Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Hanford council drops citation step for graffiti abatement, keeps abatement and cost‑recovery options

Hanford City Council · August 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After extensive public comment, the council directed staff to draft an ordinance removing graffiti from the nuisance‑citation process while retaining abatement authority, a notice scheme, and cost recovery (including lien authority); staff will route proposed language to planning commission.

The City Council voted unanimously to direct staff to draft municipal‑code changes that remove graffiti from the nuisance/citation process while preserving the city’s ability to abate graffiti and recover costs.

Staff presented five options ranging from a non‑enforcement approach to a city‑funded abatement program under California Government Code §53069.3. Council settled on a middle path (option 4): create a standalone graffiti code section that drops routine citations but retains a formal abatement mechanism so the city can require removal and recoup its costs through invoices and liens if property owners do not act. Council also asked staff to include a waiver or assistance process for qualifying property owners and to cross‑reference state penal‑code enforcement where relevant.

Council directed staff to design a multi‑step notice process (staff recommended multiple notices; council supported a first notice of about 10 business days with an additional second notice before abatement) and to publicize available abatement resources, including a county probation‑run graffiti service that can accept requests. The county program — which staff said is expected to restart soon — may provide an option for residents who cannot afford immediate cleanup.

The item drew lengthy public testimony: business and property‑owner groups asked for better outreach and color‑matched paint options; residents and longtime volunteers urged stronger enforcement to deter repeat tagging and gang‑related activity; others warned against shifting the cost to private owners who are crime victims. Councilmembers repeatedly emphasized the intention to help property owners rather than penalize victims.

Staff will draft ordinance language reflecting council direction, include references to applicable penal‑code sections, and bring the draft to the planning commission and back to council for final adoption.