Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the August 24th Planning Commission hearing. Madam Clerk, if you could please call the roll.

Absolutely. Member Verga?

Here.

Rockenstein? Here. Munoz? Here. And Vice Chair Devlin? Here. And let the record state that Member Borja is currently absent.

If you would all please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Amen. Madam Clerk, could you please read the meeting announcement, please?

Of course. The county fosters public engagement during the meeting and encourages public participation, civility, and the use of courteous language. The Commission does not condone the use of profanity, vulgar language, gestures, or other inappropriate behavior, including personal attacks or threats directed toward any meeting participant. Seating may be limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. To make an in-person public comment, please complete and submit a speaker request form to the clerk. Each individual will be invited to the podium to make a comment. Members of the public may send a written comment which is distributed to commission members and filed in the record. Contact information is optional and should include the meeting date and agenda off-agenda item number to be sent as follows. Email a comment to boardclerk at saccounty.gov. Mail a comment to 708th Street, Suite 2450, Sacramento, California 95814. And that concludes the announcement.

Thank you.

Do we have a swearing in to begin? Yes, we do. So for our agenda that we submitted, Member Alma Munoz will be getting sworn in by Assistant Clerk of the Board, Manuel Gonzalez.

Test. Thank you. Good evening. I am Manuel Gonzalez, Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and I will be throwing in the first Supervisory District Representative, Alma Munoz. Alma Munoz, if you can approach the lectern. You are hereby being sworn in for the Sacramento County Planning Commission. Alma Munoz, do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true and faith allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion? that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which you are about to enter.

I do.

You are hereby sworn in before me, Manuel Gonzalez, this 24th day of August, 2026. Congratulations. Thank you.

Welcome, Commissioner Munoz. We are delighted and excited to have you. One of your many hats that you wear in the community.

Thank you.

Well, with that, are we ready to begin? Okay. Madam Clerk, if you'd please call the first item.

Item number one is PLMP 2025-00203 pick and pull. This is a use permit and a variance amendment and the property is located at 8640 Antelope North Road directly east of the Antelope North Road and Ridge Point Drive intersection in the Antelope community and the environmental document is exempt.

For the information to the Commission, this item is non-contested. Does the Commission wish to hear a presentation on this item?

I don't know.

I don't need one. Thank you.

All right. I think we'll pass, but thank you so much on the offer. Is there any discussion on this item?

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO DISCLOSE THAT I DID MEET WITH THE APPLICANT.

CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO DO THE SAME. YOU HAD A ZOOM MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT JUST RECENTLY. JUST A DISCLOSURE.

I ALSO WAS INVITED BUT WAS UNABLE TO MAKE THAT MEETING. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ITEM?

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM.

And let's check and see if the applicant wants to say anything.

If the applicant is here, they're most welcome. Okay. Maybe.

Yes. No, he just said no.

No. All right.

There you go.

Well, if we don't have any comments and don't have any public comments, I'll move the item. Staff recommendations.

And I'll second it. I think you got beat to the second. We have a motion and a second.

Okay. So I have Member Munoz moving the item and Member Rockenstein seconding. So please vote. AND THAT ITEM PASSES WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT VOTING YES.

All right, are we ready? Thank you. Madam Clerk, if you would please call the second item.

Item number two is PLMP 2026-00079, 3031 Wilkins Way Fence, an appeal of a minor use permit. The property is located at 3031 Wilkins Way at the northwest corner of Karen Drive and Wilkins Way approximately 750 feet east of California Avenue in the Carmichael community, and the environmental document is exempt.

Good evening, I' m mark mcclenney with planning and environmental review. I' m going to present 3031 wilkins way fence use permit appeal. The project is located at 3031 wilkins way in the carmichael community. It' s developed with a single family dwelling and a pool. If you see the picture on the right it' s located on the corner of This is the site plan. It shows Kernan Way on the left and Wilkins Way on the bottom. The yellow line represents the fence that is set back 13 feet 8 inches from Wilkins Way. Here's a picture of the fence. The applicant applied for a minor use permit to allow a seven foot tall solid fence in the fence front yard setback of a single family residence. On June 15, 2026, the administrative hearing officer approved the minor use permit. On June 25th, 2026, the decision was appealed citing three statements, which are setbacks, findings, and compliance. So the setbacks meet all the requirements of the zoning code with approval of the minor use permit. And with the setbacks, it is kind of confusing because it's located on a corner So Kern Innway and Wilkins Way, it's located on, according to the zoning code, the shorter of the two sides is considered the front setback for the purposes of the home, the primary house, accessory structures like pool, pool equipment, and the ADU, which would make, in this example, make Wilkins Way the side street, which is a 12 1⁄2 foot setback. Now, because the door faces Wilkins Way, the longer of the two sides, that is considered the... front fence you a front set front set setback that's hard to say for that so so the difference is for the home pools pool equipment the front setback is on kernan way and for the fence it's on wilkins way And then the findings, the findings were reviewed as part of the staff report and were all found to be in compliance as well as the Carmichael Neighborhood MPA, the General Plan, and the Community Plan. The 311 complaint was handled following county procedures where a courtesy letter went out to the alleged violation and then an on-site visit was conducted to confirm the violation. planning staff recommends the board of zoning appeals deny the appeal maintaining the recognize the exempt status of the request under section 15303 of CEQA and approve the minor use permit subject to findings and conditions. And one last thing, staff is aware that there were some comments or additional comments have been submitted. These comments are very similar to comments we've received in the past and they don't change the staff's analysis or our project recommendations. Ready for any questions if you have any? All right.

For the record, I just want to make an edit that you are acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals for items number two and three. Sorry, I didn't mention that earlier.

No, thank you, Madam Clerk. Just one quick question. The front yard slash... If the front yard was the side yard, or if the side yard was the front, no. If the front yard was the side yard, would it meet the setback requirement, or is there still a deviation that's required? I didn't follow your... Okay, sorry. So the front of the house is not...

The Kern and Way drive is the front setback for the house, pool equipment, shed, ADUs. And then Wilkins Way, by virtue of the door facing Wilkins Way on the long side, that's the front setback for the fence.

Okay. Okay.

Very confusing and leads to a lot of confusion with this. Perfect.

Okay. Okay, do we have any questions?

I have a question, Chair, sorry.

No, please. So is the fence within the required setback?

Yes.

There's no deviation requested, correct?

The minor use permit is to allow the fence in the front yard setback as also the height above three feet solid fence.

Okay, but no special request is being made. This is within the setback of the yard.

No, I think we're getting our terminology a little bit mixed up. So the minor use permit is what allows this fence to come up. Okay. Within the setback on Wilkins Way. So yes, it's not the ordinary standard. So I believe it comes over about six feet. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, it's 13 feet 8 inches from Wilkins Way.

So that is a reduction. Sorry, to clarify even further, Todd Smith, Planning Director. Bill, County Council is correct. The minor use permit is the mechanism or was the mechanism at the time to deviate from the fence front yard setback, which is typically 20 feet. So this deviation would be a reduction of, what, six and a half feet? Six feet, four. Six, four, yeah.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

And do we have any members of the public that wish to speak on this item?

Yes, we have received three public comments. Do we want to hear from the applicant?

So we'll have the applicant. Thank you. Then the appellant or appellants, then public comment.

Thank you.

And then the appellant does have a presentation that they would like to present.

Perfect. Thank you. If the appellant would...

No, we're doing this to note de novo hearing, so we're going to have the applicant, that is the owner who's seeking the minor use permit, if they want to.

Is the applicant prepared?

Yeah, everyone gets sworn in.

