Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (2)6-5=98 6-5-98 6-8-98 6-8-98 6-10-98 6-12-98 6-16-98 6-16-98 6-16-98 6-16-98 6-16-98 6-16-98 6-16-98 6-16-98 6-16-98 6-16-98 6-17-98 6-19-98 6-19-98 6-22-98 6-26-98 Connerly & Associates Willdan Associates Supervisors, John B. Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors Employees David Doody Lisa Purvis Wilson Stephen Lucas Peter Calarco Grant Taylor Rick Helman Taiwo Jaiyeoba Brian Suzuki Laura Orlando Daniel Breedon John Blacklock Laura Rivero-Fisher Douglas B. Aikins Mr. Kenneth Trott David Bird Housing Rehabilitation Program Housing Rehabilitation Program Land Use Planning.Program _ Special Mtg. Contract to Administer CDBG Reuse Program Central.Butte GPA - PC Report Department Staff Meeting Senior Planner position Senior Planner position Senior Planner position Senior Planner position Senior Planner position Senior Planner position Senior Planner position Senior Planner position Senior Planner position Senior. Planner position Proposed 98-99 Budget - Bldg. HUD Housing Counseling Program Grant App. Work Program for Blakely Western ARDEIR Warren Lot Line Adjustment Par 4 Subdivision 4-2-98 4-2-98 4-6-98 4-8-98 4-20-98 4-24-98 5-1-98 5-1-98 5-1-98 5-4-98 5-7-98 5-15-98 5-15-98 5-15-98 5-15-98 5-19-98 5-22-98 5-27-98 5-27-98 5-27-98 5-27-98 5-27-98 5-27-98 6-2-98 Donald J. Blake CDBG Housing Rehab.Grants Carl Leverenz Paradise Bluffs II Steve Hackney Pentz Rock Mine William Phillips General Plan Survey Kim Morris Excess Vacation Accrual Jim Mann New Highway 99 Intersection Ron E. Freitas New Towns Dan Boatwright Late -Processing Fees Stuart Edell LLA for Reed B. Johnson Staff Parking Marilyn Bonney Bldg. Permit 98-0257 Marilyn Bonney Code Compliance Connerly &Associates RFP's - Housing Rehabilitation Services Willdan Associates RFP's - Housing Rehabilitation Services CHIP RFP's - Housing Rehabilitation Services John Blacklock Budget Reductions - Building Division- ivisionChico ChicoAssoc. of Realtors, Natural Hazard Notification Requirements etc. Mike Bartlet Waiver of Interest - Senior.Planner Daniel Breedon Interview Peter Calarco Interview Dave Doody Interview Rick Helman Interview Grant Taylor Interview City of Chico Annexation Letter, 971 East Ave., Chico 1-14-98 Steve Hackney M & T Ranch Mine - Comments 1-20-98 Ed Hay TSM Billing 1-20-98 Employees Default Change 1-28-98 Administration Request for Certification 1-29-98 APA Questionnaire r 1-29-98 Jeff Harter, Forestry Fire Council 1-29-98 Bill Mayer,.LSA Meeting Attendance 2-2-98 Tom Conlon Questionnaire 2-9-98 Administration Request for Certification ' 2-9-98 Dolan, Josiassen, Price Confirmation of Meeting 2-12-98 Ms. Kathie Bate Recommendation 2-25-98 Dennis Wambem Central Butte GPA 2-25-98 Mike Crump 40 Hour Work Week 3-9-98 OPR Questionnaire 3-9-98 John G. Parish Petition for Review 3-16-98 Chabin Concepts, Inc. RFQ's - Business Analysis, etc. - 3-25-98 Peter Giampaoli Response to Letter 3-25-98 Leon Mayer First Time Home Buyers Program ` 3-26-98 Mike.Vieira Bldg. Permits on Williamson Act Contract 3-26-98 Crump, Sanders, Vieira Distribution of land use projects to Assessor 3-30-98 Clif Sellers AP#048-670-054, Annex. Letter 3-31-98 Dan Boatwright Board hearing process for Central Butte GPA 4-1-98 Blacklock, Brown, etc. RFQ comments requested - t 0 June 26, 1998 Mr. David Bird Thermalito Irrigation District 410 Grand Avenue Oroville, CA. 95965 RE: Par 4 Subdivision Dear Mr. Bird: LAND OF 'NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 I am writing you in response to your letter and your many concerns regarding the Par 4 Subdivision on Highway 162, Oro Dam West in the Oroville area. I will respond to your concerns in the same order that you presented them in your letter. 1. "Why was Thermalito Irrigation District left out of the notice loop?" The file indicates that T.I.D. was sent a request for comments on August 23, 1994. We are not aware of the proposed subdivision being within the T.I.D. Sphere of Influence. A check of the Local Agency Formation Commission Sphere Maps indicates that it is questionable as to whether or not the proposed subdivision is within the T.I.D. Sphere of Influence. You also mention that the T.I.D. Ground Water Management Plan "comes into play." The Butte County Water Ordinance specifies that a special districts ground water management plan only.applies to parcels within the district service area. The proposed Par 4 Subdivision is clearly not within the boundaries of the T.I.D. and its service area. The Butte County Subdivision Ordinance standards (Appendix Section 12.01.1) requires connection of subdivisions to public water that are within 700 feet of an available water main within existing district boundaries. 2. You question why there was no provision for a well site to accommodate a community system. No such accommodation was made because it is not required. A T.I.D. resolution mandating such a set aside does not apply outside of the district. 3. You further question why permits have been issued in violation of the County's Well Ordinance and with disregard to T.I.D.'s Ground Water Management Plan. . Tentative approval for the Par 4 Subdivision was given on September 26, 1995 by the County's Development Review Committee. The County's Well Ordinance was adopted on June 26, 1996, well after tentative approval had been granted to the Par 4 Subdivision. As noted above, the proposed Par 4 Subdivision is not within the boundaries of the T.I.D. and its service area and not subject to T.I.D.'s Ground Water Management Plan. Mr. David Bird Thermalito Irrigation District June 26, 1998 Page 2 The request for an aquifer study, and the withholding of construction permits by T.I.D. are not within T.I.D.'s authority since the project is outside of district boundaries. I would appreciate a copy of your Ground Water Management Plan to use as a reference for future projects within your district. I hope this letter will serve to clear up the confusion surrounding the Par 4 Subdivision and T.I.D.'s involvement. Should you or any T.I.D. directors have more questions or need additional information, please call me. Since ely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP Jb cc: Supervisor Davis Supervisor Beeler Supervisor Josiassen T.I.D. Director Matlock T.I.D. Director Hartshorn T.I.D. Director Tolman T.I.D. Director Huston T.I.D. Director Reynolds John Blacklock, Chief Administrative Officer Tom Reid, Director Environmental Health Rob MacKenzie, Chief Deputy County Counsel K:\DDS\LETTERS\T1DPAR4.WPD June 22, 1998 Mr. Kenneth Trott Department of Conservation 801 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814-3528 RE: Warren Lot Line Adjustment for APN 028-230-057 and 058 Dear Mr. Trott: e ut LAND OF NATUR.AL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE:, (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 In a previous letter from the Butte County Assessor dated January 5, 1998, you were made aware that the County is exploring possible ways to accomplish a lot line adjustment between the two above referenced parcels. The Warrens own three legal parcels. Two are under Williamson Act Contract with a total acreage of 428 acres. The minimum contract acreage for this grazing land in Butte County is 160 acres. The third parcel is a 1.18 acres homesite that is not under Contract. The property owners want to provide a home site for their son and his family and have applied for and received County approval to re -configure the two parcels with a resulting five -acre homesite being created instead of the 1.18 acre parcel (see attached map exhibits). At the time of the approval, the County failed to recognize that the proposed five=acre parcel was under contract. The son previously built a home on the property. The five -acre, homesite parcel is needed for financing purposes. The County has explored several different options to accomplish this lot line adjustment, while keeping within the purpose of the LCA. (See the April 3, 1998, memorandum from the County Counsel's office). The Warren's have represented that they are unable,to acquire additional land to exchange with the 5 -acre parcel. In a recent meeting, the Butte County LCA Committee agreed to support the following new option, subject to concurrence from your Department. The proposed option'is based on the following facts: • The total acreage under contract is 428± acres. • The minimum contract acreage is currently 160 acres. • _ The contracted property is already held as two legal parcels. • Based upon the minimum contract acreage and the existing parcels, two homes could be constructed on the -contracted lands. One of their daughter's also has plans to build her home on the ranch and will require a smaller parcel for her financing, as well. • The construction of a home, whether on a 160 -acre parcel or a 5 -acre parcel, takes approximately the same land area out of grazing. • This is a family ranch. To ensure ongoing ranch operations, the owners need the assistance of their children. • Financing options for the new homes are limited by the existing large parcel sizes. • The parents do not want to gift a larger parcel to their son or daughter. The option that has the support of the LCA Committee is one that would allow the creation of two 5 -acre homesite parcels and a 418 -acre agricultural parcel. In exchange, the land owner will merge the two Mr. Kenneth Trott Department of Conservation June 22, 1998 Page 2 contracted parcels into one and execute a new.LCA agreement that has 'a 428 -acre minimum contract acreage. The new agreement would also preclude any further residential development on the agricultural parcel. Both homesite parcels will be developed and occupied by immediate family, a son and a daughter. The Butte County LCA Committee believes that the above scenario is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Williamson Act, as the amount of land converted from agricultural use to residential use would not be significantly different. With this in mind, the question is: Can the current Williamson Act contract be amended to achieve the two 5 -acre lot configuration and the restrictions on the 418+/- acre parcel without affecting State subvention to the County? The question raised by this project reflects a larger issue that the County is currently reviewing, that of clustered development. The Butte, County General Plan Agricultural Element suggests clustering as a method of recognizing the existing development potential of.a parcel while retaining the greatest amount of contiguous agricultural land. For example, a 100 -acre parcel with an A-10 (10 acre minimum) zone could be divided into 10 parcels each capable of having one dwelling. If clustered, the same land could be developed with 10 one -acre parcels in the most appropriate portion of the site and 90 acres would be retained for agricultural uses. In general, the County would prefer that the parcel not be divided at all, since 10 acre parcels are usually not an economically viable agricultural parcel. However, if a land division is approved, the clustered option is seen as the agriculturally superior option. The clustered option would not result in the extension of urban services (public water, sewer, etc.) as such services are generally not available in proximity to our agricultural areas. The irony is that, for parcels subject to an LCA agreement, the Williamson Act appears to lack the flexibility to use.clustering, to the detriment of maintaining sustainable agricultural parcels. The LCA Committee appreciates any assistance, guidance and support that you can provide in this matter. This, is, as the County Assessor described it, 'a "sticky situation." I want to assure you that Butte County has and continues to be very protective of agricultural lands and the Williamson Act, as evidenced by the fact that our LCA committee routinely recommends larger minimum contract acreage than the Act calls for. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this request, please contact me or Craig Sanders, Principal Planner. For your convenience, Assessor, Ken Reimers' initial letters, and your January 20, 1998, response is attached. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director, and Chairman of the Butte County Land Conservation Act Committee. TAP:jb Attachments cc: Warren Family, w/Maps attachment Ken Reimers, Assessor, w/Maps attachment Neil McCabe, County Counsel LCA Committee Members, w/Maps attachment KAP LA NN ING\T ROTI. LET 10392 +�Ac+_ t c, �3cv 2f `Ir 5 4 14 SAC. 63.9 7A C. 324.84Aer 41 o• 1119143 l 510 5l.as a 39C IOAC. 20.13 AIC 1.1 W-17 33 .MCADCW' L 160AC . 47o r 37 ; \- 20,08 20AC ° 16 141: 54 38 -12777 . 16 w 46 20Ac � s`v 20AC T 1SN.R.5 E. M.D.B- & M GuRREOTPARtEL t O COpJF*vRA-no0 ' 20AC ,t AP14 028.230•oS6 N%-001 20Ac h40 W 617.17 13 OS7 11660.64 49 2 A f1Rt 114 WILLL4MS&Ow 1.1534-23 7 O ACT. 1 b0 I►7c. 40AC. MCA. 24. O 26.5AC. 10392 +�Ac+_ t c, �3cv 2f `Ir 5 4 14 SAC. 63.9 7A C. 324.84Aer 41 o• 1119143 l 510 5l.as a 39C IOAC. 20.13 AIC 1.1 W-17 33 .MCADCW' L 160AC . 47o r 37 ; \- 20,08 20AC ° 16 141: 54 38 -12777 . 16 w 46 20Ac � s`v 20AC q 1330.92 Nfs 1274.7 3 39 45 2oac ' 20AC 1339.60 14 e 1040. 4 N%-001 20Ac h40 W 617.17 13 20l 11660.64 49 2 A I � ; �I 1.1534-23 7 PM Illu1=.s1-74 � r 3 9.930 40AC.% 40AC. 32 ` 1 47.7AC. 2 Sf 6 / c al.fBAC. 0 � PM121-93 � 40.SAC. 1121.48 /3 33AC. ®5 i 150.579 -AC i /! Rd 124-90 Q � k:iP'NE p . ?3LAC . • 80AC. Assess wig QCirl.. . _ 5 'PROPOS 'PA 4 col4FW-uRA-nON Q 145AC. 40AC. 63.97Ac. 24. 0 2 6.5 AC. 3 � 9. �� • _ _ 40AC. ` 40AC.S2 47.7AC. 2 • fJ E� �G� (,o�(tAc'r' 1328.10 kjcQ#- D Go v �2 i: -:,N r tz 6 51 � � No�Rr1C�. 15± %L 41.18AC. �! PM 121-95 ���� 11 43 40.5AC. I�{OSV1121.48 / IO 753.3971 o� ` 21 12 6 1 1 1 33AC. IOAC. 20.15.4c I I LI seen 7 . . OJ sl:.as SOAC. 4vts /7 1 150.579 AC 3 3 O a 37 R1 /24-90 Q .: .�• . , r '° 14 47 0 � a NE � 1Rslp4_e►/a . SAc 31AC. 20D8 20AC° 16 . Lu?�.•-•-.�.•. l -t MCADCW LN.*i4oia t.�AC /8 r . .9At 2$4 38 1?77.74 • 16 � 20AC � 10 a O20AC �! 2 160AC. a 1330.92 I274.l9 3 45 20AC • 20AC !� _ ; 1339. a0 /4 1 ash, w 20AC 4 h 40 -- * 617.11 13 20AC N „ 432OAC ' ?.34 19 `CJ 21660.64 552AC. ' ' 12 • 80 AC. 49 20 c ; •1 48 0 As; a '^ 1334.2 3' \PMT 1.7 4 09 I (SEE Po.09 FOR:4?EW ININO PARCELS OF )&qCEl� MAP) I REVISED: 9-96 t 04/03/98 12:13 e916891 BUTTE CO' COUNSE1 9001 •� INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM N • OFFICE OF BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL . TO: X Supervisor Bob Beeler Ken Reimers, Assessor Tom Parilo, Director, Development Services ,BY: Neil H. McCabe, Assistant County Counsel SUBJECT: - Warrens alternative solutions ` DATE: April 3, 1998 I have once again revised the outline of possible solutions pertaining to the Warrens matter. A copy of the revised outline is attached for your consideration. From a County perspective, I believe we are all in agreement the preferred "alternative is #1; however, it is my understanding that the Warrens do not wish to pursue that alternative. The Warrens may be interested in pursuing alternative #6. Mr. Warrens indicated this to me in a telephone conversation. However, since there is not an existing, underlying 40 acre parcelwhich could be utilized, I indicated to him that it would be necessary for us to discuss how to proceed to create a 40 acre parcel. I have not discussed the alternative any further with the Warrens. _ At this time I a n leaning towards recommending #4. Procedurally, I recommend that the matter be taken to the LCA Committee with the request that the Committee review it and make a recommendation to the Board. The Warrens should be notified when the Committee meeting is scheduled and should be given an opportunity to express their views on the matter. I also recommend that Supervisor Beeler call the Warrens and let them know we are considering this matter and they will be notified if. it is taken to the Committee., It is desirable that we bring this matter to a conclusion and not encourage the Warrens to pursue an alternative (such as #6) unless it is recommended by the Committee. . . j Planning p;,parttnent APR 0 6 1998 Ormhw, ..�:•.... •iia j Planning p;,parttnent APR 0 6 1998 Ormhw, ..�:•.... •iia 04/03/98 12:14 V9 86891 BUTTE CO COUNSE _ Q002 Warrens -alternative solutions, as revised April3, 1998 L Ears�LsataR - a. Amend Williamson Act contract ("contract') to include the existing 1.18 acre residential parcel _ ti. Amend•boundary line modification to reduce new residential parcel from 5 to 1.18 acres C. Amend contract to delete the new residential parcel d. Pro: this would comply with the provisions of new GC 51257, would not violate the contract and is the alternate suggested by the state. e. Con: this would reduce the new residential parcel to a size not acceptable to the Warrens as it would be too small to accomodate the planned swimming pool and temris court. f Modified"version: acquire additional contiguous land to bring under contract so that acreage brought in is equal to or greater than 5 acres. 2. 160 acre parren - a. Abandon theboundary line modification by simply not recording the documents necessary to complete it b. Execute and record any deeds necessary to reconvey the, 5 acre parcel back to the parents and instead convey a 160 acre parcel to the son C. Pro: this would not conflict with the contract and would allow ample space for all planned improvcments at the new residential site, and any excess land could be leased back for agrricultural purposes without the necessity for a parcel map pursuant to GC 66412(k) ; could be combined with partial non -renewal of the 160 acres. See #5. d. Con: 160 acres is more than the parties wish to be conveyed to the son; but he could be given an undivided 1/8 interest only which ultimately could be changed to sole ownership of 20 acres. The son might not be able to obtain the refinancing he desires on his new residence. 3.. 5 acre car-ellation a: Allow the boundary line modification to be finalized b. Process a partial cancellation of the contract to be applied for by the Warrens, subject to the payment of cancellation penalties C. Pro: this would give the Warrens the parcels they want and would recognize the reality that neither the existing nor the new residential parcels are agricultural' plus the payment of penalties would recognize the fact that the new 5 acre parcel should not be receiving preferential tax treatment. d. Con: the findings justifying cancellation are difficult to make and could be questioned by the state thus jeopardizing subvention S, and the payment of penalties (about 1/8 current market value) might not be acceptable to the Warrens 4. non -renewal a. The County could give notice of non -renewal of the contract (GC 51245), which would cause the contract to end in 10 years. (Note: the Warrens would be-' entitled to notice before the non -renewal was recorded and could protest.) b. The boundary line modification would be allowed to be finalized. 04/03/98 12:14 65386891 BUTTE CO COUW 003 d. Pro: the Warrens would get the parcel sizes, they want; but the County would "send a message" that it will not sit idly by and allow contracts to be violated. Th preferential tax treatent under the contract would be lost as the taxes would begin to gradually increase each year under R &T Code Sec. 426. The land use restrictions would remain in'effect until the non -renewal period is over. Con: the existing contract violation would not be directly addressed, and the ( Warrens would be allowed to continue getting some contract benefit although ' the preferential tax treatment would phase out as the taxes are gradually increased) for an additional ten years without payment of any penalties. The County would immediately lose the state subvention, but this loss would be minimal (S1/acre).. �. partial nnn-renewal a. This is a modified version of #4 with only the new residential parcel "non- renewed" onrenewed" b. Existing contract could be rescinded, new contract entered including 1.18 acres, pursuant to GC 51254 C. Question?such new contracts are supposed to be for the same property. Is "substantially the same property" enough to comply? This is questionable. 5. 40 acre parcel a. Abandon the boundary line modification by simply not recording the documents necessary to complete it b. Execute and record any deeds necessary to reconvey the 5 acre parcel back to the parents and instead convey a 40 acre (or larger) parcel to the son pursuant to GC 51230.1 i. The parcel transferred must conform to zoning and subdivision requirements. There is apparrently not an existing, underlying parcel which could be utilized. H. ' The parcel (and all other parts of the property) would remain subject to the contract and there must be a written agreement between the -immediate family members that the parcel will be operated under the joint . management of the parties, i.e., that all the land under the contract will be farmed or managed as one agricultural unit. C. Pro: This transfer would have "no effect" on the contract, pursuant to GC 51230.1(b). It therefore would not be regarded as a contract violation; however, to be certain on this point, the contract should be modified; in writing, signed by the County and the owners, to specifically allow the transfer under the circumstances of this case. This approach would allow ample space for all ' planned improvements at the new residential site, and the parcel (other than the residential use) would still be managed for agricultural purposes as a part of the larger acreage d. Con: The steps necessary for this alterative are complicated and arguably inconsistent with the original contract and the 160 acre parcel size restriction. Also, the state's position is that GC 51230.1(b) should not be used to create a residential parcel. Lastly, it is not known whether the son could obtain the refinancing he desires on his residence. ,butte Co LAND. OF NATURAL VV EA LTH AND BEAUTY KENNETH O. REIMERS ASSESSOR 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE. CAUFORNIA 959653382 Telephone: (916) 538-7721 Fax: (9 16) 538-7991 TO Concerned Parties /1 FROM Ken Reimers, Butte County Assessor DATE Jan. 5, 1998 SUBJECT Warren Boundary Line Modification (Williamson Act vs Non -Williamson Act parcel) A.P. # 028-23-0-057 & 58 Observations: Mistakes have been made • Our land development department (Stu Edell) does not recognize Williamson Act contracts as valid restrictions when processing splits or B.L.M.'s --- they evidently only concern themselves with health and safety issues. As a result, the owners applied for, paid the fees, and were granted an approval for a building permit and a boundary line modification. Now the owner's son has completed a rather large home (4,600 sq. ft.) and wishes to finalize "the paper work". As part of the process, the assessor is asked to estimate the taxes (via a tax deposit process) – I (as an elected individual) wish to treat all taxpayers fairly and administer my duties properly (not participating in what I believe to be an illegal split). • The owners acquired this property a short time ago (11/95) and should have been aware they were receiving a preferential tax treatment since the property taxes on their relatively unproductive rangeland is currently about 10% of what it would be if it were not in the Williamson Act. They own three (3) legal parcels – two are restricted under the Williamson Act and one is not. The. latter is a small 1.18 acre parcel where the fathers personal residence is located — they have now created a 5+ acre parcel within their contracted land and wish to exchange it for the father's 1.18 acre parcel. The contract on this land calls for parcels to be created that are at least 160 acre minimum in size. • The title company prepared the papers (which were signed and recorded) that placed the son's etal name on the parcel (103+ acres) where he built the new home leaving his parents on title. Now the father wishes to (I) -clear the title, (2) be paid back the $178,000 he loaned his son to build the new home, and (3) have his 35 year old son secure a new bank loan on a small parcel that relates with a homesite. • Mr. Warren earlier purchased an exclusive 10 acre school site from a cattleman in Plumas County and had no problem (as Superintendent of Schools) canceling the contract and "getting on with life". His son feels quite strongly that promises have been made, a building permit issued, and the boundary line modification approved, fees paid, and we should "live and let live". He has even intimated legal action against Butte County may be forthcoming if we don't act quickly. Warren Boundary. Line Modification A.P.# 028-23-0-057 & 58 Page 2 CONFIDENTIAL summation. I believe the contracts are enforceable and the integrity of the entire program may well be at stake. Our Development Services Director acknowledges they would do things differently today — I'm not convinced that is true since the head'of Land Development still refuses to acknowledge CLCA as an . enforceable restriction and feels we should simply process the tax deposit. Butte County has received nearly $500,000 per year in subvention monies for property within the Williamson Act program from the State over the last several years. I believe it is imperative that our actions are prudent and within the letter of the law. We had a similar situation arise only this past year where a rancher applied for (and was granted) cancellation and paid a $40,000 fee in order to allow his son to build a second home on property he owned. I did not agree with the process nor the justification given for the cancellation, but it was done and fairness (as well as the law) should prevent abuses from occurring in the future. In closing, I would like to receive a letter of support from you, Ken Trott, (as someone in authority with the Land Corkservation Unit of the Department of Conservation) supporting my position that these contracts are enforceatle. In fact, if necessary our subvention money could be at risk if we (Butte. County) continue to act irresponsibly in matters that appear to violate the terms of the contract. I would propose a possible solution for this current "sticky situation" would be for the family members to exchange comparable acres (1+ acre for 1+ acre). This would allow everyone to acknowledge' the validity of the current contract and still allow the son to refinance his new home while the father incorporates his old homesite (which was unrestricted and within the boundary of his ranch lands) into his ers some additional time and money with their surveyor, CLCA holdings. This solution may cost the own but would be in keeping with preserving open space and accepting the restrictions of the Ag. Preserve. p.S. - I'm attaching a plot map (assessor's parcel map) to allow you to view the layout of the subject. This property is located in our foothill area Southeast of Bangor and is in a 5 acre minimum zone; but is surrounded by parcels zoned with larger acreage minimum and the subject has very limited road access (with no paved road frontage). The owners have eight children and may -try to split their property numerous other times in the future if this issue is not resolved. Thank you in advance for your timely response. Attachments: Ranch Plot Map Approved 5.34 acre parcel boundary line modification map cc: Ken Trott c/o Land Conservation Unit (State Dept. of Conservation) Neil McCabe, Butte County Deputy County Counsel- =RL-tl :LCdID C-DmSEX ZT::�r-: =R: 910 327 3430 19SG1-21 08:37 R33S P.02,`C a SIA IE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESMACES ^. r.NCY . PETE WIISO . Gawmww DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION OM910N OF ADMINISTRATION WSION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DIVISION CF OL. GAS ANO GEOihERMAL RESOURCES ORAMON OF RECYCLING I January 20, 1998 Mr. Ken Reimers, Assessor County of Butte 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3382 Re: APN: 028-23-0-057 end 058 Dear Mr. Reimers: sol K Sues, Ms 13-71 Swamftux CA "I14-3s2t Phanc.010 322.1080 PAX (916) 44S-0732 TDD (916) 324.253S This responds to your letter of January 5, 1998 regarding a proposed subdivision of land enrolled in the Williamson Act The Department of Conservation (Department) administers the Williamson Act and the Open Space Subvention Act on behalf of the State of California, and Is authorized to render advice regarding the Act as well as to enforce the program through subvention withholding and other legal means. (Government Code sections 16146-7 & 51206.) A Williamson Act contract represents a duly recorded and enforceable restriction on land use that runs with the land to all successors In Interest of the landowner who entered the contract. (See Government Code sections 51243, 51248.) As we understand the pertinent facts in this case, a home has been built on a 103 -acre parcel of land subject to Williamson Act contract #111.079 (attached). The landowner now desires to split off this homesite. After reviewing the information you provided, the Department of Conservation provides the following comments and information. Enforceable_ Restriction Revenue and Taxation Code section 422 defines an enforceable restriction. Land, which is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Califcmia Land Conservation (Williamson) Act contract, is deemed to be enforceably restricted and subject to the limitations prescribed by law. Since APN 028-23-0-57 is enrolled in a Williamson Act contract, the land is enforceably restricted. In.retum for limiting the use of their land to grazing and open space as required by the Williamson Act contract and zoning law, the Warren's receive a tax preference, which lowers the amount of annual property taxes assessed against the property. The Warrens and Butte County are required to ensure that the enforceable restriction is administered properly in accordance with all laws and provisions relating to the Williamson Act. =Rc!l : L4'l:0 CCIPGEP /OT f =P1 SQce 9 L6 327 2430 A 01 -'21 09:37 #335 P-03/04 Mr. Ken Reimers January 20, 1998 Page 2 The subdivision of homesite parcels on lands in the Williamson Act is strictly limited by the Subdivision Map Art (Government Code section 66474.4.) Under this provision, a homesite may only be split off an enrolled parcel if the home has existed for five years and the land has been owned for at least ten years by the homeowner (Government Code section 68474.4(b)(2).) Neither of these prerequisites is met in the instant situation. The restrictions In the Subdivision Map Act are necessary to promote the overarching purpose of the Williamson Act to curb "the rapid and virtually irreversible loss of agricultural land to residential and other developed uses." (Sierra Club V. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal.3d 840, 850.) The Williamson Act was intended to protect farmland from conversion into "scattered, low density, single family subdivisions." (Honey Scrinas Homeowners Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1984)167 Cal.App.3d 1122, at 1139.) These basle concems prompted the Attomey General to opine in 1971, and again In 1979, that subdividing contracted lands for the purpose of residential development is prohibited by the Williamson Act (62 Ops. AtYy Gen. 233 (1979); 54 Ops. Atry Gen. 90 (1971). The proposed division of a 5 -acre parcel would not comply with the general local and state minimum parcel size requirements. The Williamson Act requires that prime land parcels should be at least 10 acres in size and 40 acres In size for nonprime land-. (Government Code section 51222.) A city or county may establish restrictions, terms - and conditions more restrictive than provided by these Williamson Act provisions (Government Code Sections 51240, 66474.4(e). Accordingly, Butte County has established minimum parcel size requirements of 160 acres per contract on nonprime (grazing) land.. The contract at issue in this case, #111979 expressly prohibits the creation of parcels of less than 160 acres. Senate Bill 1240 On January 1, 1998, legislation became effective that will facilitate minor lot line adjustments, provided specific findings can be made. If the new findings can be met, and if Mr. Warren wishes to recombine his 1.18 acres with the 103 -acre parcel, this would allow the son to withdraw a 1.18 -acre portion from the contract. A copy of Senate Bill 1240 is enclosed. However, under no circumstances can this provision of SB 1240 be used to create a new homesite parcel. Conclusion: The preferred approach to terminating Williamson Act restrictions is through the nine-year nonrenewal process. Mr. Warren could file a notice of whole or partial contract nonrenewal pursuant to Government Code section 51246. Alternatively, I concur with your conclusion that the only legal mechanism for immediately splitting a FR=ft : LND C^,.MSERV: T I r�N SAC � 9:6 337 343Q 19 1 -31 082-38 71335 P.0.:,10a Mr. Ken Reimers January 20, 1998 Page 2 five-acre homesite parcel off this contract would be if the prerequisites for a' partial contract cancellation pursuant to Government Code section 51282 could be met. As you Indicate, this approach requires that findings be made and that a cancellation fee be paid to the State, For future reference, the Williamson Act contains a provision, which addresses parcel splits to facilitate transfer among family members. Government Code section 51230.1. This allows land to be divided among family members subject to a joint agricultural management agreement However, such divisions must not fall below 40 acres for grazing lands, and hence could not be used to justify the split of a five-acre homesite. Similarly, San Joaquin County established provisions to-facilitate the financing of homesite parcels on agricp1tural and Williamson Act land through temporary subdivision. It is not clear at this type of approach could be used here, but this might serve as a model for how Butte County could address similar situations in the future. A copy of these provisions is enclosed for your information. Please contact me at 9416-324-0850, If you have additional questions. Very truly yours f Kenneth E. Trott, Manager Land Conservation Unit Enclosures cc: Neil McCabe, Butte County Deputy County Counsel L A N D O F NATURAL WEALTH A N D BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 June 19, 1998 Douglas B. Aikins General Counsel Associates LLP 1891 Landings Drive Mountain View, CA 94043 Subject: Work Program for Blakeley Western ARDEIR Dear Mr. Aikins: Neil McCabe and I have reviewed your letter of May 26, 1998. While you have raised points that suggest some refinements and clarification to the cost estimate outline prepared, by Planning Concepts are in order, overall, we do not agree that a new consultant should be retained to finish this job. We also do not agree that Planning Concepts has not followed county direction in preparing the revised scope of services outline. Planning Concepts has addressed all of the points raised in your letter of February 27, 1998. Your initial concerns regarding the General Plan consistency analysis have previously been addressed. Planning Concepts has agreed to eliminate the analysis of the nonphysical policies. In this latest outline, they have, once again, reiterated project description deficiencies that need to be overcome in order to proceed. As I have previously stated, I remain convinced that Planning Concepts can and will prepare an adequate EIR. Your concerns seem to be based on your forecast that the Administrative Recirculated Draft EIR will be legally deficient before it is even written. We are unable to arrive at the same conclusion based on the April 27, 1998, cost estimate outline prepared by Planning Concepts. The Butte County CEQA guidelines require that an independent consultant be retained to prepare both the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The ultimate acceptance of the Final EIR is based on a public process. The decision on certification will be made by the Butte County Development Review Committee and Board of Supervisors, if appealed. As the applicant's representative, you have the right to review the Administrative Recirculated Draft EIR and participate in the public process. We will review your comments on this administrative document, but will limit changes to makers of factual and legal adequacy. An EIR is intended to be an informational document. It does not dictate or predetermine the final decision on the project. In approving a project, the County decision makers may accept, modify, eliminate, or substitute mitigation measures and alternatives that are included in the EIR, if proper findings are made. Douglas B. Aikins General Counsel Associates LLP June 19, 1998 Page 2 Both the State and Butte County CEQA guidelines require that an EIR reflect the independent judgement of the lead agency. Environmental impacts identified by and mitigation approaches recommended by trustee and responsible state agencies, as well as local agencies, will be reflected in the document. The EIR will also identify and evaluate all natural and manmade setting impacts (geological, flooding, noise, etc.) that may impact the project. This is both required in an EIR and the County General Plan. We disagree with your assessment that the EIR cannot evaluate specific general plan policies that raise environmental issues or otherwise specify level of service standards and other thresholds. We also maintain that an EIR that does not disclose the natural and manmade impacts that could impact the project would fall short of CEQA's full disclosure requirements. We are at a point- where, aside 6om minor refinements, the latest submittal from Planning Concepts is acceptable for use to proceed in completing this EIR. We feel this is in the County's and your client's best interest. Once the EIR is finalized, project decisions can be forthcoming. We also advise that no further work on completing the EIR will occur until adequate funds are deposited with the County. Once said funds are deposited, we will proceed to amend the contract and scope of services. .Having stated our position regarding Planning Concepts and the completion of the EIR, we also need to respond to your request to initiate another Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The County's EIR contract is a three-way agreement between the county, consultant and applicant. The applicant's role in the contract is primarily that of the payor and the current contract does not contain the necessary funds to complete the scope of work provided in the outline. If the applicant is refusing to go forward with the current consultant, you do have the option to request a new RFP at this time. If you were to pursue this avenue, the County will request that you waive or agree to an extension of all processing time limits and agree that the County will pay Planning Concepts for all work completed to date. We would, in turn, notify the consultant that the contract has. been satisfactorily fulfilled and that termination of the current contract does not poorly reflect on their workmanship and professionalism. Should you or your client have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me or Neil McCabe, Assistant County Counsel. Sinc rely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb cc: Neil McCabe, County Counsel k:\dds\1etters\Aikins.wpd EJ June 19, 1998 Laura Rivero-Fisher, Manager Community Housing & Credit Counseling Center 1560 Humboldt, Suite 2 Chico, CA 95928 �` �iutte �ii L A N D O F N A T U RAL WEALTH A N D BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 RE: HUD Housing Counseling Program Grant Application, Community Housing & Credit Counseling Center (CHCCC) Dear Ms. Rivero-Fisher: This letter is to express commitment on the part of the Butte County Department of Development Services to support the Community Housing & Credit Counseling Center's HUD Housing Counseling Program Grant Application. We will work with CHCCC to improve the quality of life for low to moderate income people living in rural California, who are often unaware of housing opportunities and consumer credit/household financial management education. In our county, many consumers suffer from the lack of basic housing and consumer credit/household financial management education, many of whom are seeking rental housing and home ownership opportunities. Consumers often have no idea of the resources available to them. We will work with CHCCC to inform consumers of CHCCC's services by referring consumers and social service agencies to CHCCC. If the opportunity presents itself we will assist in coordinating community outreach and continue to support CHCCC's efforts to secure funding to ensure that CHCCC's free service's are provided to our community. The Community Housing & Credit Counseling Center's services are important to our county because they are providing education to address a need that has not been met in our community. The services CHCCC will provide and will educate consumers how to avoid homelessness, evictions, foreclosure and bankruptcy and how to become a homeowner. We look f to the opportunity to work with you. Sin rely, '1 Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR'S OFFICE To: John Blacklock, Chief Administrative Officer From: Thomas A. Parilo, Director Subject: PROPOSED 1998/99 BUDGET T FOR BUILDING DIVISION Date: June 17, 1998 I am taking this opportunity to submit my comments on the proposed budget for the Building Division. Once you have reviewed my comments, I would appreciate the opportunity to further discuss my concerns with you. The budget proposal for the Building Division recommends a permanent reduction in staff. Given the trend in.permit activity in recent years, this recommendation is warranted. My concern is in the timing of the staff reduction. The senior Supervising Building Inspector has announced his intent to retire as of April 15, 1999. Elimination of a Supervising Building Inspector in October 1998, will result in the junior Supervising Building Inspector bumping down through the ranks of the Building Inspector classification. The net result would appear to be the loss of one of a very competent and conscientious Building Inspector. The impact from the loss of the Building Inspector in October becomes greater in April 1999, at the onset of the peak construction period, when the Supervising Building Inspector retires. That will result in an actual reduction of two Building Inspectors, one from the lay off and one from retirement. At that point, it will be extremely difficult to maintain two offices and "service on demand." The division would be left with six inspectors to man the two counters and provide field inspections throughout the county on a daily basis. I believe that the impact on our ability to continue to provide an adequate level of inspection services could be resolved by delaying the lay off until April 1999. I held a staff meeting on June 16, 1998, to discuss the .proposed budget and other department issues. Some staff members expressed the same concern about our capability to continue to deliver the same levels of service in two offices with the staff reduction. . One possible solution to the problem of staffing that we will face in April 1999, is the use of the 36 -hour work week during the off construction period between October and April. The resulting savings in Salary & Benefits over the 13 pay periods would approximate those generated by the lay off in October. The lay off of the Office Assistant would occur on schedule. The -office would continue to be open while offering five day, eight hours a day public counter service. The staffirig level would be approximately the same with this schedule as it would be with one less Building Inspector in October. However, come. April, the staff reduction would be accomplished through attrition. Furthermore, we would not have to engage in a lengthy recruiting and training process for a new and, possibly, inexperienced inspector. I would like to further explore this option with you, in light of the planned retirement of the Supervising Building Inspector assigned to the Chico office. If you prefer, I could offer this option to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, June 23, 1998. Thank you for your consideration and ongoing support regarding this matter. TAP: jb KADDS\M EMOSV B99BUGT. W PD June 16, 1998 Daniel Breedon 16520 Valwood Place Weed, CA 96094 Dear Mr. Breedon: Cl ,butte Fount LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AN.D BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Pursuant to our telephone conversation on Thursday, June 11, 1998, this letter confirms the County's offer of employment to you as a Senior Planner in the Planning Division of the Department of Development Services. You will begin work on Monday, July 13, 1998, at 7:30 a.m. Your starting, salary at Step No. 1 will be $1,447.00 biweekly, upon ratification by the Management, Confidential & Supervisory (MCS) unit. The unit has voted to accept the offer which includes the pay increase, however, at this time, it is unclear of the ratification date. I would expect that it would be in effect before your starting date. On October 1, 1998, your biweekly salary will increase to $1,490.00. If either of these salary adjustments are not in effect as of your start date, I will entertain other modifications. Four additional merit steps of approximately 5 percent are available at your yearly anniversary date. I am pleased that you have accepted this offer and on behalf of the entire staff, we look forward to a cooperative and enjoyable working experience together. Kindly send me a note to confirm your receipt of this letter and acceptance of this position. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb _ _-- June 16, 1998 Laura Orlando 3983 Echo Way Beale Air Base, CA 95903 Dear Ms. Orlando: Thank you for considering the County of Butte as a prospective employer. The position for Senior Planner has been filled. Your.name will remain on the active list for Senior Planner candidates for approximately one year. Thank you again for your interest in the position. Gook luck in your future endeavors. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb -� �`,iii �, ���._ �+ • �__�_•' u e oun *?u LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTmay. OFFICE ES DEPARTMENT OF DE PME T SERVICES • _ •'. i'. `.. _.w . _ .. ' .♦ .._ hid^:\ 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 .:.• TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 June 16, 1998 Laura Orlando 3983 Echo Way Beale Air Base, CA 95903 Dear Ms. Orlando: Thank you for considering the County of Butte as a prospective employer. The position for Senior Planner has been filled. Your.name will remain on the active list for Senior Planner candidates for approximately one year. Thank you again for your interest in the position. Gook luck in your future endeavors. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb -1Z_ uttecount7 LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE. CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 June 16, 1998 Brian Suzuki 94-978 Lumihoahu Street Waipahu, HI 96797 Dear Mr. Suzuki: Thank -you for considering the County of Butte as a prospective employer. The position for Senior Planner has been filled. Your name will remain on the active list for Senior Planner candidates for approximately one year. Thank you again for your interest in the position. Gook luck in your future endeavors. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb u to LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT .OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ' 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVI,LLE, CALIFORNIA.. 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 t June 16, 1998 Taiwo Jaiyeoba 7818 Lily Mar Lane Antelope, CA 95843 Dear Taiwo Jaiyeoba: Thank you for considering the County of Butte as a prospective employer. The position for Senior Planner has been filled. Your name will remain on the active list for Senior Planner candidates for approximately one year. Thank you again'for your interest M''the position. Gook luck in your future endeavors. Sincerely, G Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP-jb June 16, 1998 Rick Helman 1225 Johnson Avenue Marysville, CA 95901 Dear Mr. Helman: LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Thank you for considering the County of Butte as a prospective employer. We had several well qualified applicants for the position. However, after considerable thought -about the specific needs of the department, I have offered the position to another candidate, who has accepted. Your name will remain on the active list for Senior Planner candidates. Thank you again for your interest in the position. I wish you the best for your future success. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb Sane county ��. LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE .4 r� DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 June 16, 1998 Grant Taylor 941-B Waterford Drive Chico, CA 95973-0317 Dear Mr. Taylor: Thank you for considering the County of Butte as a prospective employer. We had several well qualified applicants for the position. However, after considerable thought about the specific needs of the department, I have offered the position to another candidate, who has accepted. Your name will remain on the active list for Senior Planner candidates. Thank you again for your interest in the position. I wish you the best for your future success. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP.jb June 16, 1998 Peter Calarco 9354 Henley Way Sacramento, CA 95826-6995 Dear Mr. Calarco: I� utte Co LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Thank you for considering the County. of Butte as a prospective employer. We had several well qualified applicants for the position. However, after considerable thought about the specific needs of the department, I have offered the position to another candidate, who has accepted. Your name will. remain on the active list for Senior Planner candidates. Thank you again for your interest in the position: I wish you the best for your future success. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP.jb June 16, 1998 Stephen Lucas 610 Olive Street Chico, CA 95928 Dear Steve: Thank you for considering the County of Butte as a prospective employer. The position for Senior Planner has been filled. Your name will remain on the active list for Senior Planner candidates for approximately one year. Thank you again for your interest in the position. Gook luck in your future endeavors. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb - Eu Me coun � _•.A - LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AN.D BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES x>,� ypr^ : _.�.., .'•,, : 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 'TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 June 16, 1998 Stephen Lucas 610 Olive Street Chico, CA 95928 Dear Steve: Thank you for considering the County of Butte as a prospective employer. The position for Senior Planner has been filled. Your name will remain on the active list for Senior Planner candidates for approximately one year. Thank you again for your interest in the position. Gook luck in your future endeavors. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb CA June 16, 1998 Lisa Purvis Wilson 21 Arbol Avenue Oroville, CA 95966 Dear. Ms. Purvis Wilson: SuiteCount LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Thank you for considering the County of Butte as a prospective employer. The position for Senior Planner has been filled. Your name will remain on the active list for Senior Planner candidates for approximately one year. Thank you again for your interest in the position. Gook luck in your future endeavors. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of. Development Services TAP:jb June 16, 1998 David Doody 847 Arbutus Avenue Chico, CA 95926 Dear Dave: utte Count LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Thank you for your interest in applying for the Senior Planner position. As you know, I have decided to fill the position with another candidate. I remain optimistic that future advancement opportunities will be available to you. Paula and I will also do all we can to better ready you for that opportunity. We look forward to working with you on the General Plan update and are glad that you are part of our team. I look forward to an ongoing cooperative working relationship together. Your name will remain on the active list for Senior Planner candidates. Thank you again for your efforts. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director's Office TO: Employees of the Department of Development Services FROM: Jill Broderson, Development Services SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT STAFF MEETING DATE: June 12, 1998 A department-wide staff meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 16, 1998. The meeting will be held in the break room at 7 County Center Drive and will begin promptly at 3:00 p.m. Please plan` to attend. The purpose of this meeting is to.discuss the proposed 1998-99 budget and departmental issues. ' JB: Y DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM - DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR'S OFFICE TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Thomas A. Parilo, Director SUBJECT: .Planning Commission Report of Decision for. Central Butte General Plan Amendment. DATE: June 10, 1998 ; a SUMMARY: Section 24-25.30 of the Butte County Code requires that the Planning Commission report its decision on General Plan Amendment projects within 90 days of their recommended action. The Planning Commission held their public hearing on both components of this General Plan Amendment on March 12, 1998. The attached report (Exhibit 1) is the Planning Commission's formal summary of their action. Upon receiving the Planning Commission's report, Section 24-25.40 requires the Board to schedule a public hearing within 90 days. The Board may approve, modify or disapprove the recommendation from the Planning Commission. If no action is taken by the Board within the 90 -day period, the proposed amendment shall be deemed denied. DISCUSSION: Ordinarily the -report from the Planning Commission would have been presented to the Board immediately following their action. Prior to the Planning Commission decision, the applicant represented that additional lands will be removed from the project boundaries. To date, a revised project description has not been presented to the staff. Once submitted, further environmental review may be required. In addition a fiscal study has not been prepared. A fiscal study was requested by both the County Administrator's Office and the Development Services Department staff. It is alsoxecommended for General Plan Amendments by the Urban Reserve Policy within the Durham -Dayton -Nelson Plan. To date, the Board has not authorized the budget transfers to fund a fiscal impact study under the direction of the county and the applicant has not presented a separate study for consideration. The Board can either set a hearing within this 90 -day time period, or it can wait to receive the updated project information and fiscal study before setting the hearing date. The applicant has requested (attached undated letter received June 8, 1998) that the hearing not be set until completion of the fiscal study and submittal of the revised project information. If the applicant does not submit the requisite project information and fiscal study, the County Code states that the General Plan Amendment would be denied if no formal action were to occur during this 90 -day period. The applicant has been informed of these County Code provisions through our March 31, 1998, letter (attached). - RECOMMENDATION: Await setting the hearing until the applicant provides the updated project information and a fiscal study Attachments - k:\dds\bosrpts\cbut2brd. wpd 76Hofmann COMPANY June 4, 1998 0 BUILDERS AND- DEVELOPERS 1380 GALAXY WAY • P.O. BOX 907 '• CONCORD, CA 94522 (925) 682-4830 0 FAX (925) 682-4771 Tom Parilo, Director Butte County Development Services 7 County Center Dr. Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Tom: This letter is a follow-up 'to your March 31, 1998 letter to me and our subsequent conversations about the hearing process for the Central Butte County General Plan Amendment. ; I agree with you that revised project information and a fiscal impact study would be necessary for the Board of Supervisors to properly consider the project. Recognizing that you have until June 10th (90 days) to forward the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, and further recognizing that this additional information will not be available .by then, I concur with your suggestion to forward the recommendation to the Board, but request the Board delay scheduling of the hearing until such .time that this information is available. Until a fiscal study is completed by the County's consultant, successful processing of the General Plan Amendment is problematic. Now that local elections are over,,I am hopeful that we can soon find an avenue to prepare the fiscal study. With regard to County processing costs, I would request that you hold off on your request for an additional $17,818.66, since the County has -an unspent $21,000 in its accounts that was received from Rancho Esquon ,Partners. With better direction about the fiscal study, well be in a better position to . tell if you actually need the additional payment. Please let me know if you have any questions about these matters. Sincerely, Dan Boatwright planning Division. JUN 0 8 1998 Omviile, California LJ rF�'. y. L March 31, 1998 Dan Boatwright The Hofmann Company — P.O. Box 907 Concord, CA 94522 0 ffiatte Cowd LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965.3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Subject: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING PROCESS FOR CENTRAL BUTTE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Dear Dan: I am responding to your letter of March 16, 1998, concerning your desire to be heard by the Board of Supervisors. As you know, the Planning Commission's action constitutes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Section 24-25.30 requires that the Planning Commission's recommendation be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors within 90 days of their decision date. Section 24.25.40 requires that the Board of Supervisors set a hearing within 90 days of the receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation. The Board may approve, overturn or modify the Planning Commission's action. They may also allow the Planning Commission's recommendation to become final by taking "no action" following.their public hearing. Ordinarily, the department would immediately forward the Planning Commissi&s recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. In this case, there are factors which prevent us from immediately doing that. These factors include changes to the project boundaries and the absence of the fiscal report. As we discussed after the March 12, 1998, Planning Commission meeting, we will need a revised project description that reflects the modified project boundaries and projected land use details applicable to the reduced scale. You should also map the Primary and Secondary areas based on the 85%-15% ratios. Once this information is presented, we will review it against the conclusions of the recommended Final Environmental Impact Report. Also, please initiate the preparation of the fiscal report. In order to go forward with the approved EPS contract, additional funding in the amount of — $6,200 is required. Once deposited, it will require a 4/5ths vote of the Board of Supervisors to appropriate the unanticipated revenues to the department's professional services account. Once the revised project information and the fiscal study are prepared, we will forward the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board. If these materials are not ready before the 90 -day referral period has expired, we could request that the Board delay scheduling the hearing until such time that this information is available. Dan Boatwright The Hofmann Company March 31, 1998 Page 2 My last point of this letter deals with county processing costs. It has been a while since we've presented a bill to cover the department's processing costs. Currently the balance due is $17,818.66. A detailed bill requesting payment and an additional deposit is attached. Should you. have any questions re ding this matter, please let me know. Sin ly, l c� Gam— Thomas A..Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb Attachment k:�olanninQ`chW9P—V d r APPLICANT: K. H. Hofmann OWNER: Various REQUEST: The Planning rCommission heard -and made recommendations on two separate requests: A. A request to consider the creation of a new General Plan land use designation of "Agricultural Preserve/Planned Community" incorporating the standards and criteria described in the project. The proposed: new land use designation is in response to Option 4 of the Issues & Options Report, 1994, in order to provide for a planned growth community in the County outside -of the present incorporated communities. B. A request to consider the Central Butte County General Plan Amendment Project to amend the present land use designations of OFC (Orchard and Field Crop), GOL (Grazing & Open Land), A -R (Agricultural -Residential), and I (Industrial), to a newly created General Plan land use designation of "Agricultural Preserve/Planned Community," for approximately 18,650 +/- acres of land on properties generally bound by Neal Road on the north, Clark Road (SR 191) on the east, SR 149 on the south and includes properties on the west side of SR 99, south of Durham Dayton Highway. The amendment also includes amending a portion of the Durham -Dayton - Nelson Area Plan. DATE OF LAST PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: March 12, 1998 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: Various ACREAGE: 18,650+/- 1. 8,650+/-I. PROVISIONS:. Pursuant to Butte County Code Section 24-25.30, the Planning Commission must submit a written report of its recommendations on all zoning/General Plan amendments to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission has held public hearings on the above referenced project and submits the following findings and recommendation. Pursuant to Butte County Code Section 24-25.40, the Board shall set this matter for public hearing within 90 -days of receipt of the report. If no action is taken during the 90 -day period, Section 24-25(b)'states the amendment is denied. II. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS FOR REO 1FL _ST A: A. That growth is inevitable in Butte County in numbers between 14,000 and 40, 000 homes before the year 2010; and B. That this growth can be accommodated in the existing urban Spheres of Influence; and C. Accommodation in the existing Spheres of Influence is better for the County because it would maintain prevailing character of different areas of the County. That it would allow growth to enjoy economies of scale and specialization and police, fire, sewer, and water treatment facilities. That it would preserve the prevailing expansive rural appearance of the area. That it would intend to preserve agricultural land; and D. That the benefits overcome the disadvantages of forgoing the opportunity to have a planned community with integrated housing -and industrial development and the possible fiscal benefits of having a development that would pay for_itself. nI, PLANNING COAMSSION ACTION FOR RF.n 1FL —ST A: _ E. Accept the environmental document and recommend -to the Board that they certify the adequacy of the Final EIR, including the Fish and Game comments and the responses to those comments. VOTE: 5-0 F. Recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they reject the new General Plan category; and VOTE: 3-2 AYES: Commissioners Leland and Nelson, and Chairman Lambert NOES: Commissioners Cage and Mooney ABSENT: 0 ABSTAINED: 0 A. The General Plan designation has been rejected; and B. That growth is inevitable in Butte County in numbers between 14,000 and 40, 000 homes before the year 201'0; and C. That it can be accommodated in the existing urban Spheres of Influence; and D. Accommodation in_the existing Spheres of Influence is better for the County because it would maintain prevailing character of different areas of the County. That it would_ allow growth to enjoy economies of scale and specialization and police, fire,. sewer, and water treatment facilities. That it would preserve the prevailing expansive rural appearance of the area. That it would intend to preserve agricultural land; and 2' E.. That the benefits overcome the disadvantages of forgoing the opportunity to have a planned community with integrate housing and industrial development and the possible fiscal benefits of having a development that would pay for itself. F. With the recommendation should the Board of Supervisors 'choose to adopt the General Plan designation and consider applying it to this particular piece of ground, that the Commission be given the opportunity to address that issue at that time. V. PL.ANNINC. COMMISSION ACTION FOR RFQ TFL—ST B: A. Reject the application of this General Plan Amendment to this property for K. F. Hofmann. AYES: Commissioners. Leland and Nelson, and Chairman Lambert — NOES:, 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAINED: Commissioners Cage and Mooney. 3 0 r § 24-25.30 BUTTE COUNTY CODE § 24-25.30 (b) Any evidence to be received by the planning commission at the public hearing, other than oral testimony, unless rejected by the planning commission when offered, shall be surrendered to the clerk of the commission and become, the property of the , County of Butte. The director of development services shall be the custodian of the record of the planning commission and shall keep, for at least twelve (12) months following this presentation to the commission, all evidence received by the commission at a public hearing. At any time after twelve (12) months following its presentation the director"of development services may dispose of any such evidence in any manner he I shall deem proper. The director of development services may, upon the expiration of twelve (12) months following a public hearing, release any evi- dence to the person or persons who presented that evidence at the public hearing so long as such person or persons shall make a request in writing to the director of development services not more than sixty (60) days nor less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the twelve (12) month period. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b) above the director of development services shall forward to the clerk of the board of supervisors all evidence received pursuant to paragraph (b) above when the matter heard by the planning commission results in a recommendation to the board of supervisors from the action of the planning commission. Upon receipt by the clerk of the board of supervisors of the evidence forwarded pursuant to this section the clerk of the board of supervisors shall become the custodian thereof and the twelve-month period pursuant .to paragraph (b) above shall commence after final action by. the board of supervisors. (Ord. No. 3176, § 1(Exh. A), 1-24-95) Sec. 24-25.30. Action of the planning commission on zon- ing amendments. i Following the aforesaid hearing, the planning commission, shall render its decision in the form of a written recommendation to the board of supervisors. Such recommendation shall include the reasons for the recommendation, the relationship of the proposed amendment to the Butte County general plan and any specific plans. If the recommendation is to change property from one zone 240.8 Supp: No. 6-95 0 • § 24-25.35 ZONING § 24-25.40 to another, the planning commission may recommend that condi- tions be imposed so as not to create . problems inimical to the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents of Butte County. The recommendation shall be transmitted to the board of supervisors within ninety (90) days after the date the hearing was closed to the public. (Ord. No. 3176, § 1(Exh. A), 1-24-95) Sec. 24-25.35. Ordinance publishing fee for zoning amend- — meats. Prior to the board of supervisors setting a public hearing, an estimated publishing fee, as provided for by resolution of the board of supervisors, shall be deposited with the clerk of the board. (Ord. No. 3176, § 1(Exh. A), 1-24-95) Sec. 24-25.40. Action by the board of supervisors on zon- ing amendments. (a) Upon receipt of any such recommendation from the plan- ning commission, the board of supervisors shall set the matter for public hearing and shall give notice of the time, date, and place of said hearing at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing in the same manner as provided for the giving of notice of the hearing by the planning -commission as specified by section 24-25.25. (b) The board of supervisors shall take action upon the pro- posed amendment within ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of the planning commission's initial recommendation. If no action is taken within said ninety (90) days, the proposed amendment shall be deemed denied. . (c) The board of supervisors may approve, modify or disap- prove the recommendation of the planning commission; provided that any modification of the proposed amendment by the board shall first be referred to the planning commission for report and recommendation, but the planning commission shall not be required to hold a public hearing thereon. Failure of the planning commission to report within forty (40) days after the modification is referred to it, shall be deemed to be approval of the proposed modification by the planning commission. The board of supervi- 240.9 Supp. No. 6-95 § 24-25.45 BUTTE COUNTY CODE § 24-25.50 sors may impose conditions to the zoning reclassification of the property where it finds that said conditions must be imposed so as -not to create problems inimical to the public health, safety and general welfare of the County of Butte. If conditions are imposed to a zoning reclassification, said .conditions shall run with the land and shall not automatically be removed by a subsequent reclassification of the property. (d) Said conditions shall be as set forth in an agreement entered into by the applicant and the county. Said conditions may be removed only by the board of supervisors after recommenda- tion by the planning commission. (Ord. No. 3176, § 1(Exh. A), 1-24-95) Sec. 24-25.45. Comments at public hearing for zoning amendments. Each party appearing before the board of supervisors at the public hearing referred to in section 24-25.40. is encouraged to submit written comments before the public hearing as well as at the public hearing itself. Oral comments shall be limited to five (5) minutes per person, unless such time is extended by consent of the chairman of the board of supervisors: (Ord. No. 3176, § 1(Exh. A), 1-24-95) Sec. 24-25.50. Interim zoning. (a) Without following the procedures otherwise required pre- liminary to the adoption of a zoning ordinance, the board of supervisors, to protect the public safety, health and welfare, may adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal which the board of supervisors, planning commission or the planning division is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time. Such urgency. measures shall require a four-fifths (4/5) . vote of the board , of supervisors for adoption. Such interim ordinance shall be ofno further force and effect forty-five (45) days from its date of adoption; provided, however, that after notice pursuant to section 24-25.25 and public hearing, the board of supervisors may extend such interim ' ordinance for ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days and subse- 240.10 Supp. No. 6-95 1 F § 24-30 BUTTE COUNTY CODE § 24-35.10 Sec. 24-30. Procedure for general plan amendments. " (a) Existing and proposed zoning districts are to be consistent with the general plan of the county. "If an amendment to the general plan is required as part of a proposed rezone, such amendment must be requested by either: (1) The planning commission; ' (2) The board of supervisors; (3) The Butte County director of development services; or (4) By a ' petition ,filed with the director of development ser- vices, signed by owners, and accompanied by the fee set by resolution of the board of supervisors, no part of which shall be refundable to the applicant. (b) The procedure for amendments to the general plan shall be the same as for precise zoning amendments. Such amendments shall occur no more frequently than four (4) times during any calendar year pursuant to section 65361 of the Government Code. (Ord. No. 3176, § 1(Exh. A), 1-24-95) Secs. 24-31-2434. Reserved. 'Nonconforming Uses Sec. 2435. Nonconforming uses. Existing uses, structures and buildings, and lots or parcels which do not conform to the regulations of the zone in which they are located shall be subject to these specific regulations. It is the purpose of this article to establish procedures to permit "the continued operation of such uses where such uses are appropriate -while eliminating nonconforming uses through abandonment, obsolescence or destruction. (Ord. No. 3176, § 1(Exh. A), 1-24-95) Sec. 24-35.10. Types of nonconforming uses defined. As used in this chapter, the term nonconforming uses includes several types of nonconformities. Several distinct types of' nonconformities can be distinguished from one another. These include: (a) Nonconforming building. That situation which occurs when . a building or structure does not conform to the zone regulations because of size, height, location, materials or proximity to other buildings; and — - 240.12 Supp. No. 645 I 1. a DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DIRECTOR'S .OFFICE TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Thypas A. Parilo r BY: Brian Larsen, Principal Analyst SUBJECT: CONTRACT TO ADMINISTER THE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT GENERAL ALLOCATION REUSE PROGRAM FOR: Board Meeting of June 23, 1998 DATE: June 8, 1998 Over the years, the county has been awarded'a number of housing rehabilitation grants. In most instances, loans made to individuals from the housing rehabilitation grants are repaid over a number of years. The funds are then reused to make additional loans for housing rehabilitation. In the past, administration of the reuse loan pool was performed as part of the work under the various open housing.. grants for a very nominal charge. The county has not had an open housing rehabilitation grant in the past year and a half. Because of the size of the reuse loan pool and the average cost of $3,000.00 to service each new loan, Connerly & Associates, Inc., informed the county that they could no longer administer the Reuse Program for $1,200.00 a month. DISCUSSION: The county currently has approximately 200 active loans generating program income of approximately' $130,000 a year. The fund balance as of June 30, 1998, is projected to be $309,000.00.. Funds in excess of $700,000.00 are expected to be available, for program use over the next three years. In May of 1998, the Department of Development Services issued a "Request for Proposals" to administer the sizeable loan pool that will be available over the next three years. Three qualified firms were sent the "Request for Proposals." Of the three, two responded. The two proposals were equal in every way except for the charge for services. The firm of Connerly and Associates, Inc., submitted the proposal with the lesser charge for services. An important consideration in our "Request for Proposals" was to maximize use of the program income to benefit the low and moderate income citizens of Butte County. On this basis Connerly and Associates, Inc., was chosen to continue the administration of the Reuse Program for the next three years. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the contract for a term of three years at a cost not to exceed $152,440.00 to Connerly and Associates, Inc., of Sacramento to continue administration of the Reuse Program. KADDS\BOSRPTS\CON RLY98. W PD INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Planning Division TO: Supervisor Bob Beeler Supervisor Jane Dolan Supervisor Mary Anne Houx Supervisor Curt Josiassen Supervisor Fred Davis FROM: Tho as A. Parilo, Director hVl SUBJECT: LAND USE PLANNING PROGRAM - SPECIAL MEETING INFORMATION DATE: June 8, 1998 The Department of Development Services is hosting a special informational meeting on the 1998 Land Use Planning Program. The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 24, 1998, at 3:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Personnel Training Room. The Department has, invited a wide range of interest groups. In all, a total of 74 individuals or organizations have been invited. I am providing you with a notice of the meeting for. your information only, although you are individually welcome to attend, if you wish. The purpose of the meeting is to introduce the 19.98 Land Use Planning Program. The Department will present an outline of the work program with the intent to inform, educate and answer questions. I am hopeful that this informational meeting will result in a better understanding and allow for feed back prior to formally presenting the Work Program to the Planning Commission and then the Board. Please contact me at your convenience should you have any questions or concerns TAP.jb Attachment cc: John Blacklock, Chief Administrative Officer, w/attachment j : \docs\memos\L UP P MTG. wpd Department of Development Services, Planning Division NOTICE OF SPECIAL INFORMATIONAL FORUM Administration Center, Personnel Training Room Introduction The Butte County Development Services Department, Planning Division is inviting you to an informational meeting to introduce the 1998 Land Use Planning Program. The General Plan update was initially started in 1993 with the preparation of the General Plan Issues and Options and General Plan Background Reports. This effort resulted in the adoption of the Agricultural Element of the Butte County General Plan. Further work on a new General Plan was postponed pending re-evaluation of the workscope. The 1998 Work Program identifies a number of tasks needed to update the County's land use planning program. While the General Plan is a * major focus, zoning implementation and other policy planning areas are also included. Instead of a comprehensive overhaul to the General Plan, the emphasis has shifted to one of refinement and streamlining of the existing plan with the purpose of making the plan more user friendly and internally consistent. The work program will also emphasize plan implementation, as well. Prior to formally requesting authorization from the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Division invites you and various other interest groups to an informational forum. An outline of the proposed 1998 Land Use Planning Work Program will be presented. This will enable your participation at an early and informal stage in the planning process. You are welcome to meet County Staff, ask questions and learn about the upcoming planning process. The Informational Forum The special informational forum is scheduled for June 24, 1998, at 3:00 p.m. at the Butte County Personnel Department, Personnel Training Room, 25 County June 24, 1998 Center Drive, Oroville. The forum will be hosted by Tom Parilo, Director of Development Services. Mr. Parilo encourages your participation and looks forward to seeing you in attendance. You may contact Paula Leasure, Principal Planner or Dave Doody, Associate Planner in the Planning Division at 538-7601, if you have any questions. Mr. Albert V. Warot, Manager Planning and Community Development Services 2295 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 140 Sacramento, CA 95833 RE: Butte County Housing Rehabilitation Program Dear Mr.Warot: The Butte County Department of Development Services has completed its review of the proposals .to manage its Housing .Rehabilitation Program. The proposals that were submitted were exceptional, which made the decision all the more difficult. However, I regret to inform you that your firm was not selected. The determining factor in the selection was, finally, based on the charge for providing the services 'requested. As stated in the Request for Proposals, "It is the County's objective to use as much of the available funds for housing rehabilitation and other approved activities; therefore, the most competitive proposal will be that which provides the highest level of service with the existing funds." Connerly & Associates provided the most competitive price for supplying the services we requested. I want to thank you for the submission of your proposal and the time you spent preparing the additional information we requested. Your name will be placed on our list of active consultants. If, in the future, we should need the services that your firm offers, I hope you will again take the time to respond. Again, thank you very much.. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP Jb K:\DDS\CDBG\HSINGRFP.WPD . . . :.... ' He LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE' • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 June 5, 1998 Mr. Albert V. Warot, Manager Planning and Community Development Services 2295 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 140 Sacramento, CA 95833 RE: Butte County Housing Rehabilitation Program Dear Mr.Warot: The Butte County Department of Development Services has completed its review of the proposals .to manage its Housing .Rehabilitation Program. The proposals that were submitted were exceptional, which made the decision all the more difficult. However, I regret to inform you that your firm was not selected. The determining factor in the selection was, finally, based on the charge for providing the services 'requested. As stated in the Request for Proposals, "It is the County's objective to use as much of the available funds for housing rehabilitation and other approved activities; therefore, the most competitive proposal will be that which provides the highest level of service with the existing funds." Connerly & Associates provided the most competitive price for supplying the services we requested. I want to thank you for the submission of your proposal and the time you spent preparing the additional information we requested. Your name will be placed on our list of active consultants. If, in the future, we should need the services that your firm offers, I hope you will again take the time to respond. Again, thank you very much.. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP Jb K:\DDS\CDBG\HSINGRFP.WPD �'` •'-..:rte:-.ca, ::; ; � ,. . June 5, 1998 Mr. Ward Connerly Connerly & Associates, Inc. 2215 21st Street Sacramento, CA 95818 RE: Butte County Housing Rehabilitation Program Dear Mr. Connerly: The Butte County Department of Development Services has completed its review of the, proposals to manage our Housing Rehabilitation Program. The proposals that were submitted were exceptional, which made the decision all the more difficult. However, I am pleased to inform you that your firm submitted the winning proposal. I want to thank you for the submission of your proposal and the time you spent preparing the information we requested. We will begin preparation of the contract immediately and send it along to you for your review and approval as soon as it is ready. The contract should be on the Board agenda for the meeting of June 23, 1998. Again, thank you very much. Since ely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP.jb K:\DDS\CDBG\HSINGYES.WPD Count - utte LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 The Butte County Department of Development Services has completed its review of the, proposals to manage our Housing Rehabilitation Program. The proposals that were submitted were exceptional, which made the decision all the more difficult. However, I am pleased to inform you that your firm submitted the winning proposal. I want to thank you for the submission of your proposal and the time you spent preparing the information we requested. We will begin preparation of the contract immediately and send it along to you for your review and approval as soon as it is ready. The contract should be on the Board agenda for the meeting of June 23, 1998. Again, thank you very much. Since ely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP.jb K:\DDS\CDBG\HSINGYES.WPD NA June 2, 1998 - t Count LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785._ Clif Sellers Community Development Assistant City of Chico Community Development Department P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 RE: 971 East Avenue, Chico, CA AP#048-090-078 Dear Mr. Sellers: The Butte County Board of Supervisors authorized me to approve your requests to authorize your City to check plans, issue permits and conduct inspections, and collect, fees on property in the process of being annexed to the City of Chico.. Per your request regarding the above -noted proposed annexation in Chico, I hereby relinquish the County of Butte's jurisdiction on said property. Should you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, 14 -1/0 Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb cc: Scott Rutherford, Supervisor, Building Inspection COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AY 2 8 411 Main Street` �d211�it'tl�, P.O. Box 3420 Orovp@e, CITYoFCHICO Chico, CA 95927 INC. 1872 ' (916) 895-4845 . FAX (916) 895-4726 ATSS 459-4893 May 26, 1998 Tom Parilo, Director Butte Co. Dept. Of Development Services. 7 County. Center Drive Oroville, .CA 95965 RE: Annexation No. 97-12. LAFCo 98-16).- Annexation of 971.East Avenue (A. P. No. 048-090-078). Dear Mr. Parilo: The above-referenced property is included in an annexation to the City of Chico approved by the Butte County LAFCo on April 2, 1998. The City Council will consider this annexation on June 16, 1998. By the•enclosed letter, the owner.has,requested that the County of Butte. relinquish jurisdiction to the City of Chico for the purpose of checking plans, issuing permits and conducting inspections while the annexation is concluded. Consideration of this matter at your earliest convenience would be appreciated. Please feel free to.contact my office at 895-4850 if you have any questions or require any additional information regarding this matter. Sincerely,' Clif S Iters / Community Development Assistant CS:lb :: Enclosure cc: ANX 97-12 Iry Schlaf, 971 East Avenue,; Chico, CA 95926 Brad Mentzel, Chico Country Day School, 2412- Cohasset Road, Suite 3, Chico, CA 95926 - TF: 6/5/98 WMANNEXWNX97-12TARILO.TOM g�� Made From Recycled Paper May-:Z�?-98 03:19P BUTTOUNTY itis! - of rnt ry 1 ?.ty Im 11t is it I'I I ; l i)I1,t5tii'•1 I:<�i,1t I, 5t lift• i l htc i). < .tli(t�rni.l W,,O,?6 I .tx ( ;,0) 7;i) ; f; ; 1TO_ 1:rom May 20, 1908 TO: Mike Vierra, Butte County Planning 91 538-2140 P_01 Post -its Fax Note 7671 DatejZ ya Pa9f W OWDept. Co. Phone # Phone h Fax# t9S_ FaxH FROM' Brad Mentzel, Director, Chico Country Day School Iry Schlaf, Property Owner RF: Request for letter relinquishing permitting rights to the Chico of Chico. Dear Mr. Vierra, Chico Cowltry Day School (Chico Unified School District) recently leased a lot, APA 048- 000-078. The lot is currently in the process 61' being annexed to the -City of Chico. in discussions with the city and with David Wasney Jr., County Building Plan Checker, it was felt that the city would be the better agency for obtaining building permits. For this to occur, the city requires a letter from the County office, relinquishing the rights for the permitting process, to the City of Chico. This is a request for such a letter. The lot is adjacent to the current Chico COLIntry Day School property and will be used to locate 2 (two) modular office buildings. The buildings are D011 approved and leased from Gly Capital Leasing, Rancho Cordova. Plans include a proposed future third modular unit, as needed. The niodulars will house an office, computer lab, art room and to move our 6/7 grade classroom from the existing location. Thank you Sincerely, Brad Ment7.cl, Director, Chico r of entry Day School Schlat; Property Ow r,, MAY -22 '98 (FRI) 15:20 COMMUNICATION No:60 PACE. 1 . t Count LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY t,d sc� � u1'as, ->xr - 'r-� DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 May 27, 1998 Grant Taylor 941-B Watefford Drive Chico, CA 95973-0317 Dear Mr. Taylor: This letter is to confirm your interview for the Senior Planner position with the Planning Division of the Department of Development Services. Your interview is scheduled for Friday, June 5, 1998, at 11:00 a.m., and will be held in the Director's Office of the Department of Development Services, located at 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. Sincerely, ICS ,�-e..� 2`9 0�+�►�. — P �.p �..--y Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb t Count .LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH- AND BEAUTY - �- DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES "~ 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVI,LLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX:' (530) 538-7785 May 27, 1998 Rick Helman 1225 Johnson Avenue Marysville, CA 95901 Dear Mr. Helman: This letter is to confirm your interview for the Senior Planner position with the Planning Division of. the Department of Development Services. Your interview is scheduled for Tuesday, June 2, 1998, at 4:00 p.m., and will be held in the Director's Office of the Department of Development Services,' located at 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb May 27, 1998 Dave Doody 847 Arbutus Avenue Chico, CA 95926 Dear Dave: . ......... uHe county LAND_ OFNATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 This letter is to confirm your interview for the Senior Planner position with the Planning Division of the Department of Development Services. Your interview is scheduled for Wednesday, June 3, 1998, at 2:00 p.m., and will be held in the Director's Office of.the Department of Development Services, located at 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb " utt Count LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE �DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538 7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 . May 27, 1998 Peter Calarco 9354 Henley Way Sacramento; CA 95826-5518 Dear Mr. Calarco: This letter is to confirm your interview for the Senior Planner position with the Planning Division of the Department of Development Services. Your interview is scheduled for Thursday, June 4, 1998, at 3:30 p.m., and will be held in the Director's Office of the Department of Development Services, located at 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. Sincerely, ' Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb May 27, 1998 Daniel Breedon 16520 Valwood Place Weed, CA 96094 Dear Mr. Breedon: This letter is to confirm your interview for the Senior Planner position with the Planning Division of the Department of Development Services. Your interviewis scheduled for Friday, June 5, 1998, at 1:30 p.m.; and will be held in the Director's Office of the Department of Development Services, located at 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb jr t Count u to y LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY �- DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 This letter is to confirm your interview for the Senior Planner position with the Planning Division of the Department of Development Services. Your interviewis scheduled for Friday, June 5, 1998, at 1:30 p.m.; and will be held in the Director's Office of the Department of Development Services, located at 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb e COPY OF BUTTE - PERSONNEL DEPAAEhT WAIVER OF INTEREST IN EMPLOYM ENT. OPPORTUNITY -' TO: • Mike Bartlet DATE: 1452 Buchanan Road May 27, 1998 - Yuba City, CA 95993 On Wednesday, Mav 27, 1998 , 1 interviewed/contacted you for employment as a (Date) Senior Planner the Butte County r (Class Title) D.D.S., Planning Division working 40 hours per week with You indicated that you are not interested in being considered for (Department) this employment opportunity. Please complete the Applicant Certification portion of this form and return the entire form to this department at 7 County Center Drive, Orovi 11 e , CA 9596 (Address) . within five (5) days of the date of this letter. Failure to return this form within the indicated time period willconstitute an automatic waiver of interest in this employment opportunity and your name will be removed from the certified list. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo I Director of Development Services (Phone) (530) 538-7601 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION (Please Check one) F-1 I hereby acknowledge that I am aware of and not interested in the above cited employment opportunity. I wish to remain on the eligibility list for future positions. am no longer interested in employment with the County of Butte in this classification. Please remove my name from this eligibility list. (Signature) (Date) APPOINTING AUTHORITY CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this form was sent/provided to the above named applicant on the date indicated. The form was✓was not completed and retumed within the specified time period and I hereby request that this applicant's name be removed from the certified list. I do/do not wish an additional name to be certified. (Signature) (date) Return to: Personnel - White Department- Canary PER - 55 (Rev 12/92) Im 0 butte C LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 May 22, 1998 Chico Association of Realtors 1160 E. 1 st Avenue Chico, CA 95926 RE:. Natural Hazard Notification Requirements pursuant to AB 6x Ladies & Gentlemen: This letter is intended to explain how the County of Butte will assist real estate firms and other entities that are responsible for providing hazard notification mandated by AB 6x. Starting on June 1, 1998, this new state disclosure law requires sellers and their agents to give prospective buyers a "Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement" if the residential property lies within any one of the six hazardous areas defined in AB 6x. The six hazard areas subject to disclosure are special flood areas, potential flood areas, high fire hazard zones, wildland fire areas, earthquake fault zones and seismic hazard zones. All the maps that depict these hazard areas are available in Oroville at 7 County Center Drive, in either the Department of Development Services or Public Works. Butte County does not have a map showing very high fire hazard severity zones. All high fire hazard severity zones are located within the boundaries of the wildland fire area. The same notification is given whether a parcel is in a wildland fire area or a high fire hazard severity zone. The natural hazard maps denoting the different areas do not, in every case, show that a particular parcel is in one or more of the hazard areas. The Department of Development Services has, however, developed electronic data through its GIS program which identifies the hazard status for all parcels in the unincorporated areas of the county. The hazard status of each parcel is based on the best available information and exact precision cannot be guaranteed. It is our intent to make this information available to interested parties starting on June 1, 1998. There will be a nominal research charge of $15.00 for each parcel where hazard disclosure information is requested. Providing this information will initially be handled in one of two ways: The person requesting hazard disclosure information can come to our office at 7 County Center Drive or phone our office at 538-7601, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. We have prepared a "Hazard Disclosure Form," suitable for mailing or faxing. We will arrange for monthly billing for those firms or individuals who prefer this type of arrangement. If a customer prefers to pay for each individual request, they will have to come to our office. Depending on the volume of requests, the information should be available the same day the request is made. Chico Association of Realtors May 22, 1998 Page 2 , In the near future, we intend to distribute this information on a CD for a nominal charge. All information will be as current as the latest Equalized Tax Assessment Rolland will be updated yearly. Holders of the most current CD will be notified when an update is available for purchase. I hope that this letter provides answers for some of the concerns you have regarding hazard disclosure and the obtaining of that information in a timely manner. If you need additional information, have suggestions regarding the way in which we will make this information available or have any other questions, please contact Brian Larsen at this office. