Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3001-4000 Emails and Calendars
1 From:Edwin Rambuski <edwin@rambuskilaw.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 27, 2026 4:18 PM To:Symens, Sadie Subject:Re: South Park Mobile Home Park Attachments:Long Term Rental Agreement from Simmons.pdf The long term lease is attached. My cell number is On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 3:57 PM Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Rambuski, This email is to acknowledge the City’s receipt of your email to Steven Sheats regarding your client I believe a phone call will be the most efficient way to discuss your client’s situation, but could you please let me know whether she was in a long-term lease (over 12 months) and when that lease commenced? Thank you, Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 2 -- Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski 1401 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tel.: (805) 546-8284 Fax: (805) 546-8489 www.rambuskilaw.com Not intended as a substitute for a writing. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance or effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this email message, its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski, any of its clients, or any other person or entity. This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski immediately by telephone at (805) 546-8284 or by email to edwin@rambuskilaw.com and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. 5 From:Symens, Sadie Sent:Friday, November 21, 2025 4:26 PM To:McDonald, Whitney; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Cc:Collins, Scott; Sargsyan, Thomas Subject:RE: Requesting Email Address for MH Rent Adjustment Notice Hello all, Just to close the loop on this, we checked that this notice of rent increase, as well as the one sent by Laguna Lake Mobile Estates on September 23rd, and have verified that they are compliant with our code and do not exceed the current maximum annual space rent increase (3.3%) Please let me know if you have any questions. Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:11 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Requesting Email Address for MH Rent Adjustment Notice Hi Timmi and Sadie, I am passing along what was received from Creekside Community for review to ensure consistency with our ordinance. 6 Thank you! Whitney Whitney McDonald pronouns (she/hers) City Manager City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E WMcDonal@slocity.org T 805.781.7114 C 805.550.8349 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kyle Dylewski <Kyle@epi-lp.com> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2025 10:46 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Requesting Email Address for MH Rent Adjustment Notice Whitney, Thank you! See attached for a redacted sample of the notice, with the resident's personal information redacted, that was mailed and posted to our residents yesterday. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thank you, Kyle J Dylewski C.O.O. EPI Limited Partnership 1370 Brea Blvd. #216 Fullerton, CA 92835 P: 714.738.9092 F: 714.738.9094 From: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2025 10:32 To: Kyle Dylewski <Kyle@epi-lp.com> 7 Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Requesting Email Address for MH Rent Adjustment Notice Hello Kyle, Thank you for reaching out. I am the City Manager (aka City Administrator) and my full contact information is provided in my signature block below. Please feel free to forward the notice to my email address and/or to my physical address stated in the signature block. Best, Whitney Whitney McDonald pronouns (she/hers) City Manager City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E WMcDonal@slocity.org T 805.781.7114 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: City of San Luis Obispo, CA <slocitywebmaster@enotify.visioninternet.com> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2025 10:29 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: Requesting Email Address for MH Rent Adjustment Notice Message submitted from the <City of San Luis Obispo, CA> website. Site Visitor Name: Kyle Dylewski Site Visitor Email: kyle@epi-lp.com 8 Hello, I represent Creekside Community, a mobilehome community in San Luis Obispo. Per the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, we are required to send a copy of our 90-Day Notice of Rent Adjustment to the City Administrator. Please provide me with either a mailing address or email address where I can send a copy. Thank you, Kyle Dylewski 9 Wooten, Eric From:Symens, Sadie Sent:Friday, November 21, 2025 11:00 AM To:Sargsyan, Thomas Subject:RE: Mobile Home Park task Thanks! Also, looks like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms the 3.3%: https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news- release/consumerpriceindex_losangeles.htm I’ll prepare an email to our City Manager with this info. From: Sargsyan, Thomas <TSargsya@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 10:55 AM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Mobile Home Park task Of course! Under the MHPRSO, the allowable maximum space rent is at a rate equal to 100% of the CPI up to 5% and 75% of the CPI in excess of 5% calculated. In this case, the CPI was calculated at 3.3%, therefore, the base rent increase effect January 1, 2026 is 3.3%. (5.44.060 (B)) The Ordinance also allows space rent to be automatically adjusted based on increase or decrease in expenses for common area utilities, excluding capital improvement or ongoing maintenance costs. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase or decrease in any such expenses incurred during a twelve-month period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The MHPRSO states that the notice must be given no less than 90 days prior to such increase (or decrease) being effective. o Both notices have been issued within the 90 day requirement The notice should also state the amount of the rent increase, the new space rent, the amount of the total increase in expenses and the nature of the expense. o Both notices state the amount of the rent increase, the new rent space, and the total increase in expenses (I am assuming expenses are utilities and the nature of the expenses is the specific utilities) A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administrator officer o The Laguna Lake Mobile Estates copies city administrative officer, but the Creekside Community one does not specify From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 11:13 AM To: Sargsyan, Thomas <TSargsya@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Mobile Home Park task Thanks Thomas! Could you please provide the following specific information: What is the current allowable maximum space rent increase under the calculation provided in the MHPRSO What information is required under the MHRPSO (and confirm that each element is provided in each notice) From: Sargsyan, Thomas <TSargsya@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 11:09 AM 10 To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Mobile Home Park task Hi Sadie, I checked through the two notices of rent increase, and they are compliant with the Ordinance. They are increasing percentage is within the MHPRSO and the required information is also provided. From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 10:04 AM To: Sargsyan, Thomas <TSargsya@slocity.org> Subject: Mobile Home Park task Hi Thomas, Our City’s municipal code limits the amount a mobile home park owner can increase the annual rent to rent a space within the mobile home park. It is the City’s only version of “rent control,” and it is found in Chapter 5.44 of the municipal code, known as the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MHPRSO.) Under section 5.44.060(E) of the MHPRSO, park owners are required to provide the City with copies of all annual rent increases. We have received such notices of rent increases from two mobile home parks, Creekside Community and Laguna Lake Mobile Estates. Our City Manager has asked our office to review the rent increases to make sure they comply with the MHPRSO. Can you please review the increase notices in the below-folder and provide a recommendation on whether: 1. The rent increase (percentage) stated in the notice is compliant with the MHPRSO, and 2. The notices contain all required information under the MHPRSO The rent increases are set to go into effect January 1st, so I’d like to have a response back to Whitney by the second week in December. Rent Increase Letters Review Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 11 Wooten, Eric From:Symens, Sadie Sent:Thursday, November 20, 2025 11:13 AM To:Sargsyan, Thomas Subject:RE: Mobile Home Park task Thanks Thomas! Could you please provide the following specific information: What is the current allowable maximum space rent increase under the calculation provided in the MHPRSO What information is required under the MHRPSO (and confirm that each element is provided in each notice) From: Sargsyan, Thomas <TSargsya@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 11:09 AM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Mobile Home Park task Hi Sadie, I checked through the two notices of rent increase, and they are compliant with the Ordinance. They are increasing percentage is within the MHPRSO and the required information is also provided. From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 10:04 AM To: Sargsyan, Thomas <TSargsya@slocity.org> Subject: Mobile Home Park task Hi Thomas, Our City’s municipal code limits the amount a mobile home park owner can increase the annual rent to rent a space within the mobile home park. It is the City’s only version of “rent control,” and it is found in Chapter 5.44 of the municipal code, known as the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MHPRSO.) Under section 5.44.060(E) of the MHPRSO, park owners are required to provide the City with copies of all annual rent increases. We have received such notices of rent increases from two mobile home parks, Creekside Community and Laguna Lake Mobile Estates. Our City Manager has asked our office to review the rent increases to make sure they comply with the MHPRSO. Can you please review the increase notices in the below-folder and provide a recommendation on whether: 1. The rent increase (percentage) stated in the notice is compliant with the MHPRSO, and 2. The notices contain all required information under the MHPRSO The rent increases are set to go into effect January 1st, so I’d like to have a response back to Whitney by the second week in December. Rent Increase Letters Review Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney 12 City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 13 Wooten, Eric From:Sargsyan, Thomas Sent:Thursday, November 20, 2025 11:09 AM To:Symens, Sadie Subject:RE: Mobile Home Park task Hi Sadie, I checked through the two notices of rent increase, and they are compliant with the Ordinance. They are increasing percentage is within the MHPRSO and the required information is also provided. From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 10:04 AM To: Sargsyan, Thomas <TSargsya@slocity.org> Subject: Mobile Home Park task Hi Thomas, Our City’s municipal code limits the amount a mobile home park owner can increase the annual rent to rent a space within the mobile home park. It is the City’s only version of “rent control,” and it is found in Chapter 5.44 of the municipal code, known as the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MHPRSO.) Under section 5.44.060(E) of the MHPRSO, park owners are required to provide the City with copies of all annual rent increases. We have received such notices of rent increases from two mobile home parks, Creekside Community and Laguna Lake Mobile Estates. Our City Manager has asked our office to review the rent increases to make sure they comply with the MHPRSO. Can you please review the increase notices in the below-folder and provide a recommendation on whether: 1. The rent increase (percentage) stated in the notice is compliant with the MHPRSO, and 2. The notices contain all required information under the MHPRSO The rent increases are set to go into effect January 1st, so I’d like to have a response back to Whitney by the second week in December. Rent Increase Letters Review Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege 14 and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 15 Wooten, Eric From:Symens, Sadie Sent:Thursday, November 20, 2025 10:04 AM To:Sargsyan, Thomas Subject:Mobile Home Park task Hi Thomas, Our City’s municipal code limits the amount a mobile home park owner can increase the annual rent to rent a space within the mobile home park. It is the City’s only version of “rent control,” and it is found in Chapter 5.44 of the municipal code, known as the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MHPRSO.) Under section 5.44.060(E) of the MHPRSO, park owners are required to provide the City with copies of all annual rent increases. We have received such notices of rent increases from two mobile home parks, Creekside Community and Laguna Lake Mobile Estates. Our City Manager has asked our office to review the rent increases to make sure they comply with the MHPRSO. Can you please review the increase notices in the below-folder and provide a recommendation on whether: 1. The rent increase (percentage) stated in the notice is compliant with the MHPRSO, and 2. The notices contain all required information under the MHPRSO The rent increases are set to go into effect January 1st, so I’d like to have a response back to Whitney by the second week in December. Rent Increase Letters Review Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 16 Wooten, Eric From:Symens, Sadie Sent:Friday, November 7, 2025 5:07 PM To:dennis dewalt; Salem, Rami Subject:RE: Scanned document from HP ePrint user Hello Dennis, Thank you for sending these. Your lease was for twenty years, and as determined recently by the administrative hearing officer, the limitation on increase in space rent upon sale found in SLOMC 5.44.060(C) does not apply when a mobile home subject to a long-term lease is sold during the term of the lease. It does not appear the City can take any action regarding the space rent increase at this time. Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: dennis dewalt <ddewalt56@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 2:02 PM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org> Subject: Fwd: Scanned document from HP ePrint user pages 28-34..... the end ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <eprintcenter@hp8.us> Date: Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 1:57 PM Subject: Scanned document from HP ePrint user To: <ddewalt56@gmail.com> 17 This email and attachment are sent on behalf of ddewalt56@gmail.com. If you do not want to receive this email in future, you may contact ddewalt56@gmail.com directly or you may consult your email application for spam or junk email filtering options. Regards, HP Team 18 Wooten, Eric From:Symens, Sadie Sent:Thursday, November 6, 2025 10:14 AM To:jobs@1stRecruiter.com; 'dennis dewalt' Cc:Salem, Rami; Zion, Sarah; 'Denise DeWalt' Subject:RE: Scanned document from HP ePrint user Hello Linda, The City is not presently involved in any litigation with South Peak Mobile Home Park. Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: jobs@1stRecruiter.com <jobs@1stRecruiter.com> Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 10:07 AM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; 'dennis dewalt' <ddewalt56@gmail.com> Cc: Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org>; 'Denise DeWalt' <ddewalt23@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Scanned document from HP ePrint user The response below is not the newest litigation. On November 3 there was an injunction and the response has not been put out there yet. Linda Valentine 818-710-9200 From: Symens, Sadie [mailto:ssymens@slocity.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 1:51 PM To: dennis dewalt 19 Cc: Salem, Rami; Zion, Sarah; Denise DeWalt; jobs@1strecruiter.com Subject: RE: Scanned document from HP ePrint user Hello, Thank you. The complaint regarding Space A28 has been reviewed and dismissed upon appeal, as you know, and the City is taking no further action on that at this time. In order to evaluate your complaint, we will need to see the entirety of your lease; the binder you provided contained only excerpts. Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: dennis dewalt <ddewalt56@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 3:24 PM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Cc: Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org>; Denise DeWalt <ddewalt23@gmail.com>; jobs@1strecruiter.com Subject: Re: Scanned document from HP ePrint user Dear Sadie, I am not seeking recovery of money from the City of San Luis Obispo and yes this is a Complaint against Village Properties/South Peak Mobile Home Park. The Complaint is for 1 (one) an alleged violation of the City's Municipal Code Chapter 5.44.060 Exhibit S and/or 2 (two) an alleged violation of my Long Term Rental Agreement Section 5.2 (Rent Adjusted Notices), Exhibit V in the Complaint. 20 Many other Exhibits and References in the Complaint are present history of the Base Space Rent proposed by Village Properties for both space's, A28 for Linda Valentine and space B5 for Dennis DeWalt. Thank you, Dennis DeWalt On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 1:15 PM Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Dennis, Your document references an administrative citation issued against a different resident of South Peak Mobile Home Park. That administrative citation has been appealed and dismissed; the City can take no further action. Can you please clarify what “claim” you are now making, and against whom? Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 21 From: dennis dewalt <ddewalt56@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 12:46 PM To: Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org>; Denise DeWalt <ddewalt23@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Scanned document from HP ePrint user ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <eprintcenter@hp8.us> Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 12:36 PM Subject: Scanned document from HP ePrint user To: <ddewalt56@gmail.com> Hello Rami, Attached is a revised transmittal letter dated October 30, 2025. Both you and Sadie will recieve the Claim today along with all the Exhibits (in binder). Please call me to discuss after your review. Thanks, Dennis This email and attachment are sent on behalf of ddewalt56@gmail.com. If you do not want to receive this email in future, you may contact ddewalt56@gmail.com directly or you may consult your email application for spam or junk email filtering options. Regards, HP Team Virus-free.www.avast.com 22 Wooten, Eric From:Symens, Sadie Sent:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 1:51 PM To:dennis dewalt Cc:Salem, Rami; Zion, Sarah; Denise DeWalt; jobs@1strecruiter.com Subject:RE: Scanned document from HP ePrint user Hello, Thank you. The complaint regarding Space A28 has been reviewed and dismissed upon appeal, as you know, and the City is taking no further action on that at this time. In order to evaluate your complaint, we will need to see the entirety of your lease; the binder you provided contained only excerpts. Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: dennis dewalt <ddewalt56@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 3:24 PM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Cc: Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org>; Denise DeWalt <ddewalt23@gmail.com>; jobs@1strecruiter.com Subject: Re: Scanned document from HP ePrint user Dear Sadie, I am not seeking recovery of money from the City of San Luis Obispo and yes this is a Complaint against Village Properties/South 23 Peak Mobile Home Park. The Complaint is for 1 (one) an alleged violation of the City's Municipal Code Chapter 5.44.060 Exhibit S and/or 2 (two) an alleged violation of my Long Term Rental Agreement Section 5.2 (Rent Adjusted Notices), Exhibit V in the Complaint. Many other Exhibits and References in the Complaint are present history of the Base Space Rent proposed by Village Properties for both space's, A28 for Linda Valentine and space B5 for Dennis DeWalt. Thank you, Dennis DeWalt On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 1:15 PM Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Dennis, Your document references an administrative citation issued against a different resident of South Peak Mobile Home Park. That administrative citation has been appealed and dismissed; the City can take no further action. Can you please clarify what “claim” you are now making, and against whom? Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 24 From: dennis dewalt <ddewalt56@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 12:46 PM To: Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org>; Denise DeWalt <ddewalt23@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Scanned document from HP ePrint user ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <eprintcenter@hp8.us> Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 12:36 PM Subject: Scanned document from HP ePrint user To: <ddewalt56@gmail.com> Hello Rami, Attached is a revised transmittal letter dated October 30, 2025. Both you and Sadie will recieve the Claim today along with all the Exhibits (in binder). Please call me to discuss after your review. Thanks, Dennis This email and attachment are sent on behalf of ddewalt56@gmail.com. If you do not want to receive this email in future, you may contact ddewalt56@gmail.com directly or you may consult your email application for spam or junk email filtering options. Regards, HP Team 25 Wooten, Eric From:Rachel Whalen <rachel@slochamber.org> Sent:Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:13 PM Cc:Jim Dantona Subject:Re: November 6 Economic Development Committee Meeting Attachments:Item 5a. Renter Protections Study Session - Safe and Stable Rental Housing.pdf; 11.06.2025 Economic Development Committee Agenda.pdf Good morning, We look forward to seeing you at our committee meeting tomorrow morning. This is a reminder to please RSVP for the upcoming Economic Development Committee meeting if you haven't already. Please let us know if you plan to attend in person, via zoom, or if you will not be able to make it this month in GrowthZone, so that we know how many to set the room for. Thank you to those who have already registered! I also want to remind you that if you are interested in serving on an advisory body in 2026, please be sure to submit your application prior to 11:59pm on Wednesday, November 12th. We are so grateful for your time and willingness to engage and support our community through serving on a SLO Chamber Committee and hope to have you join again next year! Please let me know if you have any questions about committee applications. Thank you, Rachel Whalen she/her/hers Governmental Affairs Coordinator 805.786.2763 rachel@slochamber.org 895 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 From: Rachel Whalen <rachel@slochamber.org> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 1:18 PM Cc: Jim Dantona <jim@slochamber.org> Subject: November 6 Economic Development Committee Meeting Good afternoon, We are looking forward to seeing you next Thursday at the SLO Chamber office for our next Economic Development Committee meeting. At this meeting, we will receive an update from Timmi Tway, Community Development Director at the City of SLO on the direction given by City Council at the October 28 th meeting on renter protections in SLO. We will also 26 be joined by Tyler Coari from the SLO Tenants Union to hear their perspective on this topic as well as a representative to share the perspective of landlords and property managers. In preparation for the meeting please review document listed below: Attached November Economic Development Committee Agenda Attached staff report for the Renter Protection study session item Please read the email below to see the Chamber's current position on renter protections in SLO. Please RSVP for our meeting via GrowthZone to let us know if you plan to attend in person, via zoom or if you are unable to attend. I hope you have a great rest of your week! Thank you, Rachel Whalen she/her/hers Governmental Affairs Coordinator 805.786.2763 rachel@slochamber.org 895 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. PUBLIC INPUT OPPORTUNITY | CITY OF SLO TENANT PROTECTIONS STUDY SESSION As you may have seen in our Quarterly Advocacy Update, the San Luis Obispo City Council will be conducting a Study Session regarding renter protections next Tuesday, October 28. A Study Session Item means that City staff will present the City Council with options for how to address tenant protection issues, and the Council will give them direction for how to move forward in their work on this topic before any policy is enacted. This is a great opportunity to have your voice heard as Council discusses how they would like to move forward with tenant protections in the City of San Luis Obispo. The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Governmental Affairs team will be there to share the position that the SLO Chamber Board took on this item, which includes: 27 understanding that there is a need for data-informed decisions, we are supportive of the City creating a private database of rental units through something like a rental registry, as long as it doesn't increase City costs and housing red tape, supporting policies that ensure the quality of housing needed to attract a talented local workforce, warning against rules beyond California's Tenants Protection Act to avoid creating more challenges for building housing in SLO, and, increasing legal education for both tenants and landlords. This is just the beginning of this conversation at City Council, and it will continue into 2026. We will continue to stay engaged and advocate for safe housing for our workforce while also working to address the housing stock crisis. If you would like to share your opinion on this topic, please attend the City Council meeting on October 28 or submit written public comment ahead of time. LEARN MORE ABOUT THE STUDY SESSION To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Linkedin To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Youtube To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Instagram Economic Development Committee Thursday, November 6, 2025 7:30-9:00 a.m. SLO Chamber Boardroom 895 Monterey St., 93401 We connect the business community with ideas, inspiration and each other, bringing people together to shape the place we love. Committee purpose | To monitor, advocate for and shape local, regional and state policies and initiatives that align with the Chamber’s economic vision, Imagine SLO and strategies that directly impact the attraction, retention and growth of local business. Agenda/Zoom link 1. Welcome & Introductions 2. City of SLO Renter Protections In March we heard from the SLO Tenants Union about their policy proposal to City Council. On October 28th the City Council held a study session to further discuss these policy recommendations. Today we will be joined by Timmi Tway, Community Development Director at the City of SLO, to give us an update on the direction given by Council at the October 28th meeting. We will also be joined by Tyler Coari from the SLO Tenants Union to hear their perspective on this topic as well as a representative to share the perspective of landlords and property managers. 