Local ordinances: administrative fines or penalties.

Hart, joined by Assembly Members Pacheco and Papan, advances a measure that expands how local agencies can enforce administrative fines by pairing a streamlined court-backed path to judgments with a new option to secure penalties by lien on the violation parcel, and by introducing a cannabis-focused immediate-penalties regime. The most significant change centers on a mechanism for local agencies to file a certified copy of a final administrative order with a superior court, triggering immediate judgment entry by the court, alongside a parallel provision to collect penalties through a lien on the affected parcel once specified preconditions are met. The framework also targets enforcement in cannabis regulation, housing habitability and safety, and fire-safety code violations, while preserving the broad range of existing administrative remedies through a cumulative-penalties approach.

Key mechanisms and details define how the measure operates. Ordinances may permit immediate administrative fines for unlicensed cannabis activity that violates local zoning, building, or health-and-safety requirements, with caps of up to one thousand dollars per violation and ten thousand dollars per day, and subject to conditions that allow a correction period when appropriate, plus joint and several liability of the property owner and each occupant business entity in certain cases. An appeal process provides a de novo review in the superior court after exhaustion of administrative procedures, with filing fees and the possibility for the local agency’s file to be admitted as evidence; the appeal proceeds as a limited civil case and may be conducted by traffic trial commissioners. If the administrative remedy is exhausted and review time has passed, a local agency may file a certified copy of the final order with a county superior court clerk, who would immediately enter judgment in conformity with the decision, with notice of entry of judgment served on all parties. In addition, the measure creates a lien-collection mechanism whereby a local agency may establish by ordinance a procedure to attach a lien to the violating parcel, contingent on pre-lien steps, non-prepayment of penalties to pursue review, and notice requirements before recording; the lien would have the same priority as a judgment lien and remedies would remain cumulative with other enforcement tools.

The proposed framework ties enforcement to a defined scope and procedural safeguards. It ties cannabis penalties to licensing and regulatory regimes under existing state law, and links housing, habitability, and fire-safety violations to the same expedited collection instruments. Local agencies must adopt ordinances to implement these tools, including the immediate-penalty structure, the lien process, and the procedural steps for service and notice. The engrossed text preserves existing administrative pathways while adding a court-backed collection track and a property-based encumbrance option, creating cross-cutting enforcement authority across cannabis regulation, housing safety, and fire code compliance. The authors frame the measures as providing a more secure and efficient means to enforce penalties and recover amounts owed, while maintaining due-process protections through the appellate pathway and by requiring notice and opportunities to remedy prior to lien recording.

Broader context and implementation considerations surround these changes. The authors acknowledge that the toolkit would involve local agencies, property owners, tenants, cannabis operators, the court system, and county recorders, with potential fiscal effects on local governments and the judiciary from added appellate activity, clerk-based judgments, and lien filings. The measure preserves the general administrative-fines framework but adds expedited and secured collection pathways, including cross-county enforcement potential since judgments may be entered by clerks in any county and liens recorded to secure payment. It also calls for careful application to protect due process, such as defined pre-lien conditions and service timelines, while recognizing that the expanded remedies are cumulative with existing enforcement tools. The resulting policy design aims to improve the enforceability of penalties while maintaining alignment with state licensing regimes and local regulatory objectives.