Code Compliance Advisory Committee urges administrative abatement with free hearing; commission asks staff to draft program

The Planning Commission held a joint session Jan. 10 with the Code Compliance Advisory Committee (CCAC), which recommended an administrative abatement program that emphasizes a non-confrontational intake, an amnesty pathway and a fair hearing process before abatement, with cost recovery limited to actual abatement costs.

Colleen Rhodes and other CCAC members told the joint meeting the county has 189 active compliance cases (per CCAC-provided case lists) and that many violations are title-15 issues (building/health) while a substantial subset fall under title 17 land-use code. The CCAC recommended an administrative-abatement framework based on Government Code section 25845 and appellate-reading of Government Code sections 27720–27728 for hearing procedures.

Recommendations and priorities: The CCAC recommended starting enforcement with outreach and a non-confrontational initial contact letter offering amnesty and resources, then escalating through amnesty options, a formal notice to abate and, if necessary, administrative abatement with costs assessed back to the property as a special assessment against the parcel. The CCAC emphasized free hearings (no fee for property owners) and use of evidentiary rules similar to court practice to reduce appeals and increase community confidence. For summary abatement (imminent life-safety hazards), the CCAC acknowledged statutory authority already exists for expedited action.

Hearing structure and legal questions: The CCAC and commissioners discussed who should serve as a hearing officer. The CCAC recommended a single hearing officer or a small panel and noted appellate case law that treats independence of the hearing officer as important. Participants discussed options including (a) hiring an attorney-administrative-law judge (statutory option under GC 27720+), (b) appointing a board hearing panel, or (c) using the planning commission or an appointed elected official. CCAC urged county counsel to research appellate cases and propose a structure that balances independence, cost and local accountability.

Budget and implementation: CCAC members said prior one-time ARPA funds that had been proposed for abatement work were redirected before use and the absence of a dedicated abatement fund had limited the county’s ability to resolve large cleanups. The committee recommended the county create a revolving abatement fund (county advances cost to abate and then places a special assessment or lien to recover abatement costs) and flagged grant opportunities to seed the fund. The commission asked staff to prepare draft code and a procedures manual that would present a tiered triage process: nonconfrontational intake → amnesty and assistance → notice to abate → administrative abatement → summary/judicial abatement as needed.

Next steps: Planning staff said they would draft code and procedures reflecting the CCAC recommendations and consult county counsel about hearing officer structure and appellate precedent. The commission asked staff to include complaint intake triage, budget/revolving fund recommendations, and a clear public-facing flowchart showing how complaints are handled.