Mariposa County panel urges amnesty-first approach for code enforcement, asks staff to synthesize Planning Commission input

The Mariposa County Code Compliance Advisory Committee on Feb. 1 agreed that an amnesty program should remain the first step in the county’s code-enforcement sequence and asked staff to produce a “differential” document comparing the committee’s May memorandum with changes the Planning Commission recommended after a Jan. 10 joint meeting.

The committee’s action came after a lengthy discussion about whether to rely on fines under Mariposa County Code 15.10.260 or to pursue abatement remedies through Government Code 25,845 and related hearing-officer procedures. Planning Director Stephen (identified in the meeting as “Stephen for planning director”) and Clerk of the Board Danielle Bonshu told the committee staff would bring a synthesis of prior materials and the planning-commission feedback for the CCAC to review at a future meeting.

The committee said amnesty (Step 1 in its four-step program) should be treated as an ongoing first step rather than a short-term pilot, and that abatement — not fines — is the preferred enforcement tool. Committee members repeatedly said 15.10.260 as written functions as a fines program and lacks required due-process protections; several members said its current language would expose the county to legal risk. Colleen Rhodes, a CCAC member, summarized the committee’s position: fines are punitive and do not solve the underlying problems; abatement and the cost-recovery mechanisms tied to abatement better serve the county’s objectives.

Several CCAC members and staff reiterated that any abatement program built on Government Code 25,845 would require explicit Board of Supervisors authorization, and that implementing abatement or summary-abatement procedures requires careful documentation because property owners have a right to challenge county actions in court. The committee asked staff to prepare draft code language that would reference the Government Code provisions and a county hearing-officer process (transcript references included “27 7 20” and related sections as the hearing-officer authority as discussed in the meeting).

Planning Director Stephen said staff would incorporate the planning-commission discussion’s changes — especially the broader application of administrative abatement across titles beyond Title 17 (zoning) — and return with a memo that lists differences between the May 14 memorandum and the January joint-meeting outcome. The CCAC agreed that Title 1 should host a cross-cutting administrative-abatement mechanism that can be invoked from Title 15, Title 17 and other enforcement code sections as appropriate.

Committee members also raised operational issues for staff to address in the next draft: how summary abatement and judicial remedies would be documented and justified; whether amnesty time limits should be removed or extended; how cost recovery and special assessments would be structured; and how the county’s administrative processes (including a proposed hearing-officer role) would work in practice. Staff said that producing the synthesis and proposed code cross-references will likely take one or two meetings to complete and that staff will agendize the item for the CCAC’s next meeting.

The conversation also touched on historical context: members recalled the county’s 2019 code amendment debate, noted community resistance to punitive fines-focused approaches, and emphasized the committee’s long-standing preference for abatement-centered remedies. Several members asked staff for additional operational information before the next meeting, including an itemized spreadsheet of active violations and a briefing by the code compliance technician (Bart) on field challenges and appeal/hearing processes.

The CCAC directed staff to return with a synthesized, itemized recommendation that 1) memorializes planning-commission input, 2) identifies specific changes needed in the May memorandum, 3) proposes clear cross-references to Government Code 25,845 and hearing-officer procedures, and 4) recommends how Title 15 and Title 17 enforcement provisions should be replaced or updated to point to a Title 1 administrative-abatement framework.

The committee did not adopt final code language at the meeting; the group instructed staff to draft the synthesis and return it for further discussion and final recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

Ending

Staff said it will calendar the synthesis for the CCAC’s next meeting and that drafting the formal code changes and procedural documents may take one or two additional meetings. Members asked for a staff presentation including Bart’s current case spreadsheet, and for follow-up on how amnesty and abatement would operate in practice.