3. Adjourn See you at our next committee meeting on December 4th! Ask What’s Possible Rise Above Self Interest Target Amazing Build Relationships Connect Diverse Perspectives Grit to Achieve What We Believe In Oh, and We Like to Have Fun Economic Development Committee Thursday, November 6, 2025 7:30-9:00 a.m. SLO Chamber Boardroom 895 Monterey St., 93401 We connect the business community with ideas, inspiration and each other, bringing people together to shape the place we love. 2025 Roster Brenna Humphreys Concentric 360 (Committee Chair) Aaryn Abbott Abbott|Reed Inc. (Vice Chair) Kurtis Addison Schleininger County of San Luis Obispo - Public Health Department Kali Ashdown City Wide Facility Solutions Michael Boyer Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce Brad Brechwald Wallace Group Michalene Busico Precision Construction Services Juan Cal y Mayor Omni Design Molly Cano Visit SLO CAL Anne Cline Coastal Communities Physician Network Ryan Curtis Stifel Jim Duffy TEN OVER STUDIO Tessa Espinoza French Hospital Medical Center Laura Fiedler City of San Luis Obispo Kasey Helt Laetitia Vineyards and Winery Kathryn Hicks RRM Design Group Michael Hughes Gymnazo David Juhnke Stephen Ross Winery Beau Kramer Kramer Events Anthony Leonti Corvus Wealth Advisors Donna Lewis Rate Chenda Lor Lor Coaching Services LLC Beth Marino Glick Haupt Marino LLP Natasha Mercurio Richardson’s Sotheby’s International Realty Chris Murphy Murphy Structural Engineers Hillary Olson Community West Bank Stephen Peck Peck Planning and Development LLC Mimi Phene-McKellar Central Coast Gymnastics Adam Quaglino Quaglino Enterprises LLC Mike Quamma SESLOC Credit Union Jeff Railsback Central Coast Community Energy Castulo Romero Lazerus Properties and Capital Emma Saperstein San Luis Obispo Museum of Art John Tricamo Tricamo Construction Hillary Trout iFixit Ryan Weisenberg Cal Poly Ron Yukelson Carmel and Naccasha LLP Ask What’s Possible Rise Above Self Interest Target Amazing Build Relationships Connect Diverse Perspectives Grit to Achieve What We Believe In Oh, and We Like to Have Fun Item 5a Department: Community Development Cost Center: 4008 For Agenda of: 10/28/2025 Placement: Study Session Estimated Time: 160 minutes FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director Prepared By: David Amini, Housing Coordinator / Sadie Symens, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: RENTER PROTECTIONS STUDY SESSION – SAFE AND STABLE RENTAL HOUSING RECOMMENDATION Receive a presentation and conduct a study session on rental housing and renter protections, including existing protections as well as options to establish future programs and policies that promote safe and stable rental housing. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The Community Development Department’s workplan for the 2025-2027 Financial Plan includes facilitating a study session on renter protections. This is in direct response to feedback received from the community on the need to address safe and stable housing for renters in the community. The intent of this study session is to provide the City Council and the community with an understanding of the following topic areas and strategies: Key issues identified by community stakeholders regarding renter protections Statistics relating to the City’s housing stock and demographic information regarding renter households in the City A comprehensive overview of existing renter protections under state law, particularly the provisions of the Tenant Protection Act An overview of the City’s Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance An overview of the existing habitability standards under state law and the City’s enforcement of these standards An evaluation of potential policies, programs, and resources to strengthen City renter protections including the following: o Rental registry o Adoption of local “just cause” eviction protections o Local rent stabilization ordinance o Smoke-free multifamily housing ordinance o Renter and landlord education programs o Mediation and legal Resources for landlords and tenants Item 5a o Direct rental assistance to households facing eviction o Safe Housing checklist and/or Rights and Responsibilities Guide for tenants and landlords Staff made the following key findings, and suggested the following strategic next steps: Key Findings 1. Public engagement prior to and during roll-out of rental registries or other tenant and landlord protection programs, as well as long roll-out periods, are critical to success and rental registries and rental protection programs should be implemented separately. Rental registries should be considered first, as they can provide important information regarding the necessity and/or effectiveness of further rental protection programs. 2. The City can gather basic data on households and housing stock via existing data sets but has limited data on rental housing and renter demographics in the community. 3. It is estimated that no more than 36% of the total housing units in the City may be subject to existing tenant protections under the state Tenant Protection Act. However, the number is likely lower than 36%. 4. Changes in State Law necessitate an update to make minor clarifications in the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance to ensure continued protection of renters in mobile homes in the City. 5. Establishment of local renter protections beyond the TPA would be enforced by the City and require careful consideration of necessary resources to support enforcement and education surrounding local changes. 6. If the City adopts tenant protections through a local ordinance, the City would be the enforcing agency for the local ordinance instead of current reliance on civil remedies, requiring increases in staff, budgetary, and legal resources. Strategic Next Steps I. Direct staff to return to the City Council with an Ordinance to remove the long-term lease exemption as part of a broader clean-up of the MHPRSO. II. Hold a study session specific to rental registries to gain public feedback regarding potential program design that would be successful for the unique rental housing characteristics of SLO. III. Proactively develop a revised safe housing checklist for both landlords and tenants to be used for information and education, that could apply to other potential future applications such as a rental registry or required notifications per a local ordinance . IV. Proactively determine the feasibility and effectiveness of the Green and Healthy Home program to include resources for housing stability and eviction protection. Staff is asking Council to consider these findings and strategic next steps, and provide direction to staff whether to undertake these next steps and/or to develop any of the specific programs, policies, and resources described in the report. Staff is also asking Item 5a Council to provide direction regarding any other data or information to gather for future discussions relating to renter protections. POLICY CONTEXT Major City Goals The 2025-2027 Major City Goals include a set of workplan items for the Housing and Neighborhood Livability – Healthy, Safe, and Affordable Goal. Included within this goal is Strategy 3, “ensure housing is safe, healthy, and affordable, while facilitating stronger protections for renters.” This study session specifically implements Goal 3b: “Conduct a study session with the City Council to identify needs and opportunities regarding renter protections, based on the Public Memorandum on Renter Protections published in 2024, and receive direction on items for further consideration and development.” Additionally, the 2025-2027 Major City Goals include a goal for Homelessness Response. Included within this goal is Strategy 1, “collaborate with partners to prevent and reduce homelessness.” This study session includes considerations for Goal 1b. Prevention – “collaborate quarterly with SLO County and housi ng and homeless services providers to streamline resources to enable individuals and families to remain in housing ,” as renter protections can be an important tool to help households remain housed. Housing Element This study session is also part of the ongoing implementation of the Major City Goal work plan to implement the City’s 6th Cycle General Plan Housing Element, with policies and programs that relate to renter protections and vision for a more stable and sustainable rental housing market in our community. Specifically, this study session addresses Policy 1.2 to support and inform the public about fair housing laws and programs that allow equal housing access for all city residents, and Program 4.7 requiring the City to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing by facilitating public outreach and education on fair housing, and distributing information regarding tenant rights; as well as Policy 1.3 and associated Program 1.5, to maintain a level of housing code enforcement to correct unsafe, unsanitary, or illegal conditions and preserve the inventory of safe housing; and Policy 8.2 to preserve manufactured housing or mobile home parks and support changes in these forms of tenure only if such changes provide residents with greater long-term security or comparable housing in terms of quality, cost and livability. BACKGROUND Public Engagement The intent of this study session is to provide the Council and community with an understanding of existing state and local laws that provide protections for renters and to explore options to strengthen those protections. The information provided in the study Item 5a session is largely drawn from the previously prepared memorandum on renter protections produced last year and is also informed by the many public comments the City has received in the past two years regarding renter protections, safe housing, and affordable housing. In addition, in anticipation of this study session, staff also conducted targeted outreach to a variety of stakeholders who were generous in giving time to discuss rental protection topics with staff, including the entities listed below. Depending on Council direction, development of future programs for safe and stable housing will include additional public engagement. SLO Tenant’s Union SLO Coastal Association of Realtors SLO Chamber of Commerce Cal Poly Off-Campus Housing Program Cuesta College Basic Needs Center Quaglino Enterprises Private landlords of student and family housing County of San Luis Obispo Health Agency – Tobacco Control Program and Tobacco Control Coalition SLO Legal Assistance Foundation Various cities and counties in California that have implemented rental protection initiatives Several themes emerged from speaking with stakeholders. First, there was a clear consensus that renters, from seniors to students, are struggling to pay rent and they are sharing units and space to make housing sustainable. The second common theme is that renters are often fearful of retaliation and potential eviction and do not make complaints about unit conditions, whereas landlords are fearful of costs due to unauthorized pets, smoke, moisture conditions that were not reported, and other damage. There was wide-ranging agreement on the fact there are likely a few bad actors on the part of landlords and renters. Some stakeholders valued the transparency and data that could result from a potential registry, and some expressed concerns about privacy with registry implementation and concern that a registry was a step closer to the establishment of additional renter protections, such as rent control. The targeted outreach and conversations with the stakeholder groups noted above is a first step in outreach regarding this topic. Should the City move forward with any changes related to renter protections, extensive outreach will be necessary. A common theme when staff talked to other California cites that implemented various forms of rental protections, including registries, was that outreach and education in advance of implementing specific ordinances was key to their success or failure. Additionally, staff from other cities confirmed that rental registries and renter protection programs should be implemented separately rather than adopted in packages, and rental registries should be considered first, as they can provide important information regarding the necessity and/or effectiveness of other renter protection programs. Item 5a Key Finding #1: Public engagement prior to and during roll-out of rental registries or other tenant and landlord protection programs, as well as long roll-out periods, are critical to success and rental registries and rental protection programs should be implemented separately. Rental registries should be considered first, as they can provide important information regarding the necessity and/or effectiveness of further rental protection programs. State and City Housing Landscape The State of California has some of the most expensive home prices and rents in the nation1 and the scale of the state’s homelessness crisis is larger than any other state and worsened during the Covid-19 pandemic2. The intertwined housing and homelessness crises have galvanized the state to pass a series of landmark legislation starting in 2017 to reduce barriers to housing production and increase local government accountability. This has created the need and opportunity for local policy to be reshaped to align with state legislative mandates, including policies to address the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), or fair share housing needs assigned to each jurisdiction . The City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element provides policies, goals, and implementation programs to address the City’s RHNA, housing supply, fair housing, housing affordability, special needs housing, and homeless response over an eight-year cycle. Additionally, the inclusion of housing and homelessness response as a Major City Goal over the past several financial plans provide prioritization of City resources to address these crises. The City has previously taken steps to address rental housing-related issues. In 2015, in response to community concerns regarding habitability of the City’s rental housing stock3, the City Council implemented the Rental Housing Inspection Program, which required registration and inspections for all rental units, prioritizing those with a history of code enforcement complaints. This program received strong reactions from the community, particularly relating to the financial burden of repairs as well as issues relating to tenant privacy with mandatory inspections, and was ultimately repealed by Council in 2017. In addition, in recent years, there has been a f ocus on safe housing and renter/landlord education through the Code Enforcement team as safe housing and renter protection issues have garnered more attention. Code Enforcement has a dedicated Code Technician who addresses safe housing concerns, and safe housing complaints are prioritized by the Code Enforcement division. Housing Continuum A study session on Housing Needs and Opportunities was held by the City Council on March 4, 2024, and policies and programs were identified for housing typologies along 1 https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/793 2 https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/blog/five-recent-trends-california-homelessness/ 3 in 2013, 79% of code enforcement violations in residential districts were attributable to rental housing units according to pg. 4 Council Agenda Report, Dec. 16, 2014 Item 5a an expanded continuum as shown below in Figure 1. This expanded continuum can help identify the needs of key beneficiary groups, including thos e who are experiencing homelessness, those with special needs, families, seniors, students, and the city’s workforce. Through the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Affordable Housing Fund, and other initiatives, the City has accelerated the development of below-market rate housing, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing. The City has made significant progress in housing production in these income categories, particularly low- and very-low incomes.4 In addition, the City provides suppo rt to affordable housing developers whenever affordable housing funds are available. This study session focuses on the Market Rate Rental segment of the Hous ing Continuum. Stabilizing renters who live in this segment of the housing continuum has multiple benefits. It ensures that a major portion of the City’s population has safe and stable housing (as a majority of the population are renters), and prevents hous eholds from falling out of the rental housing market, which is a form of homelessness prevention. In addition, safe and stable rental housing can contribute to a housing ecosystem that supports renters should they wish to become homeowners in the future. Figure 1: Housing Continuum City Housing and Population Statistics The City’s Housing Element and the United States Census5 provide information about the rental population and housing stock that exists in the City. This is important information to consider, as it can illustrate the unique rental housing needs of the community, which can inform policy and funding decisions. Staff have also gained temporary access to Tolemi BuildingBlocks software through participation in the National League of Cities’ Healthy Housing Innovation Cohort. This software collects data from a variety of sources, including City permitting data, County 4 General Plan Annual Report During the last Housing Element Cycle (2014-2019), 1,548 units were constructed. During the first half (2020-2024) of the current eight-year RHNA cycle (2020-2028) a total of 2,067 units have been constructed. 584 of these units are provided for households that are low income and below. 5 https://data.census.gov/profile/San_Luis_Obispo_city,_California?g=160XX00US0668154; https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2022.S2504?q=housing%20stock%20san%20luis%20obispo%20city&g=160XX 00US0668154 Item 5a assessor data, code enforcement data, and data from MLS aggregators such as Zillow, and assembles a map-based program that provides various insights and analytics on properties within the City. These sources have all been used to assemble information about the population and housing stock in the City of San Luis Obispo, which is provided to inform the discussion on renter protections in the City. It should be noted that without a rental registry, however, the City has limited information about rental units in the City, and much of the information must be inferred from other sources. Population Statistics SLO is home to 48,039 people according to the 2023 American Community Survey census data. The average household size in SLO is 2.34 and in the State as a whole, it is 2.865. The 2023 median household income in the City was $66,711, compared to $95,521 for California as a whole5; however, this number varies greatly depending on the type of household. For example, for married -couple families in San Luis Obispo, the median income is $144,503, and for “nonfamily” households in San Luis Obispo, it is $43,274. According to the US Census 2023 American Community Survey5, 30% of residents in San Luis Obispo are experiencing poverty, as opposed to 12% of all people in California. This is likely due to the significant off-campus student population, which can impact income statistics. The population pyramid figure that follows illustrates the age breakdown of the City’s population, which shows a significant number of 20 to 24 year olds (due to students residing in the City). The bars toward the bottom of the pyramid are younger residents. Older residents are toward the top of the pyramid. Traditionally, population pyramids are generally larger at the bottom and smaller at the top (more like a pyramid shape). Item 5a Figure 1: City population by age and gender Housing Stock Statistics According to the City’s General Plan Annual Report data4, there are approximately 23,984 housing units in San Luis Obispo (as of 2024). There are 1,162 mobile homes in the City, comprising 5.3% of the City’s housing stock. 53.5% of the City’s housing stock is in single-family (attached or detached) structures 41.1% of the City’s housing stock is in structures that are two or more units comprised of the following: o 2-units 4.7% o 3-4-units 11.1% o 5-9-units 6.8% o 10-19-units 6.7% o 20+ units 11.8% Item 5a Of all occupied housing units in the City (both single family and multifamily), 7.3% are studios, 13.4% are one bedroom, 62.2% are 2 or 3 bedrooms, and 17.1% are 4 or more bedrooms. According to BuildingBlocks data, which includes City and County Assessor ownership data, 69% of single-family (attached or detached) housing units in the city are owned by individuals and not businesses. Of the business owned homes, the majority are owned by LLCs and partnerships. Only 2% of all single-family housing units were owned by a corporation. o This means that of the 12,831 single family units in the City, 12,574 are likely exempt from the provisions of the state Tenant Protection Act due to being owned by individuals, partnerships, and LLCs without corporate members, as discussed in more detail below. 3,851 units of housing have been constructed in the last 15 years4. 1,569 of those units were in multifamily structures. Housing units built within the last 15 years are also exempt from the protections of the state Tenant Protection Act. When considering the data above, 15,306 housing units, or 64% of all housing units in the City, are likely exempt from the protections of the state Tenant Protection Act (discussed more below). Renter/Rental Housing Statistics SLO has a homeownership rate of 38%, with 62% of households being renters 5. By comparison, California, as a whole, has a homeownership rate of 55.8%. 62% of the units in the City equates to approximately 14,870 units. The City’s average rent is $2,625 per month6 – 31% more than the national average and 6% lower than the state average. Over 55% of renter households in the City are cost burdened, meaning that they pay more than 30% of their income towards rent. Over 30% of renter households are severely cost burdened, meaning that they pay more than 50% of their income towards rent. During conversations with community members that were held in anticipation of this study session, several asked for data about what percentage of the renter population were student age. Staff researched this question using a number of sources, but unfortunately was unable find a reliable source for this information. Given the population pyrami d (shown above) it can be inferred that a large portion of renters in the community are student age, but it is important to remember that renters in the community are diverse. Community stakeholders have identified that renters in the City come from a vari ety of backgrounds and age groups. 