Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Amador County adopts 'good neighbor' defensible‑space ordinance after hours of public comment
Summary
The Amador County Board of Supervisors on March 10 adopted an amendment to chapter 7.3 of the county code on defensible space and hazardous vegetation after residents pressed for stronger enforcement for vacant lots and supervisors debated outreach versus mandatory compliance.
The Amador County Board of Supervisors voted March 10 to adopt an ordinance amending chapter 7.3 of the county code to address defensible space and hazardous vegetation risks.
The adoption followed a lengthy public comment period in which residents from Amador Pines and Pioneer urged the board to require cleanup of vacant lots and to apply standards equally. “Wedon't want to lose our beautiful county to a paradise fire,” Sherry Curtis said during public comment, urging the board to “get serious about fire prevention.” Earl Curtis added that owners of vacant parcels should be held to the same standards as homeowners who maintain their lots.
County fire prevention staff described the board's "good neighbor" packet as an initial outreach tool intended as an "olive branch" rather than a replacement for enforcement options in the existing ordinance. "The clearance the neighbor is asking for is not the entire property... It is only to achieve 100 feet of defensible space that is needed for their structure," said Ashley, a fire prevention officer with Amador Fire Protection District.
Supervisors debated the tradeoffs between a soft‑touch approach and the cost and staffing burden of broad enforcement. One supervisor warned that a strict enforcement regime would require a sizable code‑enforcement effort and due‑process procedures for property owners. Other supervisors said the county should use persuasive measures first and pursue stronger tools if voluntary measures fail.
After public comment and discussion, Supervisor Logan moved to adopt the ordinance and Supervisor Oneto seconded the motion. The board recorded the motion as carried by the supervisors present.
The ordinance was presented as an amendment to the county code referenced in the agenda as chapter 7.3. The board did not adopt additional enforcement protocols at the March 10 meeting; staff said future implementation steps and operational details would be considered as the county uses outreach and existing enforcement avenues.
Next steps: the ordinance adoption is effective as adopted per the board action and staff will return with implementation language and options for enforcement and community outreach.
