Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local advisory committee urges administrative abatement, amnesty program to clear junk properties
Summary
Mariposa's Code Compliance Advisory Committee recommended an administrative abatement program under Government Code §25845 with a non‑confrontational initial notice, a time‑limited amnesty, hearings under Gov. Code §27720–27728, and cost recovery limited to abatement costs; CCAC highlighted 189 active cases and funding gaps after ARPA seed funds were redirected.
The Code Compliance Advisory Committee (CCAC) urged the Planning Commission on Jan. 10 to pursue a streamlined administrative abatement program and an accompanying amnesty pathway to address long‑standing nuisance and health‑and‑safety complaints.
Colleen Rhodes, speaking for the CCAC, said staff provided a list showing 189 active cases countywide and that the committee identified 44 active Title 17 cases (many junk‑property and vehicle matters) that are most appropriate for an abatement approach. The CCAC recommended the county adopt an administrative abatement program authorized under Government Code §25845 that would allow the county to abate nuisances and recover only the actual costs of abatement as a special assessment against the property; the committee specifically recommended not recovering administrative or legal costs from property owners.
Rhodes and other CCAC members emphasized due process protections: an initial, non‑confrontational letter offering amnesty and resources; a single‑officer or hearing‑officer model that follows evidentiary rules and allows an appeal per Government Code §27720–27728; and careful drafting to avoid past examples where aggressive remedies led to disproportionate harms (the committee cited a Coachella case as an example). Several commissioners asked county counsel to review appellate case law about hearing‑officer conflicts of interest and the statutory requirement that certain hearing officers be attorneys with five years' practice.
Funding and implementation were central concerns. CCAC members said ARPA funds had previously been earmarked as seed money for abatement but were later redirected; the committee said the county should create a revolving abatement fund so recovered costs replenish the program and asked staff to identify potential state grants and budget needs for professional services to operationalize the program.
The CCAC also proposed a tiered enforcement approach beginning with complaint intake and triage (route complaint to the appropriate agency and prioritize life/safety), a voluntary amnesty and compliance period with a clear one‑page initial notice, and escalation to administrative abatement or judicial remedies only when necessary. Commissioners supported developing both a code amendment and a separate procedures manual to memorialize intake, triage, and hearing steps.
Next steps: staff will draft code language and a procedural package for the Planning Commission's consideration and for county counsel review before any recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
