requests accounted for 801 and 301 requests respectively, while Priority
1 immediate-response requests represented a comparatively small share with 15
requests.
Priority Level of Requests between 2023 and 2025
Priority Level Total
Requests
Percent of total
Requests
Priority 1 –Immediate Response 15 0.3%
Priority 2 – 24 Hour Response 801 18.5%
Priority 3 – 48 Hour Response 301 6.9%
Priority 4 – 72 Hour Response 3,220 74.2%
3 “Property maintenance and neighborhood condition issues” generally refer to quality-of-life or aesthetic
conditions that may affect neighborhood appearance, livability, or compatibility, but do not typically present
an immediate threat to public health or safety. Examples may include overgrown vegetation, refuse
container storage, front or side yard parking, exterior storage, abandoned shopping carts, minor signage
violations, fence maintenance, landscaping maintenance, and similar property upkeep concerns .
Page 22 of 41
Item 5a
Response Times
Response performance provides important insight into operational capacity, workload
pressure, and the Code Enforcement Division’s ability to meet Council-established
response expectations. Fiscal year analysis based on the actual and expected re sponse
dates as defined per the priority levels previously discussed (July 1–June 30) shows that
on-time response performance was generally strongest during earlier years of the
program, with rates commonly ranging from approximately 72 to 81 percent between FY
2014–2015 and FY 2020–2021. Beginning in FY 2021–2022, available historical reporting
indicates that approximately 79.8 percent of requests were appropriately responded to on
or before the expected due date across roughly 430 investigation requests. However , due
to a transition in citizen request management systems and a partial data gap between
approximately May 2022 and October 2022, detailed post -deadline closure metrics (such
as completion within 1, 3, or 14 days past due) are not fully available for FY 2021–2022
and portions of FY 2022–2023.
For FY 2022–2023, based on departmental summary figures rather than the incomplete
case-level dataset, approximately 75.9 percent of 952 requests were appropriately
responded to on time. This represents a moderate d ecline from FY 2021–2022 but
remains substantially stronger than subsequent years. On-time response performance
then declined significantly as requests for investigation increased, falling to approximately
60.2 percent in FY 2023–2024 and 59.8 percent in FY 2024–2025. For FY 2025–2026
(partial year through April 2026), current reporting indicates modest improvement to
approximately 63.3 percent. Differences between total requests filed, total requests
responded to, and year-to-date response calculations in the current partial year likely
reflect cases that remain open, were initiated late in the reporting window, or have not yet
reached final disposition. This decline in on-time performance corresponds closely with
substantial growth in annual requests for investigation.
It is also important to note that response time expectations are measured in calendar
days rather than working days, while current staffing does not include routine weekend
coverage. As a result, requests received later in the workweek—particularly on Thursdays
or Fridays—may not receive an initial response until the following Monday. This timing
dynamic can artificially extend measured response times by two to three days, even when
staff are responding at the earliest practical opportunity during normal business
operations. Accordingly, a portion of responses categorized as “past due” may reflect
scheduling limitations rather than delayed action, and this factor should be considered
when evaluating overall performance trends.
Although a smaller percentage of requests are completed strictly by the assigned due
date, most are still resolved relatively soon thereafter. In FY 2023 –2024, approximately
78 percent of requests were responded to appropriately within one day past due, 90
percent within three days, and 98 percent within 14 days. In FY 2024 –2025,
approximately 77 percent were responded to appropriately within one day, 89 percent
within three days, and 97 percent within 14 days. In FY 2025–2026 (partial year),
approximately 82 percent have been responded to appropriately within one day, 92
percent within three days, and 99 percent within 14 days. These figures indicate that while
increasing workload has affected the Division’s ability to consistently meet formal due
Page 23 of 41
Item 5a
dates, the overwhelming majority of requests continue to be responded to within a
relatively short period. Delays may reflect field verification, investigative complexity,
coordination with property owners or tenants, time allowed for voluntary compliance, and
staff workload distribution.
Response Times for Requests Between 2021 and 2026
Fiscal Year Total
Requests
Responded on
or Before Due
Within 1 Day
Past Due
Within 3 Days
Past Due
Within 14 Days
Past Due
FY 2021–2022* 430 79.80% — — —
FY 2022–2023* 952 75.90% — — —
FY 2023–2024 1,130 60.20% 78% 90% 98%
FY 2024–2025 1,421 59.80% 77% 89% 97%
FY 2025–2026
(partial) 1,111 63.30% 82% 92% 99%
*FY 2021–2022 and FY 2022–2023 include known reporting limitations due to system transition and
incomplete case-level continuity.
Because of system transitions and reporting limitations, FY 2021 –2022 and FY 2022–
2023 should be interpreted cautiously when making direct comparisons to later years.
Case Duration
For purposes of this analysis, case duration refers to the total amount of time between
when a case is opened and when it is fully resolved and closed. Analysis of case duration
timelines indicates that most code enforcement cases are fully resolved within a relatively
short timeframe, while a smaller number of complex cases remain open for extended
periods. Of approximately 7,371 closed code enforcement and safe housing cases
between 2017 and 2025, about 64% were resolved within 30 days, nearly 78% were
resolved within 60 days, and roughly 89% were resolved within six months. Median case
duration was 19 days, demonstrating that most complaints are addressed quickly.