And before we have the applicant come down, if I can have anyone who wishes to address the commission who likes to speak or has submitted a public comment, please stand to be sworn in or to receive an oath. Please raise your right hand, and the appropriate response is, I do. Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give this board is the truth, so help you God? If you do not swear, do you so affirm? And when you go to the podium, please state your name for the record and the statement that I've been sworn.

Thank you. Thank you.

Now the applicant can come down, please.

I'm an attorney for the applicant. The applicant is an officer for Don Bonobo. Yeah. Application today. And I believe that the applicant has the choice. I'm Robert Harrelson, attorney for Applicant. Applicant was not advised that it's going to be a de novo hearing and at this point would request to go after the appellants and as far as... Sorry?

You'll have a rebuttal.

We'll have a rebuttal, okay. Is the applicant going to be required to present the entirety of the application process or just a statement?

You don't have to say anything. It's your choice.

Okay. All right, I'm gonna consult with my client briefly and then make a decision. Thanks for the moment.

Well, yeah, but I think they're going to talk about it if they want to just wait for the rebuttal.

Robert Harrelson, attorney for the applicants. They're going to waive their opening and reserve the rebuttal, if any.

Thank you. So we'll go to the appellant, followed by any public comment.

Good afternoon chair and members of the board. My name is Maria Barkovsky and I am the immediately adjacent neighbor appealing the approval of the seven foot solid fence at 3031 Wilkins Way. I am asking you to grant my appeal because the evidence docs does not show that this fence in this location satisfies the required findings. When I purchased my home, I relied on the protections of the Carmichael Colony neighborhood preservation area and it's open semi-rural character. This fence directly affects my property. It's a seven foot solid wall immediately besides my driveway and garage. When I back out, the open visibility that existed before is gone. And I also want to emphasize that the fence itself was constructed before the permit was approved. the county sites another minor use permit as a comparable approval and i have that in a slide here and i would like to show up thank you okay so first off i wanted to share that the applicant said that in an email, and it's included here, it's that he said that there was a similar fence before this fence. That is not true. So I show on the left a picture from February 2025 from Google Maps, and then I show on the right, this is a picture that Sacramento County code had taken themselves. So you can see that it's very different. So this is our timeline. So January 12th, the construction begins. I called immediately January 13th because there were posts up. On January 16th, the advisory warning was identified for height and setback issues. The pool permit was issued after planning sign-off oversight. And by then, the fence was already built. so these are some of the county's uh... records with the owner's account and it says that uh... should not have started work on the project without the approval and the planning uh... agreed with that and then uh... other options were discussed with the applicant that you could just screen off the equipment itself because this is a rather large area now that's been added and comes into the front yard setback and You'll see a picture that I had also submitted it shows that it's very little of the property Sorry, very little of the fenced in area So it's really like, I wish that photo could be up, but I'll keep going with the slideshow. But you will see from that attachment that it's very little of the area for the actual equipment. And the rest is like for patio furniture and other areas. Okay, so then the county cites another minor use permit as a comparable approval, but that application specifically states no obstructions to the neighbors. It's approved design was also substantially different. It's a three-foot wall with an additional three-foot fence expressly labeled see-through. So you can actually see through it. And that comparison actually demonstrates why this project is different. And I'm also very concerned about the process in the county's own emails. On April 10th, before the public was even noticed, the planning director, Todd Smith, told 3031 that the county was proceeding with changing the determination and that there was no need to continue with this appeal process and that the appeal fee would be returned. Ten days later, the county mailed notice inviting surrounding residents to participate in the MUP process. And that sequence raises a serious question about whether comments were ever given meaningful opportunity to affect an outcome the applicant had already been told that would be changed. And that same April 10th email has Wendy Hartman saying that the fence is already built. And that's not how a land use finding is determined. And so does this seven-foot solid fence in this particular location satisfy the required findings based on that evidence and its actual effect on the adjoining property? There was a less intrusive alternative. The equipment could have been screened without extending a seven-foot solid wall into the front yard setback along my driveway. So I'm not asking for special treatment. I'm asking for the standards protecting this neighborhood and adjoining properties to be meaningfully applied. Please grant my appeal and require compliance with the front yard fence standards or require a design that actually addresses the demonstrated impact on my property. Thank you for your time. Are there any questions?

If you could just maybe go into what your impact is. I mean, you talked about you backing out.

Yes. Okay, so before... that fence was not there so when i look to the left i can see like hundreds of feet down my street i can see all the beautiful properties with their decorative fences that are in the standard that they're allowed to be three feet or under if um... if it's there's no solid fences and then when i look to the right i used to be able to look hundreds of feet away And I could see the beautiful area that I paid when I purchased this home. We have a lot of wildlife and deer come up and I miss out on that. Plus there's coyotes that sometimes come into our neighborhood and I don't want to be surprised all of a sudden. And then also just that the visibility for safety, it's not the same. Those front yards, they are all so small. And so you really only have like seconds as you're backing out of your driveway. And now I'm going to have less than like 97% of people in the Carmichael colony. A car comes through too fast. One of our kids or even ourselves, we could get in a car accident. A kid on a scooter, now they have like what, three seconds instead of the... six or seven, so I'm not asking for special treatment. I just want to have the property that I paid for five years ago, and I want to have the same as all the other neighbors in my area. And it really is not a good thing to start your day each day that you're backing out and you're starting it all nervous-like because you can't see.

Thank you so much. Any other questions?

Yeah.

Does it does it actually impede you looking left and be able to back out I Yes, it is. Even with the 10-foot-plus visibility that you have once you go past the fence?

Yes, it does. It's nerve-wracking pulling out with a big fence there. I think I had one other picture. Okay. I don't know that I might have done something to the PowerPoint. Oh, well, here's a picture like you can see as you're backing out.

Yeah, yeah, there's there's another view as well. Also, secondly, with respect to the fence from your Google shot in 2025, is there already another fence there between like the pool equipment and that fence?

To my knowledge, when I look at the plans, it shows that their pool equipment used to be in the back corner of the yard, and now they've moved it out here to the front yard setback. But I wonder if we could ask Manuel, there's an attachment that I showed that the applicant themselves had provided, and so you'll see that... Yeah, it's provided.

I've seen it.

Yeah, thank you. It's a very tiny, tiny two-by-three for the equipment, and now I've got this...

But isn't the height the same? The height of those fences the same?

Okay, the height was the same, but it wasn't out. It used to be behind the fence. Right, because that's new. Yeah, that's new.

Because that's new because of the construction of the pool.

No, the pool is the to my knowledge the same size They did like make it. I think it was instead of eight feet They made it to six feet for the depth, but there was no reason this is a design Not a requirement that they did this. This is that they would have liked more room and so I don't think that I should lose out on this and so that they can have more room they knew what they were purchasing when they moved into the carmichael colony and it's a green belt it's all open the whole area it's just absolutely gorgeous and beautiful and so if a if a neighbor can build a fence like this to my right then the neighbor on the left could also build a fence like this and it's gonna tremendously change the uh... the neighborhood so It's just not going to be the same, and that ordinance is in effect.

Okay, thank you.

Okay. Would the applicant like to have a moment for rebuttal?

Okay, so I could leave. Okay, public comment.

Oh, I'm sorry, that's all right. Do we have any members of the public that wish to speak?

Yes, we have received three public comments.

Great.

The first member to speak is Paul Goulart.

