HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.24.26 Board Correspondence - FW_ SUBJECT_ Request for Continuance of the July 28, 2026 Appeal Hearing — Pending Public Records Production — PROJ-25-0006.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Clerk of the Board
To:Clerk of the Board; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Jessee, Meegan; Kitts, Melissa; Krater, Sharleen; Lee, Lewis;
Pickett, Andy; Stephens, Brad J.; Sweeney, Kathleen; Zepeda, Elizabeth
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: SUBJECT: Request for Continuance of the July 28, 2026 Appeal Hearing — Pending
Public Records Production — PROJ-25-0006 (R005485-042826 / R005486-042826)
Date:Friday, July 24, 2026 1:21:40 PM
Attachments:ATTACHMENT 2 — Public Records Request R005486-042826 (Butte County Public Records Center).png
ATTACHMENT 1 — Public Records Request R005485-042826 (Butte County Public Records Center).png
ATTACHMENT 3 — Appellant"s July 20, 2026 correspondence requesting continuance pending public records
production, and the County"s replies of July 22 and July 23, 2026.pdf
image001.png
image001.png
Please see Board Correspondence -
Lewis LeeAdministrative Technician - ConfidentialButte County Administration25 County Center Drive, Suite 200 • Oroville, CA 95965T: 530.552.3326www.buttecounty.ca.gov | lelee@buttecounty.ca.gov
From: Kimberlee Mau-Williams <kimee1017@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 12:22 PM
To: Michelena, Mark <mmichelena@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Johnson, Curtis
<CLJohnson@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.ca.gov>;
Greeson, Kathleen <KGreeson@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Kingsley, Cortney
<CKingsley@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Cannon, Jamie <JCannon@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Daneluk, Paula
<pdaneluk@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Connelly, Bill <BConnelly@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Connelly, Bill
<BConnelly@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Durfee, Peter <PDurfee@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Durfee, Peter
<PDurfee@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Ritter, Tami <TRitter@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Ritter, Tami
<TRitter@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Kimmelshue, Tod <TKimmelshue@buttecounty.ca.gov>;
Kimmelshue, Tod <TKimmelshue@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Teeter, Doug
<DTeeter@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Teeter, Doug <DTeeter@buttecounty.ca.gov>
Subject: Re: SUBJECT: Request for Continuance of the July 28, 2026 Appeal Hearing — Pending
Public Records Production — PROJ-25-0006 (R005485-042826 / R005486-042826)
Subject: RE: Request for Continuance of the July 28, 2026 Appeal Hearing — Pending
Public Records Production — PROJ-25-0006 (R005485-042826 / R005486-042826)
Mr. Michelena, Clerk of the Board, County Counsel, and all recipients:
Thank you for your July 23, 2026 notification that the project applicant intends to appear at
the July 28, 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting and to ask the Board to act on the appeal.
I respectfully request that this correspondence be placed before the Board of Supervisors in
connection with the July 28, 2026 agenda item for PROJ-25-0006, and that it be entered
into and made part of the administrative record for PROJ-25-0006, together with any
County response to it. Because the Board has not previously been presented with this
history, I set it out below in full.
1. APPEARANCE AND NON-WAIVER
I am the appellant in PROJ-25-0006 and I intend to appear at the July 28, 2026 Board of
Supervisors meeting at which this appeal is calendared. Neither this correspondence nor
my appearance constitutes my appeal, my statement of grounds, or my presentation on the
merits. Nothing herein waives, limits, narrows, or exhausts any right, ground, argument,
objection, or exhibit associated with my appeal, all of which I expressly reserve for the
hearing on the merits of this appeal, whenever that hearing is held.