However, a smaller share of cases, typically involving housing, structural, land use, repeat
violations, or situations requiring legal escalation, remain open significantly longer, with
approximately 6% lasting more than one year. These longer-duration cases often demand
substantially more staff time, coordination, inspections, and follow-up, contributing
disproportionately to overall workload despite representing a relatively small portion of
total cases. Staff estimates that approximately 10 percent of the team’s time is allocated
to a handful of longer-duration cases at any given time. Some of the longest-duration
cases have been open for several years due to legal issues and/or challenges with
working with the property owner. This pattern reflects a program that generally resolves
routine complaints efficiently while also managing a smaller but resource-intensive
portfolio of prolonged enforcement actions.
Page 24 of 41
Item 5a
Case Duration Between 2017 and 2025
Time Case is Open Number of Cases % of Closed Cases
Closed within 1 month (≤30 days) 4,750 64.40%
1–2 months (31–60 days) 989 13.40%
2–6 months (61–180 days) 834 11.30%
6–12 months (181–365 days) 350 4.70%
1–2 years (366–730 days) 259 3.50%
Over 2 years (>730 days) 189 2.60%
Emerging Themes and New Challenges in Code Enforcement
Over the past several years, new themes have emerged in Code Enforcement, and
priorities have begun to shift based on input from the community and changes in
regulations. The most impactful of these are noted in this section.
Fraternity and Sorority House Enforcement
Overview of Enforcement
Enforcement of Fraternity and Sorority house land use regulations has become one of
the fastest growing areas of code enforcement in the past three years, due in large part
to a dramatic increase in the number of requests for investigation received by the
Department. Fraternity and Sorority Houses are required to have Conditional Use Permits
granted by the City of San Luis Obispo and can only be located in R -3 and R-4 zones
(SLOMC 17.10.020/17.86.130). Houses that are used as Fraternity or Sorority houses
that are operating without a Conditional Use Permit are violating the municipal code and
subject to enforcement. In addition, fraternity and sorority houses that are operating with
Conditional Use Permits but violating the conditions of these permits are subject to re -
review of the permit and potential revocation, pursuant to the terms of the use permits.
Review of investigation and enforcement activity since March of 2024 indicates that more
than 100 unique properties or reported locations have been associated with suspected
fraternity or sorority land use or use permit violations, reflecting the broad scope of this
enforcement issue citywide.
Code Enforcement responds to complaints and proactively identified violations related to
fraternity and sorority houses using the same standardized investigation and enforcement
process used for other types of violations. Complaints may be received through the City’s
request system, hotline, email, in-person reporting, or referral from the Police
Department. Upon receipt, staff document all relevant details, including complainant
information, descriptions, photographs, and any supporting evidence. An initial
assessment is conducted to determine whether sufficient information exists to proceed,
followed by a formal investigation to verify that a violation has occurred. This includes
Page 25 of 41
Item 5a
confirming that an event took place, determining whether it was sponsored by a fraternity
or sorority, and verifying that members of the organization reside at the subject property.
If evidence is insufficient, the request is closed. If a violation is confirmed, a formal code
enforcement case is opened and a Notice of Violation (NOV) is issued to the propert y
owner, with copies provided to occupants, affiliated organizations, and university
representatives. Cases remain open for monitoring and repeat violations within a 12-
month period result in escalation to administrative citations and potential further
enforcement action.
Coordination with the Police Department has become a key component of enforcement
efforts related to fraternity and sorority houses. Code Enforcement staff receive a weekly
report identifying all noise citations and warnings issued by the Police Department during
the prior week. These reports are systematically reviewed to identify locations that may
be associated with fraternity or sorority activity. If a listed location has been previously
identified, suspected to be affiliated with a fraternity or sorority, or is known to have an
approved Conditional Use Permit, staff initiate follow-up investigation. This includes
reviewing available police reports, conducting additional research, and evaluating
whether the noise violation may have resulted from a fraternity- or sorority-sponsored
event. Staff routinely review social media and other publicly available information to
determine whether events were advertised or promoted by a fraternity or sorority, and
conduct site visits to interview residents regarding the nature of the gathering associated
with the noise citation. This process allows staff to convert otherwise isolated noise
violations into documented land use violations when appropriate, strengthening
enforcement cases and improving overall compliance monitoring.
Beginning in 2026, this coordination effort was expanded through the implementation of
a formal weekly notification process to the University’s Office of Student Rights and
Responsibilities. Following review of the Police Department’s weekly noise citation and
warning reports, Code Enforcement prepares and transmits a structured summary
identifying properties that meet defined criteria, including locations previously identified
as fraternity or sorority residences or properties operating under an approved Conditional
Use Permit that received a noise citation or warning during the prior week. These
notifications provide additional context regarding municipal code requirements and
potential violations, including the relationship between noise violations and Conditional
Use Permit compliance, and are intended to support University review of potential
violations of student organization policies and event registration requirements. This
ongoing information-sharing process enhances coordination between the City and
University, improves accountability, and supports more comprehensive enforcement of
both municipal regulations and applicable university conduct standards.
Enforcement involving fraternity and sorority properties often requires coordination across
multiple departments, including between CDD and the Police Department which respond
to noise complaints and may involve repeat violations, structural safety concerns, or high-
occupancy conditions. These enforcement actions represent one of the most complex
and resource-intensive components of the Code Enforcement program in the last few
years. This work includes enforcement of conditional use permit requirements for
permitted fraternity and sorority houses, investigation of land use violations associated
Page 26 of 41
Item 5a
with unpermitted fraternities and sororities, and enforcement related to meetings,
gatherings, and events conducted at these properties. Unlike typical nuisance or property
maintenance violations, fraternity and sorority enforcement frequently involve repeat
violations, multiple enforcement actions at a single property, events that occur after hours
and on weekends when Code Enforcement staff are not typically scheduled to work, and
escalation to administrative citations or Planning Commission review.
