HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES-ALT-26-0071 Plan Corrections Rev2 Department of Development Services Paula Daneluk, Director
Curtis Johnson, Assistant Director
7 County Center Drive T: 530.552.3700
Oroville, California 95965 F: 530.538.7785
buttecounty.net/dds
This cover sheet provides a summary of the concurrent review of the permit application by all
applicable County departments and divisions. Each department has independently reviewed the
submitted documents for code compliance and project feasibility. The review status for each
department is indicated in the checklist below, and any corrections or conditions identified by
reviewers are attached for reference.
Date: 8/7/2026
Applicant Information: Christopher Serpas
14340 Chandler Boulevard, 307
Van Nuys, CA
Assessor Parcel Number: 072-490-003 Address: 5005 Miners Ranch Road, Oroville, CA
Building Permit Number: RES-ALT-26-0071 Plan Check Cycle: Review #2
Description: REMODEL RES (2482) CONVERT GARAGE TO BEDROOM (411), REROOF 45 SQS,
REPLACE SIDING (3400). REPLACE DOORS (22), REPLACE WINDOWS (12), NEW PATIO / DECK
(1729)
*See attached correction letters for the contact information for each department.
Department / Division Status
Building Division Pending Corrections with comments
Planning Division Approved
Public Works - Land Development Approved
Public Works – Permits Approved
Environmental Health Approved with Comments
Apply for and have an issued septic expansion permit to increase their
system from a 3-bedroom to a 5-bedroom septic system. Test the well for
bacteria and nitrates
Department of Development Services Paula Daneluk, Director
Curtis Johnson, Assistant Director
7 County Center Drive T: 530.552.3699
Oroville, California 95965
buttecounty.net/dds
August 7, 2026
Christopher Serpas
14340 Chandler Boulevard, 307
Van Nuys, CA 91401
Assessor Parcel Number: 072-490-003
Building Permit Number: RES-ALT-26-0071 Plan Check #2
Description: REMODEL RES (2482) CONV GAR (411) DECK (1224) PATIO (505)
Occupancy Classification: R-3/U
Construction Type: VB
Stories: 1
Elevation: 750’
Fire Sprinklers: ???
Building Total Area: 2,482 Sq Ft
Garage Area: 411 Sq Ft
Decking Area: 1,224 Sq Ft
Covered Area: 505 Sq Ft
WUI Zone: SRA
Fire Severity Zone: VHFS
Thank you for submitting your building permit application. We have reviewed your documents and listed the
required corrections below. Please provide a written response addressing each comment. Clear and complete
answers will help us approve your project faster. When you are ready, please submit a complete digital set of
revised plans to DSBuilding@buttecounty.net. You can upload larger files directly to www.bcdds.net/drop.
Following are re-check comments, numbered per the original list, requiring further response. The format includes a
restatement of the original comments followed by our re-check comment in a separate bold italicized paragraph.
GENERAL COMMENTS by: Plans Examiner
1. Please respond in writing to each comment by marking this comment list or creating a response letter.
Indicate which detail, specification, or calculation shows the requested information. At minimum, the
following must be included with each plan review response:
1. Page / sheet number(s), detail / specification number(s), etc., and include all applicable code section(s).
2. Briefly explain in writing, how the design is intended to comply with the applicable code sections.
3. Revisions must be identified with a cloud and delta symbol.
Complete and clear responses will expedite the re-check of this project.
2. The plan check fee covers three review cycles. Reviews beyond the third cycle, deferred submittals, and
changes to approved plans will be billed on a time-and-materials basis.
ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS
5. All plan sheets must be signed by the designer. CBC 107 and Business and Professions Code 5536.1 and
6735.
(PC2) The non structural plan sheets are not signed, please provide signed copy.
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS
40. Please provide an electrical plan for the proposed remodel. The plans shall clearly identify all existing and
proposed electrical work, including locations of outlets, switches, lighting fixtures, smoke/carbon monoxide
alarms, exhaust fans, appliances, equipment, subpanels/panels, and any new or modified circuits. Where
electrical work is existing to remain, clearly note as existing. Provide sufficient information to verify
compliance with the currently adopted California Electrical Code and applicable residential code
requirements. Additional comment maybe generated upon resubmittal.
(PC2) The plans indicated sheet A2.4 would have an electrical plan. No sheet A2.4 was included in the
resubmittal. Please note, the next review is the next we will do free of charge. If there is any questions
regarding what we will want on the electrical plan or if you would like a copy of our comment template for
electrical comments prior to resubmittal please let me know.
PLUMBING COMMENTS
44. Provide a gas line diagram for the new proposed gas line. Include the pipe type, size, length from source to
each appliance, and BTU’s of each appliance.
(PC2) The energy calculations provided indicate the home is served by natural gas and indicates the water
heater is gas. The response letter indicates the home is all electric. Please either clarify on the plans the
water heater is existing and the only gas appliance and no gas line work is proposed. Alternatively provide
revised energy calculations indicating the home is all electric and the water heater is electric.