Good evening. I'm Paul Goulart. I live on Eastmont, same subdivision. I've been there 50 years. This fence doesn't belong there. If you stand on the corner and look around, you cannot see anything similar. It just sticks out at you. It's not hidden at all, but you've already got me wandering off my script here. The code section we're talking about is not tricky. It needs a preponderance, and it needs a neighborhood. Common terms, everybody understands them, and the planning department has twisted the words like they're confusing, and they really aren't. way i look at this case really is it comes back to the planning department screwed up and it's trying to cover up for and that's what the main main thing is is going on right here and that gets me back to as part of the public i've got a right to have a unbiased hearing they aren't giving they never gave that they had their mind made up before they ever sat down the uh... the hearing officers should not have a bias they shouldn't have a vested interest in making sure that this thing passes because otherwise on the back side the county is facing a lawsuit on the back side and how did they get there they didn't get there because of me they got there because they screwed up and then they compounded it when they ignored the code enforcement people. The that's that's pretty obnoxious the report does not cover the NPA or the Carmichael planning Both of which say they want the front yards left empty It's that simple and that's not what they was given And I see that my wandering off script was saved you some time. I hope you read my hope you read my brief and

Yes, sir.

I do much better on rather than read Thank you the bottom line is if you go out there and look it just doesn't belong in that area.

Thank you, sir Thank you Our next public commenter is Susan I

You know, I don't hear worth a darn either. I mind well, but I don't hear. Sir, were you talking to me or saying goodbye?

Thank you. You've had your moment. We called Susan. Oh. Thank you, sir.

Susan Surimaki. The government is supposed to weigh the benefit to the many against the detriment to the few. This is why we have laws and even neighborhood preservation areas. In this case, the planning department is doing the opposite. It is favoring the benefit to one family to the detriment of a whole neighborhood. allowing that seven foot solid fence to stand in the front yard setback is contrary to the building code currently in effect as well as the purpose of the Carmichael colony neighborhood preservation area which is to protect the neighborhood from fences like that which ruin the ambience and neighborhoodness of neighborliness of this semi-rural area. Note that the fence owner started the fence before obtaining a permit and continued construction even after code enforcement issued a warning notice. If the fence is allowed to stand, the county would be rewarding rule breakers while setting two bad precedents. First, it would reward homeowners who build whatever they want and ask for a permit and forgiveness later assured that planning will rubber stamp whatever they get. And second, it would allow the planning department to continue to ignore the neighborhood preservation area in its analysis, signaling that the counter really doesn't care about neighborhood preservation areas. So there are two sets of wrongdoers, the fence owners and the planning department. They each have a stake in an outcome that will reward them for their transgressions while depriving the dozens of families in the neighborhood preservation area of the quality of life that defines this neighborhood. Please grant the appeal. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next public commenter is Mary Lou Fayweather.

hi yes my name is Mary Lou Fairweather I have a slightly different angle and that's to address a cumulative impacts it's kind of written very strangely in the document that approved the property and they talked about future impacts rather than dealing with the cumulative impacts of that property itself based on the fence that I' m pretty sure you personally installed the it being the front line, but then because of where the front door is, it's Wilkins. That fence has some issues to it in that when I drive down Wilkins and I'm turning left onto Kiernan, I cannot see the oncoming traffic. And so I think a visibility analysis needs to be done on that fence. I don't know if they had gotten a permit for that one since maybe they thought since it was a side yard that it didn't apply. But as the Sacramento County rules specify, is that for setbacks, that you have your front you have your side but that those may not apply if there' s a visibility issue for drivers and we don' t just have drivers in our neighborhood it' s basically that wilkins and kiernan are both part of the trail system that leads to f e yaw and to anthill hoffman there are constantly hikers bikers all heading to the park. So there's just a lot going on in our neighborhood. And I think that we cannot dismiss the fact that the county designated the neighborhood preservation area. And so you can't use houses that are half a mile away or whatever to compare it to. It has to be within our neighborhood. Thanks.

Thank you so much.

The next public commenter is Lori Moreno.

Good evening, can you hear me? Good. Hi, I'm Lori Marino, Carmichael Colony Neighborhood Association President, and I'm here, as you know, they've mentioned the Neighborhood Preservation Area Ordinance several times, and I think I just wanted to impart to the Planning Commission, and thanks for your service, protecting our county and all the ways you do, that we're very interested, you know, this project is one project, right? But there's a bigger trajectory that for our neighborhood for our community alongside the American River Parkway we have a brilliant reserve that has been set aside with foresight and we have so many visitors and also wildlife that frequent our area spill out of the park into our community. So one of the concerns we have writ large is just how we're treating fencing and hardening of the front scape of the homes. You know there was a reason in the first place the county had planning I TALKED TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ABOUT THIS IN THE PAST, THIS VISION OF NOT HARDENING THE FRONT OF YOUR HOME, THERE'S A REASON FOR THIS. REGARDLESS OF THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT, I URGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THINK ABOUT THE CUMULATIVE CONSIDERABLE AGGREGATE EFFECTS OF EVERYBODY SORT OF PUTTING, WALLING OFF THEIR FRONT YARD. this particular project I'd like to say you know it's clear that the property owners trying to beautify and improve the property and many people in our neighborhood association recognize that and appreciate that what we have concerns about in general with the planning department is do you have rules what are they and if we don't have standards for the natural setting of Carmichael and its unique characteristics in the preservation area where we headed here with you know everyone starting to wall off their homes because we're getting a lot of that now generally in the region and California avenue actually has quite a bit of it and so wildlife have no safe escape for perceived or real threats people just sort of are met with fences and walls everywhere and it really does have a visual effect I'd like you to please consider regardless of this particular project's circumstance so I'd like to end by saying I AM NOT STANDING FOR OR AGAINST THIS PROJECT, AS I SAID IN PAST COMMENTS, BUT MORE THE PLANNING OR LACK POTENTIALLY OF PLANNING AS IT RELATES TO THIS TOPIC. AND I JUST REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE HAVE NO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.

GREAT. OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT READY YET?

Okay, so hi, so I'm Lauren Morgan, and this is my husband, John Morgan. We purchased our home seven years, and we've invested a lot to try and revamp this house, which was built in the 50s, and we've really tried to invest a lot into the community as well. So we just wanted to express that we relied on our contractor. We hired a licensed pool contractor to do this design They went and they got a permit for this project that included the fence where it currently is right now So we've relied on the permitting process We continue to defer to the judgments and findings of this board and the board of zoning and appeals

So we really just want to turn it over to you guys and ask us any questions regarding our property Just in terms of the Issuance I believe right and I'm gonna ask mr. Smith just quickly when you're building a pool in theory you do have to have some type of fencing, correct and

that is correct when you're building a pool state well at least the county code requires a protection fence around the pool it doesn't have to be immediately adjacent to the pool it can be set back a little bit which is a different requirement than a perimeter or this type of fence okay

So to your understanding, was having a fence part of that process?

It was. It was from the very beginning with our initial pool permit. We included the fence in the exact same design that it's in right now. It's been permitted since the beginning. And we've had inspections since then that have been approved for the fence being where it is currently.

Okay, and the inspections have occurred from the county correct correct and then and then it's been In terms of when you were notified that you would have to probably get a different permit correct, so there's a process To go through that so your understanding was when you built the fence initially or the pool initially that it was all-inclusive and

correct okay so when were you notified that it was that you had to have a different use permit for the fence we did receive a notification from code enforcement in january yeah i would just i would just state that you know in response to that really you know from the day one we've tried to do everything in the correct way we we hired a contractor we relied on that contractor Contractor generated as Lauren stated the drawings. They were submitted to County for approval. We received approval. We relied on that approval There was there was challenges that we communicated with Todd and mark through and received that minor use permit approval and then now it's being appealed so again, we've tried to do everything the right way and Per code per law and again, we're just relying on this board's right approval and now we're being

We just really don't want to have to incur more financial damages by having to fix this. We intend to soften up the fence with greenery, but we just can't right now because of this pending case. So we're good neighbors. We're trying to do the right thing. We're trying to rely on the county, and that's what we continue to do.