I submit this correspondence in writing, before the hearing, for a specific reason. This
appeal is the last administrative step available to me: Butte County Code § 24-269 provides
that "no person may seek judicial review of a County decision on a planning permit or other
matter in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance until all appeals to the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors have been first exhausted in compliance with this
article." Because this is the final step, the record the Board acts on is the record this matter
will stand on. And what I put before the Board in writing now is what I am permitted to rely
on later — Government Code § 65009(b)(1) provides that in an action to attack, review, set
aside, void, or annul a decision of a public agency made at a properly noticed public
hearing, "the issues raised shall be limited to those raised in the public hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the public agency prior to, or at, the public hearing," and
Public Resources Code § 21177 imposes a comparable requirement as to grounds under
the California Environmental Quality Act. That is why this letter is submitted now rather than
raised for the first time at the podium.
2. OPPOSITION TO ACTION ON JULY 28, 2026, AND REQUEST THAT THE BOARD
ADOPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONTINUANCE
I oppose any action on the merits of this appeal on July 28, 2026, and I respectfully ask the
Board to adopt the staff recommendation and continue this matter to September 8, 2026 at
10:00 a.m.
The Board has express authority to do so. Butte County Code § 24-267(G)(3) provides that
"[a] matter being heard on appeal may be continued for good cause (e.g., additional CEQA
review is required)." And nothing is lost by waiting, because under Butte County Code § 24-
266(B), "any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the Board of
Supervisors. All appeals to the Board of Supervisors shall be heard de novo." The Board
hears this matter anew whenever it hears it.
Good cause exists here, and it concerns the completeness of the record the Board would
be acting on. My two records requests are attached; each states in full the records it
sought, and I ask that the Board read them as written. My first request asked, at item 7, that
"if any records are withheld or redacted, please provide a privilege log identifying the
document, date, author, recipient, and the specific exemption claimed."
On June 1, 2026 the County determined that some records requested were exempt from
disclosure. No privilege, exemption, or redaction log has ever been provided. I asked for
one in writing on June 24, 2026 and received no response. I restated the County's
obligations on July 20, 2026 and received no response as to records.
That matters because the Public Records Act puts the burden of justifying a withholding on
the agency, not on the person who asked. Government Code § 7922.000 provides that "an
agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is
exempt under express provisions of this division, or that on the facts of the particular case
the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest
served by disclosure of the record." The Act also prescribes the form that justification must
take: under Government Code § 7922.540, "a response to a written request for inspection
or copies of public records that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole
or in part, shall be in writing," that "notification of denial shall set forth the names and titles
or positions of each person responsible for the denial," and "an agency shall justify
withholding any record by complying with Section 7922.000." And where only part of a
record is exempt, Government Code § 7922.525(b) requires that "any reasonably
segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting
the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law."
The only exemption the County has ever invoked in this matter is its June 1, 2026
determination as to "records containing historically or culturally significant matters, including
Native American and cultural resource surveys," citing Government Code sections
7927.000 and 7927.005. Both sections are narrow on their face. Section 7927.000
withholds only "records of Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places" and
"records of Native American places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and
5097.993 of the Public Resources Code, which are maintained by, or in the possession of,
the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency."
Section 7927.005 withholds only records "that relate to archaeological site information and
reports maintained by, or in the possession of, the Department of Parks and Recreation,
the State Historical Resources Commission, the State Lands Commission, the Native
American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency, including the
records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a California Native
American tribe and a state or local agency." Neither section reaches the balance of the
records described in the attached requests.
The June 1 determination did not identify which records were withheld under it, and for
every other category of records described in those requests, no written determination of
denial has been issued at all. As to those records, the County must do one of four things:
produce them; justify a specific exemption for each record withheld; produce them in
redacted form under Government Code § 7922.525(b); or state in writing that no responsive
record exists. It has done none of these. Until it does, the completeness of the
administrative record cannot be established — and the Board is being asked to act on that
record on July 28.
This is not a matter that resolves itself later. If this decision is ever reviewed, the record of
proceedings would include, under Public Resources Code § 21167.6(e), "all written
evidence or correspondence submitted to, or transferred from, the respondent public
agency with respect to compliance with this division or with respect to the project," and "the
full written record before any inferior administrative decisionmaking body whose decision
was appealed to a superior administrative decisionmaking body before the filing of
litigation." The County is not presently in a position to demonstrate that record is complete.