Review of investigation and enforcement records indicates that staff have responded to
176 investigation requests associated with fraternity and sorority land use and use permit
violations between 2015 and April 2026, resulting in approximately 90 formal code
enforcement cases across 66 unique properties. Prior to 2024, requests related to
fraternity and sorority land use violations were relatively infrequent, with only eight
identified investigation requests between 2015 and 2023 combined. All received requests
since 2023 were submitted by a total of eight unique complainants, including one
anonymous complaint.
Investigation requests increased significantly beginning in 2024, with 37 requests
received in 2024, 63 in 2025, and 68 additional requests received in just the first four
months of 2026, illustrating rapidly increasing demand, concentrated enforcement
periods, and expanding workload. These investigation requests include both requests to
investigate suspected unpermitted fraternity and sorority houses based on events that
resulted in noise violations or police calls, as well as requests related to publicly
advertised events that did not ultimately result in a noise violation. Formal code
enforcement cases similarly increased from 23 in 2024 to 59 in 2025, with cases
continuing into 2026.
Together, these figures demonstrate that fraternity enforcement has evolved from an
occasional land use issue into a major operational category requiring sustained
investigative, administrative, and enforcement resources. Enforcement actions have
included numerous advisory notices, repeated Notices of Violation, escalating
administrative citations, and several cases advancing to Planning Commission review
resulting in modification or revocation of use permits. During this time, two Conditional
Use Permits were voided due to inactivity, and an additional three use permits were
revoked by the Planning Commission.
In addition to reactive complaint-based enforcement, the Division has undertaken
proactive enforcement efforts, particularly during 2025, to identify violations that may not
have been formally reported. These efforts included systematic monitoring of social media
platforms for advertised fraternity and sorority events, cross-referencing event dates and
times with known or suspected locations and conducting coordinated inspection
campaigns following identified events. Staff also engaged directly with fraternity and
sorority organizations through outreach and education, including attending campus
events to communicate City regulations and request voluntary compliance. Through these
proactive efforts, staff documented dozens of events across multiple locations, many of
which had not been reported through traditional complaint channels, significantly
expanding the scope of enforcement activity.
Page 27 of 41
Item 5a
These proactive investigations required a substantial investment of staff time. As an
example, over a concentrated three-week enforcement period in 2025, staff dedicated
more than 100 hours to research, monitoring, field inspections, evidence collection, and
follow-up investigation activities. This level of effort was necessary to establish verifiable
evidence of violations, particularly in cases where events occurred outside normal
working hours or where responsible parties were unwilling to confirm activity. This time
commitment is significantly higher than that required for typical nuisance or property
maintenance cases and illustrates the resource-intensive nature of this enforcement
category.
Financial penalties issued through these enforcement actions are significant and
increasing. Review of City citation records from January 1, 2024, through May 2, 2026,
indicates that fraternity/sorority-related code cases resulted in 34 administrative citations
across 26 separate code cases, totaling approximately $24,100 in assessed fines.
Citation activity increased sharply from just one citation totaling $100 in 2024 to 23
citations totaling approximately $8,500 in 2025, with 10 additional citations totaling
approximately $15,500 already issued during the first four months of 2026 alone. This
trend reflects both intensified enforcement activity and increasing use of higher -tier
penalties for repeat or ongoing violations. Several repeat-violation fraternity properties
accumulated more than $2,500 in fines each, demonstrating that a relatively small
number of chronic violators can require disproportionate staff resources, repeated
enforcement cycles, and escalating penalties.
In total, enforcement actions during this period have included dozens of Notices of
Violation issued to property owners and responsible parties, 34 administrative citations
resulting in monetary penalties, and multiple cases escalated to the Planning Commission
for consideration of Conditional Use Permit modification or revocation. These outcomes
reflect a graduated enforcement approach that begins with voluntary compliance and
escalates to financial penalties and land use entitlement actions when violations persist.
It should be noted that the City is also taking steps to educate students about regulations
pertaining to Fraternity and Sorority housing including attending meetings of fraternity and
sorority leadership groups to provide information, and meeting with individual
organizations to discuss rules and procedures. The City is also working with Cal Poly
administration to discuss this complex issue and explore potential actions that can be
taken to ensure better compliance with regulations. These actions include looking into
how events could be moved onto campus, whether there are alternative venues in town
for Fraternity and Sorority events, and assessing how the University and City educate
students on regulations.
Interestingly, data that was recently analyzed appears to show that noise complaints
decreased fairly significantly during the same time that a large number of beds opened to
students on campus. This could indicate that housing more students on campus
addresses some of the neighborhood compatibility and noise issues, and the City and
Cal Poly will continue to analyze this data. The following figure, created using noise data
from the Police Department and student housing data from Cal Poly, illustrates that the
Page 28 of 41
Item 5a
City experienced a fairly significant decrease in Noise Party4 complaints (blue line) from
2,896 in 2007 to 1,729 in 2013. Around the same time, a significant number of beds
(yellow line) opened on Cal Poly campus. In 2006, 3,600 students lived on campus (about
20 percent of enrolled students) and 2013, 7,241 students lived on campus (about 37
percent of enrolled students). It appears that the small dip in Noise Party complaints that
occurred immediately prior to 2020 could be at least partially related to the opening of the
yakʔitʸutʸu dorm in academic year 2018-19, which houses more than 1,400 students. The
drop in students living on campus in 2020 is an anomaly caused by the COVID -19
pandemic.
