Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mariposa County advisers endorse amnesty-first, abatement-focused enforcement and ask staff to synthesize code changes
Summary
The Code Compliance Advisory Committee recommended prioritizing a permanent amnesty program and abatement remedies over fines, and directed staff to synthesize prior memoranda and Planning Commission input into a differential report for the next meeting.
The Mariposa County Code Compliance Advisory Committee on Monday recommended that the county prioritize a nonpunitive amnesty program and abatement remedies over civil-penalty fines, and asked planning staff to return with a single, consolidated memo that synthesizes past recommendations and Planning Commission feedback.
Planning Director Stephen (first referenced in the transcript as "Stephen for planning director") told the committee staff would prepare a differential document that compares the May 14 memorandum to the changes discussed at the joint Planning Commission meeting and reflect edits approved in today’s minutes. Committee members asked that the synthesis include clear crosswalks to Title 1, Title 15, Title 17 references and any proposed hearing-officer language.
Committee members repeatedly said they oppose relying on Title 15.10.260’s civil-penalty (fines) approach in its current form. "Fines don't solve the problem," said Gabe Edwards, summarizing a common view at the table; members argued fines are punitive, legally risky and often uncollectible. Instead, the committee recommended using abatement remedies tied to Government Code 25845 and related Title 1 hearing procedures as the primary enforcement path, with abatement used to correct conditions and allow cost recovery through assessments when appropriate.
The committee also discussed the need to integrate the amnesty program (Step 1) with the abatement and enforcement steps (Steps 2–4). Multiple members urged that amnesty be ongoing rather than strictly time-limited, and that staff explicitly note where step language needs to be broadened beyond zoning (Title 17) to cover other enforcement codes (e.g., Title 8, Title 15).
Staff agreed to draft and agendize a synthesis that: (1) identifies changes from the May 14 memorandum, (2) includes Planning Commission-directed modifications, (3) shows how Title 1 hearing/abatement language would replace or reference 15.10.260, and (4) indicates any bridging language required for Title 17 and other enforcement titles. The committee instructed staff that the synthesis may take one or two meetings to complete and return for final consideration.
What happens next: planning staff will prepare the differential/synthesis document and place it on a future CCAC agenda; the committee will review the draft and then determine whether to forward a formal recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for code amendments or other action.