No party is prejudiced by waiting. Under Butte County Code § 24-267(E), "once an appeal
is filed, any action on the associated project is suspended until the appeal is processed and
a final decision is rendered by the applicable review authority." The project has been
suspended since my appeal was filed on May 4, 2026 and remains suspended regardless
of the hearing date, so the applicant stands in exactly the same position on September 8 as
on July 28. And the September 8 date is the disposition the County itself proposed in
writing on July 22, 2026 and continues to recommend.
Finally, I preserve the objection stated in my July 20, 2026 correspondence. An appeal from
the grant of a conditional use permit is an adjudicatory proceeding, governed by the due
process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
California Constitution, Article I, § 7, and by the fair-hearing standard of Code of Civil
Procedure § 1094.5(b). A meaningful opportunity to be heard requires adequate time to
review and respond to the public records on which the decision rests. Proceeding to a
hearing on the merits on a record whose completeness cannot be established would deny
me a fair hearing and would not be proceeding in the manner required by law. I raise this
objection now, before any action is taken, so that it is preserved for review under Code of
Civil Procedure § 1094.5.
3. HISTORY OF MY PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS AND THE COUNTY'S
RESPONSES
In email correspondence of July 22, 2026, Principal Planner Mark Michelena wrote that it
was his "understanding all PRA requests have been filled." That understanding is disputed.
I place my dispute on the record now so that it is not later treated as conceded. The
following is the complete sequence.
April 28, 2026 — I submitted two public records requests for the PROJ-25-0006 project file.
The first, R005485-042826, is attached as ATTACHMENT 1. The second, R005486-
042826, is attached as ATTACHMENT 2. I do not summarize them here; each request
states its own categories and specific requests in full, and I ask that the Board read them as
written. I note only that the second stated on its face that it was "separate from and in
addition to my prior request."
May 8, 2026 — Deputy County Counsel Jessica Henry extended the response deadline on
the second request under Government Code § 7922.535(c), and committed to respond no
later than May 22, 2026.
May 21, 2026 — The County released records under the first request, stated it would
continue releasing records "on a rolling basis," and advised that the two requests were
"being handled as one," with "any responsive records to be released to you through your
first request, #R005485-042826." I had no objection to that consolidation.
June 1, 2026 — The County released additional records and issued the cultural and
archaeological exemption determination described above. In the same message the County
stated it would continue releasing records on a rolling basis and anticipated responding
again no later than June 15, 2026.
June 11, 2026 — The County released additional records and stated: "This completes the
County's response to your records request." No privilege, exemption, or redaction log
accompanied it. I note that the County recited my item 7 privilege-log request back to me
verbatim in each of its messages of May 8, May 21, June 1, and June 11, 2026 — including
the message declaring the response complete.
June 24, 2026 — Because the County had declared its response complete without
providing the log, I served written notice titled "Statutory Notice and Mandatory Compliance
Demand: Enforcement of Administrative Stay, Baseline Site Conditions, and CPRA
Redaction and Exemption Log for PROJ-25-0006 (77 Weger Drive)." It demanded an
itemized redaction and exemption log identifying, for each record withheld, redacted, or
delayed, the document's date, author, recipient, and title; the specific exemption claimed;
and the justification for withholding. The County did not respond.
July 20, 2026 — Because the June 24 demand had gone unanswered, I wrote to the Clerk
of the Board, County Counsel, and Planning requesting a continuance of the July 28, 2026
hearing for good cause under Butte County Code § 24-267(G)(3), and restating the
County's obligations as to any record withheld other than the cultural and archaeological
material. The County did not respond as to records. That correspondence, and the
County's replies, are attached as ATTACHMENT 3.