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb Enclosures Suite co, LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 May 22, 1998 Oroville Board of Realtors 1835 Robinson Street Oroville, CA 95965 RE: Natural Hazard Notification Requirements pursuant to AB 6x Ladies & Gentlemen: This letter is intended to explain how the County of Butte will assist real estate firms and other entities that are responsible for providing hazard notification mandated by AB 6x. Starting on June 1, 1998, this new state disclosure law requires sellers and their agents to give prospective buyers a "Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement" if the residential property lies within any one of the six hazardous areas defined in AB 6x. The six hazard areas subject to disclosure are special flood areas, potential flood areas, high fire hazard zones, wildland fire areas, earthquake fault zones and seismic hazard zones. All the maps that depict these hazard areas are available in Oroville at 7 County Center Drive, in either the Department of Development Services or Public Works. Butte County does not have a map showing very high fire hazard severity zones. All high fire hazard severity zones are located within the boundaries of the wildland fire area. The same notification is given whether a parcel is in a wildland fire area or a high fire hazard severity zone. The natural hazard maps denoting the different areas do not, in every case, show that a particular parcel is in one or more of the hazard areas. The Department of Development Services has, however, developed electronic data through its GIS program which identifies the hazard status for all parcels in the unincorporated areas of the county. The hazard status of each parcel is based on the best available information and exact precision cannot be guaranteed. It is our intent to make this information available to interested parties starting on June 1, 1998. There will be a nominal research charge of $15.00 for each parcel where hazard disclosure information is requested. Providing this information will initially be handled in one of two ways: The person requesting hazard disclosure information can come to our office at 7 County Center Drive or phone our office at 538-7601, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. We have prepared a "Hazard Disclosure Form," suitable for mailing or faxing. We will arrange for monthly billing for those firms or individuals who prefer this type of arrangement. If a customer prefers to pay for each individual request, they will have to come to our office. Depending on the volume of requests, the information should be available the same day the request is made. Oroville Board of Realtors May 22, 1998 . Page 2 In the near future, we intend to distribute this information on a CD for a nominal charge. All information will be as current as the latest Equalized Tax Assessment Roll and will be updated yearly. Holders of the most current CD will be notified when an update•is available for purchase. I hope that this letter provides answers for some of the concerns you have regarding hazard disclosure and the obtaining of that information in a timely manner. If you need additional information, have suggestions regarding the way in which we will make this information available or have any other questions, please contact Brian Larsen at this office. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services .TAP.:jb Enclosures y KADDS\LETTERS\HAZDISCL WPD , r ��• cwt ;�. d May 22, 1998 Paradise Board of Realtors 6178 Center Paradise, CA 95969 ,�3utte C L A N D O F NATURAL WEALTH A N D B E A U T Y DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 - FAX: (530) 538-7785 RE: Natural Hazard Notification Requirements pursuant to AB 6x Ladies & Gentlemen: This letter is intended to explain how the County of Butte will assist real estate firms and other entities that are responsible for providing hazard notification mandated by AB 6x. Starting on June 1, 1998, this new state disclosure law requires sellers and their agents to give prospective buyers a "Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement" if the residential property lies within any one of the six hazardous areas defined in AB 6x. The six hazard areas subject to disclosure are special flood areas, potential flood areas, high fire hazard zones, wildland fire areas, earthquake fault zones and seismic hazard zones. All the maps that depict these hazard areas are available in Oroville at 7 County Center Drive, in either the Department of Development Services or Public Works. Butte County does not have a map showing very high fire hazard severity zones. All high fire hazard severity zones are located within the boundaries of the wildland fire area. The same notification is given whether a parcel is in a wildland fire area or a high fire hazard severity zone. The natural hazard maps denoting the different areas do not, in every case, show that a particular parcel is in one or more of the hazard areas. The Department of Development Services has, however, developed electronic data through its GIS program which identifies the hazard status for all parcels in the unincorporated areas of the county. The hazard status of each parcel is based on the best available information and exact precision cannot be guaranteed. It is our intent to make this information available to interested parties starting on June 1, 1998. There will be a nominal research charge of $15.00 for each parcel where hazard disclosure information is requested. Providing this information will initially be handled in one of two ways: The person requesting hazard disclosure information can come to our office at 7 County Center Drive or phone our office at 538-7601, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. We have prepared a "Hazard Disclosure Form," suitable for mailing or faxing. We will arrange for monthly billing for those firms or individuals who prefer this type of arrangement. If a customer prefers to pay for each individual request, they will have to come to our office. Depending on the volume of requests, the information should be available the same day the request is made. 0 E Paradise Board of Realtors May 22, 1998 Page 2 In the near future, we intend to distribute this information on a CD for a nominal charge. All information will be as current as the latest Equalized Tax Assessment Roll and will be updated yearly.. Holders of the most current CD will be notified when an update is available for purchase. I hope that this letter provides answers for some of the concerns you have regarding hazard disclosure and the obtaining of that information in a timely manner. If you need additional information, have suggestions regarding the way in which we will make this information available or have any other questions, please contact Brian Larsen at this office. Sincerely, Thomas A. Pardo Director of Development Services TAP.jb Enclosures KADDS\L.ETTERS\HAZD[ SCL. W PD Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division; 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 Phone: 530-538-7601 Fax: 530-538-7785 Date: Name: .. Phone: Fax: Zoning && Hazard Certification: Assessor Parcel Number: Address: Zoning: General Plan: - Lies within any of the following hazardous areas: Flood Zone: Flood Panel No.: Potential Flood Zone Wildland Fire Area (SRA)* T Earthquake Fault Zone Seismic Hazard Zone *Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones do not exist outside of the Wildland Fire Areas in Butte County. k:ldds\fomms\AB6x.wpd THIS INFORMATION IS ACCEPTED WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS THE MOST CURRENT AVAILABLE TO THE COUNTY. THE COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ERRORS CONTAINED HEREIN. • .1 0 COUNTY OF BUTTE NATURAL HAZARD DISCLOSURE MAPS Effective June 1, 1998, recently adopted State law requires sellers and their agents to give prospective buyers a "Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement" if the residential property lies within any of six hazardous areas: ✓ Special Flood Hazard Areas ✓ Wildland Fire Areas ✓ Areas of Potential Flooding ✓ Earthquake Fault Zones ✓ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones ✓ Seismic Hazard Zones State law requires the county to identify the location of the maps that affect Butte County: Special flood hazard areas maps and a list of affected parcels are available at the Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville. Areas of potential flooding maps and a list of affected parcels are available at the Public Works Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville. Very high fire hazard severity zone maps do not exist for Butte County. The California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection has prepared maps showing wildland fire areas only. Wildland fire area maps and a list of affected parcels are available at the Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville. Earthquake fault zone maps and a list of affected parcels are available at the Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville. Seismic hazard zone maps and a list of affected parcels are available at the Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville. Butte County officials posted this notice pursuant to these state laws: Civil Code §1102.7 (c)(2), Government Code §8589.5 (f), Government Code §51178 (d), Public Resources Code §2622 (d), Public Resources Code §2696 (c), Public Resources Code §4125(c). POSTED: June 1, 1998 kAdds\prooftabgh2 rd.wpd MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR'S OFFICE To: John Blacklock, Chief Administrative Officer From: Thomas A. Parilo, Director Subject: Budget Reductions - Building Division Date: May 19, 1998 The reduction in work force will result in noticeable impacts on our ability to continue to deliver current levels of service. It is understandable, given the projected decrease in revenues, that some adjustments are required. However, there needs to be an understanding that there are resulting consequences from these reductions. This memo identifies those that are apparent now. The full impacts will not be' known until- the staffing reductions occur. The reduction of one staff member from field inspection services and one from the office staff. coupled with the maintenance of two offices would impact the ability to provide inspection "on demand" every day. "On demand" means that a customer requests an inspection the night before or the morning of the inspection. It is improbable that this level of service could continue, given the physical size of the county. If inspection services were maintained, plan check and counter service would have to be curtailed on a regular basis. We recently experienced a vacancy in our Chico office. This one vacancy impacted service throughout the division. Work schedules were shifted on a regular basis between the two offices to cover vacation and sick leave. During this period, customer service suffered. On a daily basis there are staffing problems that need to be addressed. The loss of permanent staff would compound this problem. (See attached calendar pages.) The Building Permit fee schedule was last revised in 1993. Since that time, the cost of providing services has increased. ISF budgets have increased, salaries have been adjusted and we have returned to the forty hour work week. In addition to these increases in operating expenses, changes in code have increased plan check and inspection costs. The adoption of the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC) in January 1996 had a major impact on the workload of the building division, primarily impacting plan check and building inspection. The 1994 UBC was completely reformatted and contained new structural provisions resulting from investigations of seismic damage caused by the -Loma Prieta, Whittier, Kobe, and Northridge earthquakes. All structures in California are now required to provide additional bracing, mechanical attachments, and detail lateral load transfer through the building to the resisting foundation system. The impact on plans and plan check included requirements that plans clearly detail the bracing and resisting systems. Additionally, inspections were added to determine compliance with these bracing requirements, .A • Bracing requirements are not easily understood by the construction community and owner -builders. Compliance generally requires significant interaction with the plan checker, building inspector, and demands, in most cases, employment of'a licensed design professional to achieve compliance. This one aspect alone adds approximately two hours of plan check time and requires a minimum of one additional field inspection for compliance.. Time demands can be much greater. Owner -builders and some contractors demand considerable time at the counter, and in the field. Inspectors make "information only" calls to assist owner -builders to achieve compliance. These calls are in addition to the minimum additional inspections. The reformatting of the code has placed building division staff in the position of an educator. Building division staff at the counter, on the phone, during plan check, and in the field are constantly educating owner -builders, contractors, and licensed. design professionals. State law requires building division staff to be certified as inspectors, plan checkers, and building officials, and further demands that those certifications be maintained (recertification on every issue of the code) and requires by statute continuing education,.. Professional licensing and contractor licensing has no similar provision. Therefore, educating the construction community is a reality on a daily and permit by permit basis. This requires huge amounts of time at every level of contact. Although the number of permits per inspector decreased during the past three years, clearly the impact of the new codes has accounted for the time necessary to offset that decrease in permit activity. Attachments 1 and 2 convey the forseeable impacts. ATTACHMENT 1 IMPACTS OF A REDUCTION IN WORK FORCE - BUILDING DIVISION 440002 Current Priorities Priorities with Reduction Impacts ' Field Inspections Field Inspections With the permanent loss of This service has been paid for Every effort will be made to one field inspector there may and is the most critical to maintain inspections on be times when "service'on contractors and their demand. demand" may have 'to be construction schedules. suspended. Plan Check Counter and Phones The permanent loss of a full Construction plans must be This service can not time office person will require checked and approved before reasonably be curtailed on a that the Chico clerical move construction can begin. This regular basis. to Oroville. Phones will be is also a paid service. routed to Oroville. This will make the Chico office less efficient, while maintaining a public counter. Counter and Phones Plan Check A permanent reduction in Typically, this is where If a shortage in staff occurs staff will, most likely, cause a contact is made with the on any given day, staff doing delay in plan checking. Our public. Contact often results plan check will provide publicly announced turn .in an application being made. backup for field inspections around time for completion of However, the counter and and counter. plan checking will have to, be phones are often used for revised. It will probably be information only. implausible to institute the planned "over the counter one stop building permit." IBM LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY s = DIRECTOR'S OFFICE O R. DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 : 1VMa, •1S 1998 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 j' FAX: (530) 538-7785 Ward Connerly Connerly & Associates, Inc. 2215 21st Street Sacramento, CA 95818 RE: Request for Proposals for Housing Rehabilitation Services Dear Mr. Connerly: The County of Butte is seeking to retain a consultant to administer its Community Development Block Grant General Allocation Reuse Program over the next three years. The program currently generates about $126,000.00 annually. This amount plus, a fund balance of approximately $309,000.00., should generate ten to twelve $20,000.00 +/- loans a year over the three year period. A. Scope of Work: The consultant will be primarily engaged in, but not exclusively limited to, managing the services required for a housing rehabilitation program. The County has also applied for a $200,000.00 housing rehabilitation grant in the current year. If this grant is awarded to the County, the consultant is expected to also manage that grant. The scope of work is detailed as follows: General Administration 1. Review Program Income Reuse Plan and prepare and process any required amendments as necessary. . 2. Develop and implement a tailor-made plan for marketing the program within established target areas in the County. Marketing activities will include preparing and distributing printed promotional material, and arranging for press releases. The consultant will speak at public meetings arranged by the County specifically for the purpose of promoting the housing rehabilitation program. Bilingual staff will be available at these meetings, to the extent necessary, and all promotional materials will be printed in both English and Spanish to maximize program outreach. Special attention will be given to non-profit organizations and governmental offices which offer assistance to prospective applicants, thus enhancing program related notification activities. This will include posting bilingual information fliers and informing office staff of the program. Informational signs will be posted on properties with the applicant's consent while rehabilitation work is underway. If these activities generate Ward Connerly Connerly & Associates, Inc. May 15, 1998 Page 2 an inadequate response, door-to-door canvassing of the target areas will be undertaken. Provide an 800 or local number for use by applicants when making application for a loan or seeking program information. Establish a fiscal record-keeping system in conformance with HCD guidelines for the receipt, disbursement, and reporting of all CDBG funds used for general and program administration, in addition to rehabilitation loans. Tracking systems will be established, in concert with County staff, for monitoring CDBG funds as well as the other sources of funding that will be utilized in the implementation of the rehabilitation program. These monitoring systems will keep the County apprised of program income received in the form of loan payments, and allow for County approval prior to the disbursement of funds to the appraiser, title company, and contractors. This constant communication will serve to expedite the process, and ensure greater quality control. 4. Establish and maintain two sets of files; one for general administration records and the other containing program implementation and loan applicant records. The general administration files will contain all reports filed, correspondence to and from HCD, financial and environmental documentation, and all public information regarding the rehabilitation program. Program regulations and guidelines, including the most recent HCD updates, will also be placed in these files. The program files will be organized on a project -by -project basis, and contain all information relevant to each case from application intake to notice of completion. All files will be organized in accordance with the HCD Grant Management Manual. At the conclusion of the rehabilitation program, all files will be transferred to the ' County of Butte, where they will be maintained for a minimum of three years. 5. Under the direction "of County staff, act as the principah liaison to HCD for the County. This includes the preparation of all Program Activity, Grantee Performance and, other necessary semi-annual and annual reports, draw down requests, closeout documents, and any grant amendments for County review and submission to HCD. 6. Conduct periodic meetings with County staff and any other agencies deemed appropriate. Attend program related public hearings and meetings as requested. After application intake and the initial inspection, the consultant will ensure that the proposed improvements are eligible and appropriate, and comply with all applicable codes and ordinances. Additionally, County will be kept informed on the activity of the program through the submittal of monthly activity reports. These reports will also be used to apprise the County of potential future programs and changes to HCD regulations. r Ward Connerly Connerly & Associates, Inc. May .15, 1998 Page 3 7. Provide information and recommendations regarding real estate transactions on current and former CDBG assisted properties in order to monitor loan status including repayment ability. This information will allow the County to make appropriate decisions regarding changes in property ownership, rent limitation agreements, and ability to repay loans in light of job loss, divorce, disability or sudden illness. 8. Coordinate monitoring of program activities with HCD and possibly HUD staff, as necessary; prepare a corrective action plan for clearance of any monitoring findings; maintain program files/records so as to facilitate financial and procedural auditing. of program operations. 9. Assist the County in meeting its equal opportunity, fair housing and Section 504 requirements by encouraging all interested parties to submit an application, conducting community outreach meetings to assist -applicants in completing applications and gathering required documents, and encouraging women and minority contractors to submit construction bids. 10. Prepare applications for the General Allocation of State CDBG and/or HOME Program funds for housing rehabilitation, new construction, public works to facilitate new housing development, first-time home buyer assistance or other eligible activities as directed by the County. 11. Prepare Planning and Technical Assistance Grant Applications to conduct surveys/needs assessments and prepare preliminary plans for future CDBG funded projects. 12. Manage the current loan portfolio for the County. This will include administering loan conditions, corresponding with loan recipients who are in violation of the terms of their loan, and suggesting remedies to both the County and the loan recipient to correct any violations. If necessary, the consultant will administer foreclosure proceedings. Program Implementation Application Processing/Loan Packaging 1. Accept,. certify, and process applications for housing rehabilitation assistance and oversee completion of work in accordance with program guidelines. 2. Conduct preliminary interviews to determine the completeness of the application and household and property eligibility. Ward Connerly Connerly & Associates, Inc. May 15, 1998 Page 4 3. Conduct an in-home visit with applicant to explain the program in depth and address any questions. 4. • Assist eligible households with supplementary sources of loans or grants. 5. • Qualify owners for rehabilitation loans by verifying the details of each applicant's financial status, credit worthiness, property value, and condition of title. This will be achieved by obtaining a preliminary title report from a title and escrow company, a credit report, and property appraisal. In addition, all current mortgage balances will be verified. 6. Assemble and submit to the County individual loan reports to include the applicant's financial history, bid selection, loan to property value ratio, preliminary title report, termite inspection report, appraisal, and loan recommendation. 7. Prepare full loan packages including preliminary title report, termite inspection report, certificate of hazard insurance, promissory note, deed of trust, truth -in -lending statement, etc. 8. Prepare detailed loan recommendations and reports will be prepared for the County Loan Committee, who will make the final decision on awarding the loan or grant. The consultant will be available to conduct Loan Committee meetings and answer any questions or concerns which may arise prior to and during these meetings. 9. Execute loan documents with homeowner. 10. Prepare the necessary County forms to initiate the disbursement of loan proceeds through a title and escrow company. Through project close-out monitor and authorize the payment of title and escrow services, construction payments, retention, other loan fees and permits. Insure that all remaining loan proceeds are redeposited with the County. Construction Mana eg, ment 1. Conduct property inspections for code violations and rehabilitation work to bring the property into conformance -with Building and Health and Safety Codes. 2. Prepare work write-ups and cost estimates for eligible housing rehabilitation activities. 3. Prepare specifications and bid document, obtain competitive bids from State licensed .contractors, and review bids received with the property owner. Ward Connerly Connerly & Associates, Inc. May 15, 1998 Page 5 4. Prepare and execute a construction contract and notice to proceed. Conduct a preconstruction conference to review all projected work with the property owner and the contractor. As a part of this conference make the contractor aware that work should not start until all local permits and clearances have been obtained. 5. Conduct regular progress inspections to make certain that work is proceeding in a timely manner, according to plans and the quality of work is to the agreed upon standard. Additionally; these inspections will serve to authorize progress payments. 6. Execute rehabilitation certificate and notice of completion upon final inspection, thus - certifying that the rehabilitation has, been completed in accordance with contract specifications. 7. Execute contract closure for acquiring lien releases from subcontractors (including product guarantees), secure all necessary sign -off documents, obtain owner's authorization for final payment, and execute closeout of the case by ensuring that the permanent file contains the complete documentation required for government audit purposes. 8. Assist owners to secure labor and material repairs from contractors for warranties and construction defects for one year from date of final approval by the County Building Official. B. Submittal Format Please supply the following information in the following order: 1. A brief description of your firm, along with name, address and telephone number of a contact person. Special consideration will be given to firms with a local, Butte County, contact person. 2. Description of your firm's experience in providing the specific services being requested by the County. 3. References for three current or recent assignments involving similar services being requested by the County. The name and telephone number of the contact person must be provided, as well as a brief description of the work performed. 4. Identify the personnel to be assigned along with a description of their qualifications relevant to grant administration and housing rehabilitation. Resumes must be provided for each person- to be assigned and must demonstrate experience directly related to the work to be performed for the County. If more than one person will be involved in providing the services, each person's role must be defined. Ward Connerly Connerly & Associates, Inc. May 15, 1998 Page 6 5. A proposed schedule for performing work, including indication of number of hours per week that consultant will be available at County offices or project sites in Butte County. 6. A proposed fixed-price or not -to -exceed fee for the requested services, an hourly rate schedule for the staff to be assigned, as well as an explanation of any fees charged for travel, printing, supplies or other non -personnel costs, included in the stated fee. C. Submittal Information: All proposals must be received no later than 5 P.M. Monday, June 1, 1998. The proposal must be submitted in an envelope clearly identified as HOUSING REHABII.ITATION CONSULTANT. Submit 6 copies of the proposal in compliance with the format identified in Section B, above. Late submissions will not be accepted. Mail them to the attention of: Brian A. Larsen Department of Development Services 7. County Center Drive Oroville, CA 959.65 Phone: (530) 538-7601 Fax: (530) 538-7785 D. Selection Criteria: In reviewing proposals, the selection criteria applied by the County will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. Consultant's experience in housing rehabilitation, from program design through implementation. 2. Knowledge of housing and community development programs which may further program purposes. 3. `Experience and qualifications of staff assigned to the Butte County program and their accessibility to County staff. 4. The level of activity which will be provided for the amount available for contract services. It is the County's objective to use as much of the available funds for housing rehabilitation and other approved activities; therefore, the most competitive proposal will be that which provides the highest level of service with the existing funds. E. Conflict of Interest: The successful consultant will be subject to the County's conflict of interest requirements. Ward Connerly Connerly & Associates, Inc. May 15, 1998 Page 7 F. Respondents must be able to meet the County's insurance and indemnification requirements for consultants. (Attached) G. Contracts resulting from this solicitation shall not be assignable without the prior written consent of the County. H. Please indicate to whom any inquiries regarding this RFP should be directed; include person's name, telephone and FAX number. If you need additional information or have questions, please call Brian Larsen at (530) 538-7601. Sincerely Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP.jb k:\dds\cdbg\reuse-if.wpd 0 COUNTY OF BUTTE STANDARD INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for'injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the CONSULTANT, his agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants. A. Minimum Limits of Coverage - CONSULTANT shall maintain no less than: Worker's Compensation - in compliance with the statutes of the State of ` California. 