6 Zillow Market Trends Report; https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/san-luis-obispo-ca/ Item 5a Key Finding #2: The City can gather basic data on households and housing stock via existing data sets but has limited data on rental housing and renter demographics in the community Existing Renter Protections The City published a Public Memorandum on Renter Protections in September, 2024, outlining the protections currently available to renters in the City, and some a dditional measures that California cities may take to further protect renters at the local level. The memo was provided to the City Council and community, however, no conversation was held on the topics included in the memo. In the intervening time, there has been a significant amount of informal discussion with staff, as well as public comments at City Council by community stakeholders requesting further conversations on topics relating to renter protections. This study session is the first opportunity to hold a community conversation about renter protections in a formal City Council meeting setting. Below is a summary of existing protections. Tenant Protection Act AB 1482, or the Tenant Protection Act (TPA), was adopted in 2019 and went into effect on January 1, 20207. This law provides statewide tenant protections by limiting rent increases to the lower of either 5% plus applicable Consumer Price Index or 10 %, annually and requiring “just cause” (a specific, legitimate reason) for evictions. The law applies to all housing in California with several exemptions. Types of housing that are excluded from the provisions of the Tenant Protection Act, include: single-family owner-occupied residences in which the owner-occupant leases out no more than two units or bedrooms,8 owner-occupied mobile homes, owner-occupied duplexes, new residences, defined as housing (single-family or multifamily) built within last 15 years (a rolling timeline), standalone units (e.g., single-family homes and condominiums) owned by real persons, partnerships, or limited liability companies with no corporate members. This means the renter protections described in the state Tenant Protection Act, including rent stabilization and eviction protections, would apply to approximately 36% of the total housing units in the City (about 8,678 out of 23,984 units). This number of “total” units includes units that are owner occupied and renter occupied. Staff does not have data to further narrow down the exact number of units that are currently rented that would be covered by existing protections. In other words, the number of protected units that are 7 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/Tenant-Protection-Act-Landlords-and-Property-Managers- English.pdf 8 This includes owner-occupied properties with any combination of single-family home, ADUs, and JADUs. These properties are not exempt from the rent stabilization provisions of the Tenant Protection, only the eviction control protections. Item 5a currently renter occupied in the City is almost certainly lower than 36% of the total housing units in the City, but staff do not have data to confirm the actual number of units at this time. In this study session report, the term “covered unit(s)” is used to refer to units that are covered by the TPA, and “exempt unit(s)” is the term used to refer to units that are likely exempt from the provisions of the TPA due to the exemptions defined by the state. Key Finding #3: It is estimated that no more than 36% of the total housing units in the City may be subject to existing tenant protections under the state Tenant Protection Act. However, the number is likely lower than 36%. The Public Memorandum on Renter Protections describes the available protections to renters under the Act. The Tenant Protection Act has two main components, eviction protections (“just cause”) and rent stabilization (limitation on allowable rent increases.) Eviction Protections Under the Tenant Protection Act Under the State Tenant Protection Act, tenants in covered units who have lived in a residential unit for 12 months or more cannot be evicted without “just cause,” which must be stated in a written notice to vacate. The law defines “just cause” as either “at-fault just cause” or “no fault just cause.” The permissible grounds for an “at fault” eviction include typical violations of lease terms, such as failure to pay rent, unauthorized subletting, and failure to permit lawful entry by landlord. Permissible grounds for “no fault” evictions include things like the owner’s intent to occupy the rental unit, withdrawal of the unit from the rental market, and intent to demolish or substantially remodel the unit. Tenants who are evicted for one of these “no fault” reasons are entitled to relocation assistance from the landlord in the amount of one month’s worth of rent at the rate in effect a t the time of eviction. Under newer requirements for an “owner move-in” eviction, effective April 1, 2024, the owner, or their eligible relative, must be identified in the notice of termination, must move into the rental unit within 90 days after the tenant vacates, and must occupy the rental unit as their primary residence for at least 12 consecutive months. State law also clarifies the definition of a “substantial remodel” and provides additional protection for renters facing eviction for this reason. “Renoviction” is a popular term for this type of eviction. A “substantial remodel” means work that would require the tenant to vacate the property for at least 30 consecutive days and is either 1) the replacement or substantial modification of any structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical system that requires a permit from a governmental agency, or 2) the abatement of hazardous materials, including lead-based paint, mold, or asbestos, in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws. The landlord must provide proof of the remodel or demolition to the tenant with the written notice of termination (i.e. permits or a contract with con tractor for hazard abatement.) Under the amended law effective April 1, 2024, if the owner fails to perform the demolition or remodel (state law does not provide a particular time frame), the owner must offer the Item 5a tenant the option to re-rent the unit on the same terms and at the same rental rate in effect when the tenant vacated. The amendments also codify the right of the tenant to express interest in re-renting the remodeled unit after the remodel. The law does not require the unit to be offered to the tenant first once it is available. “Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market” as a no -fault basis for eviction is not further defined or conditioned by the recent amendments to the Tenant Protection Act. Presumably, this refers to a landlord’s right to go out of the rental business by selling the property. However, the Tenant Protection Act does not require a landlord to provide any proof that the property will no longer be used as a rental, nor are there any express protections for tenants who are evicted on this basis if the unit remains on, or returns to, the rental market post-eviction. Rent Stabilization Under the Tenant Protection Act Under state law implemented by the Act, a landlord cannot increase the rent for a covered unit more than the lesser of 10%, or 5% plus the change in cost of living, over any 12 - month period. Once a tenant has lived in a unit for 12 months, the rent cannot be increased more than twice per year (and the sum of the increases cannot exceed the maximum annual limit). When a covered unit becomes vacant, the landlord can set the initial rent for the new tenants at market rate or any other amount (a system referred to as “vacancy decontrol”). Subsequent rental increases would be subject to the rent cap. A landlord who “demands, accepts, receives, or retains any payment of rent” in excess of the Act’s limitations is liable to the tenant in a civil action and may be required to pay actual damages, reasonable attorney’s fees/costs, and punitive damages (up to three times the amount by which the demanded rent exceeds the maximum allowable rent) if the landlord acted maliciously or fraudulently. Additionally, the tenant may be entitled to injunctive relief (e.g., landlord could be required by the court to allow the tenant to remain in the rental unit and pay no more than the legally allowable rent). The Attorney General, and the city attorney or county counsel, may bring an action in court to enforce the rent control provisions of the Tenant Protection Act.9 Additionally, if a landlord unlawfully increases the rent and the tenant refuses to pay more than the legally allowed amount, the unlawful increase may serve as a defense to an unlawful detainer (e viction) lawsuit for nonpayment of rent. Fees and Security Deposit Limits under State Law State law limits application screening fees for prospective rental tenants to no more than $30 plus adjustments per the applicable Consumer Price Index, which brings the maximum fee allowable in 2025 to $64.50 per applicant.10 Additionally, landlords may charge a maximum of one month’s rent for a security deposit, or two months’ rent if the 9 The City cannot enforce violations of the Tenant Protection Act administratively (through the Code Enforcement process) since the Tenant Protection Act has not been adopted into the municipal code. 10 California Civil Code 1950.6 Item 5a landlord is a natural person or LLC where all members are natural persons, and the landlord owns no more than two residential rental properties that collectively include no more than four dwelling units offered for rent.11 Mobile Home Specific Renter Protections Mobile homes are an important segment of the housing continuum in the City of San Luis Obispo and often provide some of the most affordable housing units in the community (that are not deed restricted). Mobile or manufactured homes have significantly lower median costs in the City ($217,800 compared to single family $896,500 )12, however, as a group, residents of manufactured housing experience higher house burdens 13 than residents of other housing types, and many park residents are vulnerable to displacement by being dependent on park land owners, as private equity firms invest in more parks, and due to high moving costs or inability to relocate a manufactured home. The City has two ordinances specific to renter protections within mobile home parks. The provisions of these ordinances are discussed in more detail below. The City’s Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance Tenants of mobile home parks in the City are entitled to certain protections upon the park owner’s intention to close the park or convert it to another use. SLOMC Chapter 5.45 Prior to conversion, a park owner must hire a City-approved relocation specialist to assist in notifying residents of the planned closure/conversion (including a timeline of closure), developing a “conversion impact report” (with resident input), and assisting affected residents in identifying, securing, and moving into alternate housing. The conversion impact report is provided to each park resident and reviewed at a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will approve, conditionally approve, or reject the conversion impact report and determine the adequacy of the proposed relocation assistance to mitigate the costs of: relocating the mobile home to a comparable park; forfeiting the mobile home (including outstanding mortgage obligations); purchasing an equivalent mobile home and assuming tenancy in a comparable park; or purchasing or assuming tenancy in comparable nonmobile home housing. The Planning Commission may also impose additional conditions to mitigate adverse impacts of the park conversion. (SLOMC 5.45.080.) Residents will not be required to vacate the park unless and until the owner has complied with all conditions and mitigation measures of the approved conversion impact report. (SLOMC 5.45.110.) Additionally, 11 California Civil Code 1950.5 12 Data.census.gov.profile/san_luis_obispo 13 Housing burdened low income households are households that are both low income and highly burdened by housings costs. Households with lower incomes may spend a larger proportion of their income on housing and may suffer from housing-induced poverty (https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/housing-burden). Item 5a park residents are entitled to a right of first refusal to purchase, lease, or rent housi ng constructed on the site of the converted park. (SLOMC 5.45.150SLOMC 5.45.150.) The City’s Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance Mobile home park tenants in the City of San Luis Obispo are entitled to rent stabilization protection under Municipal Code Chapter 5.44 (the “Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization ordinance” or “MHPRSO”14.) Under this ordinance, a mobile home park owner cannot increase, over the period of one year, the base monthly space rent of by more than the percentage change in CPI, as calculated by the formula in SLOMC 5.44.060(B)(1), or nine percent (whichever is less). However, there are many exemptions to this limitation (see below for further discussion). Additionally, when ownership of the mobile home changes, the space rent cannot increase by more than ten percent of the prior space rent (“vacancy control”). (SLO MC 5.44.010(F).) The MHPRSO also allows park owners and residents to file with the City an application for a rent adjustment other than the automatic increases allowed under the MHPRSO. If the other party (the park owner or the resident) objects to the app lication, the adjustment is decided by a hearing officer if the park owner and tenant fail to reach an agreement. (SLOMC 5.44.070-5.44.110.) The City Attorney’s office may prosecute violations of the MHPRSO. As noted above, there are several exemptions to the space rent increase limitations of the MHPRSO (see SLOMC 5.44.030). One significant exemption is for tenancies longer than one year in duration. This exemption was, prior to January 1, 2025, required by state law for any local mobile home park rent stabilization ordinance (see former Civil Code section 798.17). AB 2782 (2019-2020) repealed this provision, meaning that local jurisdictions are no longer required to exempt long-term tenancies from their mobile home rent stabilization ordinances. The change in state law does not automatically repeal the exemption in the City’s ordinance, however. As a result, the ordinance would require an amendment in order to remove this exemption and bring long-term leases within the protection of the MHPRSO, if Council chooses to direct staff to prepare such an amendment. Key Finding #4: Changes in State Law necessitate an update to make minor clarifications in the MHPRSO to ensure continued protection of renters in mobile homes in the City Strategic Next Step #1: Direct staff to return to the City Council with an Ordinance to remove the long-term lease exemption as part of a broader clean-up of the MHPRSO 14 Originally adopted in 1982 (Ordinance 923 (1982 Series) and subject to Ballot Measures for the June 7, 1988 Election, Resolution 6392 (1988 Series)-Special Election for mobile home rent regulations Item 5a Habitability Requirements for Rental Units Within all residential leases is an implied right of habitability15. Per state law, landlords must ensure the rental unit maintains the following standard characteristics to be considered habitable: effective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and walls, functioning plumbing and gas facilities, hot and cold running water, electrical lighting, common areas kept sanitary and free of garbage and vermin, and floors and stairways in good repair. State law also provides a variety of conditions in Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 that constitute substandard housing. These include: lack of adequate electrical or plumbing infrastructure lack of adequate heating systems spaces that do not meet building code standards pest infestations visible mold growth as determined by a public health or code enforcement officer. Tenants may bring affirmative lawsuits against a landlord for failure to maintain the unit in a habitable condition16. Additionally, if a tenant withheld rent because the unit lacks habitability, the tenant may have a defense to an eviction brought for non -payment of that rent.17 Tenants can submit substandard housing complaints to the City. Per state law18, upon any complaint of substandard housing, the City is required to inspect the building or unit. If the complaint is found to be valid, Code Enforcement shall provide a Notice of Violation or Notice to Correct to the property owner. Performance of an inspection or issuance of any notices/reports shall not be subject to any unreasonable conditions, including any requirements that the tenant/occupant make a demand for correction upon the property owner, be current on rent, be in compliance with their rental agreement, or not be involved in a legal dispute with the owner of the property. Additionally, per state law18, effective January 1, 2025, should a code enforcement officer determine that the defects or violations have the potential to affect other units of the building, the officer must make efforts to reasonably attempt to inspect additional units at the property, including at least units adjacent to, above, and below the unit in which the defect or violation was found, issue a notice to correct to the property owner, and schedule a reinspection to verify correction of violations. Substandard housing complaints are a high priority in the City and all complaints are investigated in a timely manner. 15 Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616; Civ. Code §1941. 16 Civ. Code §1941.1. 17 See Civ. Code §1941.1; §1942 18 Health & Safety Code §17970.7. Item 5a Fire and life safety inspections are conducted annually by the City’s Fire Department at apartment buildings with three or more dwelling units, senior living facilities, fraternities/sororities and other congregate residences in addition to some commercial uses such as motels and daycares.19 These inspections are focused on the California Fire Code requirements and provisions involving fire extinguishers, detection and suppression systems, kitchen hood systems, hydrants and access, exits, electrical safety, and storage and housekeeping. If compliance has not been met , notices are issued and an administrative citation/penalty fee may be assessed. Unless the violation poses an immediate fire, life, or safety violation, reasonable time is granted to make the corrections. The City does not perform other proactive inspections of multifamily or rental properties and with the exception of annual inspection of fraternities/sororities, Code Enforcement staff does not accompany Fire Inspectors during multifamily building inspections. Fire Inspectors generally do not enter dwelling units during these inspections, however, if Fire Staff identify potential building or health & safety violations, they will forward these to Code Enforcement for further investigation. Council conducted a Code Enforcement Update Study Session in October 2023 outlining the history, procedures, and roles and responsibilities of the Code Enforcement Division with a component focusing on Safe Housing issues. In 2024 and 2025, Code Enforcement staff received a combined total of 180 substandard housing complaints. Of these complaints, 77 were verified by staff, meaning that violations were observed during these inspections. The verified complaints included the following issues: Verified Complaint Reason Percentage of Complaints Mentioned* Mold/Moisture/Leak 34% Pest Infestation 27% Structural/Safety Hazard 22% Illegal/Unpermitted Units or Conversions 14% Lack of Utilities 13% Habitability/Substandard Conditions 31% Accessibility /Disability Issues 5% Trash/Unsanitary Exterior 6% *Percentages sum to > 100 % because many complaints fall under multiple categories (e.g., “mold and termites” counts toward both). Resolution of identified violations vary depending on the circumstances of the case. In all cases, a Notice of Violation is issued to the property owner requiring that all violations are corrected. The timeline in which violations are corrected varies greatly as well. Officers generally rely on continued contact with the property owner to determine the best course of enforcement action. When warranted, the assigned officer may issue administrative citations, record notices of non-compliance on title and even post structures as unsafe to occupy for certain circumstances. The goal of code enforcement is to gain compliance, 19 These inspections are required by Health & Safety Code Section 13146.2. Item 5a and staff will generally work collaboratively with property owners in order to work toward this goal. Enforcement of Renter Protections Under the provisions of the existing state Tenant Protection Act, the just cause and rent stabilization provisions can be enforced defensively through the unlawful detainer (eviction) court process; that is, tenants and their attorneys can in some cases raise, as a defense to an eviction lawsuit, a violation of the Tenant Protection Act by their landlord. Additionally, the Attorney General and county counsel or city attorney may seek injunctive relief if landlords are violating the law (see Civil Code §1946.2 and Civil Code § 1947.12; Judicial Council Form UD-105.) Currently in the City, renters utilize the civil court system to address issues such as evictions. If the City adopts a just cause and/or local rent stabilization ordinance, violation of the local ordinance could be raised by tenants and their attorneys as a defense to the eviction. However, proactive enforcement (e.g., addressing unlawful rent increases before an eviction is filed) would then be the responsibility of City code enforcement and the City Attorney’s Office. This would require additional code enforcement and legal staff, including likely hiring an additional attorney or contracting with a legal services nonprofit to provide legal representation to tenants within the City. As with the City’s Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance, the City would be considered the interpreting and enforcing agency of a local just cause or rent stabilization ordinance. Significant additional legal support would be needed to advise staff on, for example, whether a landlord has met the requirements for a fair return rent increase (discussed further below) and whether an eviction meets the requirements of just cause. A rent stabilization ordinance would also likely require a “fair return” process for landlords to request a rent increase in excess of the maximum set by the ordinance, which would require additional code enforcement and legal staff and , potentially, a rent stabilization board. It is possible that it would also require additional support staff (for example, customer service representatives to answer questions from the community, and/or administrative staff) depending on the complexity of the changes and the needs of the community. Potential resource impacts of a local tenant protection ordinance are discussed further below. Key Finding #5: Establishment of local renter protections beyond the TPA would be enforced by the City and require careful consideration of necessary resources to support enforcement and education surrounding local changes. DISCUSSION Potential Programs, Policies, and Resources for Further Renter Protections While the state provides protections for renters through the Tenant Protection Act, jurisdictions can adopt additional protections at the local level, however, there are Item 5a limitations to what can be adopted. In addition to local policy changes, a jurisdiction can also create programs, utilize proactive education, and fund various resources to address rental housing safety and stability. A series of local tools to promote safe and stable rental housing are described below. Each offers a unique set of opportun ities and challenges. In addition to a rental registry that has been identified in the City Council’s Major City Goal work program to study, and sample expansions of state law tenant protections, other programs are included below in response to stakeholder outreach. A summary of example programs/policies/education tools is included in Attachment A. Also included below and in Attachment A is a high-level assessment of the resource need for each program/policy based upon staff outreach with other cities or review of various programs. Oftentimes, the resources (staff or funding) needed will vary depending on the details and scope of the policy or program implemented, so further study and analysis would be required should the City Council wish to move forward with pursuing any of the tools outlined below. The high-level resource need assessment is divided into three levels: a “high” resource need may require over three (>3) full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff members, or minimum of $300k/yr; a “medium” resource need may require two to three (2-3) FTE’s, or minimum of $150k-$300k/yr; a “low” resource need may require zero to two (0-2) FTE’s, or minimum of $50k- $150k/yr. In some cases, the policy or program