July 22, 2026 — The County advised that staff would recommend continuing this matter to
September 8, 2026, and stated the understanding that all records requests had been filled.
The second request, R005486-042826, is now shown on the County's Public Records
Center as "Duplicate Request" — a characterization that appears nowhere in the County's
correspondence on either request.
Consolidation was never the issue. I accepted it when it was proposed. What remains
outstanding is the County's accounting for the records described in the attached requests.
Until that accounting is provided, the completeness and integrity of the administrative
record cannot be established, and remain contested.
4. REQUEST
I respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors:
(1) decline to act on the merits of this appeal on July 28, 2026;
(2) continue this matter to September 8, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. for good cause under Butte
County Code § 24-267(G)(3);
(3) direct that the County account for the records described in the attached requests — by
producing them, justifying a specific exemption for each record withheld, producing them in
redacted form under Government Code § 7922.525(b), or stating in writing that no
responsive record exists — and provide the itemized redaction and exemption log initially
(4) enter this correspondence, and any County response to it, into the administrative
record for PROJ-25-0006.
Please confirm receipt of this correspondence, its placement in the Board's materials for
July 28, 2026, and its entry into the administrative record for PROJ-25-0006.
Because of mail-delivery constraints at my location, I request that all correspondence
regarding PROJ-25-0006 be sent to me electronically at kimee1017@yahoo.com. Please
respond in writing.
Respectfully,
Kimberlee Mau-Williams
Appellant, PROJ-25-0006
191 Weger Drive
Oroville, CA 95966
510-385-0891
kimee1017@yahoo.com
ATTACHMENT 1 — Public Records Request R005485-042826 (Butte County Public
Records Center)
ATTACHMENT 2 — Public Records Request R005486-042826 (Butte County Public
Records Center)
ATTACHMENT 3 — Appellant's July 20, 2026 correspondence requesting continuance
pending public records production, and the County's replies of July 22 and July 23, 2026
On Thursday, July 23, 2026 at 08:12:58 AM PDT, Michelena, Mark <mmichelena@buttecounty.ca.gov> wrote:
For your information, we heard from the project applicant who will be attending the
appeal hearing on 7/28/26 and looking to have the Board of Supervisors act on the
appeal. As mentioned below, staff is recommending the item to be continued to 9/8/26,
but the Board of Supervisors will decide if they will continue the appeal or take action on
7/28/26.
Regards,
Mark Michelena
Principal Planner
Department of Development Services
7 County Center, Oroville CA 95965
(530) 552-3683 (Direct) | (530) 552-3701 (Planner Desk)
mmichelena@buttecounty.ca.gov | DSPlanning@buttecounty.ca.gov (Planner Desk)
Helpful Links: No Cost Plans |FAQs |Forms |STRs| Zoning | Code | Accela Citizen Access |
Butte Fire Safe | Be Read
From: Michelena, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 11:46 AM
To: 'Kimberlee Mau-Williams' <kimee1017@yahoo.com>; Clerk of the Board
<clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Johnson, Curtis
<CLJohnson@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Greeson, Kathleen <KGreeson@buttecounty.ca.gov>;
Kingsley, Cortney <CKingsley@buttecounty.ca.gov>
Cc: Cannon, Jamie <JCannon@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Daneluk, Paula
<pdaneluk@buttecounty.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: SUBJECT: Request for Continuance of the July 28, 2026 Appeal Hearing —
Pending Public Records Production — PROJ-25-0006 (R005485-042826 / R005486-
042826)
Thank you for your email, since this item was already noticed for the 7/28/26 meeting,
you will see in the Board of Supervisors agenda item that staff is recommending this item
be continued to 9/8/26 at 10:00 am, as you requested. The item will be opened at the
7/28/26 Board meeting and continued to the future date (noted above).
