CCAC members push to reclaim Title 1 abatement drafting after ad hoc drafts reintroduce rejected language

The Code Compliance Advisory Committee (CCAC) in Mariposa County spent most of its meeting debating how a CAO-led ad hoc group has drafted proposed Title 1 abatement language and whether that drafting should be returned to the full committee.

Committee members said the ad hoc's latest draft reintroduced material they believed had been stricken and mixed enforcement and abatement concepts in ways that make the ordinance unusable. "I think that the ad hoc committee at this point has not accomplished anything," Colleen Rhodes, a CCAC member, said, urging that the board consider returning drafting responsibility to the CCAC so the work can be done in public and with stable version control.

The dispute centered on two related issues: scope and process. Several members argued that the ad hoc had blurred a previously agreed policy preference for abatement and cost recovery (not fines) with an enforcement regime that relies on different procedures and appeals. "When we talk about abatement...we want people to fix the problem," Gabe Edwards said, framing abatement as a progression from voluntary to required abatement and, in acute situations, summary abatement. Edwards and others repeatedly referenced Government Code 25845 as the statutory mechanism that allows administrative abatement with cost recovery.

Members and staff also flagged document- and version-control problems. Committee members said comments and deletions they expected to persist had been restored in later drafts. Rob Fox and others called the lack of revision control a practical barrier to completing the ordinance and said changes should not be made to live drafts outside of public meetings. Planning staff acknowledged those concerns and said they would identify the problem, convene the ad hoc and publish an agreed-upon version for CCAC review.

Committee members debated whether abandoned-vehicle abatement (AVA) should be handled as a standalone section (8.32 in the code) or be folded into Title 1. A number of speakers recommended finishing the AVA text as a discrete, nine-page proposal that has been developed and then using that as a model for other abatement tools. "Let's focus on and get these things and set them over here," one member said, urging completion of the AVA as a path to organizing Title 1.

The planning director said he would meet with the ad hoc, check version control and circulate a consistent draft back to committee members. The CCAC also asked staff to publish the document history so members can see what changed between versions.

What happens next: the planning director said he would convene the ad hoc, isolate an agreed-upon working version, and return that version to the committee. The CCAC asked that future edits be made through a tracked-change process or on SharePoint with clear revision control so the committee can complete an ordinance that is legally defensible and understandable to the public.

This discussion matters because the ordinance will determine what kinds of problems the county can abate administratively, when summary abatement can be used, and what due-process protections are required depending on whether the matter involves vehicles, wildfire fuel reduction, buildings or zoning violations. Committee members repeatedly urged drafting that is concise and readable rather than legalese.

The full committee discussion ran from the item introduction through a lengthy round of debate about definitions, due process and draft management, and ended with staff committing to follow up with the ad hoc and publish a single, agreed version for CCAC review.