Sign Ordinance
A couple of letters from the editor relating to the Mariposa County Sign Ordinance is interesting. Tolley Gorham’s letter describes the ordinance pretty well but the devil is in the details. For many years the ordinance was not enforced against existing signs. The ordinance calls for the removal of signs from closed business within one year of closing. That allows for the sale of the business and the continued use of the sign. The first it was enforced was the forced removal of the Gold Coin sign quite a few years after closure. I am not sure what precipitated the action except the owner was an irritant to the Planning Department. Other signs stayed up much longer with no removal. Maybe the stimulus was a citizen complaint. As you may or may not know many ordinances, mostly planning, are not enforced until someone complains. Then the county acts. Maybe.
Perhaps the greatest and longest discussion about enforcement has been related to how the complaint becomes initiated. It is not difficult to understand why the county wanted the complaints to be citizen initiated. First, the county did not have, for many years, an enforcement officer. Once one was acquired, it was a part time position and on top of that, the inspector was not trained in the legal aspects of inspection and compliance control. Only a few complaints were investigated, and for the most part, dismissed.
One complaint concerning a mineral extraction process that got out of control, was followed through. Involved were state air quality issues. Compliance issues concerning construction projects were handled by the Building Dept. Projects without building permits very often skated until permits were required for establishment of PG & E service. However, those who provided their own power often got by. It is the building permit that triggers many other department interest, such as assessor. During major fires some of these issues are discovered.
The county sign ordinance, among other development ordinances, have been unevenly enforced. Part of the problem relates to the lack of an advisory committee in the town of Mariposa for the TPA. There are some fundamental problems related to the formation of such a committee. For example, a high percentage of the residents are renters and often transient.
Another is that most of the business owners do not live in the TPA. Two county supervisors represent parts of the TPA and have other obligations that may conflict with the best interest of the town. Next problem is that planning is also a political process. Supervisors who do not receive even a large percentage of their vote at election time from inside the TPA, feel pressure from their fundamental political base and thus, are easily persuaded by the Planning Department that there are higher priorities from the planning and perhaps the political standpoint.
So what are the compelling reasons to for an advisory committee to update the now 20 year old plan, far past the 10 year review. The number one reason would be to provide a document that has met the test of community standards, that everyone can understand and abide by, and to allow rational change to occur. I will not go into detail of what needs review as the issues come up almost all the time. But it is fair to say that it is way over due for review and more importantly badly needed. Many years ago we adopted this planning model. To ignore the process established tells me that we are not serious about our community plans. Otherwise, they should be abandoned.
