City says building at 1150 Laurel Lane is unsafe; tenants and businesses urge extensions and clearer tenant notice

San Luis Obispo city staff told the City Council on April 1 that a building official had issued a 30-day notice to vacate for the commercial/mixed-use property at 1150 Laurel Lane after concluding the building had become unsafe. Tenants, business owners and neighbors used the meeting’s public-comment period to press the council and staff for help, asking for extensions, clearer communication and guidance on relocation support.

City Manager (name not specified) told the council that on March 10 the city issued a notice and 30-day order to vacate because the building official found the structure unsafe and previously issued temporary certificates of occupancy had expired. “We did not take this decision lightly,” the City Manager said; the report said the city had worked with the property owner for 18 months to address construction and safety concerns but had not achieved compliance.

Several businesses and community members — most prominently Noelle Dubois, the owner of the local music venue Bang the Drum — told the council a sudden 30-day deadline would cause significant hardship. Dubois asked whether the city could grant an extension or a pause to the notice so Bang the Drum and other tenants could fulfill booked events, retain staff and relocate without catastrophic losses. “I do not want to be used as a wholesome small business shield to their unethical practices,” Dubois said, referring to the landlord’s role in the property’s condition, “but maybe there is a way to help us while still holding them accountable.”

Kimberly Hancock, general manager at Bang the Drum, told the council the venue has ten employees and several scheduled events and called for more transition time so staff can be retained and necessary permits and build-out work for a relocation can proceed. Tenants and neighbors described lost income, planned events and community uses, including wedding receptions planned at Bang the Drum this summer, and asked the council to consider options to help affected businesses and residential tenants.

City Attorney and staff said the city’s enforcement authority is directed at the property owner, not at tenant-landlord contractual relationships. The City Attorney explained the city provides notices and public records to tenants but legally must deal with the property owner for compliance and cannot give legal advice or advise tenants on how to litigate lease disputes. “From a city code enforcement perspective, we are obligated to deal with the property owner,” the City Attorney said. The City Attorney added the city is “actively exploring as we speak with outside counsel alternatives that minimize those impacts while expediting the resolution of the health and safety hazards that exist at the building.”

Staff said the notice requires vacating impacted spaces by April 9, and that fines could be levied against the property owner if the owner fails to comply. Staff emphasized there is no intent to fine tenants. The City Manager and Community Development Director said staff had met with several tenants and offered to continue to meet and facilitate resources, including economic development staff assistance to find relocation options.

Tenants emphasized they had not been aware of an April 2023 change in occupancy status that converted a permanent certificate of occupancy to a temporary one with an expiration date; speakers said they only learned of that change recently. One tenant, Barry Price, said the change in occupancy status, if it had been shared earlier, would have given tenants more time to prepare. City staff said the city had provided public records and notices but that private landlord-tenant communications remained the landlord’s responsibility; the city can share public documents but cannot intervene in private lease agreements.

The council and staff did not take an immediate formal action at the meeting; rather they heard dozens of public comments and expressed that staff and the city attorney were pursuing options. The City Attorney said staff were exploring legal approaches to reduce tenant harms while enforcing building safety. Staff encouraged tenants and business owners to continue communicating with city departments and said relevant officials — the building official, community development staff and the fire chief — were available to answer questions.

Why it matters: the 1150 Laurel Lane case highlights tensions between building-safety enforcement and tenant protections. City officials said the safety of tenants and the public is paramount; tenants and community advocates said the timeline and landlord communication left businesses and residents facing abrupt displacement and economic harm.

Next steps: staff will continue to work with tenants and the property owner, pursue enforcement against the owner if necessary, and said they would consult outside counsel to explore options that could reduce impacts to tenants while resolving the building’s safety issues.