can be implemented with existing funds and Community Development Department staffing levels. In other cases, additional staff would be required, and in others, a combination of staff time and additional funding would be necessary. Most policies and programs would also require additional City Attorney resources to develop and implement. Wherever possible, staff has provided a high -level explanation of the potential resource needs for the tools analyzed in this report. Potential Program: Rental Registry While staff and Council frequently receive community feedback and concerns regarding pricing, safe housing, evictions, and other issues specific to rental housing, the City has very few reliable data sources to assist in evaluating potential tools to address these concerns. A rental registry is a database of all rental housing units in the City, with associated information collected from each unit owner and is intended, in part, to provide a jurisdiction with data about rental units. Registries generally require annual registration by property owners to provide up-to-date information to the City. Several cities have implemented rental registries to collect critical information and data regarding rental properties in their jurisdiction. A matrix of different cities and information regarding their rental registries can be found in Attachment B. This matrix will be expanded for the Rental Registry specific study session that will occur in the winter. Typically, software-based solutions are used to create rental registries for cities. Many cities with rental registries charge a per unit fee to landlords to cover costs associated Item 5a with administering the registry. The data collected through a rental regist ry could inform decisions regarding future education, program, and policy initiatives designed to strengthen renter protections. The information collected in a rental registry could include any of the following: Owner information Tenant information including frequency of tenant turnover Property characteristics – age, number of units, square footage Rent amount Lease language Property rules and policies (ex: pets, smoking) Fees not included in rent such as utilities, parking, pet, application City code enforcement data City permitting data It is important to note that, if Council were to direct establishment of a rental registry, staff would not recommend that all information collected be made public. Publicly disclosing all collected information might lead to unnecessary intrusion upon the privacy of tenants and property owners and other unintended consequences, such as rent increases or reductions in housing services. Legal protections could be instituted to ensure that certain collected data remains confidential. In discussion with other cities that have implemented a rental registry, staff received several process recommendations to ensure success of this tool should Council decide to move forward. These included the following: Robust levels of community engagement – providing multiple opportunities for the community to provide feedback and understand the potential impacts and requirements of a rental registry. Staff capacity building and training well ahead of registry implementation. The additional staffing resources required to implement the registry are a significant cost. A long roll-out process of the rental registry of a year or more to give the community ample time to voluntarily provide information. Community workshops and “office hours” with staff to assist property owners with signing up for the registry. Keeping the rental registry roll-out sequenced separately from implementation of other rental protection strategies in order to simplify compliance for the community and to preserve staffing resources. Through outreach to stakeholders and community groups on the topic of rental registries, the following concerns were identified: Privacy of information collected, especially if there is a public-facing component of the registry. Accuracy of information collected from property owners. Item 5a Delays in collecting information due to communication barriers between property owners, managers, and tenants. Potential for rental registry fees to be passed on to tenants, thereby increasing housing costs. Noncompliance from property owners leading to an ineffective registration rate of the rental registry. Resource Need: Medium (2-3 FTE, $150k-300k+ per year) This estimate is based upon staff costs from similar sized jurisdictions and estimates of approximately $18,000 to $60,000 annually for rental registry software service as well as the cost associated with staff needed to support the registration program. However, this cost will vary greatly in terms of the type and scope of registry and would increase with significant legal resource needs. Staff would be necessary (likely with more staff in the initial years) to develop the registration framework, establish the code requirements for registration, conduct outreach to the community about the registration requirements and program. In addition, ongoing staff support would be necessary to implement the registration process annually, answer questions about the process, and carry out any enforcement required for non-compliance. From staff research and discussion with staff from other jurisdictions, increased costs were incurred as a direct result of 1) not providing enough education and outreach; and 2) implementing a rental registry at the same time as other rental protections such as rental caps, eviction protections, and inspection programs. The City’s business license requirement for all rental properties is an existing City resource that could be leveraged to provide additional information regarding rental properties. Currently, the business license database managed by the City’s Finance Department identifies property owners, but does not currently require a landlord to list all rental addresses under each license. Requiring a list of all addresses could provide the City with additional limited information about what units in the City are rental units and ownership information. A rental registry, as described above, would be able to use this existing business license information as well as multiple other data sources to create a comprehensive database of accurate information regarding rental properties. A Rental Registry Study Session is tentatively scheduled for winter of 2026 to conduct and present further research regarding this tool, including comparison to existing reliance on, or improvement upon, existing business license requirements, to Council. Staff anticipate providing a more detailed analysis of various registry options as well as more information about the resources needed to establish a registry at this st udy session. Key Finding #6: Rental registries can provide helpful data for evaluating whether and what additional renter protections would be impactful. Strategic Next Step #2: Hold a study session specific to rental registries to gain public feedback regarding potential program design that would be successful for the unique rental housing characteristics of SLO. Item 5a Potential Policy: Adoption of Local “Just Cause” Eviction Protections Several cities have implemented local “just cause” eviction ordinances, such as Oxnard, Ojai, Pomona, and others. Adoption of local “just cause” eviction ordinances is intended to supplement the protections of the Tenant Protection Act, with a goal of providing clear and/or more robust criteria for evictions. In addition, a local ordinance would make the regulations locally enforceable under the jurisdiction’s municipal code. There are several variations and ranges for “just cause” ordinances. Some of the more practicable options for the City to develop a local ordinance that could go above and beyond the provisions of the Act may include any of the following elements: Ensuring permanent eviction protections (State Tenant Protection Act sunsets in 2030). o The City has received comments from interested parties that would like the City to adopt the current State Tenant Protections locally to ensure they are still in place after 2030 when they are set to sunset at the State level. This could ensure that the protections will remain in place after 2030, although the state could extend the term of the Tenant Protection Act through new legislation, which has been the practice of the state in recent years with sunsetting housing legislation. o As stated above, when local jurisdictions adopt eviction protections into their local code, it is then the responsibility of the local jurisdiction to enforce the regulations. Just cause protections are generally “enforced” in court through the eviction process (meaning, tenants can raise their landlords’ failure to comply with the requirements as a defense to the eviction). If the City adopts a just cause ordinance, it could also make violations of the ordinance enforceable under the City’s administrative citation procedures (including administrative fines against landlords who attempt to evict their tenants in violation of the ordinance.) Extending eviction protections to tenancies shorter than 12 months. o In order to provide protection to shorter tenancies, the City could consider a future ordinance imposing existing protections prior to the 12 months that is currently allowed under the TPA. o Under state law, the City may establish a local ordinance that requires landlords to prove “just cause” for eviction sooner than 12 months into the tenancy. Cities such as Los Angeles and Oceanside apply eviction protections at the expiration point of the original lease or after six months of continuous occupancy, whichever comes first.20 Extending just cause eviction protections to all housing types in the City, not just covered units (covered units are limited to multifamily housing units that are greater than 15 years old and single-family units owned by a corporation). 20 https://housing.lacity.gov/residents/just-cause-for-eviction-ordinance-jco and https://oceanside.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=14738317&GUID=BA2253C9-B140-41C5-B506- 5ED980F67EAD Item 5a o The City has received comments from interested parties about potentially expanding eviction protections to other types of housing in the City, beyond what is currently covered by the TPA. According to the data that is currently available to the City, approximately 64% of housing units in the City are exempt from the provisions of the Tenant Protection Act, including single - family rental units owned by individuals, LLCs, and partnerships, and all units less than 15 years old. o The City could explore extending just cause eviction protections to single- family rental units owned by individuals, LLCs, and partnerships, as well as units less than 15 years old. The expansion of just cause to additional housing types is a less common local regulation across the state and would require further evaluation and outreach. However, some cities such as Oakland and Oxnard have expanded just cause protections to single-family homes but exempt new housing (certificate of occupancy issued within last 10 years) and/or owner-occupied housing from the protections. Establishing additional protections related to “just cause” evictions. o Currently, the state law provides various grounds fo r establishing “just cause” evictions, including “at-fault” and “no-fault” reasons identified below. Under current state law, evictions that do not fall under the permissible “just cause” definitions (including the “at-fault” and “no-fault” definitions below) are prohibited. For covered tenancies, a landlord can only evict a tenant for a “just cause” reason such as: At Fault No Fault Nonpayment of rent Owner/family “intent to occupy” Breach of material lease terms Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market Maintaining a nuisance Intent to demolish or substantially remodel the property Criminal activity on premises Assigning or subletting against lease terms o In addition, there are other protections in state law related to evictions. For example, the state requires written notice to terminate tenancy. If an owner issues a notice to terminate a tenancy for no -fault just cause, the tenant is entitled to receive relocation assistance or a rent waiver equivalent to one month’s rent. Relocation assistance is required to be provided within 15 days of service of the notice. In the event of a substantial remodel, if the remodel is not commenced or completed, the landlord must offer the tenant the opportunity to re-rent the unit at the same rental rate as when it was vacated. The landlord must provide a copy of the permit required to undertake the remodel. (See Civil Code §1946.2(b)(2)(D) for full requirements of a substantial remodel eviction [sometimes referred to as a “renoviction.”]) Item 5a o Comments have been received regarding the City’s ability to provide additional clarity related to “just cause” evictions and provide additional protections related to evictions. The City could require: extended notices of termination beyond what is currently required in state law or proof to City of permit and scope of work for a “renoviction”21; greater relocation assistance when relocation is required: expanded protections for tenants who are evicted because a unit is renovated, such as requiring the renovation to begin with a certain time period post-eviction,22 right of first refusal to rent the unit after renovation or comparable unit, and only allowing this basis for eviction if cost of remodel work is a certain percentage of the monthly rent and if the unit will be uninhabitable for a certain period of time.23 certain showings by the landlord and expanded protections for tenants who are evicted because the landlord is withdrawing the unit from the rental market, including extended notices of termination, greater relocation assistance, and right of first refusal if the unit is put back onto the rental market compliance with the state Ellis Act for multi-family housing (four or more units) withdrawn from the rental market. The Ellis Act is a state law that recognizes a property owner’s right to go out of the rental business and allows cities with just cause ordinances to add certain requirements to these types of evictions, such as extended notices of termination, relocation assistance, and right of first refusal (with 5- year rent stabilization) if the units are put back on the rental market. (See Govt. Code 7060 et seq.). Currently, landlords in the City do not have to comply with these additional requirements because the Ellis Act protections only apply if the local jurisdiction has enacted a local ordinance implementing the Ellis Act. The City of Goleta Tenant Protection Ordinance was recently amended and provides an example of these additional “just cause” protections. Resource Need: High (3+ FTE, $300k+ per year) The resources needed for expansion of eviction protections under the Tenant Protection Act are likely high. If the City adopts any of the above eviction protections through a local ordinance, significant additional legal support through the City Attorney’s office would be needed to advise staff in determining a landlord’s compliance with the just cause provisions, as well as in supporting administrative enforcement and prosecution of violations. 21 Civ. Code 1946.2 provides that, effective April 1, 2024, the eviction notice must include a description of the work to be done, copies of required permits, and a notice that if the substantial remodel is not commenced or completed, the tenant must be given the opportunity to re-rent the unit at the same rent and lease terms as when the tenant left. 22 Under Govt. Code 66300.6, existing occupants of a rental property set to be demolished must be allowed to occupy the unit until six months prior to start of construction. 23 Pomona only allows evictions for renovation if the cost of remodel work is at least 8x monthly rent, multiplied by the number of units, and unit(s) will be uninhabitable for at least 30 days. Item 5a The policy changes outlined above would impact renters, landlords, and property management companies, so, if the City determines that changes in policy are appropriate, it is important that diverse stakeholders are involved in the policy formulation process . For any policy change, proactive education and outreach is important in the first several years of implementation to ensure that all stakeholders understand the changes. After new policies are established, staffing resources would be needed to field questions about local policies, provide legal support to staff, and enforce the local policies. Potential Policy: Adoption of Local Rent Stabilization Ordinance In addition to the potential expansion of eviction protections described above, the City could also consider expanding rent stabilization beyond the TPA. The intent of this policy solution would be to further stabilize rent prices for renters in the community. The following section describes ways in which the local ordinance could or could not build upon the TPA: Establish a lower maximum rent increase for properties that are already covered by the TPA. o This would mean that instead of an annual increase of 10% or 5% plus the cost of living increase for the year, whichever was lower. The City could define a lower percentage amount for an allowed annual rent increase. o For covered units, the City does have the ability under state law to set the maximum annual rent increase below what is allowed under the TPA. Expand rent stabilization to units not currently covered by the TPA. o As noted above, the TPA currently imposes rent stabilization protections on covered units, which are multifamily units 15 years and older, and single family units owned by a corporation 15 years and older. This accounts for about 36% of the City’s housing stock, or approximately 8,678 units. o Under state law known as the Costa-Hawkins Act24, the City cannot expand rent stabilization protections to any units built after 1995, or any single- family units regardless of date of construction. Therefore, the City does not have the ability to expand rent stabilization to housing types beyond those already subject to the protections of the TPA. Resource Need: High (3+ FTE, $300k+ per year) As with the expansion of eviction protections noted above, the potential policy changes contemplated in this section would also impact renters, landlords, and property managers, so extensive outreach would be necessary during the policy formulation process. There are a number of factors to consider when establishing a local rent stabilization ordinance , and potential unintended outcomes and other factors must be considered. For example, a rent stabilization ordinance should consider a process for landlords to request a rent 24 The Costa Hawkins Act prohibits California cities from applyi ng rent control provisions to single-family homes or housing units constructed after 1995. (Civil Code §1954.52.) Item 5a increase in excess of the allowable limit (e.g., a “fair return” increase) and for tenants to request lower rent than is permitted (e.g., if there has been a decrease in housing services). Many larger cities have created rent stabilization commissions to make these administrative decisions and ensure due process to property owners and tenants. These processes are costly and require significant legal support both before and after they are created. Alternatively, hearing officers could be appointed to hear rent increase or decrease requests. Either way, significant additional legal support through the City Attorney’s office would be needed to advise staff (and, possibly, a rent stabilization commission) in determining a landlord’s compliance with the rent stabilization provisions. A rent commission would require significant staff and legal support. Cities also often establish regulations about what property improvement charges may be “passed through” from landlords/property owners to tenants in rent stabilized units. These regulations seek to find a balance between encouraging capital improvements that keep buildings habitable and keeping rents stabilized (for example, when a building owner is required to seismically upgrade a building, some jurisdictions allow part of the cost to be passed on to the tenants to remove barriers for the landlord to make this critical upgrade for health and safety). As noted above, a rental registry would likely need to be established prior to consideration of adoption of a rent stabilization ordinance in order for the City to understand and certify existing rent levels of all rental housing. In addition, enforcement mechanisms must be developed to address penalties for illegal rent increases. If the City were to adopt a local rent stabilization ordinance, complaint- based enforcement would require significant additional legal support given the amount of rental units in the City’s housing stock, even though a small percentage of total rentals, likely including an additional full-time attorney within the City Attorney’s office and/or contracting with a local legal nonprofit. In addition, customer service and enforcement staff would likely be necessary to field calls from stakeholders with questions about compliance and investigate complaints and carry out enforcement when violations are found. For example, the City of Half Moon Bay, a smaller city with a smaller estimated rental stock than SLO (1,200 units vs. approximately 8,600 units in SLO) , required two FTEs to manage the rental registry and a rent stabilization ordinance apart from legal or code enforcement resources. The City of Beverly Hills, which has approximately 8,791 rental units, has approximately five FTE to manage the rental registry and rent stabilization ordinance, however, their ordinance is more expansive, as it is several decades old. Should Council direct staff to explore adoption of a rent stabilization ordinance, additional analysis of budgetary and staffing needs would need to be conducted. Key Finding #6: If the City adopts tenant protections through a local ordinance, the City would be the enforcing agency for the local ordinance instead of current reliance on civil remedies, requiring increases in staff, budgetary, and legal resources. Potential Policy: Smoke-Free Multifamily Housing Ordinance Item 5a While state law regulates smoking in a variety of building types, including workplaces, bars and restaurants, and hotels, these regulations do not extend to multifamily housing. The intent of this policy solution would be to limit smoking in multifamily buildings. Approximately 101 cities in California have enacted ordinances regulating smoking in multifamily housing. The Policy Evaluation Tracking System , which is a policy surveillance database of tobacco control policies in local jurisdictions in California, has assembled a matrix of these policies. Some cities exempt vaping from the policy, as well as providing exemptions for medical or recreational use of cannabis. Attachment C contains in-depth information regarding this issue. A local ordinance could provide regulations and protections to multifamily housing tenants from the health effects of second-hand smoke from neighboring units. As a first step, a potential rental registry could disclose whether a property allows smoking , which may provide important data for a prospective ordinance. Several factors need to be considered when evaluating the feasibility of a smoke -free multifamily housing ordinance. Enforcement would require clear criteria in order to avoid the unintended consequence of increasing evictions or furthering housing instability for individuals who violate the policy. In addition, enforcement of smoke-free ordinances can be difficult given the nature of the violation (sometimes it is not easy to identify the unit that smoke is coming from, or, it can be difficult for Code Enforcement staff to prove that a violation has occurred because they investigate after a complaint is received and must observe the offending behavior), and can take significant code enforcement resources. The City currently has ordinances restricting smoking in public which are similarly difficult to enforce. Given these challenges, and that those impacted by second hand smoke and those enforced against are typically a lower income/underrepresented household, there would be a significant outreach and education component as well as training and capacity building for City staff. Resource Need: Low (0-2 FTE, $50-150k per year) Resource needs related to a smoke-free multifamily ordinance are generally related to the ongoing enforcement of the ordinance once established, and education needed to ensure compliance with the ordinance. Enforcement would be undertaken by the Code Enforcement Division on a complaint basis (similar to other code enforcement issues). The amount of code enforcement resources necessary to support this ordinance would depend upon the prevalence of smoking in multifamily properties and the number of complaints received. Potential Program: Renter and Landlord Education Education is a valuable tool to assist both landlords and renters in understanding their existing rights and responsibilities. A trend indicated by several stakeholders was that there is often lack of clear understanding by both tenants and landlords for