ENERGY COMMENTS
45. Please list on the cover sheet of the plans all the ECC Feature summary requirements per the CF1R forms.
(PC2) This was not addressed, the comment remains.
46. The garage front wall and garage wall right are indicated in the energy calculations as opaque walls however
they do not appear to separate conditioned space from non-conditioned space please revise.
(PC2) No revised energy calculations were provided, comment remains.
47. Please verify the glazing in regards to the following.
a. In the energy calculations verify the size of left and rear windows (H) they only indicate 6 sq ft but are
12” by 80” on the window schedule.
b. Windows H, C, G and K all appear to be the same size callout on window schedule but are demonstrated
as different widths on the floor plan.
(PC2) This was not addressed, the comment remains.
STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: by: Michael Main, P.E., Plan Check Engineer
1. COMPLETED
2. Sheet A2.1 shows some dimensions to various elements. However, there is not enough information shown.
Please provide enough dimensions to know the location of all structural elements both new and existing.
(PC2) – The dimensions shown on the plan appear to be largely unchanged. Comment remains.
3. COMPLETED
4. COMPLETED
5. Sheet S2 mentions a number of structural elements requiring special inspection. Please address the following:
a. Please provide the name of the special inspector. Special inspectors not already approved by the
Butte County Building Division must submit a Statement of Qualifications and verification of
current ICC (or equivalent) certification for the particular item they will be inspecting.
(PC2) – No mention of the name of the special inspector could be found. Comment remains.
b. The plans show epoxy anchorage into concrete which requires special inspection. No mention of
special inspection for post installed anchors into concrete was found within the plans. Please
coordinate.
(PC2) – The details on sheet S-3 call for a “deputy inspector” and no mention of special
inspection required for epoxy anchorage either on sheet GN2 or S2 could be found. Please either
revise language to “special inspector” on the detail sheets are clarify special inspection is
required in another location.
6. The offset in the wall at the main entrance door appears to be in a different location than the rest of the plans
on sheet A2.2. Please coordinate.
(PC2) – No change to the plans was found. Comment remains.
7. COMPLETED
8. Please address the following on sheet S1, foundation plan:
a. There are a number of details referenced on the foundation plan that do not appear to be included in
the plan set. Most of these details are in reference to sheet S-4. Please coordinate.
(PC2) – Details on sheet S-4 show CB44 installed on top of an 8” wide concrete stem-wall. The
manufacturer requires at least 3” from the edge of the post base to the edge of concrete. Please
coordinate.
b. COMPLETED
c. The exterior deck shows lines that are undefined at the left end of the sheet. These may be intended
to be beams? If so, please provide all pertinent information required for the construction of these
supports.
(PC2) – Response indicates that information is shown in detail 17 (presumably 17/S4?). However
this detail is not referenced on the plan and appears to be for a beam at the perimeter of the deck.
Presumably these lines are meant to be interior beams but no information on their size or how to
construct them is found on the plan. Please provide beam size, posts required, and detail
demonstrating how these areas should be constructed that is referenced on the plan.
d. Please provide information on the posts supporting the ridge beam RBM1 through the existing
raised foundation and down to the foundation.
(PC2) – Response indicates that something was added but detail 12/S-3 does not appear to show
any such information and no other information found.
9. Please address the following on sheet S2, roof framing plan:
a. The plans show several new dormers but do not indicate how these will be constructed. Please
coordinate.
(PC2) – Response states that dormers are decorative and not structural. Please provide maximum
dimensions of the dormers to determine if the dormers will be concentrating loads on selective
existing rafters. Please also state on the plans if the sheathing and rafters below the dormers will
remain or be removed. If removed please demonstrate how the rafters will be adequately
supported.
b. One end of ridge beam RBM3 is joined by the existing beam RBM4. Please demonstrate how these
two beams are supported where they meet. Please also note that the width and depth of the existing
beam is unknown. The connection chosen will need to address any potential difference in sizes
between beam RBM3 and RBM4.
(PC2) – Response indicates that connection is CCQ is utilized while detail 5/S3 falls for an
ECCQ. The ECCQ is for an end beam and generally is not meant to support two beams landing
over a single post. Also, no mention of what the size of the existing beam is on the plans or how
this might impact the use of the column cap (calculations indicate that the existing beam is a
6x14 but nothing found on the plans). If the beam sizes are substantially different this
arrangement may not work.
The Department of Development Services is currently open to the public from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. If you wish to
discuss these plan check comments, please call during our business hours or contact us by e-mail at the address
below. Permit status can be tracked by logging on to http://www.buttecounty.net/dds and clicking Building
Permits Status.
Jordan Debrunner Michael Main, P.E.
Plans Examiner Plan Check Engineer
530.552.3647 530.552.3655
jdebrunner@buttecounty.net mmain@buttecounty.net