My understanding all PRA requests have been filled. If you have any questions or want to
discuss that further, please contact County Counsel Office.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Regards,
Mark Michelena
Principal Planner
Department of Development Services
7 County Center, Oroville CA 95965
(530) 552-3683 (Direct) | (530) 552-3701 (Planner Desk)
mmichelena@buttecounty.ca.gov | DSPlanning@buttecounty.ca.gov (Planner Desk)
Helpful Links: No Cost Plans |FAQs |Forms |STRs| Zoning | Code | Accela Citizen Access |
Butte Fire Safe | Be Read
From: Kimberlee Mau-Williams <kimee1017@yahoo.com>
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before
opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 4:08 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Johnson, Curtis
<CLJohnson@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Greeson, Kathleen <KGreeson@buttecounty.ca.gov>;
Kingsley, Cortney <CKingsley@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Michelena, Mark
<mmichelena@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Hickel, Rowland <rhickel@buttecounty.ca.gov>
Subject: SUBJECT: Request for Continuance of the July 28, 2026 Appeal Hearing —
Pending Public Records Production — PROJ-25-0006 (R005485-042826 / R005486-
042826)
Dear Clerk of the Board, and Mr. Johnson, Ms. Kingsley, County Counsel, Mr. Michelena, and Mr.
Hickel:
I am the appellant in PROJ-25-0006 (Hurleton West Telecommunications Facility), set for a de
novo appeal hearing before the Board of Supervisors on July 28, 2026. Pursuant to Butte County
Code § 24-267(G)(3), I request that the hearing be continued for good cause, to a date providing
not less than thirty (30) days for my review after the County produces the complete responsive
records.
This correspondence concerns records access and scheduling only. It is not my appeal or my
statement of grounds, and nothing herein waives, limits, or exhausts any argument, objection, or
ground I intend to raise in connection with this appeal, all of which I expressly reserve. This
correspondence is submitted to preserve my rights and grounds — including my grounds under
the California Environmental Quality Act — and in furtherance of the exhaustion of administrative
remedies required before judicial review (Butte County Code § 24-269; Gov. Code § 65009(b)(1);
Pub. Res. Code § 21177). I further request that this correspondence, and the County's response or
failure to respond, be entered into and made part of the administrative record for PROJ-25-0006.
1. Good cause: the record is incomplete. On April 28, 2026, I submitted two public records
requests, R005485-042826 and R005486-042826, which together set out in full the records I
sought. As stated on its face, R005486-042826 was "separate from and in addition to" R005485-
042826, and each request sought all responsive records "including, but not limited to" the
categories specified therein. On June 11, 2026, the County declared: "This completes the
County's response to your records request."
The only exemption the County has ever invoked appears in its June 1, 2026 message on records
request R005485-042826, signed by Deputy County Counsel Jessica Henry: "some records
requested are exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act for the following
reasons: records containing historically or culturally significant matters, including Native
American and cultural resource surveys, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government
Code sections 7927.000 and 7927.005."
Those two sections are narrow, and by their terms reach only cultural and archaeological
material. Section 7927.000 exempts records of "Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred
places," and records of certain Native American "places, features, and objects" held by the Native
American Heritage Commission or another state or local agency. Section 7927.005 exempts
records relating to "archaeological site information and reports," "including the records that the
agency obtains through a consultation process between a California Native American tribe and a
state or local agency." Neither section reaches the balance of the records I requested in R005485-
042826 and R005486-042826. The County has specified an exemption only for cultural and
archaeological material. To the extent it is withholding any other responsive record, it is required
under Government Code § 7922.000 to justify that withholding by demonstrating that each such
record is exempt, and under Government Code § 7922.525(b) to release any reasonably
segregable non-exempt portion. It has done neither. The County must therefore, as to all records
other than the cultural and archaeological material, either produce them, justify a specific
exemption for each record withheld, produce them in redacted form, or state in writing that no
responsive record exists. Until it does, the record is incomplete and I cannot meaningfully
prepare.