Challenges with Fraternity and Sorority House Enforcement and Impact on Code
Enforcement Program
There are several aspects of Fraternity and Sorority House zoning enforcement that are
unique and make enforcement particularly time consuming and challenging. First,
enforcement frequently occurs in concentrated periods tied to academic and event cycles
(such as Rush week). For example, during January and February 2025, numerous
investigation requests and enforcement actions were generated within short timeframes
related to reported unpermitted events. Sim ilarly, during late September and early
October enforcement periods, staff documented violations across a large number of
4 Noise Party complaints are specific to noises such as loud music and loud voices, and are distinct from
other noise issues like barking dogs or loud construction noise, which are classified differently by the Police
Department.
Page 29 of 41
Item 5a
properties associated with fraternity activity. This episodic pattern means enforcement
demand is not evenly distributed throughout the year but instead occurs in sudden spikes
that require rapid intake, land use analysis, field investigation, evidence documentation,
interdepartmental coordination, and enforcement follow-up over compressed timeframes.
In addition, the time commitment associated with fraternity enforcement is significantly
higher than for typical nuisance or maintenance cases. Individual properties may require
repeated inspections, tracking of violations across multiple dates, coordination with Police
Department and City Attorney’s Office, and preparation of administrative enforcement
documentation. Repeat violations and escalation procedures further increase staff time,
particularly when cases advance to administrative hearings or Planning Commission
review. The scale of this work -169 investigation requests, approximately 90 code cases,
and 34 citations totaling more than $24,000 in roughly two years —demonstrates that
fraternity enforcement now represents a major specialized workload category within the
Code Enforcement Division.
In addition, violations are frequently event-based and recurring. It can require significant
staff time to confirm event-based violations (such as hosting a Fraternity sponsored
event), especially since Code Enforcement staff do not generally w ork during the hours
that the events are occurring (evening hours/weekends), so they cannot be confirmed at
the time of the event. This requires Code Enforcement staff to investigate and assemble
information from a variety of sources to confirm a violation, as code enforcement is not
determining whether a noise violation occurred (that is determined by the Police
Department at the time of the event) but is using information to determine if a land use
violation has occurred. The recurring nature of these eve nts also requires ongoing
monitoring rather than one-time correction. Determining whether a property meets the
municipal definition of a fraternity (see SLOMC 17.156.014) can require detailed
investigation and documentation, and student behavior changes, which requires constant
change in investigatory tools or processes.
At this time, staff does not have evidence that the extensive effort to address Fraternity
and Sorority land use violations has resulted in measurable change in the number of
unpermitted houses and/or Fraternity and Sorority events occurring in unpermitted
houses. As potential land use violations without an immediate health and safety impact,
unpermitted Fraternity or Sorority houses currently fall under Priority 4 of the Enforcement
Priorities & Response Time Standards, and the same is true of noise violations occurring
at either permitted or un-permitted houses. Given the level of staff effort seen since 2024
and the episodic but intensive nature of this work, it is recommended that Code
Enforcement staff continue to investigate and respond to complaints associated with
these activities consistent with existing Enforcement Priorities & Response Time
standards while focusing first on violations that result in disturbance to others (such as
instances where a noise citation has been issued by the Police Department).
Overlay Zones and Other Regulatory Tools for Fraternity and Sorority Houses
In response to ongoing concerns regarding neighborhood livability, code compliance, and
the concentration of Fraternity and Sorority houses in specific areas of the City, the idea
of an overlay zone has been raised by various members of the community as a potential
Page 30 of 41
Item 5a
tool for regulation. This concept was also identified in the 2025 Grand Jury Report on
Greek Housing as a potential strategy to better manage the localized impacts associated
with these uses. This section of the staff report is meant to provide high-level information
about this concept and to seek direction on a potential future work plan item related to
changing Fraternity/Sorority regulations in the municipal code.
An overlay zone is a zoning mechanism that applies additional or different standards or
requirements to a defined geographic area, that is imposed on top of the underlying base
zoning. Overlay zones are typically used to address unique or area -specific issues that
are not effectively managed through citywide regulations (for example, issues that may
arise near a college campus). In the context of Fraternity and Sorority housing, an overlay
zone could be structured to address operational and neighborhood compatibility
concerns.
Potential regulatory approaches within an overlay zone cou ld include:
Enhanced performance standards related to noise, outdoor gatherings, and
property maintenance;
Tailored operational requirements (e.g., management plans, point -of-contact
requirements, or event protocols);
Proactive or geographically focused code enforcement strategies; and
Administrative permitting requirements tied to ongoing compliance.
It should be noted that the City’s ability to regulate college related neighborhood
compatibility issues through zoning is significantly constrained by California state housing
law. The City cannot adopt regulations that would:
Reduce allowable residential density below what is permitted by the base zoning;
Impose occupancy limits based on relationships among residents (i.e., regulate
who may live together);
Impose occupancy limits beyond what the state law allows (i.e. regulate how many
people can live together)5;
Establish minimum parking requirements beyond what is allowed under state law;
Indirectly constrain housing supply;
Discriminate against a class of residents (e.g., students) in a manner inconsistent
with fair housing requirements.