2. General Liability - insurance with a minimum limit of liability per occurrence of $1,000,000 for bodily injury and $1,000,000 for property damage. This insurance shall indicate on the certificate of insurance the following coverages and indicate the policy aggregate limit applying to premises and operations and broad form contractual (and professional liability). 3. Automobile Liability - insurance with a minimum limit of liability per occurrence of $1,000,000 for bodily injury and $500,000 for 'property damage.. This insurance shall cover bodily injury and property damage, owned automobiles, and non -owned automobiles. 4. Professional Liability Insurance - maintain professional liability insurance (errors and omissions) for bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, and claim expenses - $1,000,000 claim: Annual aggregate. B. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the County. At the option of the County, either: the insured shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or, self-insured retentions as respects the County, its officials and employees; or the CONSULTANT shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and defense expenses. C. Other Insurance Provisions - The above listed policies, shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: General Liabilitv, Automobile Liability, Professional Liability Coveraees a. The County, its officials, employees and designated volunteers. are to be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT; products and completed operations of the CONSULTANT; premises owned, leased M or used by the CONSULTANT; or automobiles owned,, leased, hired or borrowed by the CONSULTANT.. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the a County, its officials, employees or volunteers. b. The,CONSULTANT's insurance coverage shall be primary as respects the County, its officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the County, its officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of f the CONSULTANT's insurance and shall not contribute with it. C. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the County, its officials, employees or volunteers. ' d. CONSULTANT's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. 2. All Coverages.: Each insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage - or in limits except after 30 days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the County. D. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than A: VII. E. Verification of Coverage. CONSULTANT shall furnish the - COUNTY with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements affecting coverage"required by this clause.. The certificates and endorsements are to be on forms provided by the COUNTY and are to be received and approved.'by the COUNTY before work " commences. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The COUNTY reserves the right to require complete, certified. copies of all required insurance policies at any time. F. Subconsultants - CONSULTANT shall include all subconsultants as insured under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each sub - consultant. All coverages for subconsultants shall be subject to all the requirements stated herein. Mailing List for the Request for Proposals for Housing Rehabilitation Services Ward Connerly . Connerly & Associates, Inc. 2215 21st Street Sacramento, CA 95818 Albert V. Warot Manager of Planning & Community Development Services Willdan Associates 2295 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 140 Sacramento, CA 95833. David Ferrier Community Housing Improvement Program 1001 Willow Street Chico, CA 95928 w,. Ms. Marilyn Bonney 9622 Cohasset Road Chico, CA 95973 LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 RE: Code Compliance Program in Butte County Dear Marilyn: I'm taking this opportunity to more fully explain the county's philosophy toward its code enforcement program. As I mentioned to you on the phone yesterday, the emphasis is on voluntary compliance. In reality, it's assisted voluntary compliance. The County code enforcement staff will assist and work with the owner who is in non- compliance with either building or zoning codes. The code enforcement officer will describe how compliance can be achieved and work with the owner on a schedule to accomplish the necessary corrections. On an annual basis, there are approximately -5% of the valid complaints that result in a formal citation, which require a court appearance. By way of background, the program we are currently utilizing was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1992. On October 20, 1992, a request to amend section 41-2 of the Butte County Code (Enforcement Procedures for Code Enforcement) was forwarded to the Board of Supervisors by the Department of Development Services. In the supporting documentation accompanying the proposed amendment, the Director of Development Services opened his report with the following statement: "The objective of the County's Code Enforcement Program is best achieved through the voluntary compliance to the code by the citizens of Butte County." The Board adopted the amendment, which replaced the 30 -day warning letter with the 30 -day courtesy notice. Rest assured, that voluntary compliance is still at the heart of the Butte County Code Enforcement Program. The program is complaint driven. The complaints are typically registered by neighbors. We do not have the time nor the resources to embark on "hunting expeditions" looking for code violations. - Such an approach would be inconsistent with the program's philosophy. The issuance of a citation is an extreme step, which is only taken when there is a failure on the part of the party cited to resolve the matter. There will be no attempt or interest on the part of this department to monitor your property to see that you are in compliance with the terms of the covenant. The only reason for us to request an inspection will be as a result of a complaint or other notice to the department that there is reason to believe that a violation may have occurred. Without the restrictive covenant, our position that school fees are not applicable may be open to a challenge. I am song that your experience has not been a positive one. However, situations such as yours arise from time to time that cause government to look at why things are done in a certain way. Often, there is not a valid reason for doing something, other than, "that's how it has always been done." I believe that your concerns have been instrumental in reviewing how we have traditionally looked at accessory buildings, and for that, I thank you. Ms. Marilyn Bonney May 15, 1998 Page 2 I hope that this letter provides answers to the concerns you have raised regarding some of the "legal' language in the covenant. If you need additional information regarding the code enforcement program or have any other questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Per 1� Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP jb kAddsUetters\bonnrycc.wpd ' Ms. Marilyn Bonney 9622 Cohasset Road Chico, CA 95973 �Seraa.,�Wr~" LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538.7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 RE: Response to your letter dated March 23, 1998, . regarding Building Permit 98-0257 Dear Ms. Bonney, I am writing this letter to respond to your March 23, 1998, letter, and to place into writing the conclusions reached during our separate discussions. These conclusions will result in adjustments to your recent building permit (98- 0257). I am sorry you were unable to initially achieve this outcome, but am hopeful that they will now meet your needs. I have attempted to respond to the major issues raised in your letter. I hope that I have dealt with all the points that you have made. The real focus of this letter, however is to identify the manner in which we propose to accommodate the flexibility that you are seeking. Building Classification: Your first concern questioned the mechanism to classify your building. While the criteria regarding building classification are provided in the Uniform Building Code (UBC), they do not always agree with a landowners intended usage. In this regard, I share your frustration. The UBC provides a standard system of classifying buildings for purposes of determining building code requirements. If any judgements are required, they are to be made by the Building Official. In Butte County, that duty rests with Mike Vieira, Building Division Manager. The Building Official is required to apply the code in the most reasonable manner, while still meeting the minimum health and safety requirements of the UBC. The first step in classifying a building is to know its intended use and the type of construction to be used. In your case, the building could either be classified for "residential use" (Group R) or as "utility" (Group U) (garage, carport, shop, etc.). To determine which classification is appropriate, the Building Official reviews the construction type and design of the building. You are correct in reporting that if your detached accessory building had a garage door or other type of overhead door and an unfinished interior, it would have been designated as "utility" space. In that case, it would have been an easy determination. Your plans, however, did not utilize this type of design. It is a conventional wood frame construction with a residential entry door, finished on the inside with insulation and sheetrock. The construction and design of the building reflects a "residential" classification more than it does the "utility" one. When this type of construction is used on residential property, it is difficult, but not impossible, to classify the building as "utility." The fact that you are "not a guy" did not enter into the criteria for classifying the building as "residential." While there may be examples of similar buildings that are classified as "utility/shop space", I am not aware of any, and neither is the Building Division. While it has been and continues to be our goal to apply the codes evenly and fairly to all members of the public, we also try to accommodate variations in use, where practical to do so. Based on the representation in your letter and our discussions, we are now prepared to apply the "use features" of your detached accessory building, rather than the actual construction style to determine the Building Code Ms. Marilyn Bonney May 7, 1998 Page 2 classification. This is a new approach for. classifying detached accessory building in Butte County. The balance of this letter outlines how this will be accomplished. School Fees: As explained to you by the Building Division staff, school fees are applicable to all "assessable space" within residential structures in excess of 500 square feet, except for certain accessory buildings and structures. Accessory structures could be attached or detached. "Assessable" means that area of a building which is subject to school fees. An attached or detached garage or "shop," carport, patio and other similar accessory buildings are clearly exempt from school fees. Section 65995. (b) (1) specifically states that ". any carport, walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio, detached accessory structure, or similar area," is exempt from being assessed school fees. The use of the phrase "detached accessory structure" in this context may actually constitute an expansion to those that we have are typically deemed to be exempt. Mike Vieira and I requested clarification of this matter with the County Counsel's Office. While the UBC and the school fee statute do not define "accessory," the dictionary and County Zoning Ordinance do. County Counsel indicated that the term. "accessory" means "contributing in a secondary way." Section 24-305.001 of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance defines an "accessory use" as, "A use that is incidental, related, appropriate, and clearly subordinate to the main use of the lot or building, which does not alter the principal use of such lot or building nor serve property other than the lot or parcel of land on which the principal use is located." Applying these definitions to your situation suggests that a more thorough review be conducted of the use and features of the proposed detached accessory building to determine whether it should be considered "assessable space." As you have reported, the building is approximately 600 square feet, is of conventional wood frame construction, with the interior insulated, but not heated or cooled, and sheet rocked, and containing bare wood sub -floor without any vinyl, carpet, or other finish. In addition, you have represented that no piped water (hot or cold) will be installed. Consequently, there will be no bathroom, sink, cooking facilities or other water dependent use within the building. You also have stated, and the plans show, that the building is detached from your main residence. But most important, you have stated that the building is not intended to be used for "living" purposes. In light of the standard applicable to "assessable space" contained in section 65995. (b) (1) and the definitions of accessory, it is now our position that school fees are not required. The Chico Unified School District has concurred that the determination for assessable space rests with the Building Official. In light of this position, we will request that the school district issue a refund of the fees paid by you. In order to perfect this determination, we will require that a restrictive covenant be recorded which embodies the use limitations that are proposed for this building. This notice would serve to put you and subsequent owners on notice of the use restrictions. Any future change in use and construction will require proper permits and the assignment of school fees, if required. While this approach has not been previously used in Butte County, I believe, based on the facts, that it is within the ability of the Building Official and the County to interpret. $32,000 Valuation of the building: The valuation given to the structure through the building permit is for determining the applicable plan check and inspection fees only. The schedule used is taken directly from the UBC. The Assessor is not bound by the valuation tables in the UBC in order to establish his value for property tax purposes. It is my understanding that the Assessor makes an independent assessment based upon a number of factors, most of which are unrelated to the UBC valuation system. Ms. Marilyn Bonney May 7, 1998 Page 3 Having stated that, we are now prepared through the recordation of the restrictive covenant to utilize the "utility" or other similar classification for your detached accessory building. We will need a written statement from you which reflects the use limits of the building that can accompany the restrictive covenant. This action will result in a lower building valuation which will result in a reduced building permit fee. Hostility encountered with Building Division personnel: You stated that you felt harassed and were forced to agree to classify your building as "living space." I have not been able to corroborate this claim, but any such claim is disturbing to me. All of our staff are coached and expected to provide friendly, helpful and professional service at all times. This standard equally applies when we are presenting "bad news" to our customers. I encourage staff to go out of their way to assist members of the public with their.inquiries. As a matter of practice, we do not discourage questions. In fact, questions are encouraged, as inquiries lead to explanations that provide greater assistance and insight to the customer. It is my hope that staff did not harass you into agreeing to modify your building permit application. I hope that they took the time to explain in a courteous and professional manner how and why the permit request needed to be modified. I am sorry for any real or perceived mistreatment that you may have experienced. While serving the public in a regulatory role can be very trying at times, for both the customer and the staff, we strive to make every encounter 'a positive one. I am sure that if we had the ability to utilize the restrictive covenant program, that your initial submittal would have been more directly accommodated. If that were the case, I'm sure you would have felt more positive about the outcome. I hope that you can feel satisfied that your efforts in pursuing flexibility will not only benefit you, but others, as well. Summary Actions: In order to adjust your previously issued building permit the following steps will need to be taken: Submit a detailed letter stating how you will use the 600 square foot detached accessory building. This letter should clearly establish how the building is intended to be used. The statement should also address those construction features that will enable the building to be classified as one not intended for "living space". 2. Once the letter is received, staff will reconsider the classification of the building to be one that is more appropriate to your intended use. A new building permit form will need to be completed and signed that reflects its actual use. It will also recognize the absence of built-in heating and cooling facilities. The Building Division will complete the revised building permit application. Your existing filing fees will be transferred to the new building permit and any refund will be authorized for the difference. 3. A restrictive covenant will be prepared by the County to be concurrently recorded with the issuance of the building permit. Your signature and appropriate recording fees (estimatedto be $13.00) will be required The covenant will include your letter which limits the use and a floor plan. I am assuming that your existing floor plan submitted with building permit 98-0257 may be used for this purpose. The purpose of the covenant is to create a bridge to a lower building classification, but to more specifically provide the basics to remove it from the residential classification. A "residential" classification requires space heating pursuant to State of California energy requirements. The covenant will also disclose to future owners the use limitations of the building, as permitted. A draft of the restrictive covenant is Ms. Marilyn Bonney May 7, 1998 Page 4. currently being reviewed by the County Counsel's Office. Once it is finalized, I will send you a copy. 4. Staff will simultaneously request a refund of school fees paid to the Chico Unified School District, based on the above adjustments. 5. Items 2 through 4 can occur upon receipt of the letter requested in Item 1, above. In closing, I hope that this response and the agreed upon adjustments will meet your needs. I thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. The adjustments achieved for your project may provide an avenue for others who have similar needs. If additional information or explanation is needed, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, pL� Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP Jb cc: Board Members John Blacklock, Chief Administrative Officer Mike Vieira, Manager -Building Division Martha Whitney, Building Inspector III kAddsUettersVv1Bonney2.wpd INTER-DEPARtMENTAL MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director's Office TO: Staff FROM: Jill Broderson SUBJECT: PARKING IN PARKING LOT ON THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1998 DATE: May 4, 1998 On Thursday, May 7, 1998, Child Protection Services, located at 3 County Center Drive, will be moving part of their staff to Chico. Barricades will be placed in the parking lot, as indicated by "X". Please do not park in the areas marked "X". This will enable the moving trucks to come in, park, load, and leave. Your cooperation and patience is appreciated. X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 County Center Drive INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director's Office , TO: Stuart Edell FROM: Thomas A. Parilo SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OR REED B. JOHNSON, AP#024-200-048 DATE: May 1, 1998 This memo is requesting that Condition No. 5 from the above -referenced Lot Line Adjustment be deleted and that an amendment letter reflecting the deletion be reissued to both Mr. Reed B. Johnson and GDA This request is made pursuant to County Counsel advise that building permit conditions unrelated to a lot, line adjustment cannot be applied. Thank you. TAP.jb cc: Mike Vieira, Manager, Building Division Dan Boatwright, The Hofinann Company P.O. Box 907 Concord, CA 94522 RE: LATE PROCESSING FEES AND ADDITIONAL CHARGES BY LSA Dear Dan: ffatte, Count LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 In our letter of March 31, 1998, I noted that processing charges for your application needed to be brought current and the deposit amount replenished. Butte County Code, Section 3-44 requires that any fees due and the replenishment of the deposit amount must be accomplished before further processing can occur. This section also provides that if the applicant fails to deliver the fiends, an application may be denied. Billing information that you requested, has previously been sent. If you need additional information, and itis available, we can provide it to you. In addition to this matter, there is also the additional expenses incurred by the EIR consultant, LSA, in responding to comments by the California Department of Fish and Game. The charges amounted to $1,050.00 (9.5 hour @ $110.00). It would have been difficult for the Planning Commission to hear the project had the comments offered by Fish & Game not been responded to. Time was not taken to adjust the contract due to these time constraints. I hope that you agree with the approach used. To bring the billing current for your project, please make out a check in the amount of $18,868.66, payable to the Butte County Treasurer. This amount includes sufficient funds to replenish your deposit, processing fees to date and fees incurred by LSA. As an alternative, we could credit the funds paid for the fiscal study which to date, has not been authorized. Please let us know how you wish to bring your account current. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please call me or Brian Larsen at your convenience. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb 1 Eatte, Count LAND, OF NATURAL WEALTH A,ND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE r;~ . DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES _ 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 May 1 1998 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 }/ , FAX: (530) 538-7785 Ron E. Freitas, Director Department of Planning and Community Development Stanislaus County 1100 H Street Modesto, CA 95354 RE: NEW TOWNS Dear Ron: Butte County is considering a 16,500 acre new town proposal with approximately 6,000 homes and related commercial and employment centers. The Planning Commission recently denied the creation of a new town general plan designation and they rejected the project general plan amendment, as well. It will be going to the Board sometime in the near future: The Chico Chamber of Commerce is evaluating the concept of new towns prior to taking a position They have asked, me to solicit information from other counties that have had experience with new towns. In particular, they would like to have any information regarding general plan designations; standards and policies. Can you help out? If you know of other counties in your neck of the woods who may have something along these lines, please let me know as well. If possible, could you provide me with some of the pit falls and problems that you are aware of in addressing public facilities, costs, financial factors, etc. Also, did you use an economic and fiscal consultant for the various proposals in the Tracy area? If so, who was it? Were you satisfied with their work? I would appreciate it if you could send me any relevant information. Thank you advance for your assistance. Hope to see you in Monterey. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP Jb k:\pIanning\gp\fr6itas.wpd April 24, 1998 Jim Mann Rural Consulting Associates 70 Declaration Drive, Suite 101 Chico, CA 95973 r ��. ,v[ltte count, L A N D O F NATURAL WEALTH A N D B E A U T Y DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538.7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 RE: New Highway 99 Intersection (GPA/Rezone 98-03) Dear Jim, In response to our April 8, 1998, letter, you have asked that a separate letter be presented which specifically addresses the proposed new access to Highway 99 that is proposed on Blakeley Western's Gateway Business Park application. On a previous occasion ( June 5, 1997, letter), I addressed this new intersection/interchange proposal. In that letter, we stated that, "The decision to move the interchange location from Neal Road raises significant issues regarding land use and traffic circulation." I further stated, "We are unable to recommend a new interchange location on Highway 99 until it is coordinated with other lands having development potential along this corridor." Any consideration of a new intersection will require that it be reviewed and eventually developed as a replacement intersection for Neal Road. The Neal Road interchange is a part of the 1982 Freeway Agreement with CalTrans. In the September 9, 1997, letter to Mike Crump from CalTrans, it was stated that CalTrans would consider closure of the Neal Road Access for another location if it did not adversely impact Highway 99 operations. They further stated that the impacts of full build out of the Highway 99 corridor would have to be addressed. From the County's perspective, there are two ways that full build out can be addressed. One is through a General Plan level review and the other is from land use applications which reflect "full build out." Currently, the county is not entertaining an update to the General Plan in this area. Without an assessment of development potential on lands adjoining Highway 99 in the vicinity of your client's property, such an assessment would be speculative and unwarranted at this time. In light of this, I believe it would be premature to propose a new interchange location as part of this application. Through future land use applications or a larger corridor study in the future, a substitute interchange in this location could be considered. Perhaps lands could be reserved as open space on the General Plan Amendment application for that future possibility. Jim Mann Rural Consulting Associates April 24, 1998 Page 2 In summary, I.believe that the inclusion of a proposed new interchange location as part of this application will raise significant land use, environmental and policy issues that will clearly exceed the scope of the Gateway Business Park project. I hope that this letter fulfills your request. If additional information is needed, please let me know. Sincerely, Thomas A. arilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb cc: Randy Chafin Mike Crump • .:TATE OF.9AUFOk,IWBUSINESSI TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON Govemor DEPARTMENT OF..TRANSPORTATION �. DISTRICT 3 P.O. BOX 911 MARYSVILLE, CA 95901 .. / TDD Telephone (916) 741-4-R* FAX (916) 7413990 Teleovxm(916)741-,-A%, planning Divisior Mr. J. Michael Crump, Director Department of Public Works County of Butte 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Crump: September 9, 1997 SEP 10 1991 Oroville, California 03 -SR 99 South Gate Estates Drive Neal Road Re: . September 3rd Meeting The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the placement of future interchanges between . the State Route (SR) 99/Skyway Interchange (IC) and SR 99/Neal Road,. the proposed new access to SR 99 between Estates Drive and Neal Road and possible funding sources. This section of SR 99 has a current Freeway A=reement. The intent of the Agreement is to define the limits of future freeway improvements, locations of interchanges, overcrossings, and temporary access points. The present Agreement identifies two new IC's, one at Southgate Drive and the other at Neal Road, spaced appro'timately 2 miles apart, that is consistent with Caltrans IC spacing on rural freeways. Butte County and'Caltrans need to work towards providing the ultimate improvements identified in the Agreement. A new SR 99 access point would not be a step toward achieving this goal. However, Caltrans could consider closure of the Neal Road Access for another SR 99 access point between Estates Drive and Neal Road, if the interim intersection and ultimate IC did not adversely impact SR 99 operations in both the current and ultimate conditions. Support for a new access point would need to be shown in a traffic analysis that addresses impacts to SR 99 at full build out of the area. Support for a trade of Estates Drive for a new temporary access to the South can not be supported as it would not further be a step towards implementation of the freeway improvements. While there have been some recent accidents at Southgate Road and Estates Drive, there is not sufficient safety justification for.signal installation at either location. The ultimate Freeway Agreement intent is for the closure of Estates Drive with a frontage road connection to Southgate Road and future interchange construction. Currently all available STIP funding in Butte County is directed. towards the OrovilleNlarysville Freeway. But County should discuss with the Butte County Association of Governments the possibility, of redirectin-.some of these toward the Southgate Road IC and frontage road improvement. Additionally, developer impact fees should be considered, in full or in part, as an additional source.of funding for these improvements. Mr. J. Michael Crump, Director September 9, 1997 Page 2 A planning study considering future SR 99 improvements would assist Butte County and City of Chico decision makers in identifying improvements, determine phasing of such improvements, and identifying possible funding sources. BCAG has indicated a willingness to undertake such a study in their next years' Overall Work Program. It is also possible that developers could contribute to such a study. If you have any questions, please call me at (916) 741-5456. Sincerely, MIKE FORGA, Chief Office of Special Funded Projects e: Tom Parilo, Director, Butte Co. Development Services Stuart Edell, Manager, Butte Co. Land Development Jon Clark, Executive Director, BCAG June 5, 1997 - - r �utte Coin -15C DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ' 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: •19161 538-7601 FAX: 19161 538-7785 Jim Mann 55 Independence Circle, Suite 101 . Chico, CA 95973 RE: HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR PLANNING ISSUES IN THE VICINITY OF BLAKELEY LANDS Dear Jim: " This Department, as well as the Public Works Department, has reviewed the proposed interchange location for the Blakeley Western property along Highway 99. The decision to move the interchange location from Neal Road raises significant issues regarding .land use and traffic circulation. We are unable to recommend a new interchange location on Highway 99 until it is coordinated with other lands having development potential along this corridor. ; Our comments concern the Highway 99 corridor generally from the southerly'city limits of Chico to Highway 149. Overall, there are a number of common issues and/or development elements that need to be coordinated along this corridor. These elements include traffic circulation, freeway interchanges, frontage roads, Highway 99 aesthetics, land use, fiscal impacts, financing, market absorption factors and drainage. Some time ago, Bettye Kircher, the then County`Planning Director, recommended that a Area/Community Plan -be prepared for this, central county area. This direction was abandoned apparently in favor or a comprehensive update to the General Plan. While it's also unfortunate that the General Plan has stalled, the need to study the issues in the central portion of the county is still of interest. Consideration of common planning issues along this corridor is more relevant now with the three general plan amendments either on file or known to be contemplated. It is not our, intention to group various lands as. a single project, but there are common issues that should be addressed prior to development decisions on any individual site._ The March, 1993, General Plan Issues and Options Report recognizes that this area of the county is an appropriate location to accept future development. As such, a coordinated planning approach is needed. Without such an approach, development projects may be met with the same response as those in the past—that the development is pre -mature or Jim Mann June 5, 1997 Page 2 it fails to consider the cumulative impacts of other potential development scenarios. Without knowledge or information of the latter, decisions on individual projects may not be possible. In discussions with the CAO's office, the Department of Public Works and Supervisors Curt Josiassen and Fred Davis, it is apparent that success cannot be achieved without consideration of common planning issues. If the questions or solutions to these various, issues are unknown, favorable action to proceed will not be forthcoming. In light of this recognition, a common and cooperative approach should be, considered. I would like to discuss ways under which a collective and cooperative approach may be pursued with the various land owner interests and the county The purpose of the process would be to determine and develop feasible solutions and options for development and improvements along the Highway 99 corridor in this vicinity. If a common approach is not feasible or desired at this time, it is our recommendation that you seek a Policy Review analysis from the Butte County Planning Commission through: a General Plan Amendment application. This is 'a new procedure that has not yet been fully implemented but will be considered at the Planning Commission meeting of June 26, 1997. The Policy Review analysis process could be a valuable tool for applicants with individual projects that present significant changes to current County land use policy. It will give applicants an indication if their project has merit and staff direction in processing those requests. It may also conclude that a more comprehensive planning, process be followed. Should you choose this route, the following issues regarding the project site should be addressed: 1. General Plan Policy Consistency - Please review the existing General Plan, including the Agricultural Element as to consistency with the county's policy direction. Be prepared to suggest alternative polices needed to fulfill your project objectives. 