After Heated Hearing, Yuba Supervisors Confirm Abatement Costs but Slash Administrative Penalty

After a lengthy public hearing, the Yuba County Board of Supervisors confirmed abatement costs for the property at 1406 Sundance Drive in Plumas Lake but directed a 50% reduction in the administrative penalty. Code enforcement staff had presented a cost accounting of $28,364.70 tied to abating what staff described as pervasive biological hazards (approximately 160 live cats, 46 deceased cats, pervasive cat urine and feces) and associated abatement work. Harrison Bierstacker, code enforcement administrative analyst, described health and safety findings and said the certificate of occupancy had been revoked during the enforcement process.

Property owner Valerie Arons contested the process and elements of the accounting in a detailed statement to the board. Arons said enforcement deadlines ran while law‑enforcement access restricted her ability to comply, that staff told her violations were cleared during an inspection on May 14, and that she never received a written notice documenting continuing violations. "We didn't get a notification of any new violations from the walk through," she told the board, and she said much of the later billing reflected administrative communications and attorney involvement rather than abatement work.

Code enforcement staff and county counsel said the ordinance imposes daily administrative penalties from the order expiration date until verified compliance, and that a certified industrial hygienist and building‑permit process were required to recertify occupancy because the structure had been posted unsafe to occupy. Officer Amy Gibbs (assigned officer) testified that a final compliance verification occurred on May 27, 2025, and staff provided a detailed accounting of abatement labor, contractor engagement and related costs. Jeremy Strang, county staff, confirmed the administrative record includes extensive written communications.

Board members debated fairness and precedent. Several supervisors noted the owners had engaged professionals and submitted scopes of work, and that access constraints and protracted communications warranted some relief. Supervisor Bradford proposed and the board adopted a motion to confirm staff's recommended abatement and liening actions while reducing the administrative penalty by 50%; county math shown on the record produced a final confirmed total of $17,864.70 to be placed on the tax roll and recorded as an abatement lien. The motion passed on roll call 3–2 (Yes: Vasquez, Fuhrer/Feuer, Bradford; No: House, Messick).

The board’s action confirms the county’s abatement costs will be recovered and that an adjusted administrative penalty will also be recorded. The hearing record contains staff reports, photos and multiple written communications that county staff said support the accounting; the owners left the hearing disputing some billing line items and the earlier timeline of notices.