And your old fence, how tall was that? Is that still existing?

The old fence was removed as part of the project. It was also seven feet tall.

But the perpendicular fence coming up to it is still the same height.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. With that, we'll go ahead and close public comment and open it up for this body's discussion.

I had one question. I did read in the material that a visibility analysis was done by Department of Transportation and the outcome was that it is within the allowable parameters.

That is correct. So our Department of Transportation looked at it, and I believe in one of the documents, Mark included a graphic of what the clear vision area is, and it's not that big of a setback, and this fence is significantly set back a distance from what that clear vision would be. Thank you.

I just wanted to get a little bit of clarification. So the initial permit for the pool and the fencing was done. Then somewhere down the line there is supposedly a violation of the fencing that was done by code enforcement. And then the review of that violation meant that they had to have a second permit for the fence? Am I following the process?

Yeah, I think it would be good for us to clarify the types of permits we're talking about. The initial application was for a building permit for the swimming pool modifications and the relocation of the... pool equipment and associate electrical lines to those the which is different than a minor use permit right one is a building permit ministerial county staff review those based on the applicable standards the minor use permit is what staff identified when we in this case not me personally but once we heard that there was this fence going up in the location that's shown on The exhibits you've seen it's within the fence front yard setback which triggers a minor use permit under the zoning code. That's the second permit that was necessary in order to from a land use perspective permit the fence in the current location.

And then somewhere in between those two there was some kind of code violation issued?

Yes, once we heard from the appellant as to when the fences were the pole defense posts were going up I think she initially contacted both planning And code enforcement at the same time there was internal coordination between Planning staff building staff who ultimately issued the permit as well as code enforcement to make sure we were all aware and That's when code enforcement, who is the, as the name implies, enforcement arm relative to the zoning code, sent the letter notification to the property owner.

And do we know if that letter hit them before or after the fence was finished?

I don't know. I think the date was around January 16th. I assume it was before it was finished.

It wasn't clear if they had finished the fence or not.

also for clarification the first letter that went out by code enforcement called a courtesy letter which means they send out indicating that there may be a violation when they actually inspected was a bit later I don't have that exact date handy but But it's a typical process for code enforcement to send out a preliminary letter and then follow up with an inspection to confirm that there is indeed a violation. And that's when the coordination with code enforcement building and planning started to occur. It was probably about a week or so later.

So at the time the inspection was done, the fence was done? Have to be done in order to find a violation.

No, I'm sorry, ma'am. You had your moment, but thank you so much. We're now in discussions. We are now in discussions with ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I do not know for sure how far along the fence was when the inspection actually took place it it appeared from the Correspondents from the appellant that she called in as soon as the posts were being done I do not know how far along the actual fence construction was when they went out and inspected Yeah, it's not clear that part correct I

So I'm just trying to figure out whether, you know, you get a letter saying there may be a violation, and then the fence is in the process of being built by a contractor, and then someone comes out and says, oh, it's wrong, but the fence is already in place. I'm trying to figure out if that's what really occurred. And I guess we really don't know. It comes down to that part of the timing, is that what you're saying?

Planning did not go out into the field, and so, correct. I am not aware of what the status of the fence was when they went out, if it was partially constructed or completely constructed at that point in time.

Okay, thank you.

I think to add, I think it's reasonable to make an assumption relative to fence post placement. that there would be slats or pickets, right? It's pretty standard construction for a fence. If you see a line of fence posts, it's logical to conclude that there would be future pickets in that location and thus it's likely a violation when it is built.

Okay, I'm just saying most fence builders build fences like that within 24 to 48 hours Then they put posts in they pretty much are done within two days or so of that kind of offense so it to me it matters as to for the individuals as to whether they actually knew and that there was a violation and were able to correct it before they actually got a notice of the violation. That's just my internal processing thought.

Was there another question?

I do. Please. from the materials, normally departments coordinate with other departments. Code enforcement is the enforcement arm. Planning wouldn't normally go out and look at a fence. And I think the notice when I read it said that it was advisory or something like that. Like it wasn't like, hey, you have a notice. It was advisory. So if the fence is being built in a couple of days, then it would be, you know,

That's that was kind of my point I advise you there could be a violation but by the time and we gets out there and said it's a violation the fence was most likely done.

So just please so just on that there was not a code violation just an advisory notice but no code violation and the in the applicant went and filed once they were you know they did end up filing a minor use permit for the fence and

The applicant did file an application for a minor use permit. As to whether there was an actual notice of violation instead of which is typically the subsequent step after the advisory notification I' m not sure.

Any follow-up?

No.

I see you scrolling. I'm scrolling through my packet. Yeah, that's what I meant. Yes. Okay. Are you... Okay. Sorry, I just wanted to make sure I'm not cutting you off like mid-question or anything. Not at all. Okay. Well, I guess I'll kind of kick this off. I... I appreciate the appellant and all of their, I think, concerns and certainly appreciate their reference to utilitarianism and consequentialism about doing the maximum amount of good for the maximum amount of people. I guess where I kind of see this is that the applicant in this Fence building pool building I think has acted virtuously and ended up kind of in this position by no fault of their own and I I will be I Believe not supporting the appeal in this case. I

Is that a motion?

Well, I'm happy to make it into a motion. I just want to comment real quick.

Yeah, could I comment real quick? Please, absolutely. So, yeah, this to me in my time being on the Planning Commission is kind of a, and I saw this on CPAC as well, just awareness by applicants to the process. And it's not any fault, and I'm not pointing fingers at anybody, Department or person or anything, but it's just just awareness a lot of these individuals are acting in good faith And they're trying to do the right thing not knowing there is a neighborhood preservation you know plan or a you know or Ordinances etc so you can see the breakdown in process when it comes to getting permits in general So that's a high-level thing with respect to with respect to this I did go out and visit and the the site and I am a resident of Carmichael as well so and in I did find that the You know the it's on a corner everything is stated as accurate. There's also some additional fencing down the street I would argue that it looked like it was about seven feet in terms of in terms of a different type of setback on the corners of Stanley and Wilkins both sides So there is there is that I'm not supportive necessarily of long, you know as the the chair as Laurie mentioned You know, we need to look at that in terms of the colony and that's a separate discussion but in terms of this I do believe that the applicants have acted in good faith and I will be Supporting denying the appeal and I'll bet your motion. That's my motion then.

I'll second it Okay Was there a motion? Yeah. Okay, so as you know, part of your motion needs to be to adopt. Commissioner Rockenstein, you have to adopt findings. So as I understand it, the planning department is offering a draft set of findings. Well, basically the findings they used for the prior hearing. So this is table three of BZA attachment five. Mm-hmm. So I'm looking for confirmation from planning that they were offering that to the commission as a set of findings in which to adopt and to support a denial of the appeal. If the answer is no, then we need to draft findings here. We have to have written findings to support your action. The answer is yes.

Attachment five to the package. Table three, which is on page six. So again, attachment five, table three, which is on page six. It's also in attachment two.

It's also in attachment two.

Which is the use permit and the conditions and the findings. Which is a repeat of the conditions, the findings, and it's actually the minor use permit itself.

That was what you were saying, right?

Correct. Mr. Burke, do I need to amend my motion to include the findings?

Yes, you're adopting the written findings that are located.

Yeah, if they're an attachment to... And the approval of the minor use permit as well? Yes. Yes, so that's including my motion. So let's restate it. Okay. Adopting the staff recommendation... to deny the appeal and to incorporate the staff findings as well as adopt a minor use permit for the applicant.