what is required under existing tenant protections and for safe housing conditions. Additionally, a common statement from stakeholder outreach was that tenants were afraid of landlord Item 5a retaliation. With additional promotional or required education for landlords and tenants, some of these concerns may be reduced. The City has begun more proactive education regarding safe housing in the City with the hiring of the Safe Housing Code Enforcement Technician. The Code Enforcement Division has developed outreach materials, improved websites, and provides information regarding safe housing to students at Cal Poly’s Off -Campus Housing Fair. Additionally, the City’s Safe Housing Code Technician provides safe housing information while investigating and responding to substandard housing complaints. Cal Poly currently offers an Educated Renters Certificate Program to students. The course provides basic information to tenants about their rights and responsibilities, how to be a good neighbor, as well as tips on being a competitive applicant for off -campus housing. According to Cal Poly’s Off -Campus Housing Program Coordinator, this past year about 130 students completed the course. Some landlords offer discounts on rent to students who have completed the program. The City could collaborate with Cal Poly to expand this training to all community members and expand outreach initiatives, including language options, to make both landlords and tenants aware of this resource. Additionally, the City could consider developing a landlord-focused course, either as a separate resource or incorporated as part of a future rental registry. Additionally, educational resources regarding the Mobile Home Park rent stabilization and conversion ordinances could be provided to residents of mobile home parks. Resource Need: Low (0-2 FTE, $50-150k per year) Existing Code Enforcement staff can continue to conduct proactive education as time and resources allow. A more robust outreach program, or new education program would require additional time and resources to develop and implement. Potential Program: Mediation and Legal Resources for Landlords and Tenants The intent of this program is to provide landlords and tenants access to mediation services to alleviate court costs and protracted disputes. There is currently one legal assistance nonprofit in the region, the SLO Legal Assistance Foundation (SLOLAF), which offers no- cost legal assistance to income-qualifying tenants. SLOLAF staff have identified that there is a high caseload and low staffing levels due to a lack of funding availability. Additionally, mediation programs that were previously available for landlord -tenant disputes, or court required mediation, have gone away due to a lack of funding.25 SLO Solutions, as well as Creative Mediation, were mediation programs offered by Wilshire Health and Community Services, which closed in June 2025. The City provided approximately $15,000 per year budgeted through the Police Department towards this service. The City is actively collaborating with the SLO College of Law and Monterey College of 25 SLO Superior Court requires landlord and tenants to attempt mediation of unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuits at a Mandatory Settlement Conference before the case goes to trial. Item 5a the Law Mediation Center to restart a local mediation program. According to discussions with staff at SLOLAF, as well as staff from other cities, mediation is a highly effective tool that can resolve tenant-landlord disputes without the need to enter the eviction or small claims court processes, which can incur significant legal costs. Cal Poly’s Associated Students, Inc. has previously contracted with a local attorney, to provide free legal advice by appointment to students, faculty, and staff26. The City could encourage this service by providing education and resources to share with the campus community. The City Attorney’s office may interpret and enforce the terms of the municipal code but cannot provide legal advice to the public or directly provide mediation services between landlords and tenants. Some cities choose to directly provide mediation services, or directly fund programs through their General Fund or fee revenue. For example, the City of Santa Barbara has a Rental Housing Mediation Program with three full time staff and a board of fifteen Council appointed community volunteers . The cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood directly fund mediation programs. Some cities including the City of Oakland use fees from their local rent stabilization and eviction protections programs (currently $137/unit) to pay for services like legal aid. Other cities, such as Los Angeles27 and San Francisco28, have passed ballot measures dedicating funds towards legal aid and representation for eviction cases. Resource Need: Low (0-2 FTE, $50-150k per year), but could be higher depending on City contribution to outside programs. Staff resources would be needed to help develop a new program, either related to mediation or legal resources for tenants. The resource impact to the City of providing direct funding to an outside entity to provide assistance to ho useholds in need of mediation and/or legal services would be dependent on the amount of funds the City provides to these outside entities. City costs could be partially offset by revenue generated through fees charged for rental registry, or tenant protect ion programs should the City Council choose to pursue implementation. A benefit to providing funds to an outside entity is that there is minimal ongoing impacts to City. Potential Program: Direct Rental Assistance to Households Facing Eviction The Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo (CAPSLO) and the Five Cities Homeless Coalition (5CHC) are among the local non-profit organizations that provide rental assistance for low-income community members who are at risk of eviction29. This 26 https://www.asi.calpoly.edu/asi-now/asi-blog/free-legal-advice-for-students-faculty-and-staff/ 27 Measure ULA 28 Proposition F 29 For 2025-2026, the 5CHC is has a housing stabilization grant from the County General Fund to provide services in Central and South County, with CAPSLO as a subcontracted partner. In total (for Central and South County combined) at total of $110,000 has been allocated for direct client assistanc e. No specific amount has been allocated to any one community or area within the regions, other than no funds will be Item 5a type of direct rental assistance is intended to stabilize households that may face eviction due to nonpayment of rent and is helpful for households that may be facing eviction because they cannot pay rent for a month or several months due to a change in job status, health issue, or other factors. Sometimes the assistance provided by this type of program is what keeps a household housed and prevents homelessness. Funds for these programs come from rapid rehousing and homeless prevention programs, including Housing Deposit (CenCal CalAim), California Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) funding distributed through SLO County, and the City’s Human Services Grants (HSG) when available. The City’s HSG awarded grants of $10,000 annually for Homeless Prevention/Stable Housing to the 5CHC, which includes rental assistance, over the past three years with an increase to $20,000 approved by the City Council for 2025/2026 for CAPSLO who now is the primary provider of this service for the central county. Funds overall are considered extremely limited. The City could provide additional funds for these programs to increase housing stability. Many cities use state loan programs or other grant funds to support rental assistance, such as the State’s PLHA (Permanent Local Housing Allocation) or HOME programs administered through counties, for example, the City of Gardena Rental Assistance Program, or the City of Santa Maria Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program, or housing set aside funds, for example, the City of Claremont Rental Assistance Program. Some cities funded rental assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic using federal CARES Act dollars. Staff found one example of a City that provides support through their General Fund, The City of Monterey Rental Assistance Program. The City has an Affordable Housing Fund funded through the I nclusionary Housing program, however, it does not have available funds at this time and is not currently intended for this type of use. The uses for the fund were established when the fund was created, and per SLOMC 17.138.060, requires that the fund is used exclusively to provide funding for the provision of affordable housing and for reasonable costs associated with the development of affordable housing, at the discretion of the Council. Resource Need: Low (0-2 FTE, $50-150k per year) The resource impact to the City for providing direct funding to an outside entity or increasing funds available through Human Services Grants to increase rental assistance to households in need would be dependent on the amount of funds the City provides to these outside entities. A benefit to providing funds to an outside entity is that there is minimal ongoing impacts to City in terms of ongoing staffing needs or program support needs. Potential Program: Safe Housing Checklist and/or Rights and Responsibilities Guide for Tenants and Landlords spent in North County. This contract was executed in February 2025. To date $83,000 has been spent, with only $27,000 remaining. Item 5a As described above, state law provides a specific list of characteristics that landlords are required to maintain to ensure habitability. State law also provides a list of conditions that make housing substandard. Code Enforcement staff have developed a Substandard Housing Checklist available on the City’s website enumerating these conditions. Previous efforts by the City to undertake enforcement of safe housing through the Rental Housing Inspection Program in 2015 required registration and inspections for all rental units, prioritizing those with a history of code enf orcement complaints. The program was ultimately repealed by Council in 2017 after the community voiced significant concern. A safe housing checklist could be a way for tenants to verify the condition of their properties and submit requests for potential violations to Code Enforcement for inspections on a complaint basis, rather than the establishment of a proactive/mandatory inspection program. Successful completion of the checklist by both landlord and tenant could be incorporated as a requirement of the rental registry program to promote safe housing, or could be provided as an optional checklist for landlords and tenants to use in the City. Community stakeholders informed staff that tenants fear reporting substandard housing for fear of retaliation or losing their housing. As a result, a purely complaint -based system may not be able to correct all substandard housing conditions that exist in the City. Alternatively, or in addition, the City could consider developing a tenant/landlord rights and responsibilities handbook or agreement. This could outline local and state regulations that pertain to renters and landlords and provide resources f or tenants and landlords. These resources could include legal resources, mediation resources, Code Enforcement contacts, etc. that are useful in addressing rental housing issues as they arise. An example of this type of document is the “Tenant Landlord Rights & Responsibilities Handbook” from the City of Beverly Hills. In Beverly Hills, tenants and landlords are required to sign this document upon signing a lease per the local rent stabilization ordinance. The City could require acceptance of such document as part of obtaining a City Business License. Resource Need: Low (0-2 FTE, $50-150k per year) The City’s existing Substandard Housing Checklist would only require minor modifications to be used by renters and landlords. As enforcement would occur on a complaint basis, there would be no additional staffing required to conduct enforcement. The primary resource need would be during the initial creation and implementation of the checklist, especially if its completion was a requirement of the registry. Strategic Next Step #3: Staff will proactively develop a revised safe housing checklist for both landlords and tenants to be used for information and education. Potential Program: Pilot Green and Healthy Home Program The City is participating in a National League of Cities Healthy Housing Innovation Cohort and is exploring the feasibility of a concierge service that provides residents with a single Item 5a point of contact for healthy housing services through trusted community partnerships including SLO Climate Coalition and CAPSLO, beginning with manufactured housing. The concierge service began initially through a Buildings Upgrade prize through a Department of Energy Grant of $400,000. The Buildings Up pilot saw the weatherization and energy efficient appliance upgrade of four local mobile homes, the learnings from which have unlocked another 15 projects currently underway. An ongoing concierge pilot would require additional funding to provide residents resources to address unhealthy housing conditions, energy efficiency needs, as well as eviction prevention. The City completed the cohort competition in October 2025 and were awarded $20,000 from the National League of Cities toward the pilot program. Further development of the pilot will determine program feasibility and next steps during the first few months of 2026 and reported out with the Climate Action Plan update in April 2026. Resource Need: Low (0-2 FTE, $50-150k per year) The program will depend upon viable grant funds and would be implemented by non - profit partnerships. As such, the resource needs for the City are expected to be low. However, program development and any necessary agreements with the SLO Climate Coalition and/or CAPLSO for the pilot may require continued staff resources through the Community Development Department housing team, and staff from the Office of Sustainability and IT. Strategic Next Step #4: Staff will proactively determine the feasibility and effectiveness of the Green and Healthy Home program to include resources for housing stability and eviction protection. Summary This study session report provided a number of tools that can be implemented at a local level to address rental housing concerns. As noted above, the work plan for the Community Development Department does include another study session that will be held early next year that will specifically focus on rental registries. Beyond that, there are no other study sessions or work plan efforts planned for this budget cycle specifically focused on renter protections at this time. Adding a work plan item to further develop any of the policies or programs noted above during the current Financial Plan period will require the removal of other comparably intensive work plan items, or funding for consultant assistance due to resource constraints. The City Council could direct staff to determine resource needs to further study policies and programs of interest and include work plan items in the next budget cycle workplan for the Community Development Department if moving forward with policy development is of interest during that time frame. Next Steps 1) Based upon the Major City Goal work program, a study session specific to a rental registry is tentatively scheduled for early 2026. Public engagement in advance of Item 5a the study session will help define options to explore in regards to different types of registries, and provide the community and Council with information about rental registry establishment and resources required. 2) If directed by Council, staff will undertake an ordinance update to Chapter 5.44 of the Municipal Code (the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance) to remove the exemption for long-term leases from the protections of the Ordinance, in response to a recent change in state law. 3) Staff will develop a revised safe housing checklist for both landlords and tenants to be used for information and education. 4) In the spring of 2026, code enforcement staff will be presenting a study session on code enforcement priorities and livability in neighborhoods. This study session will include discussion of safe housing enforcement and education currently conducted by code enforcement. 5) Staff will proactively pursue a program to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of the Green and Healthy Home program to include housing resource services. Previous Council or Advisory Body Action Previous City Council actions applicable to this study session work program item include: Rental Inspection Program Adoption in May 2015 Rental Inspection Program Repeal in March 2017 6th Cycle Housing Element Adoption in November 2020 Homelessness Response Strategic Plan Adoption in March 2023 Housing Needs and Opportunities Study Session in March 2023 Prohousing Designation Program Authorization in June 2023 Code Enforcement Update Study Session in October 2023 Public Memorandum on Renter Protections in July 2024 CONCURRENCE The Community Development Department and the City Attorney’s office concurs with this report. For Homelessness Response, the City’s Steering Committee for Homelessness Response have provided input into housing and homelessness prevention activities listed in this report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended actions in this report because the actions do not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. If a housing project or pro grams are developed, it will be Item 5a evaluated to determine if the project or program or any of its components requires environmental review under CEQA prior to adoption. FISCAL IMPACT Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2025-26 Funding Identified: N/A Fiscal Analysis: Funding Sources Total Budget Available Current Funding Request Remaining Balance Annual Ongoing Cost General Fund $ N/A $ $ $ State Federal Fees Other: Total $ N/A $0 $ $0 There are no fiscal impacts directly associated with this item. Actions to address issues related to the promotion of safe and stable rental housing supply in the City may have an associated fiscal impact as generally indicated in the discussion above. ALTERNATIVES Continue consideration to a future meeting. If the City Council does not have sufficient information to provide direction to staff, or if additional time is needed for discussion, the Council can continue consideration of the item to a future meeting. If the City Council decides to continue the discussion, direction should be provided to staff on any additional information needed to complete the discussion. ATTACHMENTS A – Example Local Programs/Policies/Resources to Promote Safe and Stable Rental Housing B – Rental Registry Case Study Matrix C – Smoke Free Housing Information 28 Wooten, Eric From:Claims Administrator Sent:Tuesday, November 4, 2025 9:26 AM To:Claims Administrator; dennis dewalt; Symens, Sadie Cc:Salem, Rami Subject:RE: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Withdrawal Confirmation Hello Dennis, The City has received your document titled “Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo” and a binder with additional documents, dated October 30, 2025. Can you please confirm that these documents are not a claim being submitted to recover money from the City? Thank you, Sarah Zion pronouns she/her/hers Legal Assistant II City Attorney's Office 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E szion@slocity.org T 805.783.7856 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Claims Administrator <claimsadministrator@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 2:01 PM To: dennis dewalt <ddewalt56@gmail.com>; Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Cc: Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org>; Claims Administrator <claimsadministrator@slocity.org> Subject: RE: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Withdrawal Confirmation Hello Dennis, This email serves as confirmation that the claim you presented on October 24, 2025, titled “Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo,” is now considered withdrawn. 29 Thank you, Sarah Zion pronouns she/her/hers Legal Assistant II City Attorney's Office 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E szion@slocity.org T 805.783.7856 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: dennis dewalt <ddewalt56@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 12:59 PM To: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Cc: Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: Re: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Hello, You are correct, the claim is not against the city. I will bre On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 11:44 AM Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Mr. DeWalt, The City received your document titled “Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo” dated October 24, 2025, which states a claim amount of $48,000. However, it is my understanding, based on your conversations with Rami Salem (copied here), that you are not seeking recovery of money from the City and intended to submit this as a complaint against Village Properties/ South Peak Mobile Home Park’s for an alleged violation of the City’s municipal code. Please confirm that you are not seeking $48,000 or any other amount from the City. If you intended to submit the documentation as a complaint to Code Enforcement, please note that long-term leases are exempt from the City’s Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance. 30 Thank you, Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notificationsGo Then finish it and send copies of the exhibits in the complaint. The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 32 Wooten, Eric From:City of San Luis Obispo <communications@slocity.org> Sent:Thursday, October 30, 2025 1:18 PM To:Fortner, Kellie Subject:Oct 28 Council Meeting Recap View this email in your browser To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Oct 28 Council Meeting Recap Post Date: 10/30/2025 1:06 PM The San Luis Obispo City Council met on Tuesday, October 28, 2025. Below are highlights from the meeting. Review the full meeting video recording and agenda with attachments. Presentation: Cal Poly staff presented information about student and faculty/staff housing, enrollment, and the university’s plans to transition to year-round operations. Study Session: Renter Protections for Safe and Stable Rental Housing As part of its initiatives around housing and neighborhood livability, the City Council held a special session to study rental housing and renter protections in San Luis Obispo, including existing protections. City staff shared feedback from local renters and landlords; statistics and data about housing stock, rental housing, and local demographics; and details about various renter protections, including eviction protections, rent stabilization, fee and security deposit limits, and specific protections for mobile home renters. Staff also provided information about potential policies and programs that could be implemented by the City to supplement existing protections. Following the presentation, the Council heard public comment and directed staff to return with an ordinance to remove the long-term lease exemptions from the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization ordinance; present more information about rental registries at a City Council meeting in February 2026; develop a strategic plan for the City’s Safe Housing Program; and conduct more research on unmet needs for rapid rehousing funds, smoke- To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Housing construction 33 free housing policies, and the number of units in SLO with immediate health and safety issues. Looking Ahead The next City Council will hold a special meeting on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Attendees of City Council or Advisory Body meetings are eligible for one hour of complimentary parking in designated City garages. Learn more at Parking for Public Meetings. To provide input or view upcoming agendas, visit www.slocity.org/agendas. To receive updates from the City, sign up at www.slocity.org/subscribe or follow us on social media. Media Contact: Whitney Szentesi, Public Communications Manager, 805.783.7716, wszentes@slocity.org To help protect y our privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook To help protect y our privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Instagram To help protect y our privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter To help protect y our privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.YouTube To help protect y our privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.LinkedIn To help protect y our privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Website Copyright © 2025 City of San Luis Obispo, All rights reserved. You are receiving this message because you provided your email address via a city service, event, or program. Our mailing address is: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. 