2. Due process. An appeal from the grant of a conditional use permit is an adjudicatory
proceeding, governed by the due process guarantees under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and California Constitution, Art. I, § 7,
and by the fair-hearing standard of Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5(b). “A meaningful
opportunity to be heard" fundamentally requires that an appellant be granted adequate time to
comprehensively review, analyze, and build an evidentiary rebuttal using public records on which
the decision rests. The County's silence, or its failure to produce the requested records or to
continue the hearing, will be formally logged on the administrative record as an active denial of
procedural due process under California Constitution, Art. I, § 7. This action creates a fatally
flawed administrative record for project PROJ-25-0006, constituting a prejudicial abuse of
administrative discretion under California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 1094.5 and a direct
impairment of my statutory right to exhaust my administrative remedies under Butte County Code
§ 24-269, thereby hindering my ability to prepare the record for my de novo appeal hearing before
the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Butte County Code § 24-267(G)(3). The County has declared
its production complete without providing all of the records I requested in R005485-042826 and
R005486-042826, and without justifying, as to any record other than the cultural and
archaeological material, why those records were not produced. I am therefore left without a
complete record, and without adequate time to review it and prepare, before the July 28, 2026
hearing. Proceeding to hearing under these circumstances would deny me a fair hearing and
would not be proceeding in the manner required by law. I raise this now, and enter it into the
administrative record, so that the issue is preserved for review under Code of Civil Procedure §
1094.5.
3. No prejudice. Under Butte County Code § 24-267(E), the filing of my appeal suspended all
action on the project until a final decision is rendered. The project remains suspended regardless
of the hearing date, so no party is prejudiced by a continuance.
4. Diligence. I have pursued these records continuously and in good faith. Beginning April
24, 2026 — before I filed my appeal — I requested project records from the County, and on
April 25, 2026 I requested the complete project document set. On April 27, 2026, the County
directed me to its Public Records Act portal, and on April 28, 2026 I filed the two public
records requests, R005485-042826 and R005486-042826. I filed my appeal on May 4, 2026;
requested a continuance on May 11, 2026; followed up on May 18, 2026 when I had received
no response; and the County granted the continuance on May 20, 2026 to allow time to
review its production. I demanded compliance again on June 24, 2026, to which the County
did not respond. The continuance previously granted was to review the County's
production — a purpose that cannot be served until that production is complete and
justified.
5. Request. I respectfully request that: (1) the July 28, 2026 hearing be continued for good
cause under Butte County Code § 24-267(G)(3), to a date providing not less than thirty (30)
days for my review after the County produces the complete responsive records; and (2) this
correspondence be entered into the administrative record for PROJ-25-0006.
Because of mail-delivery constraints at my location, I request that all correspondence regarding
PROJ-25-0006 be sent to me electronically at kimee1017@yahoo.com. Please respond in writing.
Respectfully,
Kimberlee Mau-Williams
Appellant, PROJ-25-0006
191 Weger Drive
Oroville, CA 95966
510-385-0891
kimee1017@yahoo.com
FW: SUBJECT: Request for Continuance of the July 28, 2026 Appeal Hearing — Pending Public Records Production — PROJ-25-0006 (R005485-042826 / R005486-042826)
From:Michelena, Mark (mmichelena@buttecounty.ca.gov)
To:kimee1017@yahoo.com
Date:Thursday, July 23, 2026 at 03:12 PM UTC
For your information, we heard from the project applicant who will be attending the appeal hearing on 7/28/26 and looking to have the
Board of Supervisors act on the appeal. As mentioned below, staff is recommending the item to be continued to 9/8/26, but the Board of
Supervisors will decide if they will continue the appeal or take action on 7/28/26.