And for the record, there would be the staff findings in attachment five, table three, page six.

Yes. And again, that'll be my second.

So we have a first and a second. Please vote. And that appeal is denied with all members voting yes.

Okay.

Thank you. So I'd like to thank everyone for coming out. Your public input is most welcome. Thank you all very much. Okay.

Item number three.

Madam Clerk, if you could please call the next item.

Item number three is PLMP 2025-00038, Green Farm, an appeal of a use permit. The property is located at 8645 Paladay Road in the Rio Linda Averta community, and the environmental document is exempt.

Thank you so much. I'll take just a brief point of privilege. I understand that people are passionate about their neighborhood, as we have just seen. However, we will be maintaining decorum here, and if that can't be maintained, those persons will be asked to leave. So, we ready? Perfect, thank you so much.

All right. Thank you so much. Good evening, Commissioners. I'm a Carrico, Associate Planner and Project Manager for the Green Farm Project. The project site is a 20-acre parcel located at 8645 Paladay Road in the Rio Linda, Alberta community. The site currently contains a manufactured home, abandoned single-family residence, and several agricultural accessory structures, including some animal enclosures. The project site is located within the Alberta specific plan area. The specific plan designates the site for agricultural residential use, which is consistent with the existing agricultural residential five zoning designation. Surrounding land uses are also agricultural residential in nature. The applicant requested a use permit to allow a kill floor in the Agricultural Residential 5 zone. A use permit is required to establish a kill floor in this zone pursuant to zoning code section 345. Physical development on the site to support the proposed project would include conversion of an existing approximately 365 square foot barn into a kill floor. The conversion would involve only interior improvements such as installation of new stainless steel walls, new drainage, a tile or concrete floor, countertops, and a sink. addition of aggregate base to approximately 1,000 feet of an existing driveway for fire and emergency vehicle services access, construction of an approximately 900 square foot parking area to include five vehicular stalls. Ongoing operation of the project would include raising livestock onsite and accepting customers by appointment only for custom slaughter services. The only employees would be the property owners, and I'll go into more detail on the physical characteristics and operational limitations of the project in the following slides. Here you can see a site plan for the entire site, 20-acre site, so scale is a little large here. I will have a close-up for you in just a second. The driveway is existing, but new turnarounds and aggregate base would be installed for emergency vehicle access. Here is a closer site plan of the area that would include most of the new improvements, including the barn to be converted to the kill floor building and the new parking area. The animal shelter shown here is existing. Here's the floor plan for the kill floor building. The county defines a kill floor as a small scale customer oriented operation providing facilities to persons for the purpose of slaughtering their own animals or having them slaughtered in a custom manner. Customers can bring their own live animals or purchase a live animal at the facility. Zoning Code Section 345, as mentioned, does specify that kill floors are permitted in the Agricultural Residential 5 zone, subject to a conditional use permit approved by the zoning administrator, as well as obtaining a valid license from the California Department of Food and Agriculture. It also specifies that the county may condition the project to limit the hours of operation, frequency of customers, and any other conditions deemed appropriate. Separately from the county, the California Department of Food and Agriculture has their own definitions and regulations for kill floors. The CDFA calls them custom livestock slaughter establishments and has the following limitations. They cannot sell pre-butchered carcasses or meat parts. All animals must be alive when delivered or purchased by the customer. Customers must either deliver the live animal or purchase it at the site. Animals must be slaughtered according to the California Code of Regulations. And slaughter is limited to cattle, sheep, swine, and goats. Slaughter of poultry is not permitted. The CDFA administers the California Code of Regulations, which governs humane handling and slaughter of livestock, safe food handling, and storage and disposal of inedible product, which is basically solid waste from the slaughter process. The code requires that all inedible product must be regularly removed from the site by a licensed rendering company. The applicant must develop a sanitation standard operating procedure and submit it to the CDFA before operation can start. The CDFA also manages inspection requirements for kill floors. There are two types of inspectors. The first is a livestock meat inspector that must be present at the establishment for every slaughter and sanitary dressing procedure. Livestock meat inspectors must pass oral and written exams that cover sanitation, humane handling and slaughter of livestock and sanitary dressing procedures. Excuse me. Livestock inspectors must pass oral and written exams that cover sanitation, humane handling, and slaughter of livestock, record keeping, and... Wow, I'm so sorry. Give me a second. Typically, an employee of the business obtains this license, and they must complete annual training and examinations to uphold the license. Additionally, inspectors employed by the CDFA conduct inspections typically monthly, but sometimes more frequently if the facility is found to have deficiencies.

Here we go. Got through it.

To ensure the facility operates within the regulations of the county and the CDFA, the zoning administrator adopted the conditions of approval laid out in attachment two. There are a total of 34 conditions of approval, but I will quickly cover five related to the operation of the business. Condition number three specifies that the operation shall not be conducted in a manner that creates a public nuisance and that violation of any condition of approval may constitute grounds for revocation of the use permit. Condition number seven requires the applicant to obtain a custom livestock slaughter establishment license from the CDFA and provide a copy of that license to the county prior to approval of a county business license. Condition number eight requires the operation to comply with all applicable requirements of the CDFA and California Code of Regulations and limitations of the custom livestock slaughter establishment license. Condition number nine limits the hours of operation to Monday through Saturday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and caps the maximum number of slaughters per week at 30. Conditions 19 and 20 require the project to install a holding tank to receive all liquid waste resulting from kill floor operations. Liquid waste from the kill floor is not permitted to enter a septic system or be released onto the property. Condition 21 requires the waste tank to be pumped regularly by a licensed rendering company. Altogether, this means that the facility cannot allow any solid or liquid waste to run off or be disposed on site. The project was considered by the Rio Linda Alberta CPAC on January 28th, 2026, and the Agricultural Advisory Committee on March 11th, 2026. Both advisory bodies recommended the zoning administrator deny the requested use permit. However, the zoning administrator approved the requested use permit on July 16th, 2026. Slight correction to this slide, there's an error in the date of the zoning administrator listed there. It says August 24th, which is today, so obviously not happening today. That was July 16th. On July 21st, 2026, the Rio Linda, Alberta CPAC filed an appeal citing community-wide interest. In their appeal form, the CPAC provided one justification for their appeal, which is that they request restrictions on the number of slaughters and live animals allowed on the site. As already discussed, condition number nine limits the number of slaughters to 30 per week. General agricultural uses, including breeding and keeping of livestock, are permitted by right in the AR-5 zone. Therefore, whether or not the applicant is proposing a kill floor, they are permitted to keep livestock on the site. The county does not limit the number of livestock that can be kept on a property for by right general agricultural use. Staff conducted an analysis of the proposed project as presented in the staff report and believes the project is consistent with applicable county general plan policies, Alberta specific plan land use and policies, and zoning code use and development standards with the conditions of approval as adopted by the zoning administrator. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals take the following actions. Deny the appeal, maintaining the zoning administrator's approval of the proposed project, recognize that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, and approve the use permit subject to the findings and conditions. That concludes my presentation. The applicant is present, and we're happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you.

I just have one question. The appeal, you said the appeal is an appeal to limit the number?

So the justification for the appeal that the CPAC provided in their appeal form was that they felt there should be limitations on both the number of slaughters and the number of animals kept on site.

But it wasn't about an objection to having it all together?

That was not the information provided in the CPAC's appeal form.

Okay, thank you.

I do have a question. On the Agricultural Committee, they voted unanimously to deny?

They did.