34 Wooten, Eric From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Wednesday, October 29, 2025 9:17 PM To:AR Wyatt Subject:RE: 10/28/25 5A Housing & Renter protections package Thanks for the email Anne. I made my best effort at moving Smoke Free MUH ahead more quickly. Not as much success there as I would have liked…but at least we got a majority willing to look at it. I am confident we will get there. Sorry I was not able to reply to all the emails before yesterday’s meeting, but I do appreciate you writing in. Thanks for all you do! From: AR Wyatt <a.reneewyatt@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 10:43 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 10/28/25 5A Housing & Renter protections package Dear Mayor Stewart and Councilmembers: It looks to be a long night with 111+ letters in the file already, and now, this one more... Thanks, in advance, for wading into this lively, elemental swamp, housing policy. Five recommendations and other notes here: Recommendations: 1. Authorize staff to proceed with a smokefree multifamily housing ordinance--there is no reason that residents should have to suffer deleterious effects of second hand smoke in or around their homes when we know the hazard 2. Bolster good neighbor and landlord training through expanded educational training programs and mediation and legal Resources and safe housing checklist for landlords and tenants; lots of existing programs and agencies can assist with this effort to minimize staff load, maximize distribution channels and help minimize friction 3. Utilize existing business license system to begin to collect more information about rentals and landlords--do not create a cumbersome and expensive new registry system at this point; use funding for education and mediation, above, and/or for direct assistance to struggling renters, such as augmenting limited TBRA funds that provide renter assistance through existing channels now or to create new affordable rental homes 4. Update the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance--mobile home owners, in a unique position as both homeowners and also renters, cannot pick up and roll their purchased homes down the road, so this is one special case where special carved out protections in place continue to make sense. 5. Keep your eye on demographics and home type mismatch and consider further incentives for production of smaller, more efficient housing units, including ADUs, THOWs and homeshares, as you go forward--More than one in three City households are single persons (roughly 36%) while 80% of your homes are 2, 3, 4 or more bedrooms. Aligning single-person lower income households with homes-- and even serving lower income renter couples--with smaller, less expensive home options, would require doubling the availability of studio and one-bedroom homes from current supply. (Yes, the City is ahead of targets on ADU production, yet could still ramp up production of lower cost, smaller secondary units (both ADUs and THOWs) with well targeted incentives and assistance programs to homeowners with available yards yet limited means/skills to develop.) 35 General notes: 1. Kudos to your staff for a comprehensive, informative report. I learned a lot there, and appreciated the various stakeholder suggestions, statistics and notation of where useful statistics are lacking and further information is needed 2. As an affordable housing developer, a private landlord and a non-profit operator of a program that facilitates private market room shares and ADU production to provide added affordable housing, I walk a fine line on renter protections, and often find myself at odds with my colleagues. Yes, we need protections, and yes, we shoot ourselves if our renter protections are so draconian that they keep a lot of private (particularly small, low end) landlords and their often older, lower cost units out of the rental pool because they are afraid that if they take someone in that they will have to live with them for life, suffer lawsuits or pay high relocation fees. I've seen these fears first-hand as they preclude potential landlords from constructing ADUs, entering their rooms or apartments into the rental pool, and I see it reflected nationally in the census numbers, with a high percentage of " vacant other units," some millions of housing units, which are to some degree, rentals left vacant because landlords, among them myself, don't want to take on the risk factor of taking in tenants. Having empty lower cost homes does not help renters; it simply further constrains supply of lower cost rentals and makes rentals less affordable as supply further fails to meet demand. 3. While there certainly are bad actors, raising rents drastically and you name it, I'd like to echo the form letters from the Realtors Assoc and cite my experience working with hundreds of community minded landlords, who recognize great, long term tenants, and voluntarily keep rents below market. I hate the thought of more hoops for them or scaring these community minded persons out of the market and their units out of the rental pool. 4. Correspondingly, there seems to often be assumption that funky old less perfect rentals are inherently problematic. A number of renters seek out funky older rentals for a variety of reasons: charm, lower cost, chemical sensitivities (to new carpets, flooring, appliances, etc), ability to keep pets, ability to live in a desirable location, income too low to qualify for traditional management standards--or maybe their only option to being in the creek or 40Prado. If you threaten or penalize landlords and pull these units out of the supply pool, do you really help tenants--or do you just further limit low income already highly constrained set of housing options? In days gone by (urban renewal 1950s-1970s) we demonized an older housing type then prevalent in cities, single resident occupancy hotels (SROs), thinking such dens of iniquity (said the reformers) led to societal problems, and we razed them, thinking our problems would go away. Ha ha, We didn't eliminate any people of lesser means housing problems, we only exacerbated their problems and effectively dumped those people who had been housed onto the sidewalks, eliminating anything they could possibly afford to live in, welcoming in our modern day homeless problem. I don't mean to be overly trite, but a realist: you just don't get everything everybody wants for $1000/month, toward the high end of what very low income renters may be able to afford. Everybody can be unhappy, and that $1000/month imperfect dingy SRO, room, garage or whatever can still be better than no rental or another beautiful new $3000/month 2-bedroom charmer that single guy working at the gas station convenience store 50 hours per week simply cannot afford, even with 100% of his income, and the overtime. You know the math there, and you know your budget projections--your municipal budget is not likely to be flush in the coming years. Help that landlord find ways to improve that lower cost older little studio rental, not remove it from desperately needed low end housing stock with nothing affordable to replace it. Tough spot, without easy clear answers to anything, and I thank you for your work to find equitable solutions and your compassion for our community members that are struggling. We know this number is not small, and it will take all our concerted efforts, and then some, to find the suite of solutions to serve the scale of need. (Recommendations and notes expressed here are mine as an individual, not representing any organization or agency... ) Appreciatively, -a 36 Anne R. Wyatt 37 Wooten, Eric From:Zion, Sarah Sent:Wednesday, October 29, 2025 1:25 PM To:Symens, Sadie Subject:FW: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Hi Sadie, This is Kelly’s response regarding the document submitted by Dennis. I’ll process it as a new claim internally, and I’ll reply to Dennis’ confirmation that his claim is now considered withdrawn. From: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 1:15 PM To: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: RE: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" More than just the status in the log, you should probably pull their email response into the folder and even reply to their message (once we get it) confirming that their claim is now considered withdrawn. Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 1:05 PM To: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Subject: RE: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" It was not submitted to Carl Warren, I had been waiting for further direction from Sadie. I’ll go ahead and process it as a new claim but then mark it as withdrawn. Thank you! From: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 12:59 PM To: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: RE: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" If it was not submitted to the Clerk’s Office or Carl Warren, then I would just make a written record that it was been withdrawn. If it went to Carl Warren, you need to ask them. Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:50 AM 38 To: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Subject: FW: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Hi Kelly, If we receive confirmation that the person below is not submitting a claim to the City, do we still need to process/reject it? From what I know, this document was not submitted to the Clerk’s Office, so my first thought is that we would not process. From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:44 AM To: ddewalt56@gmail.com Cc: Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Hello Mr. DeWalt, The City received your document titled “Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo” dated October 24, 2025, which states a claim amount of $48,000. However, it is my understanding, based on your conversations with Rami Salem (copied here), that you are not seeking recovery of money from the City and intended to submit this as a complaint against Village Properties/ South Peak Mobile Home Park’s for an alleged violation of the City’s municipal code. Please confirm that you are not seeking $48,000 or any other amount from the City. If you intended to submit the documentation as a complaint to Code Enforcement, please note that long-term leases are exempt from the City’s Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Thank you, Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 39 Wooten, Eric From:Zion, Sarah Sent:Wednesday, October 29, 2025 1:21 PM To:Holcomb, Kelly Subject:RE: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Sounds good, thank you! From: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 1:15 PM To: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: RE: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" More than just the status in the log, you should probably pull their email response into the folder and even reply to their message (once we get it) confirming that their claim is now considered withdrawn. Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 1:05 PM To: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Subject: RE: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" It was not submitted to Carl Warren, I had been waiting for further direction from Sadie. I’ll go ahead and process it as a new claim but then mark it as withdrawn. Thank you! From: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 12:59 PM To: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: RE: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" If it was not submitted to the Clerk’s Office or Carl Warren, then I would just make a written record that it was been withdrawn. If it went to Carl Warren, you need to ask them. Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:50 AM To: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Subject: FW: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Hi Kelly, 40 If we receive confirmation that the person below is not submitting a claim to the City, do we still need to process/reject it? From what I know, this document was not submitted to the Clerk’s Office, so my first thought is that we would not process. From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:44 AM To: ddewalt56@gmail.com Cc: Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Hello Mr. DeWalt, The City received your document titled “Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo” dated October 24, 2025, which states a claim amount of $48,000. However, it is my understanding, based on your conversations with Rami Salem (copied here), that you are not seeking recovery of money from the City and intended to submit this as a complaint against Village Properties/ South Peak Mobile Home Park’s for an alleged violation of the City’s municipal code. Please confirm that you are not seeking $48,000 or any other amount from the City. If you intended to submit the documentation as a complaint to Code Enforcement, please note that long-term leases are exempt from the City’s Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Thank you, Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 41 Wooten, Eric From:Holcomb, Kelly Sent:Wednesday, October 29, 2025 1:15 PM To:Zion, Sarah Subject:RE: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed More than just the status in the log, you should probably pull their email response into the folder and even reply to their message (once we get it) confirming that their claim is now considered withdrawn. Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 1:05 PM To: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Subject: RE: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" It was not submitted to Carl Warren, I had been waiting for further direction from Sadie. I’ll go ahead and process it as a new claim but then mark it as withdrawn. Thank you! From: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 12:59 PM To: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: RE: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" If it was not submitted to the Clerk’s Office or Carl Warren, then I would just make a written record that it was been withdrawn. If it went to Carl Warren, you need to ask them. Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:50 AM To: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Subject: FW: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Hi Kelly, If we receive confirmation that the person below is not submitting a claim to the City, do we still need to process/reject it? From what I know, this document was not submitted to the Clerk’s Office, so my first thought is that we would not process. 42 From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:44 AM To: ddewalt56@gmail.com Cc: Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Hello Mr. DeWalt, The City received your document titled “Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo” dated October 24, 2025, which states a claim amount of $48,000. However, it is my understanding, based on your conversations with Rami Salem (copied here), that you are not seeking recovery of money from the City and intended to submit this as a complaint against Village Properties/ South Peak Mobile Home Park’s for an alleged violation of the City’s municipal code. Please confirm that you are not seeking $48,000 or any other amount from the City. If you intended to submit the documentation as a complaint to Code Enforcement, please note that long-term leases are exempt from the City’s Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Thank you, Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 43 Wooten, Eric From:dennis dewalt <ddewalt56@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 29, 2025 1:01 PM To:Symens, Sadie Cc:Salem, Rami; Zion, Sarah Subject:Re: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" I will talk to you after you receive the exhibits to my claim. Thanks On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 12:58 PM dennis dewalt <ddewalt56@gmail.com> wrote: Hello, You are correct, the claim is not against the city. I will bre On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 11:44 AM Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Mr. DeWalt, The City received your document titled “Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo” dated October 24, 2025, which states a claim amount of $48,000. However, it is my understanding, based on your conversations with Rami Salem (copied here), that you are not seeking recovery of money from the City and intended to submit this as a complaint against Village Properties/ South Peak Mobile Home Park’s for an alleged violation of the City’s municipal code. Please confirm that you are not seeking $48,000 or any other amount from the City. If you intended to submit the documentation as a complaint to Code Enforcement, please note that long-term leases are exempt from the City’s Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Thank you, Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notificationsGo Then finish it and send copies of the exhibits in the complaint. 44 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 45 Wooten, Eric From:dennis dewalt <ddewalt56@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 29, 2025 12:59 PM To:Symens, Sadie Cc:Salem, Rami; Zion, Sarah Subject:Re: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Hello, You are correct, the claim is not against the city. I will bre On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 11:44 AM Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> wrote: Hello Mr. DeWalt, The City received your document titled “Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo” dated October 24, 2025, which states a claim amount of $48,000. However, it is my understanding, based on your conversations with Rami Salem (copied here), that you are not seeking recovery of money from the City and intended to submit this as a complaint against Village Properties/ South Peak Mobile Home Park’s for an alleged violation of the City’s municipal code. Please confirm that you are not seeking $48,000 or any other amount from the City. If you intended to submit the documentation as a complaint to Code Enforcement, please note that long-term leases are exempt from the City’s Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Thank you, Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notificationsGo Then finish it and send copies of the exhibits in the complaint. The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege 46 and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 47 Wooten, Eric From:Holcomb, Kelly Sent:Wednesday, October 29, 2025 12:59 PM To:Zion, Sarah Subject:RE: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed If it was not submitted to the Clerk’s Office or Carl Warren, then I would just make a written record that it was been withdrawn. If it went to Carl Warren, you need to ask them. Kelly Holcomb Senior Legal Analyst E kholcomb@slocity.org T 805.781.7060 From: Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:50 AM To: Holcomb, Kelly <kholcomb@slocity.org> Subject: FW: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Hi Kelly, If we receive confirmation that the person below is not submitting a claim to the City, do we still need to process/reject it? From what I know, this document was not submitted to the Clerk’s Office, so my first thought is that we would not process. From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:44 AM To: ddewalt56@gmail.com Cc: Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Hello Mr. DeWalt, The City received your document titled “Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo” dated October 24, 2025, which states a claim amount of $48,000. However, it is my understanding, based on your conversations with Rami Salem (copied here), that you are not seeking recovery of money from the City and intended to submit this as a complaint against Village Properties/ South Peak Mobile Home Park’s for an alleged violation of the City’s municipal code. Please confirm that you are not seeking $48,000 or any other amount from the City. If you intended to submit the documentation as a complaint to Code Enforcement, please note that long-term leases are exempt from the City’s Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Thank you, Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney 48 City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 49 Wooten, Eric From:Purrington, Teresa Sent:Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:54 AM To:Purrington, Teresa Subject:Rental Protections Study Session PowerPoint Attachments:Item 5a. Renter Protections Study Session - Safe and Stable Rental Housing.pptx Council, Attached is the PowerPoint for the Rental Protections Study Session. Teresa Teresa Purrington pronouns she/her/hers City Clerk City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E TPurring@slocity.org T 805.781.7102 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 1 Renter Protections: Safe and Stable Rental Housing City Council Study Session October 28, 2025 2 Recommendation Receive a presentation and conduct a study session on rental housing and renter protections, including existing protections as well as options to establish programs and policies that promote safe and stable rental housing. 3 Purpose of Study Session •Provide City Council and the community with an understanding of the following topic areas and strategies: •Key issues identified by community stakeholders regarding renter protections •Statistics relating to the City’s housing stock and renter households in the City •A comprehensive overview of existing renter protections under state law •An overview of the City’s Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance •An overview of existing habitability standards and City’s enforcement •An evaluation of potential policies, programs, and resources to strengthen City renter protections 4 Policy Context •2025-2027 Major City Goals – Housing and Neighborhood Livability •Strategy 3: “Ensure housing is safe, healthy, and affordable, while facilitating stronger protections for renters” •Goal 3b: “Conduct a study session with the City Council to identify needs and opportunities regarding renter protections, based on the Public Memorandum on Renter Protections published in 2024, and receive direction on items for further consideration and development.” •6th Cycle Housing Element includes policies and programs relating to renter protections and vision for more safe and stable rental housing market. 5 Public Engagement •Staff conducted target outreach to the following stakeholders: •SLO Tenants Union •SLO Coastal Association of Realtors •SLO Chamber of Commerce •Cal Poly Off-Campus Housing Program •Cuesta College Basic Needs Center •Quaglino Enterprises •Private landlords of student/family housing •County of San Luis Obispo Health Agency – Tobacco Control Program •SLO Legal Assistance Foundation •Jurisdictions that have implemented rental protection initiatives 6 Public Engagement Themes •Renters are struggling to pay rent •Renters are reluctant to make safe housing complaints •There are a few “bad actor” landlords and tenants •Rental registry could provide data and transparency, but also brings up concerns about privacy as well as future renter protections that could result 7 Housing Landscape 8 Housing and Population Statistics Sources •Housing Element •U.S. Census •Tolemi BuildingBlocks software through National League of Cities’ Healthy Housing Innovation Cohort •City has limited primary sources of information regarding rental units in the City. 9 Population Statistics •SLO population: 48,039 •Average household size: 2.34 individuals (state average: 2.86) •Median income: $66,711 (state median income: $95,521) •30%of residents in SLO are experiencing poverty (12% statewide) 10 11 Housing Stock Statistics •23,984 total housing units in the City •5.3%of the City’s housing stock is in mobile home units. •53.5%of the City’s housing stock is in single-family structures (attached/detached) •41.1%of the City’s housing stock is in structures that have 2 or more units. •7.3% of units are studios •13.4%are one-bedrooms •62.2% are 2 or 3 bedrooms •17.1% are 4+ bedrooms 12 Housing Stock Statistics •69%of single-family housing units in the city are owned by individuals and not businesses. •Of the business-owned housing units, the majority are owned by LLCs and partnerships. •Only 2% of all single-family housing units were owned by a corporation. •This means that of the 12,831 single family units in the City, 12,574 or 98% of single-family units are likely exempt from the Tenant Protection Act. •3,851 units of housing have been constructed in the last 15 years. •1,569 of those units were in multifamily structures. •64% of all housing units in the City are likely exempt from the Tenant Protection Act. 13 Rental Housing Statistics •62%of SLO households are renters. •City average rent: $2,625 per month •6% lower than state average •55%of renter households in the City are cost-burdened. •This means they pay more than 30% of their income towards rent. •30% of City renter households are severely cost-burdened. •This means they pay more than 50% of their income towards rent. 14 Existing Renter Protections 15 Tenant Protection Act •Adopted in 2019 and went into effect in 2020 •Two main components: rent stabilization and requiring “just cause” for evictions •The law applies to all housing in California with several exemptions, including: •Owner-occupied single-family residences, mobile homes, duplexes •New residences (built within the last 15 years) •Standalone units (single family-units and condos) owned by real persons, partnerships, or limited liability companies with no corporate members. •Less than 36%of the total housing units in the City are subject to these protections. 