Planning staff presented a preliminary draft ordinance on June 13 proposing a “uniform code compliance and enforcement” chapter and amendments to titles 8, 15 and 17. Steve (Planning Director) described the presentation as a rough working draft intended to gather committee feedback before Planning Commission review.

Committee members raised legal and structural objections. Colleen Rhodes, a long‑time committee member, said the draft omits provisions required by state law and mixes appeal processes in ways that court decisions have found improper. Rhodes referenced Government Code section 25845 and said an abatement process and “notice of abatement proceeding” required by that code are not present in the draft. She cited Health and Safety Code sections she read aloud (transcript: “17920.5 and 17920.6”) and recent case law the committee discussed, including Littmann v. City of Oakley and Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont, to argue that building‑related enforcement and related appeals require a properly constituted building appeals board or different process than the single administrative hearing officer the draft proposes.

Rhodes and others said the draft also lacks essential definitions (for example, nuisance and good faith), clear evidence rules for hearings, and an integrated flowchart showing how amnesty, administrative processes and emergency summary abatement interact. Multiple members urged that the draft not be treated as a final “board‑ready” ordinance and recommended a structural rewrite rather than line edits.

County Clerk Daniel Banchu and County Administrative Officer Joe Lynch joined discussion to clarify board direction. Banchu summarized prior board instructions: staff should bring an enforcement plan to the CCAC, the CCAC would make recommendations, and staff would bring staff work and CCAC recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Lynch told the committee he would be willing to work with an ad hoc group, county counsel and staff to prepare a cohesive draft and suggested bringing the matter back to the Board of Supervisors for direction on July 1.

The committee discussed whether the scheduled joint meeting with the Planning Commission later in June should proceed. Members worried the Planning Commission should not advance code language the committee finds legally deficient before the Board weighs in. The group agreed to ask staff to postpone the joint Planning Commission discussion and to take the issue to the board for direction.

Two formal committee actions were recorded during the discussion: earlier in the meeting the committee voted to table two agenda items (items 2 and 3 in section E) for later consideration; at the end of the item a motion to ask staff to cancel the upcoming joint Planning Commission meeting on this draft and to take the matter to the Board of Supervisors on July 1 was made, seconded and approved unanimously.

Staff noted next steps: collect committee written comments, prepare a revised draft, and—if the Board directs—work with an ad hoc group, county counsel and the planning director on a restructured ordinance that explicitly integrates state statutory due-process requirements, appeals paths for building‑related matters and clear amnesty/abatement flows.