And what were the reasons for that?

very similar reasons to the CPAC and concerns that were presented in public comments. They felt that the applicant could have provided more information on the state requirements and provided that more readily to the CPAC and the AAC and public commenters. Staff has done our best, although we are not regulators of the CDFA to provide as much information as we can in this presentation. But we are limited in that knowledge somewhat because we are not that agency, right? We are beholden to county regulations and theirs are separate.

Was there any... outreach to CDFA regarding this?

Yes, staff coordinated closely with CPAC.

When did that occur? Was that before the CPAC meeting or after?

That was after the CPAC meeting, yeah. There were changes made to the project, like that 30 slaughter limitation was made in response to concerns that we heard at the CPAC. Originally, the applicant was saying, oh, probably around two to three animals slaughtered per week. The CPAC said, well, we have concerns about sort of that vague number. We'd like to see a maximum cap. So staff worked with the applicant to say, okay, within your business plan, within keeping this small customer-oriented definition of a kill floor business, what works for your business? 30 was what we came to in agreement with applicant, staff, CDFA.

So it went from two to three to 30, right?

So it's not necessarily that 30 will occur every week.

But the applicant presented it in terms of two to three.

That was the original application.

Okay. All right, thank you.

Just another clarification for me. So the actual appeal that we're asking to be ruled on is the appeal of the CPAC, not the other request for denial, or are they both the same?

I would defer to county council on that.

As far as I know, it's just the CPAC appeal. There was no other appeal filed.

Well, I think the question is whether the appeal is to establish limitations or to deny the project.

Is that your question? Well, yeah, because you've got two. You've got one that the appeal was to limit the number of kills, and then the other was to deny.

Well, we've only received one appeal form.

So it is the only one to limit, not to deny?

I don't have the CPAC's written appeal right in front of me right now. I would ordinarily construe it as an appeal of the decision in its entirety. Now, you have discretion to condition the project as you see fit. And if there's a preference or recommendation that the CPAC wrote into its appeal, then you can consider that and incorporate that.

Yeah, I just wanted to be clear if we were being asked to deny, to modify, what?

I think we do have the appellant in attendance. Sorry, Todd, go ahead.

Commissioner Verga, and this is also for counsel. The appeal form that we received from the Rio Linda CPAC was actually received in February prior to, so shortly thereafter the original hearing by the CPAC. What their appeal language says is a kill floor with no restrictions, and as you heard Kimber and Emma mentioned after that CPAC hearing in earlier this year, January I believe, staff did develop some restrictions because they weren't part of the original presentation to the CPAC. So the action being appealed as written on the notice of appeal received in February prior to the actual approval was a kill floor with no restrictions. That's what it says.

It's attachment eight in the packet. Yeah, and they said the reason for appeal, county failed to provide detailed restrictions. An applicant admits that the listed number of, and this I'm just quoting it verbatim, listed number of kills on the application will be exceeded. We want to place restrictions to the number of live animals and kills allowed.

Commissioners, Kimber Gutierrez, Principal Planner 2, and Emma, please correct me if I'm wrong, but we did have some follow-up conversations with the CPAC chair following their appeal to get more clarification, and we did share the conditions that were provided as part of the zoning administrator approval, and I believe they were wanting to further restrict than what was already provided in the conditions as well.

I don't know about further restrict. That wasn't specifically said, but we did, after we were asked to move forward with the appeal, we did reach out to the CPAC chair and say, hey, there are limitations now on the number of slaughters per week. Opened any questions, do you still want to move forward with the appeal? And we were told that they still wanted to move forward with the appeal.

So you could take that as the CPAC not being satisfied with the restrictions that were added?

And the action that we're going to be responsible to make a decision on would be add restrictions, not deny.

You can still, no, you're still, you're not limited in overturning the decision.

You're not?

You're not.

Okay. Thank you. Makes it clearer.

Okay, any other questions of staff?

Okay, all right. Well, as a de novo hearing, if the applicant would like to come forward, they are welcome to at this time. They also will have an opportunity for rebuttal after the appellant and public comment. Okay, so for the record, the applicant is passing on his initial presentation and reserving his right for redirect or rebuttal, rather. Okay, if the appellant wishes to come forward.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. potty break.

Hi, good evening.

Good evening. I'm Tanya Silva and as requested I have been sworn in. I am the chair of the Rio and Linda CPAC. I just wanted to provide some clarification before I begin that the appeal was not based on the fact that we wanted restrictions. It was based on the fact that the county as presented was asking us to make a decision on a project that had no limitations and no restrictions and therefore we could not we could not give an opinion when none of that had been in place. It was our opinion that the county should have put those restrictions in and then presented so we could put forth a vote on an actual up possibly two to three when in interactions with the CPAC the applicant admitted it would definitely exceed two or three so then we said well where's the cap but we don't have one and so it was difficult for the CPAC to make a decision without all of the facts present so it was it was our appeal we wanted to appeal the entire project based on the fact that we were not presented with enough information to a good answer on what would be happening after. I also will just let you know that I live in Alberta, I raise animals, some of them are in my freezer right now, so I am not opposed to people utilizing their property in a way that best suits them until it infringes upon the neighbors being able to use their property in a way that best suits them. I would just start with first the cpac did ask the applicant how many animals would be kept on site and we were told 40 to 50 animals would be raised on site and that the applicant stated there would be two to three The CPAC, when expressed concerns that two to three animals did not seem like a viable business plan for all that they were investing, and at that point the applicant did admit that it would be more than two to three. And that seemed a little deceptive to us on that date. and now at this point we are at 30 slaughters per week Monday through Saturday 9 to 5 with animals raised on site or animals brought in by customers. So we're looking at about 1560 slaughters per year possible. so condition nine of the permit establishes thirty slaughters per week and the appeals report explains that the limitation was added after cpac expressed concerns about future growth but the report does not identify an analysis establishing thirty is an appropriate capacity for this site so why is thirty appropriate but forty is not why is fifty not where did the thirty number come from i didn't see any evidence in any of the uh... it' s a little bit more complicated than the packet I don't see any evidence that 30 can be accommodated by waste systems or that 30 is an appropriate number for surrounding residences or livestock trailers coming in. So the concern is that it's simply establishing the maximum request. It does not establish that that's the maximum compatible with the area. The county's findings require, specifically require consideration of scale and operating, sorry, the number of applicants and the number of operating characteristics. I don' t know if the applicant just came and said I think we want to do 30 and it was it is frustrating that you have two bodies unanimously to grant something that two advisory bodies with community responding in both of those to deny and has overridden that. The county must determine compatibility with an agricultural residential neighborhood not merely whether or not a kill floor is allowed in AR but whether it' s compatible with the surrounding areas. The question should be looked at um, not whether or not it's categorically prohibited. So whether the intensity in the location satisfies the required findings. So AR, agriculture residential, it is predominantly that in that area. So I don't think that it is the small scale, one or two animals. I think we do have a lot of people in the community slaughtering one or two animals here and there for their own personal use. So I don't think it's the... think it' s the scale I think it' s the traffic odor and other external impacts to the community Additionally, when you do the math, if 40 to 50 animals would be raised on site, the UC agricultural natural resources state that meat goats take about six months to come to term. So if they're having 50, let's just go on the high end, they're going to raise 50 animals for six months, and then those would be slaughtered. And then they could raise 50 more, and they could be slaughtered. Then you have 100 animals being raised on site. which means if there's 1560 slaughters per year, you have 1460 animals coming in from outside of the community. So 94% of the animals potentially slaughtered at this location would be coming in trailers. I don't believe that that was addressed in the traffic study, or there was no traffic study because it wasn't necessary because we didn't meet the threshold. But I think when we're talking about rendering trucks and 1460 livestock trailers coming into a rural area, agriculture residential area I think that makes a big difference than if it's just a truck pickup truck coming down the road to pick up an animal if they're carrying in a livestock trailer the other thing that I think was not addressed was we put 30 as a limit per week but it doesn't give a per day so we potentially could have 30 animals slaughtered in one day at this facility then you potentially have 30 livestock trailers coming in and out I don't think that that would happen but because there's no cap there's nothing to say that it wouldn't happen So I would just say overall we started with two to three and now we're at 30 and I think the concerns from the community are odor, obviously, groundwater. I know that it is stated that all the water waste would be collected and removed, but the storage of that, how long that's going to sit there, how long the carcasses will sit there before they're removed. I'm just glad I don't live next door, I'll say that, but I know there are some folks here that do. I also wanted to mention, I'm trying to find, okay, so in Alameda County, they considered a proposal involving a kill floor of large animals on a 49-acre agricultural property near Livermore. The property was substantially larger. more than double the 20 acre paladay road property the concerns included compatibility nearby residents rural road capacity groundwater disposal of animal remains traffic noise and public welfare all of those concerns have been addressed by the cpac and other governing bodies. Alameda ultimately denied the requested use and it' s not sacramento county and it' s not binding presidents that you have to consider but I would state that the board in Alameda took the interest of the public and the interest of those that came. I would also like to mention at the CPAC hearing we had many people get up and speak. One was neutral and everybody else was against. So every community member that showed up to voice their opinion was not in favor of this project going forward. So we would respectfully request that you grant the appeal. and consider the compatibility with adjacent residential land uses, we would ask that you would consider that the CPAC represents the community and the county has put the CPAC in place to represent the community. With two boards unanimously voting to deny this project, it's flabbergasting to me that this board would override both of those. At the very minimum, we would love to see a per day if you're not willing to completely shut this down. And we would also like some enforceable action. So is the applicant going to be required to keep logs? Will those logs be submitted to the county or be available to code enforcement? And how many violations does it take before this use permit would be we would just respectfully request that you hear the community and you would defer to what two bodies have already decided is not good for that community.