Regards,
Mark Michelena
Principal Planner
Department of Development Services
7 County Center, Oroville CA 95965
(530) 552-3683 (Direct) | (530) 552-3701 (Planner Desk)
mmichelena@buttecounty.ca.gov | DSPlanning@buttecounty.ca.gov (Planner Desk)
Helpful Links: No Cost Plans |FAQs |Forms |STRs| Zoning | Code | Accela Citizen Access | Butte Fire Safe | Be Read
From: Michelena, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 11:46 AM
To: 'Kimberlee Mau-Williams' <kimee1017@yahoo.com>; Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Johnson, Curtis
<CLJohnson@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Greeson, Kathleen <KGreeson@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Kingsley, Cortney <CKingsley@buttecounty.ca.gov>
Cc: Cannon, Jamie <JCannon@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Daneluk, Paula <pdaneluk@buttecounty.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: SUBJECT: Request for Continuance of the July 28, 2026 Appeal Hearing — Pending Public Records Production — PROJ-25-0006
(R005485-042826 / R005486-042826)
Thank you for your email, since this item was already noticed for the 7/28/26 meeting, you will see in the Board of Supervisors agenda
item that staff is recommending this item be continued to 9/8/26 at 10:00 am, as you requested. The item will be opened at the 7/28/26
Board meeting and continued to the future date (noted above).
My understanding all PRA requests have been filled. If you have any questions or want to discuss that further, please contact County
Counsel Office.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Regards,
Mark Michelena
Principal Planner
Department of Development Services
7 County Center, Oroville CA 95965
(530) 552-3683 (Direct) | (530) 552-3701 (Planner Desk)
mmichelena@buttecounty.ca.gov | DSPlanning@buttecounty.ca.gov (Planner Desk)
Helpful Links: No Cost Plans |FAQs |Forms |STRs| Zoning | Code | Accela Citizen Access | Butte Fire Safe | Be Read
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From: Kimberlee Mau-Williams <kimee1017@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 4:08 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Johnson, Curtis <CLJohnson@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Greeson, Kathleen
<KGreeson@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Kingsley, Cortney <CKingsley@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Michelena, Mark <mmichelena@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Hickel,
Rowland <rhickel@buttecounty.ca.gov>
Subject: SUBJECT: Request for Continuance of the July 28, 2026 Appeal Hearing — Pending Public Records Production — PROJ-25-0006
(R005485-042826 / R005486-042826)
Dear Clerk of the Board, and Mr. Johnson, Ms. Kingsley, County Counsel, Mr. Michelena, and Mr. Hickel:
I am the appellant in PROJ-25-0006 (Hurleton West Telecommunications Facility), set for a de novo appeal hearing before the Board of Supervisors on
July 28, 2026. Pursuant to Butte County Code § 24-267(G)(3), I request that the hearing be continued for good cause, to a date providing not less than
thirty (30) days for my review after the County produces the complete responsive records.
This correspondence concerns records access and scheduling only. It is not my appeal or my statement of grounds, and nothing herein waives, limits, or
exhausts any argument, objection, or ground I intend to raise in connection with this appeal, all of which I expressly reserve. This correspondence is
submitted to preserve my rights and grounds — including my grounds under the California Environmental Quality Act — and in furtherance of the
exhaustion of administrative remedies required before judicial review (Butte County Code § 24-269; Gov. Code § 65009(b)(1); Pub. Res. Code § 21177). I
further request that this correspondence, and the County's response or failure to respond, be entered into and made part of the administrative record for
PROJ-25-0006.
1. Good cause: the record is incomplete. On April 28, 2026, I submitted two public records requests, R005485-042826 and R005486-042826, which together
set out in full the records I sought. As stated on its face, R005486-042826 was "separate from and in addition to" R005485-042826, and each request
sought all responsive records "including, but not limited to" the categories specified therein. On June 11, 2026, the County declared: "This completes the
County's response to your records request."
The only exemption the County has ever invoked appears in its June 1, 2026 message on records request R005485-042826, signed by Deputy County
Counsel Jessica Henry: "some records requested are exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act for the following reasons: records
containing historically or culturally significant matters, including Native American and cultural resource surveys, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to
Government Code sections 7927.000 and 7927.005."
