The Trinity County Planning Commission on Sept. 25 voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of Supervisors revise Title 1 of county code to create clearer funding and cost-recovery mechanisms and add narrowly defined “dangerous nuisance” provisions to Title 8 (Health and Safety) to strengthen the county’s ability to abate health-and-safety threats and recover costs.

Planning Commission Chair Barrett made and commissioners approved the recommendation after a staff presentation and public comment. Drew Blavani, interim planning director, told the commission staff had reviewed neighboring jurisdictions’ blight ordinances and found that enforcement and cost-recovery mechanisms — not definitions alone — are the primary gap in Trinity County’s code. “Right now, staff would go out. They could potentially…issue a notice of violation, then there’s seven days to correct that violation, and then they have to go back out and verify that it’s been corrected, and then no fine is levied,” Blavani said, arguing for a violation-removal fee to help cover staff time.

The commission’s discussion focused on what the county can practically enforce and how to avoid overreach into customary rural uses. Commissioners repeated that they want to prioritize health-and-safety items — for example, structures that attract trespassers, rodent or sewage hazards, or other conditions that pose direct risk to neighbors — while avoiding rules that would penalize ordinary rural storage or uncovered boats. “My line is health and safety,” Commissioner Flights said. “If it’s polluting waterways or…endanger[ing] our children, that’s where I’m saying yes.”

Members discussed existing recovery tools. Blavani said the county can place liens on properties to recoup abatement costs, but those liens typically are collected only when a property goes through escrow; the vegetation ordinance, by contrast, currently allows costs to be added to a property tax bill. Commissioners raised concerns about the county’s limited budget, the possibility that levied fees won’t change owner behavior, and the risk that aggressive enforcement could further depress property values in economically distressed areas.

Public commenter Ben Kellogg of Weaverville urged consolidation of blight-related rules into a single code location and stronger enforcement teeth for sign and junk-vehicle issues. Several commissioners said they would support recommending that the Board of Supervisors investigate both statutory mechanisms used elsewhere — including the vegetation-tax-bill approach and Humboldt County’s notice-of-violation-to-tax-bill process — and potential grant funding (Blavani noted CalRecycle’s program for junk vehicles as one available source).

The commission’s motion directed staff to recommend that the supervisors pursue (1) Title 1 updates to enable funding and fee-recovery mechanisms, and (2) narrowly tailored additions to Title 8 to cover dangerous nuisances related to health and safety, taking into account planning division workload. The motion passed 5-0: Commissioners McIntosh, Fall, Flights, Harper and Chair Barrett voted Aye.

The commission did not adopt ordinance language; instead it forwarded a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for consideration and further drafting by county staff. Blavani told commissioners that any detailed changes to code language and fee schedules would return to the board and could be accompanied by community outreach and follow-up analysis.

Next steps identified on the record include staff follow-up with County Administrative Office and with department leads to scope specific fee language and to identify potential grant or state funding sources for abatement work.