I just want to hear it clearly from you. Are you saying that the CPAC wants the project denied? Yes. Or are you saying the CPAC wants the project limited?

The CPAC wants the project denied. In the absence of a full denial, we would like to see more regulation and more restriction and accountability of some sort. At this point, I don't believe... In the absence of the neighbors sitting out counting how many... Slaughters have occurred. I don't know how anything in this case would be enforced and And if the odor does become an issue or if the carcasses aren't removed or the rendering plant misses a week or something like that I don't think that there's any recourse right now for the neighbors to address that So full denial and in the absence of that further regulation.

Thank you. Thank you Thank you so much Do we have any members of the public that have signed up to speak?

Would you like to hear from the applicant again?

Yes, we have received multiple public comments.

And how many do we have? We received 14 public comments. Thank you.

And the first public commenter is Greg Pritchard.

And do we have our timer set for two minutes please? Thank you so much.

Thank you for giving me time to speak and for your attention while I express my concerns about this project. First I want to say that I'm a strong believer in personal property rights and I feel that you should be able to do whatever you want to do on your property as long as it's legal and that it doesn't have a substantial negative effect on your neighbors and the community which I believe this project does. i've been a resident of alberta for more than 40 years and if you've reviewed the real and alberta community plan you will see that is residential agriculture but it's moving more toward residential and by that we are it's a residential area where people have large lots where they can have a sheep or a goat or some animals and things like that, it is not a full commercial agriculture property. And this project really, what it amounts to is putting a commercial slaughterhouse in what is largely a residential area. And I'm sure that having something like rendering trucks coming through your neighborhood is not something that you would want to have and the people of the Rio and Alberta Community District do not want that either. I have a lot of the specific concerns I have have already been stated. Obviously those with traffic, with odors, that there is supposedly will be oversight, but the oversight, unless there's somebody from the county watching everything that goes on there, you will not know how many animals are slaughtered, what's going to be done when there's odors, when there's traffic issues. And if that number goes from 30 up to 40, 50, once it gets started, it'll be much more difficult to stop it. So I really think that the best course of action at this point in time is to completely prohibit the approval of that slaughterhouse going into place. So I heard you to vote against approving it completely and that's I'll save you the extra 13 seconds unless anybody has any questions Thank you.

Thank you The next speaker is Michelle Anderson Hi, I appreciate the opportunity to speak unfortunately my property is kitty corner from their property that's right up to it. I can't really see the goings on now because they built like a seven or eight foot fence. I am completely opposed to this. I have a well on my property. I'm really concerned about the water table and what it will do to my water and I won't know until it's too late. Airborne respiratory disease is a very popular thing in slaughterhouses And let me back up for a minute. I've been at every one of these hearings because this is a big deal to me They first stated they were gonna do two to three animals a week and that quickly changed I think it was the egg when they changed that So we had two nose and then zoning approved it and here we are now We've got airborne respiratory diseases. I've got water concerns. I have like peace of mind where i thought i was going to retire concerns and now we've got roadways that are already too congested because of the building of natomas and roseville west roseville trying to get to the gym after four thirty in the afternoon are going to work it's a deal so on our two lane roads and then wondering how paladay will even exists because I was down that road last week. These are all concerns. Let's talk about the smells and the fact that we have a nice breeze out there much of the time. In the winter, it gets to be a lot, but we get to smell this. They have clearly stated several times they've never done this before, so we get to be their What? Yeah, we get it, yeah. Thank you so much. You get what I try to say. Thank you very much.

Next is Kimberly Moon.

Good evening, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I'm Kimberly Moon, and I've been sworn. It's gonna be a lot of repeating of these concerns. I have written an extensive letter to all of you, so I'll just do some of the highlights. Water contamination, airborne chemicals, waste particles, massive odor, noise, reduced property values, waste methods, and increased TRAFFIC FOR TRUCKING AND UPRISE IN VERMONT. AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS, AS YOU'VE HEARD, IT WAS ONE TO THREE AND THEN BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, AND SO NOW WE'RE TO 30. AND 30 DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A SMALL SCALE TO ME. Each time that a question has been raised regarding the applicant's plans, he hasn't provided clear or satisfactory answers with regard to his kill count, his disposal methods, his sanitation procedures. And I know that the decision for the zoning was based on zoning, but I feel like the word residential kind of was lost in that zoning decision because this is going up in the middle of a community among residents. And it seems to me that zoning has become more important than the residents. We pay our property taxes, and we don't have a say of what goes in our community. And there's so many of us here saying, no, thank you. Please not here. And why does one applicant get to dictate the rest of our existence here in Alberta? you know, and I also agree that everybody has the right to do with what they want with their property as long as it doesn't interfere with others. And I do think this will drastically reduce my enjoyment of my property and greatly interfere with my rights. And it was also stated this applicant has never done this type of work before and he admitted that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Katie Pettybaum.

I had written good afternoon, but good evening commissioners. Thank you for your time. I would echo CPAC's request and their view. I would incorporate many of their concerns regarding the significant potential impacts. The fact that we have two local community advisory groups saying no to this project, for them to be overruled without an environmental impact report as requested under CEQA would be unusual and significant. I'd like to refer to comments I made in the previous zoning hearing. that although the county used an exemption for the size, it's mostly focused on the size and physical attributes of the property, not actually what's going on. And there's ample case law that a commercial operation such as this is a significant, unusual circumstance. that there should have been an environmental impact under CEQA under the administrative exhaustion of remedies we' re going through this process but hopefully we don' t have to further beat the drum on that. Folks have talked about the impact on the wastewater, the blood waste. There's also severe toxic chemicals to sanitizing, so where that's going to go, the vectors, the air quality vectors, the flies, the smell, the drainage, the sanitation, and, of course, the impact on all of us. under CEQA, if there had been an analysis, this isn't to say that the project wouldn't have been approved with conditions, but that would have required actually an analysis. We don't have a fundamental baseline this project has evolved the record as Illustrated is evolved from 2 to 3 to 30 to now we have all these Trucks of various sizes coming in with animals that are going to get slaughtered. We don't know what exactly this is going to be and so from a from a legal perspective There's a lot of problems with this. We'd request a denial.