16 Eviction Protections under Tenant Protection Act •Tenants in covered units who have lived in a unit for 12 months or more cannot be evicted without “just cause“ stated in a written notice to vacate. •Two types of “just cause”: At-fault and No-fault •Tenants evicted for “no-fault” reasons are entitled to relocation assistance of 1 month’s rent. No Fault Eviction Reasons At Fault Eviction Reasons Owner/family “intent to occupy” Nonpayment of rent Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market Breach of material lease terms Intent to demolish or substantially remodel the property Maintaining a nuisance Criminal activity on premises Assigning or subletting against lease terms 17 Rent Stabilization under the Tenant Protection Act •For covered units, a landlord cannot increase the rent more than the lesser of the following over any 12-month period: •10% •5% plus change in cost of living (determined by CPI) •After 12 months of tenancy, rent cannot be increased more than twice per year •When a covered unit becomes vacant, landlord can set rent for new tenant at market rate or any other amount. •Violations are punishable by civil action. 18 Fees and Security Deposit Limits •Application screening fees: no more than $64.50 per applicant. •Maximum security deposits: •One month’s rent •Two month’s rent if landlord is an individual, and owns no more than 2 residential properties with less than 4 total units. 19 Mobile Home Specific Renter Protections •Mobile homes provide some of the most affordable housing units in the community. •Mobile homes have significantly lower median costs in the City •$217,800 compared to $896,500 for single-family homes •Park residents are vulnerable to displacement through rent increases, changes in park ownership, inability to relocate their homes •City has two ordinances specific to renter protections for mobile home residents. 20 Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance •Mobile home park tenants are entitled to certain protections upon park owner’s intention to close the park or convert it to another use. •Owner must hire City-approved relocation specialist responsible for the following: •Notify residents of planned closure •Develop conversion impact report with resident input •Assist affected residents in finding alternative housing •Planning Commission may impose additional conditions to mitigate impacts of park conversion. •Park residents are entitled to right of first refusal to purchase, lease, or rent new housing constructed on converted park site. 21 Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance •Mobile home park tenants in the City are entitled to rent stabilization. •Under this ordinance, a mobile home park owner cannot increase, over the period of 1 year, the base monthly space rent by more than the percentage change in CPI, or 9 percent – whichever is lower. •There are exemptions for tenancies longer than one year in duration. •State law required this exemption, however, now that provision has been repealed. •The ordinance needs to be amended in order to remove this exemption and bring long-term leases within the protection of the Ordinance, if Council chooses to direct this change. 22 Habitability Requirements for Rental Units •Per state law, landlords must ensure the rental unit maintains the following standard characteristics to be considered habitable: •Effective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and walls •Functioning plumbing and gas facilities •Hot and cold running water •Electrical lighting •Common areas kept sanitary and free of garbage and vermin •Floors and stairways in good repair 23 Habitability Requirements for Rental Units •State law also provides a variety of conditions that constitute substandard housing. These include: •Lack of adequate electrical or plumbing infrastructure •Lack of adequate heating systems •Spaces that do not meet building code standards •Pest infestations •Visible mold growth as determined by a public health or code enforcement officer •Tenants have the right to bring lawsuits against a landlord for failure to maintain the unit in a habitable condition. •If a tenant withholds rent due to lack of habitability, the tenant may have a defense to an eviction brought for non-payment of rent. 24 Code Enforcement of Substandard Housing Complaints •Tenants can submit substandard housing complaints to City Code Enforcement •Complaints can be submitted online, through Ask SLO, or by email/phone •Per state law, upon any complaint of substandard housing, City is required to inspect the building or unit •If the complaint is found to be valid, Code Enforcement shall provide a Notice of Violation or Notice to Correct to the property owner •Should a code enforcement officer determine that the defects or violations have the potential to affect other units of the building, the officer must make efforts to reasonably attempt to inspect other units at the property 25 Code Enforcement of Substandard Housing Complaints •In 2024 and 2025, Code Enforcement staff received a combined total of 180 substandard housing complaints. •77 complaints were verified by staff, meaning that violations were observed during inspections. •Verified complaints included the following issues: Percentage of Complaints Mentioned Verified Complaint Reason 34%Mold/Moisture/Leak 27%Pest Infestation 22%Structural/Safety Hazard 14%Illegal/Unpermitted Units or Conversions 13%Lack of Utilities 31%Habitability/Substandard Conditions 5%Accessibility /Disability Issues 6%Trash/Unsanitary Exterior 26 Enforcement of Renter Protections •Tenant Protection Act is enforced through the civil court system. •If the City adopts a just cause and/or local rent stabilization ordinance, proactive enforcement would then be the responsibility of Code Enforcement and City Attorney’s Office. •Significant additional resources and legal support would be necessary 27 Potential Policies, Programs, and Resources for Further Renter Protections 28 Potential Program: Rental Registry •City has few data sources regarding rental housing •Rental Registry is a database of all rental housing units in the City, with associated information collected •Typically, registries require annual registration to provide current information to City •Most registries are software-based solutions •Data could inform future land use decisions, Housing Element, as well as future City policies/programs regarding rental housing 29 Potential Program: Rental Registry •Information collected in a rental registry could include any of the following: •Owner information •Tenant information including frequency of tenant turnover •Property characteristics – age, number of units, square footage •Rent amount •Lease language •Property rules and policies (ex: pets, smoking) •Fees not included in rent such as utilities, parking, pet, application •City code enforcement data •City permitting data 30 Potential Program: Rental Registry •In discussion with other cities that have implemented a rental registry, staff received the following process recommendations to ensure success of this tool. These include: •Robust levels of community engagement •Staff capacity building and training well ahead of registry implementation •A long roll-out process of the rental registry of a year or more •Community workshops and “office hours” with staff to assist property owners with signing up for the registry •Keeping the rental registry roll-out sequenced separately from implementation of other rental protection strategies 31 Potential Program: Rental Registry •Through outreach to stakeholders and community groups on the topic of rental registries, the following concerns were identified: •Privacy of information collected, especially if there is a public-facing component of the registry. •Accuracy of information collected from property owners. •Delays in collecting information due to communication barriers between property owners, managers, and tenants. •Potential for rental registry fees to be passed on to tenants, thereby increasing housing costs. •Noncompliance from property owners leading to an ineffective registration rate of the rental registry. 32 Potential Program: Rental Registry •The City currently requires a business license for all rental properties. •The business license database is managed by City’s Finance Department •There are currently 2,619 active business licenses for rental properties in the City. •Some of these licenses are for multiple properties/units. •Business license currently includes: owner name, address, property address and short description. •The business license intake process could be modified to include further data fields such as: property age, number of bedrooms per unit, rent amount, or other basic information. 33 Potential Program: Rental Registry •There are key differences between the City’s business license database and a potential rental registry. These include: •Business license information is self-reported. Rental registry would have a roll-out process with outreach and possible enforcement. •Business license database is a spreadsheet of information. Rental registry would likely use a software-based solution, with a map-based interface •Rental registry could provide important insights, such as: •Neighborhood-specific rent trends •Breakdown of landlord types (corporate vs. private, large vs. small, local vs. out-of-town) •Breakdown of students vs. families in specific neighborhoods 34 Potential Program: Rental Registry •Resource need: Medium (2-3 FTE, 150k-300k per year) •Rental Registry Study Session tentatively scheduled for February 35 Potential Policy: Adoption of Local “Just Cause” Eviction Protections •Cities such as Oxnard, Ojai, Pomona and others have implemented local “just cause” eviction ordinances. •This is intended to supplement the protections of the state Tenant Protection Act •Ordinances provide clear and more robust criteria for evictions •Local ordinances make regulations locally enforceable under city municipal code 36 Potential Policy: Adoption of Local “Just Cause” Eviction Protections •Local ordinance could include any of the following elements: •Ensuring permanent eviction protections •Extending eviction protections to tenancies shorter than 12 months •Extending “just cause” eviction protections to all housing types in the City beyond Tenant Protection Act covered units. •Establishing additional protections related to “just cause” evictions. 37 Potential Policy: Adoption of Local “Just Cause” Eviction Protections •Tenant Protection Act sunsets in 2030 •State could extend term of TPA through new legislation, similar to other housing legislation •When local jurisdictions adopt eviction protections into their municipal code, it becomes City’s responsibility to enforce regulations •Enforcement could include citations, fines •Violation of City’s ordinance could be a defense to an eviction in court 38 Potential Policy: Adoption of Local “Just Cause” Eviction Protections •City could consider imposing tenant protections prior to the 12 months currently allowed under Tenant Protection Act •City may establish local ordinance that requires landlords to prove “just cause” for eviction sooner than 12 months into the tenancy •Cities such as Los Angeles, Oceanside apply eviction protections at the expiration point of the original lease or after 6 months of continuous occupancy, whichever comes first 39 Potential Policy: Adoption of Local “Just Cause” Eviction Protections •City could consider extending just cause eviction protections to all housing types in the City, not just Tenant Protection Act (TPA) covered units •TPA covered units: multifamily housing greater than 15 years old and single- family units owned by a corporation (36% of City housing stock) •Cities such as Oxnard and Oakland have extended eviction protections to single-family homes but exempt new housing and/or owner occupied housing from the protections. 40 Potential Policy: Adoption of Local “Just Cause” Eviction Protections •Under the existing Tenant Protection Act, there are various grounds for establishing “just cause” evictions, including “at-fault and “no-fault” reasons. No Fault ReasonsAt Fault Reasons Owner/family “intent to occupy” Nonpayment of rent Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental market Breach of material lease terms Intent to demolish or substantially remodel the property Maintaining a nuisance Criminal activity on premises Assigning or subletting against lease terms 41 Potential Policy: Adoption of Local “Just Cause” Eviction Protections •The City could require additional clarity related to just cause evictions and provide additional protections. This could include requiring the following: •Extended notices of termination beyond what is required by state law •Greater amounts of relocation assistance beyond TPA-required 1 month’s rent •Compliance with Ellis Act for multi-family housing units withdrawn from the market 42 Potential Policy: Adoption of Local “Just Cause” Eviction Protections •Resource need: High (3+ FTE, $300k+ per year) •Extensive outreach and discussion needed to create and implement policy. 43 Potential Policy: Adoption of Local Rent Stabilization Ordinance •City could consider expanding rent stabilization beyond the provisions of the Tenant Protection Act to further stabilize rent prices for the community. This could include: •Establishing a lower maximum rent increase for properties covered by the Tenant Protection Act, instead of the 10% or 5% plus CPI currently allowed. •Examples: Berkeley – 2%, Concord, 5% •City cannot expand rent stabilization to housing units beyond those already subject to Tenant Protection Act due to Costa-Hawkins Act. 44 Potential Policy: Adoption of Local Rent Stabilization Ordinance •Resource need: High (3+ FTE, $300k+ per year) •Extensive outreach and discussion needed to create and implement policy. •Enforcement process needed for illegal rent increases 45 Potential Policy: Smoke-Free Multifamily Housing Ordinance •State law regulates smoking in a variety of building types, but not multifamily housing. •101 cities in California have implemented ordinances regulating smoking in multifamily housing. •Local ordinance could provide protections to multifamily housing tenants from health effects of secondhand smoke from neighboring units. 46 Potential Policy: Smoke-Free Multifamily Housing Ordinance •Rental registry could provide data about properties that are nonsmoking vs. allow smoking. •Enforcement, education, and equity are the largest challenges to implementation. •Resource need: Low (0-2 FTE, $50-150k+ per year) 47 Potential Resource: Renter & Landlord Education •Community stakeholders agreed that there is a need for increased education for both landlords and tenants. •City Code Enforcement Division provides safe housing information and materials to Cal Poly/student community •Cal Poly offers Educated Renters Certificate Program •Resource need: Low (0-2 FTE, $50-150k+ per year) 48 Potential Resource: Mediation & Legal Resources •SLOLAF offers no-cost assistance to income-qualifying tenants. •City previously financially assisted with Creative Mediation services, which closed in June. •City is actively collaborating with SLO and Monterey College of Law to re- start a local mediation program. •Cal Poly ASI offers free 15-minute legal consultations. •Some cities directly provide mediation services. •Resource need: Low (0-2 FTE, $50-150k+ per year) 49 Potential Program: Direct Rental Assistance to Households Facing Eviction •Rental assistance can help stabilize households that may face eviction due to nonpayment of rent •This assistance often keeps households from facing homelessness •Funds come from state, county, and City sources •City awarded funding through Human Services Grants to 5CHC/CAPSLO •$20k annually •Other cities leverage state loan programs/grant funds or provide assistance directly from General Fund. •Resource need: Low (0-2 FTE, $50-150k+ per year) 50 Potential Program: Safe Housing Checklist •State law provides specific list of substandard housing conditions •City has existing checklist available on City’s website listing these conditions •This checklist could be a resource for tenants to verify that their housing is safe and submit requests for potential violations to Code Enforcement •Completion of the checklist by both landlords and tenants could be a requirement of rental registry •Complaint-based system may not be able to capture or correct all substandard conditions in the City •Resource need: Low (0-2 FTE, $50-150k+ per year) 51 Potential Program: Pilot Green & Healthy Home Program •City participated in Healthy Housing Innovation Cohort through National League of Cities •Buildings Upgrade Prize through Department of Energy granted $400k for weatherization and appliance upgrades to 4 mobile homes •City was awarded $20k from national competition •Program could be further developed with additional grant funding. •Resource need: Low (0-2 FTE, $50-150k+ per year) 52 Summary and Next Steps 53 Summary •Work plan for Community Development Department includes another study session in winter to focus specifically on rental registries, as well as a study session on code enforcement priorities related to safe housing •Staff have identified next steps that will be conducted •There is no funding or staff resources identified or available to develop other policies that have been identified in the study session, particularly local rent stabilization or eviction protection ordinances. 54 Strategic Next Steps I.Direct staff to return to the City Council with an Ordinance to remove the long-term lease exemption as part of a broader clean-up of the MHPRSO II.Hold a study session specific to rental registries to gain public feedback regarding potential program design that would be successful for the unique rental housing characteristics of SLO. III.Proactively develop a revised safe housing checklist for both landlords and tenants to be used for information and education, that could apply to other potential future applications such as a rental registry or required notifications per a local ordinance IV.Proactively determine the feasibility and effectiveness of the Green and Healthy Home program to include resources for housing stability and eviction protection. 55 Recommendation Receive a presentation and conduct a study session on rental housing and renter protections, including existing protections as well as options to establish programs and policies that promote safe and stable rental housing. 56 57 Santa Barbara •Amended existing tenant protection ordinance in April 2025 •Caps rents charged to tenants who exercise their right to return following an eviction due to a substantial remodel •Requires landlords to obtain independent verification that a proposed substantial remodel requires eviction of the tenant •Requires a new owner of a rental property having 5 or more units to wait one year before initiating evictions to demolish or substantially remodel the units. •City has a Rental Housing Mediation Program - three full-time Staff and a Board of fifteen trained community volunteers appointed by the Santa Barbara City Council 58 Goleta •2025 City amended and made 2023 urgency Tenant Protections permanent •Local Just Cause with optional early tenant alert notice 60 – days prior to issuance of just-cause notice •Mandatory offer of a one-year lease •Mandatory right-of-first-refusal to re-rent vacated unit •Relocation assistance payment of $8k or 2-mos rent whichever greater for no-fault terminations •Housing program information included with notice of termination •Anti-harassment provisions and legal remedies 59 City of Concord •2024 amended tenant protection program to increase just cause protections, expand rent registry and establish a rent stabilization program. •Units subject to rent stabilization (MF units built prior 1995) allowed 5% increase effective Aug 2025 (replaced previous 3% or 60% CPI) •Just Cause •Applies landlords who rent 3+ SF homes or Condos •All rentals required to participate in rent registry 60 Key Findings 1.Public engagement prior to and during roll-out of rental registries or other tenant and landlord protection programs are critical to success. Rental registries and rental protection programs should be implemented separately. Rental registries should be considered first, as they can provide important information regarding the necessity and/or effectiveness of further rental protection programs. 2.The City can gather basic data on households and housing stock via existing data sets but has limited data on rental housing and renter demographics in the community. 3.Less than 36%of the total housing units in the City may be subject to existing tenant protections under the state Tenant Protection Act. 61 Key Findings 4.Changes in State Law necessitate an update to make minor clarifications in the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance to ensure continued protection of renters in mobile homes in the City 5.Establishment of local renter protections beyond the TPA would be enforced by the City and require careful consideration of necessary resources to support enforcement and education surrounding local changes. 6.If the City adopts tenant protections through a local ordinance, the City would be the enforcing agency for the local ordinance instead of current reliance on civil remedies, requiring increases in staff, budgetary, and legal resources. 50 Wooten, Eric From:Zion, Sarah Sent:Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:50 AM To:Holcomb, Kelly Subject:FW: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Hi Kelly, If we receive confirmation that the person below is not submitting a claim to the City, do we still need to process/reject it? From what I know, this document was not submitted to the Clerk’s Office, so my first thought is that we would not process. From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:44 AM To: ddewalt56@gmail.com Cc: Salem, Rami <RSalem@slocity.org>; Zion, Sarah <SZion@slocity.org> Subject: "Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Hello Mr. DeWalt, The City received your document titled “Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo” dated October 24, 2025, which states a claim amount of $48,000. However, it is my understanding, based on your conversations with Rami Salem (copied here), that you are not seeking recovery of money from the City and intended to submit this as a complaint against Village Properties/ South Peak Mobile Home Park’s for an alleged violation of the City’s municipal code. Please confirm that you are not seeking $48,000 or any other amount from the City. If you intended to submit the documentation as a complaint to Code Enforcement, please note that long-term leases are exempt from the City’s Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Thank you, Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone 51 else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 52 Wooten, Eric From:Symens, Sadie Sent:Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:44 AM To:ddewalt56@gmail.com Cc:Salem, Rami; Zion, Sarah Subject:"Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo" Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hello Mr. DeWalt, The City received your document titled “Claim presented to the City of San Luis Obispo” dated October 24, 2025, which states a claim amount of $48,000. However, it is my understanding, based on your conversations with Rami Salem (copied here), that you are not seeking recovery of money from the City and intended to submit this as a complaint against Village Properties/ South Peak Mobile Home Park’s for an alleged violation of the City’s municipal code. Please confirm that you are not seeking $48,000 or any other amount from the City. If you intended to submit the documentation as a complaint to Code Enforcement, please note that long-term leases are exempt from the City’s Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Thank you, Sadie Symens pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Attorney City Attorney's Office E ssymens@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. 