2. Interchange Location - Address the impact the new interchange location will have on other infrastructure needs, road relocations/closures, and the physical suitability of the new interchange location. 3. Land Use Suitability - Present information why the site is not suitable to maintain the current General Plan designation, and how it will achieve other county land use goals. 4. Drainage and Flooding Issues - There are known flooding and drainage issues that will be exacerbated with development both on and off-site. Be prepared to provide an overall evaluation of this issue. Jim Mann June 5, 1997 Page 3 5. Aesthetics - The site is very visible from Highway 99. Loading areas, parking lots, outdoor storage, and tall boxy buildings are examples of design feature that should be avoided along the Highway. Give full consideration to avoiding the need for a frontage road immediately adjacent to Highway 99.' Maintaining some open space /green belt areas, particularly along the drainageways and highway will help retain some of the visual characteristics currently found on site. 6. Cumulative Impacts- To adequately address the land use issues, the interchange location and other circulation/access issues this project will have to be evaluated in conjunction with other known development interests along this corridor. In addition to the above comments, the Director of the Publics Works Department has also indicated that should the Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors approve a change in the land uses and densities in the area, an alternate location for the interchange could be considered with the proper studies. Such studies should include, but not be limited to: • Project Study Report - this is a requirement of CalTrans prior to any project on their State Highway. Financial -plan on how the interchange will be paid for including the relocation and/or abandonment of Neal. Road. • Impacts to existing property owners at. the Neal Road/Highway 99 intersection. look forward to discussing this matter and working with you. Please let me know if you* need any additional information. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development. Services TAP: jb cc: Supervisor Fred Davis Supervisor Curt Josiassen kAP1anning4etters\mann3. INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM' ..PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE:, TOM PARILO, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICE MIKE CRUMP, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADWAY ALTERNATES - GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK APRIL 21, 1997 This is in response to the request from Blakeley Western to review the roadway/freeway access options shown as alternatives. "A", °B" and °C' on the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Map for the Gateway Business Park, dated April 1997. Existing land use on both the east and west side of State Highway 99 is open space and grazing. Absent land use changes on both sides of the State Highway, I would recommend we keep the interchange location at Neal Road. Should the Planning Commission and/or Board of' Supervisors approve a change in the Land uses and densities in the' area,- an alternate location for the interchange could be considered with the proper studies. Such studies should include, but not be limited to: • Project Study Report - this is a requirement of Caltrans prior to any project on their State Highway. • Financial plan on how the interchange will be paid for including the relocation and/or abandonment of Neal Road. • Impacts to existing property owners at the Neal Road/Highway 99 intersection. Planning Division APR 2 2 1997 Oroville, CaMornia INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT.OF DEVELOPMENT. SERVICES ' Director's Office TO: Kim Morris, Auditor's Office - Payroll FROM: Thomas A. Parilo, Director SUBJECT: EXCESS VACATION ACCRUAL DATE: April 20, 1998 In response to your memo dated 'April 15, 1998, the excessive vacation accrual in the amount of 32.2597 for -Larry Painter, Employee No. 25167, shall be paid to him in pay period 10 wages. Thank you. JB: . r . r j Adocs\employee\evacacc.wpd 0 BUTTE COUNTY AUDITOR -CONTROLLER. INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: THOMAS PARILO/ DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES FROM: KIM MORRIS/ PAYROLL SUBJECT: EXCESS VACATION ACCRUALS NOT TAKEN OFF DURING EXTENSION PERIOD DATE: 04-15-98 Pursuant to the provision of GEN MOU Section 10.04, excess accrual vacation days were carried over to be taken during the period between January. 1 and March 31,1998. The following employees continue to carry excess vacation balances Employee Ema# Excess Vacation in Hours Value 480001 Painter, L. 25167 32.2597 Section 10.04 of the GEN MOU reads: $475.39 Should the employee voluntarily choose not to take the scheduled vacation during the extension period, the excess accrual days shall be forfeited. Should a department head, as a result of emergency needs of the County, be unable to schedule the excess accrual vacation days off during the extension period, the employee shall be paid for the excess accrual days. Please indicate if the above employees are to be paid for their excess vacation accruals or if they are to be forfeited. Your response must be received no later than noon on 4-30-97 in order to be paid with the pay period 10 wages. Thank you. Planning \ n9 ®vision t'( PR 1 71998 0mville, r81ilorrila MONTEREY COUNTY. PLANNING AND BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT C3 P.O. BOX 1208 SAUNAS, CALIFORNIA 93902 PLANNING: (408) 755-5025 BUILDING: (408) 755-5027 FAX (408) 755-5487 MONTEREY COURTHOUSE, 1200 AGUAJITO ROAD, MONTEREY, CAUFORNIA 93940 (408) 647-7620 FAX (408) 647-7877 WILLIAM L. PHILLIPS, DIRECTOR Thomas Parilo March 16, 1998 Butte County Dvp. Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965 Dear TL��s, `�JratT'a Some members of our Board, the 1997 Grand Jury, and a few community groups in Monterey County -have begun discussion of updating the County's General and Area Plans., One of the many variables is, of course, cost. We are, therefore, inquiring as to the methods and costs of any General Plan updates your County may have initiated or completed since 1990. Staffing Existing staff ; Contract planners ; Consultant ; Other Duration: Start-up date including needs assessment/work program adoption Current status (date) (date) Specialized: Included "area" plans, or some form of sub -County geographic areas Included: EIR ; Public Facilities Component ; Financing Component ; Other Components Costs: Work, program. $ ; 1pdate program $ ; EIR (if separate_) $ r, Staff contact person if we have any additional. questions: If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (408) 755-5025, or Steven Maki, Senior Planner, at (408) 759-6600. Thanks in advance for your help. Sincerely, William L. Phillips; AICP Director CV �O Planning Dspart.ment MAR 19 1998 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR'S OFFICE To: William L. Phillips, Director From: Brian A. Larsen, Principal Analyst Subject: General Plan Survey Date: April 8, 1998 Since 1990 the County of Butte has updated one element; (Housing) established a new one, (Agricultural) and adopted one area plan. In 1992 the Board provided funding for a General Plan update in the amount-of +/- $300,000 from general purpose revenue. Approximately $100,000 was spent to provide an "Issues and Options" report. The update has been stalled by a number of factors,: both internal and external. The $200,000 balance is still encumbered for use.in funding future updates. The Agricultural Element and area plan were done internally within normal budget parameters. The ` Housing Element was done by a consultant and funded by General Plan update monies. I am sorry that this information could not be placed on your form in a logical manner. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call,me at (530) 538-7601. JAMEMOS\TOM\MNTRYSUR. WPD INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director's Office TO: Steve Hackney, Associate Planner FROM: Tom Parilo, Director SUBJECT: PENTZ ROCK MINE DATE: April 6, 1998 The following comments and observations should be considered in the review of this sand and gravel operation: The reclamation program is unclear. On one hand, it states there are four mining phases and on the other, it states that mining will only disturb a few acres at a time. It also states that reclamation will follow mining. Nowhere does it state that reclamation will be concurrent, yet the bond estimate is based on 5 acre areas of disturbance. It's also unclear what, if anything beyond reseeding, is contemplated. The reclamation goal is stated to be ponds for wildlife and livestock, but it also states that re -seeding will occur. It's unclear how the entire 64 acre mine area will be reclaimed. There should be an end-use map , provided together with relevant reclamation features. 2. It -appears that the side slopes to the ponds will be left at 2:1 slopes. This may be too steep for cattle, wildlife and people (especially children). I believe there are recommended standards to assure that side slopes in ponds are gradual to assure safe access and escape. Even if the "public" does not have access to the property, gradual side slopes should be designed with safety in mind. The mining plan states there will be no washing, but there is a daily need for 30,000 gallons of water. How will this water be used. Later on, the plan states that there will be settling ponds. How many? Where? Where will they discharge? Will these individual settling ponds constitute the end-use pond(s)? Need a mining site plan. It should show location of processing plant, petroleum storage/containment area, settling ponds, stockpile locations, truck scales, office, sanitation facilities, etc. Will the operation be visible from Highway 70 and/or Wheelock Road? Can the plant be screened from view? Item #21 on the Environmental Information Form (EIF) indicates that there will be changes in views,.yet there is no comment as to how view impacts will be minimized. Item 26 of the EIF checklist indicates that there will be a substantial change in noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. This issue needs to be examined in more detail. Along these lines, what are the days and hours of operation? Will there be weekday, night, weekend activities? In short, this plan needs more detail for proper analysis. TAP)b cc: Craig Sanders, Principal: Planner j Adoc slmemos\Pen SRM. wpd uite 0111Zt LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 April 2, 1998 Carl B. Leverenz 515 Wall Street Chico, CA 95928 RE: RESPONSE TO YOUR MARCH 11, 1998, LETTER CONCERNING . PARADISE BLUFFS II TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (TSM) Dear Carl: Before I respond to the specific project related points raised in your letter, I would like.to provide an overview of County staff s approach to dealing with the larger traffic mitigation issue. As.you have noted, this is a difficult problem and it's not a new one. In addition, past develop was not. required to participate in mitigating its share of cumulative impacts. Due to the existing deficiencies and the magnitude of the problem, the solution will more than likely be expensive. Arriving at a solution may also be complicated as a result of the bi jurisdictional nature of the decision. Nonetheless, we need to actively work toward a solution. While there are a variety of options, no one solution can independently solve the problem. Improvement project options are discussed in the July 1996, Skyway Improvement Program Feasibility Study. This study has primarily focussed on alternative projects that could alleviate traffic congestion on the ridge. Estimated costs are identified for each option. In addition, the study refers to possible funding mechanisms. Ultimately, the study needs to be reviewed and acted upon by the two effected jurisdictions. To date, the study has not been presented to or reviewed by the Town of Paradise or County of Butte. Consequently, no preferred solution or approach has been identified. As you properly recognize, it is time for the County (in cooperation with the Town of Paradise) to evaluate its options and establish a direction. Staff from BCAG, County Counsel's Office, Development Services and Public Works met to discuss the process that should be pursued. We have jointly agreed to the following steps: BCAG decision on the SB45 funding sharing plan with its member organizations. It is recognized that these monies could be used to fund portions of the preferred solution. It is expected that a decision as to how BCAG will distribute and/or prioritize these monies will be made over the next few months. These monies and other unknown funds could be used to address existing deficiencies. Carl B. Leverenz April 2, 1998 Page 2 2. Concurrently with BCAG's determination on how to allocate SB45 funds, the county will initiate a meeting with the Town staff to recommend a preferred project(s). It is expected that 'this meeting will be scheduled over the next few weeks. 3. Following this meeting(s), a joint meeting with the Town of Paradise and County of Butte decision makers will be requested. The decision makers will be requested to review and jointly select a project, phasing program, and funding sources. In the meantime, your client's project may be processed. On June 19, 1998, the Development Services Department determined that an EIR is required. No appeal was filed from that decision.- In ecision:In the June 19, 1998, decision letter, staff identified a number of issues that the. EIR would need to focus on. On July 3, 1997, your client requested that the environmental review time limits be suspended pending the development of additional information. In your letter of March 11, 1998, you raised questions regarding the scope of the EIR. The following responds to your specific concerns: Traffic: The EIR must address the direct traffic impacts to be created by the project. It must also evaluate the cumulative traffic impacts. This does not mean that this one project must completely address and mitigate the traffic impacts in the upper ridge area. The EIR, must however, identify both direct and cumulative impacts. The BCAG traffic model can be used as a basis for that analysis. Direct impacts must be mitigated. Cumulative impacts will require a proportionate mitigation program. You have indicated that the project proponent is willing to pay a development fee to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. This approach toward mitigation is consistent with one of the funding options made in the projects Skyway Improvement Program. I am hopeful that a traffic improvement and funding program will have been selected prior to the public hearing on your client's TSM. 2. Environmental Review: Your client may submit additional information regarding water availability. Specific drainage information can and should be submitted for proper evaluation in the EIR, as well. As noted above, the EIR will focus on specific project impact topics and related cumulative impacts. The NOP process could also identify other topics to be -- addressed. We will proceed with the focussed EIR upon your client's authorization to .do so. 3. Proposed Development and Map Processing: I understand that this TSM is a re- submittal of a previously approved and expired tentative subdivision map. As you know, environmental review must be conducted based on current conditions. A focussed.EIRwill accomplish this requirement. The EIR also offers the additional advantage of overriding findings if significant direct or cumulative impacts remain. A negative declaration can not result in unmitigated significant effects. Carl B. Leverenz April 2, 1998 Page 3 As noted above, we will pursue a project and funding solution from the two decision making bodies with jurisdiction. If they are unable to agree or -otherwise are not able to arrive at a solution, the county could formally impose a moratorium if the conditions warranted it, or may initiate down -zoning until such time that an acceptable solution becomes available. I share your interest in processing the subdivision map to a decision point. I hope that this reply fully responds to the issues raised in your letter. I am available to further discuss these issues and refine the scope of the EIR, if you wish to, do so. Sincerely, Thomas A. Pardo Director of Development Services TAP Jb cc: Mike Crump Stu Edell k:\planning\pbluffs2.wpd Apfi12, 1998 Donald J. Blake 2175 Feather River Boulevard Oroville, CA 95965 utte Count L A N D O F NATURAL WEALTH A N D BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 RE: CDBG HOUSING REHABILITATION GRANTS FOR PRICHARD AND TOET Dear Mr. Blake: In response to your concerns regarding these two rehabilitation loans, I have contacted Connerly & Associates for a status report. In each case, they report that considerable efforts toward intervening on behalf of the homeowners occurred. They also reported that options to retain a different contractor to finish the work were not pursued by the homeowners. The following is a summary of Connerly & Associates review of each case: Dale & Joyce Prichard: A review of the file was conducted to determine the facts that lead to the close out of the loan. It appears that there was a dispute between the homeowners and the contractor. You also confirmed that situation. The dispute appeared to revolve around the amount of work required to finish the job. Connerly & Associates was requested by the Prichards to intervene on their behalf. In their investigation, Connerly & Associates conducted an inspection of the work against the authorized improvements. A list was agreed upon by both parties which identified the remaining work to be completed. The contractor apparently completed some of the listed items, but failed to complete all of the agreed items. This fact was borne out by a subsequent inspection conducted by Connerly & Associates. The Prichards rightfully withheld final payment until all work was satisfactorily completed. The contractor pursued legal action to receive the final payment; apparently without completing all of the agreed upon work tasks. The contractor lost in court. Following the court's decision, Connerly & Associates reports that the Prichards requested the remaining loan balance in their account be applied to their principal. It was further represented that they would independently assume the responsibility to retain another contractor. All CDBG rehabilitation loan funds are to be fully utilized within one year of issuance. A final close out of the loan was authorized by Butte County on November 30, 1995. Close out was based on the request from the Prichards and may also have been triggered as a result of the program's one year expenditure limits. Donald J. Blake April 2, 1998 Page 2 Sherry Garlough & Greg Toet: A report of the status of this loan was based. on Connerly & Associates a review of the file and discussion with Steve Caretto, the former inspector for Connerly & Associates. Mr Caretto reported that Connerly & Associates attempted to mediate and resolve the dispute between the contractor and the homeowner. He reported that the homeowners were not satisfied with the contractor for reasons which were,not disclosed. The homeowners were instructed to contact the State Contractors Licensing Board as an •option to address their dissatisfaction with the contractor. Connerly & Associates recommended that the homeowners retain another contractor to complete the remaining unfinished work. A memo to the file indicated that Sherry Gailough was not willing to retain another contractor to complete the work. Connerly & Associates then recommended that the $8,09.1.20 remaining in the loan account be returned to the county's revolving fund. It is unclear whether this amount would have been sufficient to complete the unfinished construction project tasks. Final close out of the unexpended loan balance was issued by the 'County on July 10, 1997. -The above overview is a summary, but does reflect the history as reported by Connerly & Associates.' We have recently received a copy of all program loan files. If you want additional, more specific information, these files could be researched in more detail. At this juncture, both homeowner parties could apply for another loan to finish authorized rehabilitation work. The approval of a new loan would need to be reviewed under the program requirements to verify eligibility. There may be other options, but clearly the only way to receive additional program loan funds is through a new loan application. Other options may be legal in nature. I hope that this summary is helpful for you: If you need additional information or would like to personally discuss this matter with the effected parties, please let me know. If you desire to have such a meeting, I will request County Counsel's participation, as well. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP-jb cc: County Counsel kAdds\1etters\cdbgb1ak.ivN INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director's Office ' TO: John Blacklock, Chief Administrative Officer ` Star Brown, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Eric Miller, Manager -Program Resource and Development Pat Cragar, Welfare Director Bill Finley, Private Industry, Counsel Director Robert Grant, Butte Economic Development Corporation Thomas A. Parilo, Director of Development Services FROM: Bri Larsen, Principal Analyst 4. SUBJECT: REQUEST. FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) FOR A BUSINESS ANALYSIS, RETENTION AND EXPANSION STUDY DATE: April 1, 1998 On Monday, March 16, 1998, this department mailed to five firms a request for RFQ for a business analysis, retention and expansion study. Only one out of the five firms responded and attached is their proposal. _Please review the single proposal using the evaluation criteria that we requested in our, letter which is attached and submit your approval or disapproval along with any comments you may, have by Wednesday, April 8, 1998. Thank you for your cooperation. BAL.jb Attachments Y jAdocs\memos\reviewrfq.wpd ' March 31, 1998 Dan Boatwright The Hofmann Company P.O. Box 907 Concord, CA 94522 ��: lltt6 count, LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965.3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Subject: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING PROCESS FOR CENTRAL BUTTE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Dear Dan: I am responding to your letter of March 16, 1998, concerning your desire to be heard by the Board of Supervisors. As you know, the Planning Commission's action constitutes a 'recommendation to the' Board of Supervisors. Section 24-25.30 requires that the Planning Commission's recommendation be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors within 90 days of their decision date. Section 24.25.40 requires that the Board of Supervisors set a hearing within 90 days of the receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation. The Board may approve, overturn or modify the Planning Commission's action. They may also allow the Planning Commission's recommendation to become final by taking "no action" following.their public hearing. Ordinarily, the department would immediately forward the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. In this case, there are factors which prevent us from immediately doing that. These factors include changes to the project boundaries and the absence of the fiscal report. As we discussed after the March 12, 1998, Planning Commission meeting, we will need a revised project description that reflects the modified project boundaries and projected land use details applicable to the reduced scale. You should also map the Primary and Secondary areas based on the 85%-15% ratios. Once this information is presented, we will review it against the conclusions of the recommended Final Environmental Impact Report. Also, please initiate the preparation of the fiscal report. In order to go forward with the approved EPS contract, additional funding in the amount of $6,200 is required. Once deposited, it will require a 4/5ths vote of the Board of Supervisors to appropriate the unanticipated revenues to the department's professional services account. Once the revised project information and the fiscal study are prepared, we will forward the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board. If these materials are not ready before the 90 -day referral period has expired, we could request that, the Board delay scheduling the hearing until such time that this information is available. Dan Boatwright The Hofmann Company March 31, 1998 Page 2 My last point of this letter deals with county processing costs. It has been a while since we've presented a bill to cover the department's processing costs. Currently the balance due is $17,818.66. A detailed bill requesting payment and an additional deposit is attached. Should you have any questions re arding this matter, please let me know. Sinc ly, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb Attachment • March 30, 1998 Applicant:'_ K.H. Hofmann. Project: General P1anAmendment 1609 Adams Ranch Road File No. GPA 96-04 Durham, CA 95938 Billing Date: December 18,,1995'- March 19, 1998 Deposits January 22, 1996, Receipt No. 15184 $ 2,000.00., September 17, 1997, Receipt No. 16047 _ $ 7,000.00 Total $ 9,000.00 Publishing Fees August 11, 1997, Chico Enterprise Record $ 600.71 August 12, 1997, Paradise Post $ 324.30 August 13, 1997, Gridley Herald $ 68.25 August 29, 1997, Chico Enterprise Record, $ 66.60 August 29, 1997, Gridley Herald $ 65.00 August 30, 1997, Paradise Post $ 69.00 January 15, 1998, Chico Enterprise Record $ 72.00 February 25, 1998, Chico Enterprise Record $ 57.60 February 25, 1998, Chico Enterprise Record $ 54.00 Total $ 1,377.46 Processing Fees Professional Planner $20,006.90 Mapping $ 1,076.75 Clerical $ 2,357.55 Total $23,441.20 Publishing Fees $ 1,371.46 Processing Fees" $23,441.20 Total $24,818.66 Less Deposits' - $ 9,000.00 Total $15,818.66 Request for Additional Deposit $ 2,000.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE $17,818.66 -..... utte Count LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTORS OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (536) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 March 30, 1998 Clif Sellers Community Development Assistant City of Chico Community Development Department P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 RE: 2674 Ceres Avenue, Chico, CA AP#048-670-054 Dear Mr. Sellers: The Butte County Board of Supervisors authorized me to approve your requests to authorize your City to check plans, issue permits and conduct inspections, and collect fees on property in the process of being annexed to the City of Chico. Per your request regarding the above-noted proposed annexation in Chico, I hereby relinquish the County of Butte's jurisdiction on said property. Should you have any questions, please contact our office. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services . TAP:jb cc: Scott Rutherford, Supervisor, Building Inspection COMMUNITY DE ELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 411 Main Street P.O. Box 3420 CITYorCHICO Chico, CA 95927 INC. 1872 (916) 895-4845 FAX (916) 895-4726 ATSS 459-4893 •. March 24, 1998 Tom Parilo, Director Butte Co. Dept. of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA ,95965 Re: Annexation No. 97-13 (Kirkman) - Annexation of 2674 Ceres Avenue (A.P. No. 048-670-054) Dear Mr. Parilo: The owner of the above -referenced property has initiated annexation to the City of Chico. The annexation has been requested to allow placement of a temporary second dwelling unit and sanitary sewer connection. The second dwelling will provide housing for an adult child requiring extensive care due to health problems. To facilitate installation of the second. unit as soon as possible, the owner has requested that the County of Butte relinquish jurisdiction to the City of Chico for the purpose of checking plans, issuing permits and conducting inspections while the annexation is in process. Consideration of this matter at your earliest convenience would be appreciated. Please feel free to contact my office at 895-4850 if you have any questions, or require any additional information regarding this matter. Sincerely, CS:dk cc: ANX 97-13 TF: 4/1/98 C:\DK\ANNEX\ANX97-13\PAR1LO.TO1V1 Clif Se lers Community Development Assistant Pianrviix�;,) Division MAR 2 6 1998 ®roville, California , g�� Made From Recycled Paper INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director's Office,, TO- Mike. Crump, Director of Public Works Craig Sanders, Principal Planner Mike Vieira, Manager -Building Division „ FROM: Tom arilo, Chairman of the Land Conservation Act Committee SUBJECT: DISTRIBUTION OF BLM, MERGER, TSM, TPM's, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS, AND ALL OTHER LAND USE PROJECTS,TO THE ASSESSOR DATE: March 26, -1998 At -their February 25, 1998, meeting the LCA Committee raised concern with a number of implementation problems with the Williamson Act contracts. There are a number of examples where either zoning entitlements or subdivision related activities have fallen through the cracks. Specific concerns include sale of sub -standard sized pre-existing parcels, BLM's, subdivisions, and issuance of residential building permits. Some of these problems could be overcome through a more thorough distribution of various land use applications. The LCA Committee requested that this letter be sent to all land use and permit departments to request that all discretionary applications and residential building permits be referred to the County Assessor's office. The .County Assessor is the department that has the greatest oversight responsibility for overseeing the active LCA contracts. I have requested a formal opinion from -County Counsel whether the County should refrain from giving any approval or issuing any permit which would allow a land use conflict with the terms of a Land Conservation Act Agreement. 'Meantime, pending issuance of the formal opinion, we should temporarily refrain from such approval or issuance. TAP.jb CC" Ken Reimers LCA Committee members j Adocs\memos\dist-ica.wpd t INTER=DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director's Office TO: Mike Vieira, Manager -Building Division FROM: Tom arilo, Director SUBJECT: DING PERMITS ON WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT PROPERTIES DATE: March 26, 1998 The attached memo dated January 28, 1991, to Bettye Kircher, Planning Director, from Neil McCabe indicates that the County should refrain from the issuance of residential building permits that are found to be in conflict with an existing Williamson Act contract. While his memo is not a formal legal opinion, it is his recommendation that we should temporarily refrain from issuance of permits, - that are facially inconsistent with such agreements, pending issuance of a formal opinion. By copy of this memo, I am requesting a formal opinion from County Counsel whether the County should refrain from giving any approval or issuing any permit which would allow a land use in conflict with the terms of a Land Conservation Act Agreement. This matter was discussed by the Butte County Land Conservation Act Committee at their February 25, 1998 meeting. The committee is concerned that the issuance of some residential building permits may be inconsistent with contract provisions. By direction of the committee, I.was requested to convey this 1991 position from County Counsel. County Counsel further advised that applicants seeking a building permit on Williamson Act Contract lands, should be advised of any conflict with their contract. In order to avoid creating conflicts with their respective'contracts, such permit seekers should be referred to the County Assessor before accepting or processing such residential building permit requests. TAP:jb Attachment cc: Ken Reimers Neil McCabe LCA Committee members j Adocs\memos\bp-Ica.wpd r r ` INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF BUTTS COUNTY COUNSEL TO: Bettye Kircher, Planning.Director BY: Neil H. McCabe, Assistant County Counsel .SUBJECT: Enforcement -of Land Conservation Act Agreements 'DATE: January 28, 1991 I am wondering if we have procedures in place to make sure -L that persons owning property subject to and- Conse�a ; on Act Agreements are not inadvertently issued. any permits or approvals inconsistent with such agreements. The standard form of agreement does -not specifically address the question of enforcement. However, Government Code Sec. 5125 1 provides in pertinent part that: "The county ... may.bring any action in court necessary to enforce any contract, including, but not limited to, an action to enforce the contract by specific performance or injunction..:." Although I have not researched the matter, my impression is that the county could refrain from .giving any approval or issuing_ any permit which would allow a land use which would conflict with `the terms of the agreements. On a different but related point., it has -come to my attention that Section 1 of Exhibit "A" of the Land Conservation Act Agreements should be clarified. This exhibit is a list of uses which are permitted on the land which is subject to the agreement. Section 1 of this exhibit now provides as,follows: "Single family dwelling as provided in•C-1,,C-2 or C-3 above, provided, however,, that variances may be recommended by the committee to the Board of. Supervisors in cases of hardship." -1- The difficulty with the quoted language is that there is no C-1, C-2, or C-3 provision "above" or anywhere else in the agreement. These provisions are contained in Resolution 68-7. However, the resolution is not incorporated into the agreement. It is my understanding that a copy of the resolution is included in the packetofinformation which is given to a person applying to enter into a Land Conversation Act Agreement. However, I believe that future agreements should be --made mor�_-e�cpl t. in spelling out the restrictions which are contained in Sections C- 1, C-2, and C-3 of the resolution. Please call at your 'convenience to make, an appointment so that we can discuss these matters. NHM/slt (bet;kir2.mem) cc: Jim Glander John Mendonsa -2- March 25, 1998 Mr. Leon Mayer 2252A Mariana Boulevard San Leandro, CA 94577-4004 butte L'ount LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 RE: FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS PROGRAM Dear Mr. Mayer: This letter is being sent to you in response to your query about the availability of a "First Time Home Buyers program in the County of Butte. The State of California has various programs that subsidize first time home buyers. Typically, these programs require a 25 percent local match for each dollar used to subsidize the purchase of a residence. The City of Oroville does have such a program. However, they also have redevelopment funds that can be used to provide matching funds. Butte County does not have ready access to matching funds. The program would also require the County to dedicate personnel or hire a consultant to support the pfogram. Applicants would have to be pre -qualified, legal documents drawn up, insurance requirements imposed to protect the investment by the county along with a knowledgeable staff to administer the program and provide all the reports required by the state. Unfortunately Mr. Mayer, the County of Butte is not in the position to start a "First Time Home Buyers" program The county has neither the fiscal nor human resources necessary to participate in this type of program at this time. However, there may be other agencies outside of county government that would be willing to pursue this type of a program with you as an active partner. I am sorry that we could not be of more assistance. If you do decide to proceed with your project, the Department of Development Services will endeavor to assist you in any way we can, subject to the limitations of our resources and authority. `Sincerely, V/ � Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP.ib cc: Board of Supervisors John Blacklock, Chief Administrative Officer March 25, 1998 Mr. Peter Giampaoli Epick Inc. 1263 The Esplanade, Suite C Chico, California 95926 PC- utte Co L A N D O F NATURAL WEALTH A N D BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 RE: Response to Letter dated, March 13, 1998 ALUC Review of Proposed Development Dear Mr. Giampaoli: Staff received a request from the Commission Chairman to place your project on the March 18, 1998, Airport Land Use Commission agenda. The Commission was requested to review the project against a proposed Policy Plan. Upon further investigation of the project particulars and after conferring with John Franklin, Commission Chairman and Clif Sellers, City of Chico, it was determined that the Airport Land Use Commission would not have any jurisdiction over the project. Mr. Franklin agreed that the item ,should not be included on the agenda. Generally, review of a pre -application proposal is done at the staff level. This was accomplished when Steve Lucas, Associate Planner, met with you to review the project. Steve reviewed your project against the Environs Plan, the CalTrans Handbook, and the Draft Policy Plan. Currently, the Airport Land Use Commission has no jurisdiction over projects located within the City of Chico unless a general plan amendment or other legislative act is involved in the City's approval process. It is my understanding that your project is consistent with the City's general plan and zoning. Additionally, the CalTrans Aeronautics Program has recommended the Commission not adopt the Policy Plan due to numerous problems identified in the text. On Wednesday, March 18, 1998, the Commission agreed with CalTrans and tabled the draft policy plan for six months,. leaving the Environs Plan as the active document. While it is prudent to want an early review or pre -approval prior to finalizing the design of the project, the Commission does not have the authority to do so. As noted above, the Airport Land Use Commission has no jurisdiction over the project, unless a legislative action is required. Mr. Peter Giampaoli Epick Inc. ' March 25, 1998 Page 2 I hope that this letter fully responds to your inquiry. If you would like to meet with me regarding your proposal, I would be happy to do so. Please contact me directly or my assistant, JillBroderson at 538-7601 to schedule an appointment. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP.jb cc: Paula Leasure, Principal Planner 1 . E?ICK mc. 1263 The Esplanade Suite C Chico, California 95926 Telephone 530 891-4757 Fax 530 8914206 Mr. Thomas A. Parilo, Director Butte County Development services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 0 March 13, 1998 RE: AP Associates APN 048-020-067 GPA Associates APN 048-02-069/070/071 and 072 Dear Mr. Parilo, The above proposed development properties which are located in:t.he,-City of Chico near the intersection of Eaton Road and Vibral Avenue where scheduled to.be heard before ALUC at its regularly scheduled meeting Wednesday, March.181 1998. It is my understanding you removed this agenda item for hearing. So that I can keep an accurate record of my request, please provide me with your findings/opinions for removal. Your written response by March 26 is much appreciated. ,Very truly yours,'' er G. Giampaoli eneral Partner APP and GPA Associates PGG:cic cc: Butte County Board of Supervisors Airport Land Use Commission/John Franklin Builders CC:60\GPA\DEVSRVCS Planning Department Development Real Estate Partnerships Commercial' Brokerage MAR 16 1998 General Building Contractor Contractors License No. 663708 Orovllle, California utte ount LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND:, .BEAUTY '"- DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER -DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785' Chabin Concepts, Inc. 2889 Cohasset Road, Suite 5 Chico, CA 95973 RE: REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) FOR A BUSINESS ANALYSIS, RETENTION AND EXPANSION STUDY Ladies and Gentlemen: The County of Butte has received a Planning and Technical Grant from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Funding from the grant will be used to retain a consultant to perform the following work program. The consultant shall prepare an analysis of existing businesses projected to grow, a business needs assessment, a targeted income group (TIG) assessment and a strategic plan to provide assistance to identified businesses. The study must include a collaborative effort among the county, cities and organizations involved in economic development and employment services. SCOPE OF WORK Phase I Resource Round Table - Work with and develop information involving all organizations and agencies that can assist businesses with issues, (a "Resource Round Table"). These organizations will come from the following sectors: business, governmental, environmental and employment. Butte County has an abundance of private, nonprofit organizations. and public institutions that have a stake in job creation, work force preparation, business and economic development. They must be willing to actively participate, share expertise and information that will benefit local businesses, and be responsible for taking action. This . cooperation is key to providing continuous service and assistance to Butte County businesses. The Resource Round table should include, but not be limited to: Butte County Community Action.Agency Butte County Private Industry Council Tri -County EDC Butte County EDC Butte Small -Business Development Center . Employment Development Department + Butte County Social Services Chabin Concepts, Inc. March 16; 19.98 Page 2 Butte Community College Regional Occupational Program Superintendent of Education Chambers of Commerce Economic Development Professionals The Board of Supervisors has recently appointed a Job Creation Task Force to develop the County's CALWORKS Welfare to Work plan. This task force includes all of the groups which could comprise the membership of the Resource Round Table. In addition, other community groups are represented on that task force. The task force may be available to act or serve as'the Resource Round Table. Phase II I Business Inventory Create a: database of all Butte County businesses. The business database shall include: identifying by employment category supplied by the Employment Development Department (EDD), using the standard industry classification (SIC) Code category and physical location. * Identification of home businesses and sole proprietorships should also be included in this inventory. The database should also have current names of business, local addresses, a local decision maker/contact person, phone number, number of employees. Once completed, the inventory should be reviewed with the Resource Round table to identify any major gaps. It may be necessary to perform "drive-by" checks to ascertain correctness of business listings. Butte County does not have a business license program. Phase III Butte County Existing Industry Base Analysis Analyze the business base and employment categories of Butte County. Analyze the employment figures of EDD over the past five years to determine which sectors ' are growing and which are declining. Industry base analysis should include: • Total employment growth. • Total number of establishments. Average hourly wages. • Total number of payroll dollars. • Total sales. Further identify industries which are stagnant, stable or expanding through trends and projections. Research and provide a 5 -year forecast which identifies those industries which are most likely to provide the greatest growth potential, and would most likely create jobs for the target income group. Phase IV Target Existing Industries Recommend a prioritization of industries to be targeted by SIC Code based on a methodology for selection. Target industry screening levels should be based on Round Table, recommendations and at a minimum, use 4 -digit SIC Codes for Processing & Manufacturing (2000 & 3000): Chabin Concepts, Inc. March 16, 1998 Page 3 _ • Identify Butte County top industries by employment, establishment and sales, 1992-1997 • National Historic Growth • Local Historic Growth • Number of Establishments, % Growth • Number of Employees, % Growth • Annual Payroll, % Growth • Annual Sales Quality of Employment • Wage.& Salary Level, about $7 • Non -Seasonal Employment • Benefits/Working Conditions • Local Revenue Generation • Industry Trends Phase V Business Survey Survey Butte County businesses in the targeted industry groups. With the -Resource Round table, develop a "business friendly" survey format which will. provide background information on the business, identify specific needs to, accommodate expansion or retention, projected employment growth, (occupations) and skill requirements of new employees. Survey Process: Introduction letter from District Supervisor, Assemblyman, Senator. Public relations and media releases. Mail Survey to the targeted industries as recommended by the Round Table and the SIC°Code 2000 & 3000 target businesses. Telephone follow-up by Resource Round table to ensure completion. . Thank you letters, next action steps. Purpose: , • Establish a channel of communications between private leaders, -and business leaders. • Verify information obtained in research ... growth, average wages, benefits, non -seasonal. What is their. product(s)? Do they export (sell) it outside the county? Where? • Do they anticipate growing at a 5-10-15% or more per year? • Employment opportunities with business: Average wage, % skilled/unskilled, occupations, full-time, benefits, training -technology needs in future. • What makes the business competitive in their market? • What purchases are made outside Butte County? • What businesses typically operate around this industry? Suppliers? Buyers? Users? • Why is the business in Butte County? • What factors would drive the business from Butte County? U Chabin Concepts, Inc. March 16, 1998 Page 4 What issues affecting their business do they foresee in the future? How could Butte County help these companies continue to grow? Perform personal interviews with a sample of the, target businesses to obtain direct information in determining businesses needs, employment requirements and willingness to hire from the TIG. This information will be used to identify work force preparation needs and placement strategies. Input survey results into database. Review results with Resource Round table to determine resource gaps between work force training and economic development activities. Use the information to develop strategies on preparing and placing TIG individuals into gainful employment. A Program Report of Survey/Interview Findingswill be completed. The -report should include the survey methodology, summary of major findings, and- recommendations (identified as Issue/Program, followed by recommendation). The report should be easy to read and useful to the Resource Round table for further planning. Phase VI TIG Assessment Analyze the Target Income Group: Identify TIG population characteristics and groups that are under served. Identify issues, constraints of TIG individuals and groups (i.e., skills, geographic concentration, and employment impediments). Determine and prioritize needs of the TIG in Butte County. This analysis would involve organizations and service providers currently providing assistance to TIG populations in Butte County. Review assessment report and strategies with the Resource Round table on how TIG can be matched to job opportunities being created by the target businesses or other growing segments of the Butte County business base. Phase VII Strategy for Business Retention/Expansion Collaboration and Cooperation Prepare an Economic Development Strategy for Business Retention & Expansion of Industries in Butte County, including recommendations for Economic Development Programs -and Business Assistance. The strategy must have -clearly defined goals, and long and short-term objectives. The objectives must be quantified and the strategy should include a system to measure progress and results. Program recommendations must be based on the needs of the businesses and the Target Income Group. The strategy must address coordination and elimination of duplicate services and stress continuity in servicing Butte County businesses. Key elements of the strategy shall include recommendations for sustaining the program through a Lead Agency, collaborative efforts of the Resource Round table and funding. The strategy should outline program goals, program annual evaluation, business assistance; TIG work force -development plans, job creation and organizational management. Chabin Concepts, Inc. March 16, 1998 Page 5 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. The format for the "Statement of Qualifications" shall be 8 '/Z by 11 inches, bound in a single document. Also, provide 10 hard copies of your proposal with 1 copy on disk in either Word Perfect 6.1 or Word 6.0. The document should be organized in the following sections: a. Firm/Team Description - Provide a description of your firm (or team) ' and list relevant information about capabilities, size, range of services and length of time in existence. b. Relevant Experience - Describe relevant experience on similar projects, listing individual projects separately. C. Key Personnel Qualifications -Identify key personnel who will work on' this project, their respective roles, along with a synopsis of relevant experience. d. Time Table - As an expert in the field, we request that you submit your own time table that you feel reasonably "reflects the time necessary to complete the project. e. Estimate - Given the scope of work, provide your fee for completing the study. Costs shall be specified for each task/phase. f. Charges Provide a schedule of hourly charge -out rates. g. References - Provide references of prior clients on similar projects. EVALUATION .CRITERIA "Statement of Qualifications" will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria: a. Experience in providing similar services. b. Capabilities and resources of firm. C. Performance record. d. Qualifications of key individuals. e. Time to complete the project. f. With budgetary constraints, the cost of the study will play an important role in the evaluation. Chabin Concepts, Inc., March 16, 1998 Page 6 . The above selection criteria are provided to assist proposers and are not meant to limit other considerations which may become apparent during the course of the selection process. Please mail the completed RFQ to: Department.of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 a Attention Brian Larsen All responses to this RFQ must be received by 4:00`p.m., on March 30, 1998. Should you have any questions, please contact Brian Larsen of this office, Monday through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP-jb kAdd s\cdbg\busretn Aq Chabin Concepts, Inc. 2889 Cohasset Road, Suite 5 Chico, CA 95973 Pacific Group 1110 Marquita Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Tri -County EDC 120 Independence Circle Chico, CA 95973 Pacific Municipal Consultants 1465 Myers Street Oroville, CA 95965 Applied Development Economics 2029 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 March 9, 1998 Mr. John G. Parish, Executive Officer, Department of Conservation State Mining and Geology Board 801 K Street, MS 24-05 Sacramento, CA 95814-3528 Eatte, Coaatq LAND O F NATURAL WEALTH A N D BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 5�8-7785 RE: Petition for Review -- Notice and Order Imposing Administrative Penalty Case No. 91-04-0003-97A -- Arlington Placer Operation Dear Mr. Parish: If Butte County is the lead agency for the Arlington Placer Operation, then representatives from the Arlington Placer Operation should come to our office at 7 County Center Drive and take out an application for a Mining Permit. An integral part of the Mining Permit is the preparation and approval of a reclamation plan. If the agent, Mr. John Perona, for the Arlington Placer Operation needs our assistance in making an application, we will provide the assistance that he requires. However, because of the size of our staff and work load requirements, we cannot send a representative to attend the hearing concerning Arlington Placer Operation on Thursday, March 12, 1998. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb k:\dds\Ietters\arIington.wpd STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCOAGENCY PETE WILSON. Governor DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION STATE MINING AND"GEOLOGY BOARD 801 K Street, MS 24'05 Sacramento, California 95814-3528 DeWayne Holmdah1, Chairman Robert Grunwald, Vice Chairman Charles Buckley Sands Figuers Julie Mann Robert Munro Sheila M. Murphy Lee Thibadeau FEBI 51990. 'Oroville, Calitornla T TELEPHONE: (916) 322-1082 TDD LINE: (916) 324-2555 FACSIMILE LINE: (916) 445-0738 smgb@consrv.ca.gov February 23, 1998 VIA FAX AND SURFACE MAIL Tom A. Parilo, Dire .tcr Butte County Planning Division 7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 Re: Petition for Review -- Notice and Order Imposing Administrative Penalty Case No. 91-04-0003-97A -- Arlington Placer Operation Dear Mr. Parilo: 'The County of Butte is a lead agency for the administration and enforcement of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA,,Public Resources Code § 2710 et seq.): The•Arlirigton Placer Operation, John Perona, Agent, is a mining operation. subject to SMARA within your lead agency's jurisdiction. This operator has received an. Administrative Penalty in the amount of $10,000 from the Director of the Department of Conservation for failure to provide a lead agency approved reclamation plan and financial assurances. The operator has;appealed this Administrative Penalty to the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) pursuant to PRC § 2774.2. The appeal has been scheduled to be heard by the SMGB on Thursday, March 12, 1998 at: The Department of Consumer Affairs 400 R Street, First Floor'Hearing Room Sacramento, California 95814 - PRC § 2770 states that no person may operate a surface mine unless the lead agency has approved any required permits, a reclamation plan and financial assurances. It also provides that failure to have a lead agency approved reclamation plan and financial assurances prohibits the continuance of a surface mining operation. PRC § 2774.1(f) provides that the lead agency has the primary responsibility for administering and enforcing SMARA and PRC § 2207. The .Mission of'the State Hiring and Geology- Board is toRepresent the State's Interest in the-Dev,elopment, Utilization and Conservation of .Mineral Resources., X eclaruation of ?dined Lands; Development of Geologic and Seismic.Hazard Infi)rination.. and. to Provide a Forunn for Publie.Redress Tom A.'Parilo Direct February 23, 1998 Page 2 The SMGB requests the presence of a representative from Butte County who is knowledgeable about this case and who can provide information to the SMGB during the hearing process on March 12, 1998. An Agenda stating the specific time will be sent to you approximately ten days in advance of the meeting. Your participation is greatly appreciated, and may have an important bearing on the SMGB's final determination of the case. If you have any questions regarding this hearing, please do not hesitate to contact the SMGB office. Sincerely, Jo n G. Parrish, Ph. D. Eecutive Officer cc: Department of Conservation Office of Mine Reclamation Legal Office parilol .Itr 1999 Local Government Planning Survey Office of -Planning and Research please type or print information reflecting the status of conditions within your. jurisdictions as of April 15, 1998. If you have any questions, please contact our office at 9161445-0613. Please return no later than April 115,1 998to: Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Room 121, Sacramento, California 95814, Attn: Janice Patton.. - L IDENTIFICATION .. 1.. Name,of jurisdiction (City or -County): ' Butte ..:. , a. For Cities, County in .which jurisdiction is located: ' 2. .' Population of jurisdiction: (If your jurisdiction is a county, please provide the total.. population,, including incorporated cities.) 199;134 .. _ 3. Area of jurisdiction in square miles: 1,670 4. Name of planning agency: Butte County. Dept. of. Development Services 5. Street Address: '7 County Center Drive City: Oroville,.CA Zip: 95965 . 6. t , Mailing Address (if different from above): City:. Zip. 7. Planning Agency Phone.Number: ( 530 ) 533-7601 8. Planning Agency:.FazNumber: • 030 ).: 538-7785 9. Planning. Agency E -Mail Address (Optional) brianl@mai12.quiknet.com ' • : Page 2 10. Planning Director (or Chief Planner if no Director): Thomas A. Parilo 1.4. Director's. title: Director -Development :Services 12. Name of person completing survey:' 'Jill Broderson 13. Number of professional planners within your planning office (please exclude clerical or other support, staff): '7 II. GENERAL PLAN : Listed below are the mandatory general plan elements.` Please provide the date of the last COMPLETE revision of each -element in your jurisdiction's general plan..- lan..REQUIRED REQUIREDELEMENTS, Year of last Revision.. Land Use .197.9 Circulation 19.71 Housin_ 1981` Open Space a • 1973 t , Conservation 1971 . Safetv -'1977 J Noise 1977 III. OPTIONAL ELEMENTS a Please provide the date of any optional elements. Administration Aesthetics �. Agriculture 1995- Air'Quality Airports j Archaeological �. Bicycle Biological Resources Page 3 31,4 q:. Child Care Coastal Commerce Community Development Cultural/Arts Design . Economic Education Emergency . Preparedness Energy Environmental Fire Protection Fiscal Flood Control and Drainage' Forestry Geothermal Governance Growth Management Hazardous Waste :Historic Preservation Implementation 'Military Reservation Mineral Resources Parking PMHK5 Recreation 1971 Public Facilities Redevelopment Regionalism 1977 Resource Conservation Scenic Highway. " Seismic. 1977 Services Social Services Trailways Transportation Urban Boundaries Waste Management Water Resources Other (Do not list community, area, or specific plans). Page 4 . _ ...._.,�. �......«...... ....._........ .r.r.0 ...,.a.w.r.�.wa.. ..... _ ndc. ,.". .. it .Yu r..rxa. � .�� ..�. �� � � .. �... i 1999 Land Use Survey Questions 1. Has your jurisdiction adopted a new zoning ordinance in the past five years? X Yes No 2. Has your jurisdiction adopted CEQA guidelines? - X Yes No 3. 1-11as your jurisdiction enacted an urban growth boundary or urban 'i rit line (including - boundaries enacted by voter initiative)? ' Yes X No - 4. Does your jurisdiction have: a) a planning commission? X Yes No b) a zoning administrator? Yes X No - c) an architectural or design review committee? Yes X No d) a historical resources commission or committee? Yes X _ No 5.. Has your jurisdiction adopted crime safe community policies? Yes X No' 6.: Performance zoning is an alternative to traditional "Euclidean" zoning that directly relates the type 'and intensity of allowable development to the fulfillment of the specific performance standards.. Does your jurisdiction have performance zoning? Yes = X No 7. Has your jurisdiction adopted sustainable development policies? Yes X No' ' • 4 8. Does your jurisdiction impose conditions for child care facilities or in -lieu fees for the approval'of office development projects? + ` Yes' X* -No Thank you for your time. The information you've provided is important to us. Please . return this survey as soon as possible to: Governor's Ofce of Planning and Research, Rm. 121, Sacramento, California 95814, Attn: Janice Patton. Page 5 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' DIRECTOR'S OFFICE r To: Mike Crump, Director Public Works From: Brian A. Larsen, Principal Analyst Subject: 40 HOUR WORK WEEK OFFICE HOURS Date: February 25, 1998 The Department of Development Services will be returning to the 40 -hour work week beginning with the pay period of April 4, 1998. As you are aware, our department accounts for the bulk of the public counter traffic at 7 County Center Drive. It requires some preparation to ready the counters in the morning and more So in the afternoon to shut down for the day. Because of this preparation time and the problem of having customers at the counter past our closing time, we are requesting that public office hours be between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. This will allow sufficient time to prepare in the morning and close in the afternoon without the .problem of overtime for counter staff. I am also attaching a memo with issues regarding the 40 -hour week that were previously agreed upon by the various departments in the building. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 7464.; Thank you. BL Jb Attachment cc: Gary House, w/attachment kAdds\memos\newhours.wpd . k• To: From: Subject: Date: MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENTS OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC HEALTH The 40 Hour Work Week Committee Brian A. Larsen, Administrative Analyst RETURN TO 40 HOUR WORK WEEK - 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE October 8, 1997 Representatives from all departments housed at 7 County Center Drive met to discuss the timing of the move to the 40 hour week. All departments agreed to the following: • All represented departments must be available to the public when the building is opened to Friday service. • Public Works, which accounts for approximately 5% of the counter traffic for the building, will request a return to the 40 hour week for the remaining members of that department on a 36 hour week as soon as possible. 7 County Center Drive will continue to be closed to the public on Friday until all departments in the building return to the 40 hour week. • The remaining departments request a return to the 40 hour, week as of April 1, 1998, or there about. This will cause the least impact on the contingency fund, and occur at a time when demand for construction and development activity typically increases. • The combined departments also request that public office hours remain at 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Oroville office and 8:00.a.m. - 12:00 p.m, 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. in the Chico office. • Each department has prepared and attached supporting documents. JAMEMOS\DDSSTAFFMOHRAGRE.W PD February 25, 1998 Dennis Wambem Land Use Economics 1700 Hammer Avenue, Suite 200 Norco, CA 91760 RE: Butte County Central Butte General Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Wambem: The Butte County Department of Development Services has completed its review of the two proposals for a fiscal analysis that were submitted for the Central Butte County General Plan Amendment. Both proposals that were submitted were exceptional, which made the decision all the more difficult. However, Iregret to inform you that your firm was not selected. I want to thank you for the submission of your proposal and the time you spent preparing the additional information we requested. Your name will be placed on our list of active consultants. If, in the future, we should need the services that your firm offers, I hope you will again take the time to respond. Again, thank you very much. Sincerely, Brian Larsen Principal Analyst BL:jb j:\docs\Ietters\wambem.wpd Count _6.tte L A N D O F N A T U R A L W E A L T H A N D BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 RE: Butte County Central Butte General Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Wambem: The Butte County Department of Development Services has completed its review of the two proposals for a fiscal analysis that were submitted for the Central Butte County General Plan Amendment. Both proposals that were submitted were exceptional, which made the decision all the more difficult. However, Iregret to inform you that your firm was not selected. I want to thank you for the submission of your proposal and the time you spent preparing the additional information we requested. Your name will be placed on our list of active consultants. If, in the future, we should need the services that your firm offers, I hope you will again take the time to respond. Again, thank you very much. Sincerely, Brian Larsen Principal Analyst BL:jb j:\docs\Ietters\wambem.wpd February 12, 1998 Ms. Kathie Bate Rogue Valley Council of Governments P.O. Box 3275 Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: Professional Reference for Robert Cervantes Dear Ms. Bate: �iutte L. L A N D O F NATURAL WEALTH A N D BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538.7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 It is my understanding that Robert Cervantes has submitted his, application to become the next Executive Director for the Rogue Valley Council of Governments. I am taking this opportunity to recommend Mr. Cervantes for this very challenging position. It has been my privilege and genuine pleasure to know Mr. Cervantes over the past 17 years. My primary contact with Mr. Cervantes was in his capacity as the Chief of the Planning Division in the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, from .August 1985, through December 1997. During this time, Mr. Cervantes has been the epitome of what the ideal public servant is. He was extremely responsive and always helpful. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research's planning unit has provided invaluable assistance to many local government units. The effectiveness and success of this program were largely attributed to Mr. Cervantes' efforts. Mr. Cervantes has devoted more than 17 years to this program. He has graciously and professionally provided capable technical assistance to many planners, Planning Commissioners, City Council members and Supervisors. As a Planning Director in three growing California counties, Nevada (1985-1992), El Dorado (1992-1995), and Butte (January 1997 - present), I have had the distinct pleasure of working with Mr. Cervantes on a number of occasions. Throughout my professional planning career, there have been many times when I sought Mr. Cervantes' capable technical assistance. After patiently questioning me as to my needs, he was always able to grasp an understanding of them, no matter how unusual they were. Any California city or county which has undertaken the preparation of a general plan or other complicated land use program, probably enlisted the assistance of Mr. Cervantes. He is recognized throughout the state as a very knowledgeable resource in a variety of planning, zoning, environmental, public facilities and other related land use topics. Frankly, it always amazed me how Mr. Cervantes was able to provide as much assistance as he did, given what must have been an incredible workload. If he gave all inquirers the same level of support that he gave me, he must have been extremely efficient and knowledgeable. In my opinion, he was,both. Ms. Kathie Bate Rogue Valley Council of Governments February 12, 1998 Page 2 The qualities that Mr. Cervantes has demonstrated over the years are clearly unique when compared to the service and dedication typically found in other state agencies. Perhaps, it was Mr. Cervantes' early association with local government that afforded a strong perspective built around professional and capable service. In my experience, he has demonstrated the ability to work under pressure and tight time frames while getting the job done. Mr. Cervantes would be an invaluable asset to the Rogue Valley Council of Governments. Mr. Cervantes is a knowledgeable policy planner, a very capable research person, a very good writer and most importantly a dedicated public servant. He possesses good technical skills in all aspects of land use planning. During his service as the Chief of the Office of Planning and Research, he also. supervised both professional and clerical staff. With his 10 years of local government experience in Kern and Fresno Counties, in combination with his statewide experience, Mr. Cervantes can bring solid local and regional planning knowledge with a larger perspective of the "big picture." It is without reservation that I recommend Mr. Cervantes to become the next Executive Director for the Rogue Valley Council of Governments. He is a proven performer and would be a tremendous asset to your agency. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb -MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director's Office TO: Supervisor Jane Dolan . Supervisor Curt Josiassen Richard Price - Tom Parilo FROM: Jill Broderson, Development Service SUBJECT: FINALIZATION OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOMESITE SEGREGATION COMMITTEE DATE: February 9, 1998 This memo is to confirm that a meeting regarding the above -referenced subject has been scheduled for 2:00 p.m., on Monday, March 2, 1998. The meeting will be held in the conference room at the Department' of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive in Oroville. .jb J INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES , DIRECTOR'S OFFICE To: Administration, Sean Farrell From: Brian A. Larsen Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION Date: February 9, 1998 The Department of Development Services, Planning Division is requesting certification from the Personnel Department to fill the vacant position of Senior Planner (position control # 480-12002). This is the position made vacant by the promotion of Craig Sanders to Principal Planner. It is budgeted for in FY 9,7/08. If you need any additional information or have questions, please call me at 7464. Thank you. t JAMEMOMADMIMSNPLCERT. W PD R N" COUNTY OF BUTTE - PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT REQUEST. FR CERTIFICATION, DEPARTMENT BUDGET CODE DATE .Development Service's,: Planning. Division 480-001 .2-9-98 NO OF POSITIONS CLASSIFICATION TITLE REGULAR HELP FULL TIME DATE.POSITION TO BE FILLED TO BE VACANT 1 Senior Planner 0 EXTRA HELP E PART TIME .2-9-98* EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPOINTMENT REQUEST CERTIFICATION TO THE ABOVE NAMED POSITION. FROM THE FOLLOWING LISTS: PERMANENT: FROM . ® OPEN PROMOTIONAL BOTH EXTRA HELP: FROM . NEW POSITION(S) - POSITION CONTROL NUMBER(S): EMPLOYEE(S) REPLACED - POSITION CONTROL NUMBER(S): Craig Sanders`, PC No. 4.80-12002 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS OF TH&POSITION (EXPLAIN): - BI -LINGUAL LANGUAGE' NAME OF DEPARTMENT CONTACT AND TITLE TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EXTENSION Br an Larsen . 538-7464 SIGNATURE OF APPOINTING AUTHORITY OR DESIGNATED REPRESENTITIVE AUTHORIZED POSITION TITLE DATE', ` Principal Analyst, 2-9-98 FOR PERSONNEL DEPARTMEN . SE ONLY 'DATE RECEIVED BY PERSONNEL REVIEWED BY AUTHORIZED TO FILL 0 YES F] NO INSTRUCTIONS 1. Complete this form to request an eligibility list. 2. Complete a separate form PER -2 for. each classification 'to which certification .is requested. If several vacancies exist in the same classification; only one form is required. 3. Complete every section•of the form. 4. Forward the White Original Copy to the Personnel Department. Maintain the Canary Copy for your records. •WHITE - ORIGINAL TO PERSONNEL PER 2- (Rev. 12/92) CANARY - DEPARTMENT FILE BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director's Office 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Telephone: (530) 538-7601 Fax: (530) 538-7785 FAX TRANSMITTAL Date: Monday, February 2, 1998 To: Tom Conlon Fax No.: (707) 826-4145 From: Thomas A. Parilo, Director Pages: 2 Tom, it was good to see you at the conference. Sorry, I forgot to leave this with you. Good luck with your new endeavors. ulll�� COu U'fTI� LLe ' Y n�� (Used for.Distribution purposes only) . dlll��� ; nllll� ; ❑ Check if you wish a copy of the results . HUMBOLDT r STATE UNIVERSITY Natural Resources Planning & Interpretation Department , 'California County Planning Directors Association' Sacramento, California 29, 30 January 1998 'DESIRED SKILLS FOR ,NEW EMPLOYEES ` Please rank the following skills on a scale of 1 (Not Important) to 5 (Extremely important) for people you would hire for your organization. NOT EXTREMELY .. , ' r IMPORTANT IMPORTANT ❑ Analytical Skills - 1 2 3 4 ❑ Computer Skills 1 2 3 4 5 ❑ Co-op Experience 1 2 3 4 5 ❑ Flexibility ; 2 ° 3 C? 5 ❑ .Internship Experience 1 2 4 5. ❑ Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 / 4 5 ❑ 'Leadership Skills r 1 2 3 5 ❑ Oral Communication Skills 1 2 3 .5 ❑ Proficiency in Field of Study 1 2 3 5 ❑ Teamwork Skills1, 2 3 4 50 ❑ Work Experience 1 2 (3,. 4 5 ❑ Written Communication Skills 5 1 ;' 2 '3 5 Other Skills Not Listed �h/!G Cd GNi�!✓ 1' 2 3 4 5. CeiSrrlP✓ Sa✓utce p�`Sir.�Q . 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 5 - Tom Conlon (707) 826-4291.4 Arcata, California 95521-8299 • (707) 826-4147 • Fax (707) 826-4145 The California State University i 0, uHeoun y --•:;_,::.; LAND OF' NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY M A s E d " DIRECTOR'S OFFICE 3 , DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES "'4 ` "? g ''•' 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 January 29, 1998 Bill Mayer, Principal LSA Associates, Inc. 6721 Five Star Boulevard Rocklin, CA 95677 RE: Meeting Attendance Dear Bill: I am in receipt of your faxed letter, dated January 15, 1998, regarding your meeting documentation. In reference to the consultant agreement, LSA Associates, Inc., is committed to attending one site visit, two Planning Commission meetings, one Board of Supervisors meeting, one staff meeting and one additional meeting. Your documentation states that you have attended three Planning Commission meetings on August 28, 1997, September 25, 1997, and January 22, 1998. After reviewing your documentation and the consultant agreement, you committed to attend one additional meeting, which could either be a meeting of the Planning Commission, Board or staff meeting. We are requesting that you use the additional meeting to attend the Planning Commission meeting on February 12, 1998. After attending this meeting, attendance at additional meetings will be addressed in either another contract or an amendment to the original contract. Should you have any questions, please call at me (530).538-7601 Monday through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sincerely, Brian Larsen Principal Analyst BL:jb - j:\docs\letters\BMayer.wpd LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTYDIRECTOR'S OFFICE . DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES • '�° : ". ' 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 January 29, 1998 Jeff Harter, Fire Captain Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 176 Nelson Avenue Oroville, CA 95965 RE: Fire Council Dear Captain Harter: I am in receipt of Mr. Gary Ross's letter dated January 22, 1998, regarding the new formation of the Butte County Fire Safe Council. I am pleased to be invited to participate in a council that will be a part of a statewide coalition that advocates -local levels of partnership in high fire risk communities. I have designated on my behalf, Dave Doody, Associate Planner, to represent the Department of Development Services. Dave can be reached Monday through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p -.m, at 538-7601. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb cc: - Dave Doody Paula Leasure j:\docs\IettersUHarter.wpd „4. w 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY -DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION 176 Nelson Avenue Oroville, California 95965 (530) 538-7111 January 22, 1998 Tom Parilo Butte County Department of Developmental Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville California 95965 Dear Mr. Tom Parilo, Fire Council PETE WILSON, Governor Continuing population shifts from urban to rural areas have increased the danger of wildfire throughout Butte County. This problem is increased with the tremendous accumulation of brush and wildland fuels creating an unnatural environment. The results from a wildfire would be catastrophic, destroying life, property and natural resources. `The 1995 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Plan's goal is to reduce total government costs and citizen losses from wildiand fire in California by protecting assets at risk through focused prefire management prescriptions and increasing fire suppression success. The desired'result'of-implementatiodni of the Fire Plan'Will be increased public. safety, -.both to citizens and firefighters, reduced damage to assets, and reduced costs of suppression. This Supports CDF's mission to-"... 'protect the people of California from fires, respond to emergencies, and protect and enhance �fo�est range, and watershed values providing social, economic, and environmental benefits to rural and urban citizen.” A possible solution to the Butte County's wildfire crisis is.to form a partnership of public and private sector groups, a Fire Safe Council. Everyone will share the benefits when you take an active role in the prevention of wildfires and loss mitigation. The objectives of the Fire Safe Council are to unite members to speak with one voice on fire safety. By discussing fire safe practices and address ways in which these practices might be encouraged, particularly in residential areas that border wildlands, actions may be identified that would improve public and private behaviors needed to achieve fire safe communities in the urban -interface. The primary thrust of the Council's efforts is not regulation but the kind of cooperation that ensues when people faced with °a problem become aware of an approach -or solution that promises mutual benefit California Department. of Forestry and Fire Protection:invites you to participate and be a member in the formation of the ''Butte'CountyFire Safe Council. Planning Division JAN 2 6 1998 ®roville, California Mr. Tom Parilo January 22, 1998 Page Two Your participation as a member of The Butte County Fire Safe Council gives you an opportunity to assist in the creation of a solution to an ongoing problem that destroys 705 homes on a yearly basis in California alone. This council will be a part of a statewide coalition that is advocating local levels of partnership in high fire risk communities. Please address your interest in this subject to Fire Captain, Jeff Harter, to this office by February 15, 1998 or feel free to call me at 530-538-6234. Thank you for your consideration of this very `important partnership. Sincerely, Ga Ross Unit Chief jwh Name Address City American Planning Association 007616 Thomas A Parilo Butte Co Oe Dery 7 County Ctr Oroville, CA 95965 PLEASE RETURN THIS SURVEY Membership Survey (Help Us Serve You Better) APA's Strategic Plan emphasizes social equity. We ask for your help with the following demographicinformation to help us track participation in APA by minorities and women. Also, we'd like to know more about you so that we can focus our programs on your needs and find new ways to serve different segments of our membership. This information will not be made available to groups outside APA. Please check off one box in each of the six categories below. I. If you work for. a public agency, what is the total population of the area it serves? ❑ A Under 10,000) E 100,000 to 249,999 0 B 10,000 to 24,999 ❑ F 250,000 to 499,999 ❑ C 25,000 to 49,999 0 G 500,000 to 1,000,000 El D 50,000 to 99,999 ❑ H Over 1,000,000 4. Which of the following job titles most accurately,describes yours? Choose one. X,A Director/Executive director ❑ $ Administrator ❑ C President/Chair ❑ D Owner/Partner ❑ E City manager .❑ F Elected official G Commissioner ❑ H. University dean L7 I Associate, Assistant director/ Manager != J Chief/Senior/Principal Planner ❑ K Vice -President ❑ L Associate, Assistant planner ❑ M Drafter ❑ N Data processor ❑ O Researcher, Librarian ❑ P Engineer ii Q Architect ❑ R 'Landscape architect ❑ S Developer/Builder ❑ T Realtor ❑ U Banker/Loan officer ❑ V Lawyer ❑ W Lobbyist ❑ X Professor ❑ Y Student !❑ Z Other Are you: ❑ Female Male Are you: ❑ American Indian/Native American ❑ Asian ❑ Black/African American ❑ Hispanic XWhite Today's Date: January 29, 1998 5. What is your place of business? ❑ A City government 9113 County government ❑ C Joint city/county government ❑ D Regional/Metro agency ❑ E State government ❑ F Federal government ❑ G Planning consulting firm ❑ H Engineering/Architecture firm ❑ I Architecture firm. ❑ J Landscape architecture firm ❑ K Bank/Financial service firm ❑ L Real estate/Land development firm ❑ M Builder ❑ N Utility ❑ O Law firm ❑ P Realtor ❑ Q Nonproft association/ Foundation ❑ R Neighborhood group ❑ S Chamber of commerce ❑ T Community development corporation ❑ U Public interest/Lobbying organiztion ❑ V College or university ❑ W Military ❑ X Other 6. What is your primary job func- tion? Choose one. ❑ A Administration !❑ B Architecture/Urban design !_! C Building codes/Inspection XD Community development ❑ E Community liaison ❑ F Comprehensive planning ❑ G Data processing/Analysis H Demographic analysis I Downtown development L J Economic development/ Grants ❑ K Environmental ❑ L Farmland preservation i M Finance/Budgeting 1:1N Government liaison/Lobbying ❑ O Historic Preservation P Housing ❑ Q Health and human services ❑ R Law (planning and zoning) S Mapping/Graphics (- T Neighborhood development ❑ U Parks/Recreation development, F71 V Public works ❑ W Transportation 77 X Waterfront development Y Zoning/Subdivision administration Z Other Name of agency or firm: Butte County epartment of Develogrnent Services INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR'S OFFICE, To: Administration, Sean Farrell From: Brian A. Larsen Subject: REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION, Date: January 28, "1998 t ne iiepartment or t)eve►opment �)ervlces, tsunamg LIvlslon Is requesting certmcation from ine Personnel Department for a departmental promotion of a Building Inspector 2 to Building Inspector 3. There is only one qualified Building Inspector 2 at this time and he is currently being'paid the 5% out of class differential which will amount to the increase when the position is moved to Building Inspector 3. There will not be any additional impact to the FY 97/98 budget with this promotion. The department is also requesting certification to fill the position of Lead Code Enforcement through a departmental promotion. The funding for this position was added to the Building Division budget by the Board action on December 23, 1997 that implemented the, reclassification and reorganization for the;department. If you need any additional information or have questions, please call me at 7464.. Thank you. JAMEMMADMINTERTBICE. W PD isAc��'�iy�'�'kz`�y�n.:�Y?+.gc.+zi..'�'i+rte^rV�l�ryr�a'�py�.;,.yp�;,`.;',�'I�.p+-•'•7e"l.",yt++a��Yy,n,pj'.�.i�+l,�Fi�"''K�'�'`°r'�'�l�f�'#'7nos'`�3�^���"'""''''^"'r ,.�i R �h' 0 0 6':8:x; COUNTY OF BUTTE' -PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT .' REQUEST-. FOR CERTIFICATION DEPARTMENT BUDGET CODE GATE' Development Services, _Building Division 440-002 2-298: NO. OF POSITIONS TO BE FILLED CLASSIFICATION TITLE REGULAR HELP FULL TIME DATE POSITION TO BE VACANT 1 Building Inspector III EXTRA HELP PARTTIME EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPOINTMENT REQUEST CERTIFICATION TO THE ABOVE'NAMEIJ POSITION ' • . ' FROM THE FOLLOWING LISTS: PERMANENT. FROM OPEN0 PROMOTIONAL . BOTH EXTRA HELP: FROM' �PAR'I1�IENTAL) NEW POSITIONS) - POSITION CONTROL NUMBER(S): , New position created from Reclassification of'December 23, 1997. .a EMPLOYEES) REPLACED - POSITION CONTROL NUMBER(S):. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE POSITION (EXPLAIN): D 81 -LINGUAL LANGUAGE. NAME OF DEPARTMENT CONTACT AND TITLE TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EXTENSION 8'rian IJarsen, '-Princi'pal Analyst . 538=7464 SIGNATURE OF APPOINTING.AUTHORITY OR DESIGNATED REPRESENTITIVE AUTHORIZED. . POSITION TITLE DATE. ' Principal Analyst. 2=2-98 FOR PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT USE ONLY DATE. RECEIVED BY PERSONNEL. REVIEWED BY AUTHORIZED TO FILL ❑ YES r] NO INSTRUCTIONS 1. Complete this form to request, an eligibility list: 2. ' Complete a separate form PER -2 for each classification to.Which certification is requested. If several vacancies exist in the ` same classification, only one form is required.. 3. Complete every, section of the form.: 4. Forward the White Original Copy to the Personnel. Department. Maintain the Canary Copy for your. records. WHITE ORIGINAL TO PERSONNEL PER 2 -(Rev. 12/92) CANARY- DEPARTMENT FILE 'r�l•�t%�'s:iK ••'�_ �+'-fyi�'Jr�ju'�%!+*�'!".'7XYl.i�Jh"�ff►h`^ 'miirt i+wt11'7�eI!'�K'IRWt��;'^'�i^ �"�IY'?�li!` �1f'i'y`�dktR�:�iY"'r�T�''�7' � YI' �`7�v�P'«'.^*_a y R 006.8. COUNTY OF BUTTE - PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION DEPARTMENT BUDGET CODE DATE Development Services, Building Division 440-002 2-2-98 NO. OF POSITIONS CLASSIFICATION TITLE ��REGULAR HELP FULL TIME DATE POSITION TO BE VACANT. TO BE FILLED 1 Lead Code Enforcement Officer EXTRA HELP PART TIME EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPOINTMENT REQUEST CERTIFICATION TO THE ABOVE NAMED POSITION. FROM THE FOLLOWING LISTS: PERMANENT: FROM E] OPEN baPROMOTIONAL [:] BOTH' , (UAR11'1ENTAL) EXTRA HELP: FROM NEW POSITION(S) - POSITION CONTROL NUMBER(S): ; New position created from Reclassification of December 23, 1997. F] EMPLOYEE(S) REPLACED - POSITION CONTROL NUMBER(S): SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE POSITION (EXPLAIN): BI -LINGUAL LANGUAGE NAME OF DEPARTMENT CONTACT AND TITLE TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EXTENSION Brian Larsen, Principal Analyst.- .538-7464 SIGNATURE OF APPOINTING AUTHORITY OR DESIGNA ED REPRESENTITIVE AUTHORIZED POSITION TITLE DATE Principal Analyst 2-2.98 FOR PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT USE ONLY DATE RECEIVED BY PERSONNEL. REVIEWED BY AUTHORIZED TO FILL YES NO INSTRUCTIONS 1. Complete this form to request -an eligibility list:_ 2. Complete a separate form PER -2 for each classification to which certification. is requested. If several vacancies exist in the same classification, only one form is required: 3. Complete every section of the form. 4. Forward the White Original Copy to the Personnel. Department! -Maintain the Canary Copy for your records. WHITE - ORIGINAL -TO PERSONNEL PER 2 - (Rev. 12/92) CANARY - DEPARTMENT FILE, INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM. DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director's Office TO: Employees of the Department of Development Services FROM: Thomas A. Parilo, Director SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR DEFAULT FONT CHANGE DATE: January 20, 1998 t Administration has requested county -wide that all reports, memos, agenda items, etc., be prepared in the Times New Roman font, 12 points. In order to affectively comply with their request, I Wn asking that all computers within our department have their default font changed to the Times New Roman font, 12 points. Thank you for your cooperation. . TAP:jb } January 20, 1998 Ed Hay 760 Rebecca Court Chico, CA 95973 RE: Tentative Subdivision Map AP#047-440-006 File No. TSM 97-01 Dear Mr. Hay: utte Co, L A N D O F NATURAL WEALTH AND B E A U T Y DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Thank you for taking the time to meet with county staff and Supervisor Houx on Wednesday, January 14, 1998. The results of that meeting seem to indicate that there was some mishandling of your application for a Tentative Subdivision Map. Although this department cannot take responsibility for the loss of preliminary soil information by the Environmental Health Department, I do understand that you view it as a county problem. The county strives to present a seamless service to the public. Unfortunately, sometimes we are unsuccessful in accomplishing that ends as evidenced by your experience. All county staff present at the meeting welcomed your comments and criticisms of the tentative subdivision map process. We value your input as a means to improve the review process. The department will note the mistakes made in the processing of your application and take measures to insure that the same mistakes are not repeated for future projects. In recognition of mistakes and duplication in the processing of your application, the department is willing to split the billing difference of the latest balance due as suggested by Supervisor Houx. While your stated preference was for a full waiver of the balance, you also indicated that you would abide by a reasonable adjustment. We hope that this adjustment is satisfactory to you and that the tentative map approval fulfills your ultimate objective. The new total due is $591.82. Please make a check payable to the Butte County Treasurer in the amount of $591.82 and remit it to the Butte County Department of Development Services, Planning Division at 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. If you have any additional questions, please call me in this office Monday thru Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., at 538-7601. Sincerely, D Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb cc: Supervisor Mary Anne Houx Mark Adams, PE, NorthStar Engineering Tom Reid, Environmental Health kAdds\Ietters\hay,wpd INTER -DEPARTMENTAL. MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director's Office TO- Steve Hackney FROM: Tom Parilo SUBJECT: M & T RANCH MINE ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR (ADEIR) COMMENTS DATE: January 14, 1998 My review was limited to the summary•, project description, Land Use, Traffic & Alternatives sections. Overall, I found the ADEIR to be very readable and easy to follow. My specific comments are as follows: A. Summary of Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures, Table 2-1. 1. Why are there mitigation measures for impacts rated less than significant? 4.3-1; 4.3-2; 4.4-1 (without batch plants); 4.4-3 (without batch plants); 4.5-2; 4.7-1 (without batch plant); 4.7-5 (without batch plant); 4.7-7; 4.8-1; 4.8-2; 4.9-1 (with batch plant), 4.9-3. There may be others that I've missed. Either rate the impact as potentially significant or discuss "mitigation measures" as additional measures to assure impacts remain insignificant. Why is mitigation measure 4.4-2a applicable•to the No -Batch Plan Project? 2. Impact 4.6-2 for project without batch plant is listed as significant. The comment under the mitigation measure column is impact is less than significant. 3. Mitigation measure 4.6-1 a and 4.6-3a both suggest that if the Department of Public Works "considers" reducing speed limit that impact is less than significant. I don't believe that all the Department of Public Works need to do is "consider" changing the speed limit. Are there other alternative means to reduce this impact? If the.county does not change the speed limit, is the impact of additional traffic still significant? Overall, the project traffic seems minimal, so I question the significant impact conclusion: 4. Impact 4.9-5 for project without batch plan. Review the Impact Statement and Mitigation Measure comments; they appear to be in conflict. Steve Hackney January 14, 1998 Page 2 B. Chapter 4. Environmental Analysis. 1. Land Use, pg. 4.2-3 - Williamson Act. a. This discussion indicates that Figure 4.2-1 shows land in Williamson Act. In fact, this figure does not identify the lands in the Williamson Act. 2. Traffic. a. Pg. 4.6-4: Under truck traffic heading should SR -44 be SR -45? b. Does Impact 4.6-4 road rehabilitation involve both narrow conditions and deteriorated surface problems? The analysis. of this impact needs to be broadened. C. Why is there a glossary in the EIR? D. The appendices are quite lengthy. I suggest that they be bound separately from the Draft EIR. If a glossary is needed, it too could be bound in a second volume. E. Comment letter. Butte County Farm Bureau is not a local government agency. TAP:jb j Ad o cs\tom\work\M &TAD E I R. wpd