Those two sections are narrow, and by their terms reach only cultural and archaeological material. Section 7927.000 exempts records of "Native American
graves, cemeteries, and sacred places," and records of certain Native American "places, features, and objects" held by the Native American Heritage
Commission or another state or local agency. Section 7927.005 exempts records relating to "archaeological site information and reports," "including the
records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a California Native American tribe and a state or local agency." Neither section
reaches the balance of the records I requested in R005485-042826 and R005486-042826. The County has specified an exemption only for cultural and
archaeological material. To the extent it is withholding any other responsive record, it is required under Government Code § 7922.000 to justify that
withholding by demonstrating that each such record is exempt, and under Government Code § 7922.525(b) to release any reasonably segregable non-
exempt portion. It has done neither. The County must therefore, as to all records other than the cultural and archaeological material, either produce them,
justify a specific exemption for each record withheld, produce them in redacted form, or state in writing that no responsive record exists. Until it does, the
record is incomplete and I cannot meaningfully prepare.
2. Due process. An appeal from the grant of a conditional use permit is an adjudicatory proceeding, governed by the due process guarantees under the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and California Constitution, Art. I, § 7, and by the fair-hearing
standard of Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5(b). “A meaningful opportunity to be heard" fundamentally requires that an appellant be granted adequate
time to comprehensively review, analyze, and build an evidentiary rebuttal using public records on which the decision rests. The County's silence, or its
failure to produce the requested records or to continue the hearing, will be formally logged on the administrative record as an active denial of procedural
due process under California Constitution, Art. I, § 7. This action creates a fatally flawed administrative record for project PROJ-25-0006, constituting a
prejudicial abuse of administrative discretion under California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 1094.5 and a direct impairment of my statutory right to
exhaust my administrative remedies under Butte County Code § 24-269, thereby hindering my ability to prepare the record for my de novo appeal hearing
before the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Butte County Code § 24-267(G)(3). The County has declared its production complete without providing all of
the records I requested in R005485-042826 and R005486-042826, and without justifying, as to any record other than the cultural and archaeological
material, why those records were not produced. I am therefore left without a complete record, and without adequate time to review it and prepare, before
the July 28, 2026 hearing. Proceeding to hearing under these circumstances would deny me a fair hearing and would not be proceeding in the manner
required by law. I raise this now, and enter it into the administrative record, so that the issue is preserved for review under Code of Civil Procedure §
1094.5.
3. No prejudice. Under Butte County Code § 24-267(E), the filing of my appeal suspended all action on the project until a final decision is rendered. The
project remains suspended regardless of the hearing date, so no party is prejudiced by a continuance.
4. Diligence. I have pursued these records continuously and in good faith. Beginning April 24, 2026 — before I filed my appeal — I requested project
records from the County, and on April 25, 2026 I requested the complete project document set. On April 27, 2026, the County directed me to its
Public Records Act portal, and on April 28, 2026 I filed the two public records requests, R005485-042826 and R005486-042826. I filed my appeal on
May 4, 2026; requested a continuance on May 11, 2026; followed up on May 18, 2026 when I had received no response; and the County granted the
continuance on May 20, 2026 to allow time to review its production. I demanded compliance again on June 24, 2026, to which the County did not
respond. The continuance previously granted was to review the County's production — a purpose that cannot be served until that production is
complete and justified.
5. Request. I respectfully request that: (1) the July 28, 2026 hearing be continued for good cause under Butte County Code § 24-267(G)(3), to a date
providing not less than thirty (30) days for my review after the County produces the complete responsive records; and (2) this correspondence be
entered into the administrative record for PROJ-25-0006.
Because of mail-delivery constraints at my location, I request that all correspondence regarding PROJ-25-0006 be sent to me electronically at
kimee1017@yahoo.com. Please respond in writing.
Respectfully,
Kimberlee Mau-Williams
Appellant, PROJ-25-0006
191 Weger Drive
Oroville, CA 95966
510-385-0891
kimee1017@yahoo.com