53 Wooten, Eric From:McDonald, Whitney Sent:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 6:31 PM To:Collins, Scott Subject:Item 5a. Renter Protections Study Session - Safe and Stable Rental Housing.pptx Attachments:Item 5a. Renter Protections Study Session - Safe and Stable Rental Housing.pptx 54 Wooten, Eric From:Boswell, Mike Sent:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 3:28 PM To:AR Wyatt Subject:Re: 10/28/25 5A Housing & Renter protections package Anne: Thank you for the detailed, thoughtful comments. This was helpful in my ongoing study of the issue. Mike Mike Boswell Council Member Office of the City Council E MBoswell@slocity.org C 805.748.8178 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: AR Wyatt <a.reneewyatt@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 10:42 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 10/28/25 5A Housing & Renter protections package Dear Mayor Stewart and Councilmembers: It looks to be a long night with 111+ letters in the file already, and now, this one more... Thanks, in advance, for wading into this lively, elemental swamp, housing policy. Five recommendations and other notes here: Recommendations: 1. Authorize staff to proceed with a smokefree multifamily housing ordinance--there is no reason that residents should have to suffer deleterious effects of second hand smoke in or around their homes when we know the hazard 2. Bolster good neighbor and landlord training through expanded educational training programs and mediation and legal Resources and safe housing checklist for landlords and tenants; lots of existing programs and agencies can assist with this effort to minimize staff load, maximize distribution channels and help minimize friction 3. Utilize existing business license system to begin to collect more information about rentals and landlords--do not create a cumbersome and expensive new registry system at this point; use funding for education and mediation, above, and/or for direct assistance to struggling renters, such as augmenting limited TBRA funds that provide renter assistance through existing channels now or to create new affordable rental homes 55 4. Update the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance--mobile home owners, in a unique position as both homeowners and also renters, cannot pick up and roll their purchased homes down the road, so this is one special case where special carved out protections in place continue to make sense. 5. Keep your eye on demographics and home type mismatch and consider further incentives for production of smaller, more efficient housing units, including ADUs, THOWs and homeshares, as you go forward--More than one in three City households are single persons (roughly 36%) while 80% of your homes are 2, 3, 4 or more bedrooms. Aligning single-person lower income households with homes-- and even serving lower income renter couples--with smaller, less expensive home options, would require doubling the availability of studio and one-bedroom homes from current supply. (Yes, the City is ahead of targets on ADU production, yet could still ramp up production of lower cost, smaller secondary units (both ADUs and THOWs) with well targeted incentives and assistance programs to homeowners with available yards yet limited means/skills to develop.) General notes: 1. Kudos to your staff for a comprehensive, informative report. I learned a lot there, and appreciated the various stakeholder suggestions, statistics and notation of where useful statistics are lacking and further information is needed 2. As an affordable housing developer, a private landlord and a non-profit operator of a program that facilitates private market room shares and ADU production to provide added affordable housing, I walk a fine line on renter protections, and often find myself at odds with my colleagues. Yes, we need protections, and yes, we shoot ourselves if our renter protections are so draconian that they keep a lot of private (particularly small, low end) landlords and their often older, lower cost units out of the rental pool because they are afraid that if they take someone in that they will have to live with them for life, suffer lawsuits or pay high relocation fees. I've seen these fears first-hand as they preclude potential landlords from constructing ADUs, entering their rooms or apartments into the rental pool, and I see it reflected nationally in the census numbers, with a high percentage of " vacant other units," some millions of housing units, which are to some degree, rentals left vacant because landlords, among them myself, don't want to take on the risk factor of taking in tenants. Having empty lower cost homes does not help renters; it simply further constrains supply of lower cost rentals and makes rentals less affordable as supply further fails to meet demand. 3. While there certainly are bad actors, raising rents drastically and you name it, I'd like to echo the form letters from the Realtors Assoc and cite my experience working with hundreds of community minded landlords, who recognize great, long term tenants, and voluntarily keep rents below market. I hate the thought of more hoops for them or scaring these community minded persons out of the market and their units out of the rental pool. 4. Correspondingly, there seems to often be assumption that funky old less perfect rentals are inherently problematic. A number of renters seek out funky older rentals for a variety of reasons: charm, lower cost, chemical sensitivities (to new carpets, flooring, appliances, etc), ability to keep pets, ability to live in a desirable location, income too low to qualify for traditional management standards--or maybe their only option to being in the creek or 40Prado. If you threaten or penalize landlords and pull these units out of the supply pool, do you really help tenants--or do you just further limit low income already highly constrained set of housing options? In days gone by (urban renewal 1950s-1970s) we demonized an older housing type then prevalent in cities, single resident occupancy hotels (SROs), thinking such dens of iniquity (said the reformers) led to societal problems, and we razed them, thinking our problems would go away. Ha ha, We didn't eliminate any people of lesser means housing problems, we only exacerbated their problems and effectively dumped those people who had been housed onto the sidewalks, eliminating anything they could possibly afford to live in, welcoming in our modern day homeless problem. I don't mean to be overly trite, but a realist: you just don't get everything everybody wants for $1000/month, toward the high end of what very low income renters may be able to afford. Everybody can 56 be unhappy, and that $1000/month imperfect dingy SRO, room, garage or whatever can still be better than no rental or another beautiful new $3000/month 2-bedroom charmer that single guy working at the gas station convenience store 50 hours per week simply cannot afford, even with 100% of his income, and the overtime. You know the math there, and you know your budget projections--your municipal budget is not likely to be flush in the coming years. Help that landlord find ways to improve that lower cost older little studio rental, not remove it from desperately needed low end housing stock with nothing affordable to replace it. Tough spot, without easy clear answers to anything, and I thank you for your work to find equitable solutions and your compassion for our community members that are struggling. We know this number is not small, and it will take all our concerted efforts, and then some, to find the suite of solutions to serve the scale of need. (Recommendations and notes expressed here are mine as an individual, not representing any organization or agency... ) Appreciatively, -a Anne R. Wyatt 57 Wooten, Eric From:Armas, Sara Sent:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 1:06 PM To:CityClerk Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Amini, David; Symens, Sadie Subject:10/28/2025 City Council Meeting - Staff Agenda Correspondence Attachments:Item 5a. Tway, Amini, Symens - Staff Agenda Correspondence.pdf Mayor & Council, Attached, and linked below, is staff agenda correspondence for tonight’s City Council Special Meeting. Item 5a. Renter Protections Study Session – Safe and Stable Rental Housing Tway, Amini, and Symens – Staff Agenda Correspondence BCC: Council & Agenda Correspondence Group Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk II City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E SArmas@slocity.org T 805.781.7110 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: October 28, 2025 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director Prepared By: David Amini, Housing Coordinator / Sadie Symens, Deputy City Attorney VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM 5A – RENTER PROTECTIONS STUDY SESSION – SAFE AND STABLE RENTAL HOUSING Staff received the following questions, regarding the specifics of local renter protections as well as safe housing policies. The questions are below with staff’s response shown in italics: 1) Do we have a breakdown of the specifics of our last two years of verified code enforcement calls regarding safe housing? i.e. stats on mold, versus locks, or other issues? Please refer to page 16 of the staff report where code enforcement complaints are discussed. In addition, the following table illustrates details of verified safe housing complaints in the City in 2024 and 2025: ITEM 5A – RENTER PROTECTIONS STUDY SESSION – SAFE AND STABLE RENTAL HOUSING Page 2 2) I’ve heard from building inspectors about a high number of a specific unsafe electrical panel in our city. How would that issue be best addressed? Through a renter’s checklist or could this be incorporated into the fire inspection? This issue could be addressed in a number of ways. One way would be to provide proactive education to all property owners about electrical panel safety. The City could also include information in potential tenant guides about what to look for related to electrical panel safety. Tenants and/or landlords can also submit a request for Code Enforcement to assess a specific situation. The City could explore adding this as a component of the annual fire inspections for buildings with three or more units. 3) Is there a threshold of increased protections that subjects the city to municipal level enforcement of the Tenant Protection Act? For example: a. Would having renters and landlords sign on to a checklist or handbook subject us to municipal level enforcement of the Tenant Protection Act? The Tenant Protection Act regulates, at the state level, just cause for eviction and maximum rent increases for covered rental units. A local regulation surrounding habitability of a rental unit during a tenancy would be outside the scope of the Tenant Protection Act and would not require local level enforcement of the TPA’s provisions. However, if, for example, the local regulation would allow a tenant to raise failure by a landlord to sign on to the checklist as a defense to an eviction, this would be preempted by the Tenant Protection Act unless the City adopts a comprehensive eviction control ordinance that is more protective than the Act. That is, enforcement of the checklist/handbook requirement would have to be outside the eviction defense context. b. Would having the Tenant Protection Act kick in at say 6 months like in Palo Alto lead to municipal level enforcement? Yes. A local ordinance regulating issues covered by the Tenant Protection Act would be preempted by the Act unless it is “more protective” of the Act. So in order to enforce its provisions earlier than 12 months, this would require a comprehensive ordinance that would be enforced at the municipal level. The City would not be able to enforce the provisions of the TPA after 6 months of tenancy without adopting the TPA as local law. ITEM 5A – RENTER PROTECTIONS STUDY SESSION – SAFE AND STABLE RENTAL HOUSING Page 3 c. Essentially, can we take a surgical approach to strengthening protections without dramatically expanding the staffing needs? The City can regulate certain aspects of landlord/tenant relationships under its police power to regulate for the public health, safety, and welfare. However, the state TPA has preempted the field of just cause protections and rent increases, and only local ordinances that are “more protective” as a whole will be enforceable. The City cannot enforce provisions of the TPA (such as requiring just cause to be stated in a written notice of eviction) without adopting the TPA as local law. 4) SB567: Understanding that the city has limited resources for our city attorney’s office, if a rental registry is introduced or alternately if safe housing code enforcement calls point to exceptionally bad players that do not respond to lesser enforcement, could we pursue local enforcement of AB1482 either in house or with contract attorneys with the idea of recouping attorney’s fees as outlined in SB567? If the City is made aware of violations of either the just cause for eviction or allowable rent increase provisions of the Tenant Protection Act, the City Attorney’s office may seek injunctive relief against the offending landlord (ask the Court to issue an order prohibiting the landlord from evicting a covered tenant without just cause or from unlawfully increasing the rent.) This is the case even if the City does not adopt the Tenant Protection Act or a more protective local ordinance. However, with the current resources available, it is not feasible for the City Attorney’s office to meaningfully enforce these types of violations. Addition of legal staff dedicated to this type of enforcement work and/or budgetary allocation to contract with outside legal counsel would be required. 5) Have most of the communities such as Davis and Goleta approached this issue in incremental steps or have they established teams the size discussed in the report from the inception of the programs? Some cities, such as Davis and Fresno, have first established a rental registry program prior to enacting further local renter protections. Other cities, such as Concord, have established rental registries, rent stabilization, and eviction protections through a single ordinance, with associated increases in staff and external resources. A key finding in staff’s outreach to other cities was that sequencing the rental registry separately and before further rental protection ordinances was a best practice to minimize strain on staff resources as well as avoiding overwhelming the community with new requirements. Staff can provide additional information about staffing levels required for registries and other changes at the Rental Registry Study Session. ITEM 5A – RENTER PROTECTIONS STUDY SESSION – SAFE AND STABLE RENTAL HOUSING Page 4 6) If we opt to move forward with some combination of the options presented in the report, is it feasible to use one-time funds to hire a consultant to progress the next steps either in research or structuring the framework of a program? The idea being that we could move the ball forward during this funding cycle with an eye towards more sustainable funding in the next budget cycle. The current 25-27 Financial Plan and associated Major City Goal Work Programs identify several work program items related to safe and stable housing. They include: this study session on renter protections, a future rental housing registry study session, development of a strategic plan for the safe housing program, a study session on code enforcement priorities related to safe and livable neighborhoods, among other housing related work program items. In addition, staff have identified several “next steps” that will be conducted, including revisions to the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance, the development of a substandard housing checklist, as well as further efforts to promote education and legal assistance for tenants through collaboration with community partners such as Cal Poly and the SLO College of Law. These actions can be addressed by staff in the current Financial Plan without additional resources. There is no funding or staff resources identified or available to develop other policies that have been identified in the staff report, particularly local ordinances implementing rent stabilization or eviction protections. Consultant funding can be helpful to assist with program development and research, but consultants require oversight and management from City staff, and staff recommend that extensive public outreach is conducted with any changes that are pursued, which al so requires staff time. Should the Council wish to prioritize certain efforts, tradeoffs will need to be made with current Major City Goal work programs. This may also delay existing work that must be done, such as the work Community Development must undertake to ensure adequate community education and processes related to the changes in the WUI Code and Fire Hazard Maps and housing ordinances to address changes in state law. The City is also forecasting a structural budget deficit in the next financial plan period. Staff are evaluating potential budget reduction options to be discussed at public meetings in the Spring of 2026. Staff have not identified ongoing funding sources that would enable the City to add significant resources in the next budget cycle. ITEM 5A – RENTER PROTECTIONS STUDY SESSION – SAFE AND STABLE RENTAL HOUSING Page 5 7) How many inspections were conducted under the rental housing inspection program? What percentage of inspected homes had documented safe housing violations? How many landlords opted for voluntary inspections? Between May 2016 and the repeal of the RHIP ordinance in 2017, inspectors performed inspections of approximately 915 rental units. Of the 915 units, 62 percent passed (16 percent after one inspection, 46 percent after two inspections), while 37 percent had outstanding corrections and/or missing permits for construction. The inspections completed under the rental inspection program were required by the municipal code at the time. The city did not, however, force entry via an inspection warrant for those who refused. There were some landlords and several tenants who refused entry. The locations where the tenant refused entry were noted and a copy of the lease was requested. The expectation was that the unit would be inspected upon expiration of the lease when the unit was empty. Those locations where the landlord/property owner refused entry were noted, but no follow up was completed prior to repeal of the ordinance. 8) Do we have a ballpark idea of what the average per bedroom rent was in 2015? (I understand there are many variables in answering this, so no worries if it’s not possible) The average rent in the City in 2015 was $1,278 per month according to the U.S. Census American Community Survey, however, we do not have data on the average per bedroom rent. The current average rent in the City is $2,625 per month. 9) Are there situations where the tenant can make repairs in a unit if the landlord does not make the repair in a timely manner, and can the tenant withhold the amount of money from the rent for the cost of the repair? While the City cannot advise tenants on whether or when to make repairs to their rental unit and deduct the cost of repairs from their rent, California Civil Code § 1942 does establish this “repair and deduct” remedy if certain conditions are met, including that the landlord was notified of the problem and given an opportunity to fix it and that the repairs do not exceed one month’s worth of rent. ITEM 5A – RENTER PROTECTIONS STUDY SESSION – SAFE AND STABLE RENTAL HOUSING Page 6 10) Can you clarify the meaning of the numbers in the section from the staff report below. Is there double counting happening with the numbers? The data mentioned in this section of the staff report is used to identify the number of housing units in the City that are exempt from the provisions of the state Tenant Protection Act (TPA) described further in the staff report. Single family homes are exempt from the TPA, except for those owned by corporations. Housing units built within the last 15 years are also exempt from the TPA. Owner-occupied mobile homes are also exempt from the provisions of the TPA. The Tolemi BuildingBlocks data uses county assessor ownership data to determine the ownership types of single family homes, and identified that only 2 percent of single family homes are corporate owned, meaning that 98 percent of single family homes are exempt from the TPA. When counting single-family homes not owned by a corporation, multifamily housing units built within the last 15 years (in order to not double count single family homes), and owner-occupied mobile homes, staff determined that 64% of housing units in the City are exempt from the provisions of the Tenant Protection Act. 11) How many business licenses are currently on file for rental properties in the City? The City currently has 2,619 active business licenses for residential rentals in the City. Some of the licenses are for multiple rental properties with one owner. ITEM 5A – RENTER PROTECTIONS STUDY SESSION – SAFE AND STABLE RENTAL HOUSING Page 7 12) Can we use our business license process for a registry? What information do we currently ask for? What could we ask for? The City’s business license information currently provides some of the basic information that a rental registry would contain, namely owner information and addresses/units that are being rented. It should be noted that the information about addresses of rentals and unit numbers is entirely self-reported, meaning that staff has limited availability to ensure that the information is accurate or that all rental units are listed for a particular owner. The business license form could be updated to require more information for rental properties such as the property age, number of bedrooms per unit, rent amount, or other basic information. One of the key differences between the existing business license database and a potential rental registry is that the reporting of each address and unit number in the business license process is not proactively enforced – it is up to rental property owners to provide the City with accurate information. A potential rental registry would include research by the City to attempt to identify all rental properties and a roll-out process where outreach is conducted to all rental property owners informing them of the requirement to register, plus a possible penalty structure for failure to register. Another key difference between the existing business license database and a potential rental registry is that the business license database is simply a spreadsheet of information. A potential rental registry could employ a software- based solution that would have a map-based interface with property-specific information, as well as be able to provide important data-backed insights, such as neighborhood-specific rent trends, breakdowns of landlord types (corporate vs. private ownership), and tenant information such as the breakdown of students vs. families in a particular neighborhood. The data provided through a registry could inform future land use planning decisions, inform the upcoming Housing Element, as well as guide future City policy initiatives regarding rental housing. 1 Wooten, Eric Subject:Follow up - Safe and Stable Rental Housing Study Session Location:Microsoft Teams Meeting; 919 Conference Room 2, Interior Staff Start:Wed 11/5/2025 2:00 PM End:Wed 11/5/2025 3:00 PM Show Time As:Tentative Recurrence:(none) Meeting Status:Not yet responded Organizer:McClish, Teresa Required Attendees:Amini, David; Corey, Tyler; Symens, Sadie Optional Attendees:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Agenda: I. What we heard – consensus from Council (make sure everyone on same page) II. Immediate next Steps and Schedule III. Overall Schedule 2026 DISCUSSION A. Immediate Next Steps a. Rental Registry Study Session i. Phone calls with Tolemi, 3Di, HDL? ii. Develop menu of Options iii. Develop information related to business lisc. Program and how that works with or in place of registry iv. Escribe upload 01-19-2026 (sharepoint Dec?) b. Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance Update i. Identify if there are other components needed other than long term lease issue ii. Identify if outreach needed iii. Identify Council Meeting Date c. Provide information and status for: i. CAPSLO/5CHC Rental Assistance ii. Monterey and SL Colleges of Law - Mediation Services iii. Contact County Tobacco Coalition – and City of MB re: modified smoking ordinance (SLO already prohibits partially in MF units) iv. Green and Healthy Housing Program (use of $20k and Pilot) d. Revision of Safe and Stable Housing Checklist i. Internal meeting Code Enforcement ii. How, where it can be used iii. Develop schedule for Revised Checklist and implementation e. Education and outreach i. Meet with Cal Poly off campus housing contact – Renter and Landlord certification program B. DRAFT Overall Schedule – Safe and Sable Rental Housing i. FEB 2026 - Council Study Session Rental Registry Study Session (MCG) ii. MARCH 2026 - Mobile Home Ordinance Update iii. JUNE 2026 - Council Study Session Code Enforcement Priorities safe/livable neighborhoods (MCG) iv. SEPT 2026? - ? Council Memo – status update on 1)Rental Assistance, Mediation, 2)Smoking Ord – or not, 3)Safe and Stable Rental Housing Checklist, 4)Green and Healthy Homes Pilot 2 v. NOV 2026 - Update Property Maintenance Standards safe and livable neighborhoods and housing (MCG) vi. DEC 2026 Safe Housing Program Strategic Plan (MCG) ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams Need help? Join the meeting now Meeting ID: 278 401 067 852 7 Passcode: nG35no7D Dial in by phone +1 209-645-4165,,205110646# United States, Stockton Find a local number Phone conference ID: 205 110 646# For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN ________________________________________________________________________________