The City’s current process incorporates many of the possible regulatory tools of an
overlay zone mentioned above, as Fraternity and Sorori ty houses are only allowed in
designated areas (R-3 and R-4 zones) and are required to adhere to certain standards
and obtain a regulatory permit. As described above, if there was interest in moving toward
a different regulatory scheme for Fraternity and Sorority houses, it would take time to
carefully craft new regulations considering the goals of the overlay zone as well as the
legal limitations that exist, and staff recommends adding this as a work plan item for the
5 Current standards for occupancy limits are complex and regulated by the International Property
Maintenance Code. In short, every bedroom occupied by more than one person shall contain not less than
50 square feet of floor area for each occupant. In addition, for efficiency units (no bedroom) a unit occupied
by one person shall have at least 120 square feet, a unit occupied by two persons shall have at least 190
square feet, and a unit occupied by three persons shall have at least 260 square feet.
Page 31 of 41
Item 5a
next financial plan.
Comparative Case Studies
Staff reviewed several jurisdictions that have implemented geographically targeted
strategies to address Greek or student housing impacts. These examples illustrate a
range of approaches.
Chico, CA – The City of Chico has established a Fraternity and Sorority Overlay
Zone (FS) that limits where recognized Greek organizations may locate and is
primarily in the South Campus Area adjacent to California State University, Chico.
Greek houses are permitted in this area, but are also subject to a separa te permit
process administered by the City (A Fraternity and Sorority House Permit). The
Permit required is granted for a period of one year and requirements that the
names and contact information for officers of the fraternity/sorority are submitted
to the City as well as written authorization from the property owner granting
permission to operate a fraternity/sorority at the location. This permit does not
appear to be discretionary. This is similar to the current regulatory system in San
Luis Obispo, where Greek Houses are allowed in certain zones (although the City
does not use an overlay zone, they are only allowed in R-3 and R-4 zones) and
subject to an additional permit process; however, the City of San Luis Obispo CUP
process is more onerous, more expensive, and includes more conditions
regulating operation of Greek houses. The CUP also runs with the land, meaning
it does not expire after a period of time, unless the use is discontinued for at least
a year.
Davis, CA – The City of Davis utilizes a “Residential Restricted” (R-R) zoning
district intended to preserve neighborhood character in areas with high student
populations. The district includes limitations on certain high -intensity residential
uses, for example, by requiring that single-family homes have five or fewer
bedrooms to be allowed without a conditional use permit. The zoning district does
not specifically address Greek housing; however, a conditional use permit can be
granted for a “living groups or other organized groups of university students, faculty
members or employees, who have elected officers, who are self -governed and
who do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion or national origin”.
Santa Clara, CA - Santa Clara has adopted a proactive, partnership-driven,
geographically focused enforcement model to support neighborhood wellness
around Santa Clara University (Santa Clara University Area Enforcement). In this
defined area, the tools used in this model include proactive code enforcement that
include coordinated efforts between the City, the university, and the police
department, with an emphasis on early intervention and ongoing compliance of
municipal code standards. The program also includes an “annual walkabout” with
university staff and students, police and code enforcement . Groups of these
individuals walk door-to-door to discuss being good neighbors. This program does
not specifically address Fraternity or Sorority houses, but is a geographically based
program addressing university related neighborhood wellness concerns .
Page 32 of 41
Item 5a
Based on this cursory review, overlay zones are relatively uncommon as a standalone
regulatory tool and appear to be most commonly paired with permitting and enforcement
mechanisms such as required discretionary permits for Greek or group houses. City staff
is recommending that a work plan item for the Community Development Department and
any future work on studying or changing the municipal code regulations pertaining to
Fraternity and Sorority Houses would need to be carefully undertaken with special
attention paid to enforceability of regulations.
Short-Term Rental Enforcement
Short-term rental enforcement focuses on identifying unpermit ted operations, ensuring
compliance with homestay regulations, and maintaining fairness in housing and tax
compliance. These cases often involve investigative work, documentation, follow-up
monitoring, and coordination with licensing and planning functions. Enforcement can be
challenging because online rental platforms do not list addresses of rentals, and obscure
specific location related data, which can make it difficult to identify where short -term
rentals are operating.
As of the writing of this report, staff is not proactively monitoring short-term rental
violations, but instead responds on a complaint basis, consistent with other code
enforcement matters. When a member of the public submits information regarding a
suspected short-term rental, the complaint is investigated, and if warranted, a case is
opened. Review of investigation request data indicates that the City has received
approximately 36 short-term rental or homestay-related investigation requests between
2023 and May 2026, including 7 in 2023, 20 in 2024, 7 in 2025, and 2 additional requests
through May 2026.
City staff does currently have a subscription for specialized software, Rentalscape, that
helps identify short-term rentals in the community. This software gathers data from a
variety of sources to identify the probable addresses of short-term rentals (this is
necessary as most short-term rental listings do not contain the address). The software
can also facilitate proactive large-scale enforcement of suspected rentals through
automated mailings to property owners that appear to be operating short term rentals
without proper permits. Staff has not fully utilized the proactive capabilities of the software
given the current staff capacity and focus on neighb orhood wellness, safe housing, and
fraternity and sorority compliance.
In addition, Senate Bill 346 (Short-Term Rental Facilitator Act of 2025), enacted in
October 2025, authorizes local agencies to adopt ordinances requiring short -term rental
platforms to provide physical address information, listing identifiers, license numbers, and
transient occupancy tax certification data for rentals operating within t heir jurisdictions.
