(Reply Dated 10/13/99 from Alan Falleri - highlights are by Gould.... )

Dear Ms. Westerhausen:

I am responding to your letter dated October 1, l999, in which you express how disturbed you were over this department showing "....partiality for one taxpayer over another," and having our decision "....based on secret information.".

Frankly, I am somewhat disturbed over the accusatory and negative tone of your letter after this department has spent considerable staff time over several months gathering pertinent information and carefully looking at all sides of this issue, in the spirit of cooperation and fairness among all parties. We devoted significant amounts of time within several staff meeting to discuss the issues of this case among all of the planning staff to insure that there was general agreement on the appropriate interpretation of the zoning regulations.

Your assumption that we are giving preferential treatment to some party other than your client is without any factual basis that I am aware of. Until this office received an inquiry regarding the nature of your client's operation we were unaware of its existence. At that time, I had several conversations with various planners on our staff and with the County Agricultural Commissioner in an attempt to learn more about the Goulds operation. Some time later this office received a complaint regarding the operation. We initiated an investigation by attempting to contact various parties including the Goulds to ascertain the nature of the operation so that we could make a determination relative to compliance with zoning regulations. The investigation process is ongoing as of the writing of this letter, pending an opportunity for our Code Enforcement Officer to inspect the Gould property. The basis for any decision this department reaches, when a final decision is reached, will not be based on 'secret information'. The investigation was initiated because of a confidential complaint, however the final determination well be based on our interpretation of the factual information we receive through the investigation process.

This matter has been handled in a very routine manner by this department. While responding to the complaint, which is our duty, we have been very careful to respect the rights of the Goulds. This department has not interfered with your clients ability to operate their business and they have been allowed to continue their operations unimpeded other than the interruptions our phone and mail inquiries may have caused.

I hope that this letter helps to dispel any misgivings that you may have had about the motivations or intentions of this department. We intend to continue processing this case in an unbiased professional manner in which we will try to maintain fair and cooperative relations with all parties involved. It is my understanding that the local law firm of Carter, Behnke, Oglesby and Bacik is now representing the Goulds. Mr. Basic has recently requested the records for this case pursuant to Government code section 6250, et seq., and we will be supplying all the pertinent documents, except for the confidential complaint form , to him.

Alan Falleri

(Gould notes)

if this is normal routine for Mendocino, I hate to see what is special treatment--but our treatment is coming up fast. There has never been a visit from the county people, except for the demand inspection, and all information provided them seems to be falling on deaf ears.
bg