Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ccac Future topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mariposa County advisory panel to finalize checklist, push code edits to Planning Commission before deciding on dissolution
Summary
The County’s Code Compliance Advisory Committee agreed to compile a checklist of outstanding recommendations tied to Planning Commission code changes and to submit topics for the next agenda; staff said planned code changes tied to California Government Code 25845 should allow abatement-focused enforcement and could move to the Board this summer.
The Mariposa County Code Compliance Advisory Committee agreed Thursday to prepare a formal checklist of outstanding recommendations and to bring prioritized items back to staff and the Planning Commission before deciding whether the committee should be dissolved.
Committee chair Gabe Edwards opened the meeting at 2:04 p.m. and said the group would discuss “the history and future of the code compliance advisory committee” and prepare recommendations to return to the Board of Supervisors. Daniel Banchu, clerk of the board, said he had compiled a history and previous recommendations to present to the board and asked members how much more time they needed to complete the committee’s work.
Planning staff outlined a parallel track of work already underway with the Planning Commission and urged the committee to coordinate with those code revisions. “Out of that came … a set of recommendations regarding code changes built out of California Government Code 25845,” planning staff said, noting Planning Commission review dates in May and June and a goal to advance code-compliance recommendations to the board this summer.
Members described a multi-step approach already under way and urged the committee to turn meeting notes and recommendations into a single checklist. One long-serving member said the committee’s mission could be complete once the checklist items — including a previously discussed $145 fee removal and business-process improvements — were memorialized and checked off. The member suggested June or July as realistic milestones for producing the checklist and reporting back to the board.
Public comment emphasized outreach gaps. Colleen Rhodes, a committee member and long-time public participant, said the committee has not achieved effective communication with the public and that residents remain frustrated by perceived poor responsiveness from code enforcement. “We have not communicated with the public,” Rhodes said. Planning staff acknowledged those concerns and said public-facing communication and easier-to-read flows would be part of parallel workstreams tied to the code changes.
To move forward, the committee agreed on two practical steps: each member should submit a short list of priority topics to Sofia (planning staff) before the packet deadline so items can be published for the next meeting, and members were assigned homework to read California Government Code 25845, which staff and the chair said is central to crafting abatement-focused enforcement changes. Staff requested submissions be provided early enough to be included in a May packet (staff cited an internal target to have materials ready by May 2).
Two procedural motions were approved during the meeting: a motion to table approval of the Feb. 14 draft minutes until the next meeting and a motion to move agenda items E and F to a future agenda. Members closed Item D after agreeing the action steps and moved to adjourn.
The committee left the timetable for final Board consideration dependent on the Planning Commission’s remaining reviews and the completion of the checklist. Staff said it expects related Planning Commission work to be advanced in May and June and will return to the CCAC with updates; no formal recommendation to dissolve the CCAC was made at this meeting.