This legislation may provide the City with a new enforcement mechanism to improve
identification of unpermitted rentals, strengthen transient occupancy tax compliance, and
reduce investigative time associated with locating suspected violations. Importantly, SB
346 does not automatically impose these requirements; local implementation would
require Council adoption of an ordinance establishing reporting requirements and
enforcement provisions. City staff are currently looking into whether a local ordinance
based on the new legislation would be beneficial to enforcement efforts. Preliminary
Page 33 of 41
Item 5a
discussions with those familiar with the field and research has indicated that local
ordinances are likely to draw legal challenges. As of early 2026, relatively few California
jurisdictions have formally adopted implementing ordinances pursuant to SB 346;
Cathedral City appears to be potentially the only City that has adopted an ordinance in
response to SB 346, though several cities with existing short -term rental enforcement
programs already maintain similar reporting and platform compliance frameworks.
Safe Housing Education and Enforcement
Safe Housing enforcement addresses substandard rental conditions, unsafe occupancy
situations, and minimum habitability requirements for housing units. This work includes
both enforcement and education components, helping ensure rental units meet State and
local safety standards while providing tenants and property owners with information about
compliance.
Safe Housing enforcement is guided by a combination of California Health and Safety
Code, the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC), and the building and
residential codes adopted by the City through Chapter 15.02 of the Municipal Code. The
City has formally adopted the California Building Code, California Residential Code, and
related codes (Title 24), as well as the International Property Maintenance Code, which
together establish minimum standards for both the construction and ongoing maintenance
of structures.
The IPMC serves as the primary standard for evaluating existing housing conditions and
requires that structures be maintained in a safe, sanitary, and habitable condition. These
standards address essential life-safety and habitability requirements, including structural
soundness, safe electrical and plumbing systems, adequate heating and ventilation,
weather protection, and the provision of basic facilities such as hot and cold running
water, sanitary fixtures, and adequate space for occupan cy. The IPMC also regulates
occupancy limits, maintenance of building systems, and the general condition of interior
and exterior environments to ensure they do not pose a risk to occupants.
In parallel, the California Building Code and Residential Code establish requirements for
construction and building systems and require that most construction, alteration, repair,
or modification of a structure be performed under a valid permit. Pursuant to Section 105.1
of the California Building Code and Section R105.1 of the California Residential Code,
property owners must obtain permits prior to constructing, enlarging, altering, repairing,
moving, demolishing, or changing the occupancy of a structure, as well as for
modifications to electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing systems. This process ensures
that work is reviewed and inspected for compliance with applicable safety standards.
While certain minor work is exempt from permit requirements under Sections 105.2 and
R105.2, these exemptions do not authorize work that violates code requirements or
creates unsafe conditions. In practice, Code Enforcement staff frequently encounter
unpermitted work—such as garage conversions, unapproved electrical or plumbing
installations, or structural alterations—that contribute directly to substandard housing
conditions. These cases often require both correction of unsafe conditions and retroactive
compliance with permitting requirements.
Page 34 of 41
Item 5a
Under California Health and Safety Code, a building is considered “substandard” when
conditions exist that endanger the life, health, or safety of occupants or the public. These
conditions include inadequate sanitation (such as lack of plumbing fixtures, hot water, or
heating), structural hazards (such as deteriorated foundations, walls, or roo fs), faulty
weather protection (including water intrusion), unsafe building systems, pest infestation,
mold, accumulation of debris or waste, and inadequate fire safety or exiting conditions.
Code Enforcement staff use these criteria, in conjunction with IPMC standards, to
evaluate and document violations during inspections.
In practice, Safe Housing enforcement focuses on ensuring that rental housing remains
safe for occupancy by addressing both ongoing maintenance violations and underlying
building deficiencies. This includes correcting life-safety hazards such as exposed wiring
or structural instability, resolving sanitation issues such as lack of water or sewage
service, addressing environmental concerns such as mold or pest infestation, and
ensuring that any construction or alterations have been properly permitted and inspected.
Together, these standards establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for safe and
habitable housing and form the basis for enforcement actions.
Safe Housing cases are among the most complex and time-consuming handled by the
Division. They often involve structural, electrical, plumbing, or habitability issues, and may
require extended case management, coordination with Building and Fire staff, and
ongoing monitoring. In addition to enforcement, staff spend significant time providing
education and guidance to tenants and property owners. The primary challenge is
balancing the high resource demand of these cases with broader enforcement
responsibilities. Unlike many exterior nuisance cases, Safe Housing matters also
frequently involve interior conditions, tenant-landlord dynamics, and structural or building
system deficiencies that require technical evaluation and sustained case management.
Based on calendar-year reporting, the Division received 68 substandard rental housing
complaints in 2023, 95 in 2024, and 96 in 2025, with 30 complaints received to date in
2026. During the same period, total Code Enforcement investigation requests were 1,090
in 2023, 1,451 in 2024, 1,336 in 2025, and 483 to-date in 2026. As a result, Safe Housing
complaints have consistently accounted for approximately 6 to 7 percent of all
investigation requests annually. It should be noted that renters can be hesitant to submit
requests for investigation regarding safe housing issues due to retaliation from landlords,
which may impact the number of requests received by the City.
A substantial share of Safe Housing complaints result in formal enforcement action,
though annual totals vary significantly based on the nature and scale of individual cases.
