Code enforcement outlines intake, fines and abatement process amid public allegations of selective enforcement

Alameda County code enforcement staff presented an overview of intake, inspection, abatement and hearing procedures on Feb. 3 and answered supervisors’ questions about staffing, complaint response times and the Mobile Citizen app.

Holly Felix, senior code enforcement officer, described the division’s front‑end process: complaint intake generates a case number; inspectors usually perform an initial site visit within about five days to document violations with photos; notices of violation cite the code section and set compliance timeframes; reinspections are scheduled at standard intervals and failed reinspections can trigger fines and administrative fees. She said persistent noncompliance can lead to abatement orders, contracted abatement and liens attached to property taxes after Board approval.

Felix summarized common violations (unpermitted commercial or garage conversions, unpermitted structures, overgrown vegetation, illegal outdoor storage, junk vehicles and unlawful parking) and outlined a fine schedule (zoning violations: first offense $250, second $500, third $1,000; NPO subsequent violations $500; severe, persistent unauthorized uses can incur $5,000 penalties after six months). She said the division currently has five officers assigned across unincorporated areas and uses managers to cover weekend needs; staff acknowledged two unfunded positions and said workload is high.

Supervisors sought data on whether more officers are needed and whether the county can add proactive rental‑inspection programs in target areas. Staff said managers are currently absorbing a complaint‑driven rental inspection program and that the outcomes will be reported back to the committee in coming months. Staff also said they coordinate regularly with Fire, Building, Environmental Health and the Sheriff for joint enforcement when cases cross jurisdictions.

Several public callers alleged selective enforcement and secret meetings. A Fairview resident alleged a private group met with staff and that enforcement outcomes differed for persons in that group; the resident asked that closed sessions about private properties cease and that the county avoid using enforcement to influence private litigation. County staff said they have met with community members (e.g., Fairview meetings) to gather input, and County Counsel emphasized the legal need for consistent, objective documentation of inspections and cautioned about evidentiary issues with third‑party photos.

Staff said the county receives complaints through phone, email, an online form and the Mobile Citizen app; the Public Works Mobile Citizen app accepts GPS‑tagged photos and creates work orders routed to the proper jurisdiction. Bett (Public Works) demonstrated the app and said complainants who provide contact information will receive status emails; those who do not provide contact info will see only a limited status in the app.

Supervisors asked for a follow‑up report on staffing and the complaint‑driven rental inspection program; multiple supervisors urged additional proactive enforcement in targeted corridors if funding can be found. Felix said the department’s objective is compliance rather than fines and that staff will provide additional data and a follow-up report to the committee. County Counsel recommended clear, written policies to avoid the appearance of selective enforcement and to preserve evidence for potential litigation.