In 2023, 19 substandard housing code cases were opened. In 2024, 58 substandard
housing cases were opened, representing a substantial year-over-year increase; notably,
14 of these cases were associated with a la rge apartment complex involving
approximately 120 individual units with identified substandard conditions, which
significantly amplified enforcement workload despite being grouped into a limited number
of case files. In 2025, 36 substandard housing cases were opened, remaining above 2023
levels but below the unusually high 2024 volume. These figures demonstrate that raw
Page 35 of 41
Item 5a
case counts alone may not fully capture program workload, as certain cases—particularly
large multi-unit properties—can require extensive inspections, documentation,
coordination, and follow-up comparable to dozens of smaller individual cases.
‘Safe Housing’ Complaints
Calendar Year Safe Housing
Complaints Received
Total Investigation
Requests
Safe Housing % of
All Requests
Substandard Housing
Code Cases Opened
2023 68 1,090 6.20% 19
2024 95 1,451 6.50% 58¹
2025 96 1,336 7.20% 36
2026 (to date) 30 483 6.20% 15
¹ Of the 58 cases opened in 2024, 14 were associated with a large apartment complex involving approximately 120 individual
units with identified substandard housing violations,
Safe Housing enforcement also includes an education and outreach component. Staff
have participated in Cal Poly’s Off-Campus Housing & Resource Fair to provide students
with information regarding tenant rights, complaint procedures, and minimum housing
standards. Education is routinely provided directly to tenants and property owners during
complaint investigations. However, outreach remains largely reactive and case -specific.
Because the City does not maintain a comprehensive inventory of rental properties , the
Division does not have a complete picture of where rental housing is located, limiting the
ability to conduct targeted communication, trend analysis, or preventative outreach.
Long-Duration and High Resource Cases impacting neighborhood wellness
Some code enforcement cases remain open for extended periods due to complexity,
financial hardship, structural issues, or repeated non-compliance. These cases often
involve unsafe housing conditions, unpermitted construction, zoning violations, or long-
term monitoring requirements. While relatively small in number, they require sustained
staff attention and can significantly affect workload distribution. Examples of these cases
include 1150 Laurel Lane, which has required a significant amount of staff time f rom
multiple departments over the past year. Other examples include a large scale inspection
of the Madonna Road Apartments, which took place over 5 days in an effort to inspect
120 residential units to identify potential electrical hazards. Inspection req uired
collaboration with apartment management and electrical contractors who were on site
and able to correct many of the required repairs the same day they were identified.
Another example is a property located at the corner of Casa Street and Murray St reet in
which staff identified a vacant property that had been unlawfully occupied by several
transient individuals. Staff documented the deterioration over several months, issued
several citations as a result of non-compliance and eventually, due to the imminent
danger posed by the property and the lack of response by the property owner, moved to
board all structures on site to prevent further unauthorized entry. The property was
declared a public nuisance after a public hearing was held in which staff pre sented on the
documented conditions. These efforts were the result of a two and half year process in
Page 36 of 41
Item 5a
which the property owner only complied after a public nuisance hearing. The case
remains open and is currently being reassessed for continuing violations.
Long-duration cases often require repeated inspections, coordination with multiple
departments, and legal or administrative processes. The primary challenge is balancing
continued management of these complex cases while maintaining response to new
complaints. Council direction may clarify whether long-term case resolution should be
prioritized relative to rapid response to new investigations.
Summary
The staff report illustrates that there is expanding volume of requests and increasing
complexity of cases, particularly those involving safe housing, fraternity and sorority
enforcement, and multifamily structural safety.
This increase in requests impacts staff’s ability to engage in broader strategic and
program-development work that would strengthen long-term outcomes. As such, staff has
made several recommendations in this report that address the need to prioritize analysis
and implementation of program efficiencies.
Council Focus Questions
This study session is an opportunity for the City Council and community to hear about
code enforcement in the City. In addition, staff will be available at the City Council meeting
to answer questions about the contents of th is report. The City Council may wish to
consider the following broad questions during the Study Session.
• Staff Recommendations. Does the City Council concur with the staff
recommendations outlined above related to
a. Affirming the current Enforcement Priorities and Response Time Standards,
b. Exploring a simplified Administrative Fine Structure,
c. Adding a work program item to create a new regulatory structure for
Fraternity and Sorority Houses,
d. Continuing the enforcement of fraternity and sorority land use violations
consistent with the Enforcement Priorities and Response Time Stan dards
while prioritizing violations that result in disturbance to others, and
e. Directing staff to undertake work to analyze time-intensive enforcement
areas to identify potential process efficiencies?
• Neighborhood Wellness & Property Maintenance Standards. Are there any
neighborhood wellness, property maintenance, or nuisance standards the Council
wishes to update in light of current operational challenges and evolving community
needs?
• Future Study Sessions. Would the Council like future, topic-specific study sessions
to support more in-depth policy development?
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
As described in this report, the City Council has discussed code enforcement and safe
Page 37 of 41
Item 5a
housing issues extensively in the past. Previous actions are noted below.
2005 – City Council Meeting
o Item Discussed: Rental property inspection program
Review and discuss options for rental property inspections.
Provide staff with direction on which options to pursue, with a focus on full
cost recovery regardless of which option the Council selects.
o Action: Limit program to state mandated fire safety inspections of multifamily
rental units
2009 – City Council Meeting
o Item Discussed: Strategies to reduce neighborhood noise and party
disturbances.
Receive a report outlining various strategies to reduce the occurrences
of neighborhood disturbances created by excessive noise and party
activity;
Provide direction to staff regarding the following strategies and
programs:
a. Noise ordinance modifications
b. Unruly gathering ordinance
c. Nighttime curfew ordinance
d. Strategic use of Safety Enhancement Zone Ordinance
e. Residential rental property licensing options
Direct to staff to return to Council in January 2010 with any
recommended ordinances and procedural changes.
o Action: Council direction staff to move forward with options B, C and D and to
return to Council in January 2010 with recommended ordinances and
procedural changes.
2014 – City Council Meeting
o Item Discussed: Review of rental housing inspection program options
Receive a presentation on Rental Housing Inspection Program policy
options.
Provide direction to staff regarding initiation of an ordinance and specific
options to pursue.
o Action: Council vote to create a Rental Housing Inspection Program for single
- family and duplex rental within the following parameters:
Scope of Inspection: Both exterior and interior inspections.
Frequency of Inspection: 3 years.
Incentives:
Self- certification after passing initial inspection.
System and standards to authorize self -certification period.
Disincentives: High fines or re-inspection fees.
Potential Exemptions:
Owner - occupied units (or occupancy by an immediate family member
without other renters).
Page 38 of 41
Item 5a
Units in mobile home parks.
Publicly owned or managed housing.
Units governed by homeowner associations.
Set fees at full cost recovery.
o 2015 – City Council Meeting
o Item Discussed: Rental housing inspection program
Adopt an Ordinance amending Titles 15 of the Municipal Code by adding
Chapter 15.10 establishing a Rental Housing Inspection Program; and
Adopt a Resolution establishing fees to implement the Rental Housing
Inspection Program; and
Adopt a Resolution establishing an amnesty program for one year for
properties subject to the proposed Rental Housing Inspection Program
who voluntarily report and abate health and safety violations .
o Action: Ordinance & Resolutions adopted.
2017 – Special Meeting of the City Council
o Item Discussed: Workshop to allow community members to p rovide input
regarding issues and solutions for the RHIP.
o Action: Council voted to suspend new mandatory inspections and conclude
existing code compliance cases under the program.
2017 – City Council Meeting
o Item Discussed: An ordinance repealing chapter 15.10 rental housing
inspection program of title 15 of the municipal code.
o Action: Council voted to introduce Ordinance No. 1632 entitled, " An Ordinance
of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, repealing chapter
15. 10 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regarding Rental Housing
Inspection."
2017 – City Council Meeting
o Item Discussed: Process to develop code enforcement priorities for proactive
and complaint-based enforcement activities.
o Action: By consensus, Council directed staff to receive and file a presentation
on the status of Community Development code enforcement activities in the
City of San Luis Obispo and provided staff with direction on the development
of revised code enforcement priorities for the 2017 - 19 Financial Plan.
2017 – City Council Meeting
o Item Discussed: Code enforcement priorities.
o Receive a presentation, take public testimony, and provide direction to staff
regarding:
Overall code enforcement priorities to guide the allocation of staff time and
other resources in the Building and Safety Division of the Community
Development Department (CDD); and
Page 39 of 41
Item 5a
Direction regarding the use of enforcement tools - such as recorded
notices of violation and increased and new fees and fines - to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of code enforcement activities; and
The scope and priority of a Safe Housing Outreach and Education
Program for landlords and tenants; and
Additional program activities and enhancements to pursue as resources
permit.
o Action: Council supported staff's recommendation without the voluntary
inspections program and self -certification program. Staff to return with
Ordinances and/ or Resolutions to implement the changes to the code
enforcement process and a new fine structure.
2018 – City Council Meeting
o Item Discussed: An ordinance amending chapter 1.24 (administrative code
enforcement procedures) of title 1 to the San Luis Obispo municipal code; and
a resolution of the city council of the city of San Luis Obispo, California,
amending the amount of administrative fines payable under certain ci tations.
o Action: Council voted to adopt both the introduced ordinance and resolution.
2019– City Council Meeting
o Item Discussed: Resolution establishing authorizing designated staff to waive
administrative fines resulting from code enforcement action
o Action: Council voted to adopt proposed resolution.
2023– City Council Meeting
o Item Discussed: Study session: Code enforcement update
Council Direction Item #1: Is the program achieving the outcomes of the
council and community?
Council Direction Item #2: What information can the Community
Development Department provide to help the community navigate the
code enforcement process and services?
Council Direction Item #3: What information would be most helpful to
provide specifically for landlords and tenants in the City?
Council Direction Item #4: Do you generally concur with the existing
priority hierarchy of cases?
o Action: By consensus, the City Council provided the following comments for
staff on the Code Enforcement Division, no formal action was taken.
1. Careful balance, the goal is safe housing and compliance
2. Outreach, Brochure, and Meet CalPoly halfway
3. Follow up with notes from Stakeholder Meetings
4. Make sure to reach out to tenant groups and marginalized groups
5. Reach out Cuesta College 6. How to use Ask SLO Video?
Public Engagement
City Staff informed interested parties about the study session including Cal Poly,
Interfraternity Council, the SLO Tenants Union, the Chamber of Commerce, local
Page 40 of 41
Item 5a
Realtors, the Developer’s Roundtable, and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods. In
addition, social media posts provided information about the study session to the public.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended
action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15378. As a study session, this item is informational only and is not
binding on future actions.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: N/A Budget Year: 2025-26
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $0 $0 $0 $0
This study session itself does not have any direct fiscal impact as it is for informational
purposes only. Any future changes in staffing may result in fiscal impacts.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may provide feedback not contemplated in the Focus Questions above.
Page 41 of 41