Thank you Next commenter is Betty Woolley

Good evening. I'm a 35-year Alberta resident. I've been to these advisory committee meetings and spoke at them along with many of the other people in the room. First of all, I'm not going to repeat all the detrimental things, you know, the water resources and all that. this our area is designated as AR 5 zoning which means it's in any of the county records it says a agricultural residential zone blends residential housing with hobby farming or small-scale livestock keeping such as horses goats or chickens with scaling density limits per square foot. They also, that's an AR-5 area. He bought four AR-5s. So he didn't just have a five acre. He bought four sites so that he would have 20 acres, which is fine if they can do what they want. But I want you to be aware of that. Number two, the air pollution, the neighboring areas will be impacted by the odors due to the direction of the wind at any time. cons the advisory committees have uh... requested denial of this and they also suggested to the homeowner uh... applicant that they find another location such as an agricultural zone one hundred to get in another area where there is much more open area so it didn't affect residential people also in the county code it says animals such as horses cows goats are permitted in ar-5 as long as the acreage supports them without creating environmental noise or sanitation nuisance And finally, I would ask you, they also stated in these meetings that none of this would be regulated. The only way it would be regulated is if somebody called code enforcement. There was no regulations. Both those meetings said that. And the last thing I want to know, would you want this next to your property, in your backyard, or your neighbor?

I don't think you would.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next commenter is Terry Tillis.

Hi. From the beginning of this, I've seen a lot of deception from the first meeting to now. We're not even notified of these meetings unless our neighbors put flyers in our mailbox. I live about a little over a thousand yards from this property. I should have been notified from day one of all these meetings of what's happening in my neighborhood. want to be friendly neighbors we welcome them out there but not with their plans we can live out there as neighbors and raise some animals but not put a kill floor out there this is a a rural neighborhood it's still a neighborhood with people that don't want this no different than the neighborhood that has houses every four or five houses per quarter acre We're rural, but we don't want this. This is not something that's good for our neighborhood. Put this 10 miles outside the area, plenty of open land. Also, I know about this property they're talking about. I'm not aware if anybody's living there, but the buildings on that property are not livable. They're condemned. If they rebuilt them to live in them, You need to get an inspector out there to find out if permits were pulled and anything to make those dwellings livable, the one dwelling, not the potential kill floor, the barns, but the single wide trailer that's out there. I was out there a few years ago. I know what this is like. It should be torn down. So if they're living out there now, you need to get some people out there and go over records and see if permits were pulled or any of that. Also, our road. Got chip sealed two weeks ago. I've lived there 30 years. It's never been fixed. All they do is chip seal. Last chip seal was 25 years ago. Chip seal does nothing for strengthening the road. It just waterproofs it. So if anybody's going to say that the road's been improved, they're absolutely wrong. Thank you, sir. That road needs major improvements for the vehicles that would be going down. Thank you.

The next commenter is Sherry Medrano.

Hello, my name's Sherry Medrano and I'm very nervous and very passionate about this project. We live about 600 feet from the back of their property and we see it all. My kids play in a seasonal pond that we have in our backyard and it flows directly from their property. Are they still safe to play there? Our quality of life will be affected every day. Can we go swimming in our pools? Can we just enjoy the fresh air? When they slaughter an animal, I hear them crying when I drink my coffee in the morning. I know when you slaughter an animal. And I am pro-rancher. I am pro-farmer. And my meat comes from down the street. But the difference between them and the ranchers that are in our AR zone is that these ranchers, Ranchers raise the cow from a baby and then all the way up. It takes time. It takes two years to slaughter a cow. That's not what they're doing. And that's not what they plan to do. How many animals have you slaughtered? And how does that process work? Do you know?

Thank you. Your comment should be directed towards this body, not the applicant. But thank you.

I'm sorry. OK. Well, on their applicant, it says that they don't even live at their property. But I do. This does affect me and my children. And I want to just ask the board if my children are safe playing in their own pond. That's 600 feet from the property line. And if they're not, we won't know until my kids are the ones poisoned. So that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next commenter is Louis Medrano.

Hello, thank you for being here today and giving us a chance to hear us out. I work in the environmental utilities for the city of Roseville which is just northeast of this property and we are building properties left and right out there. Here soon we are going to be right to the backside of that. So like they were saying, it is gonna be a more residential property. I work for the wastewater department and there is enough complaints on just the wastewater department that we get on a daily basis for the smell that that has an effect on the properties. I can't imagine what this is gonna bring for the rest of it. When buildings start coming around, people are gonna have problems with that. Like my wife said, our kids do play outside every day. We have a rule that our kids do not sit and watch TV all day. They watch no more than 30 minutes a day. The rest of the time is outside. And we're strong about that. This is going to cause a problem to where if our kids can't come outside to go and play on their own property, then what? We're forced to leave our house to go and take them outside. to a park where we have our property at home, where they should be able to go outside and play freely, not have to put a mask on to breathe. At the end of the day, the decision is gonna be your guys'. Like I said, I appreciate you guys hearing us. I just hope that with all the factors, they do come into play. They're gonna end up putting all their carcasses in a dumpster. On the side, I do a hauling business. A goat is so big. It'll take like two and a half weeks to fill that up. So does that mean that it's going to sit there and heat and liquid the blood out of the dumpsters? We've all been around dumpsters. The liquid still falls out of there. So how are we containing all of that as well? Thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

Next commenter is Roxanna Peralta-Rawson.

Hi, my name is Roxanna Peralta-Rawson, and I've been sworn. I urge you to vote no on this disgusting proposal and choose a more respectful and sustainable future for our community. This is about more than the legality of land use. It's about the kind of future we want to build. We can choose to invest in compassion and sustainability, or we can choose violence, killing, pollution, and permanent damage to our community. I volunteer at a nonprofit animal sanctuary less than a mile from this proposed slaughterhouse, and every week I care for farmed animals who have survived neglect, abuse, and exploitation. We end up with the ones no one wants from these people because they've been so neglected and mistreated that their bones are infected, their broken limbs are dangling from their bodies, and they weigh so much because they've been bred to grow so big and so fast that they can't even support the weight of their own bodies. This is animal agriculture. This is exploitation and abuse. Is this the direction you want our communities to take? These animals are not commodities, they're individuals. They value their lives just as we value ours. Humane slaughter is an oxymoron and a lie. So-called humane methods include electrical stunning and throat-slitting, bolt guns to the head and gas chambers. Does that sound humane to you? No one in our community needs to be killing others. Our community has abundant food choices that do not require building another facility dedicated to killing animals. At a time when society is increasingly embracing sustainability and respect for all living beings, our community should move forward, not backward. Please vote no on this proposal. And if you oppose this project, but you eat animals and their secretions, that is hypocrisy and evil. Hear their screams.

Thank you very much.

The next commenter is Pam Walton.

I appreciate your passion, young lady. Thank you for being here.

Sorry if you have a problem with Michigan. That's just what I wore today. My name is Pam Walton. Good evening. I'm the neighbor to them. I live right next door. My husband and I have raised our six kids on Paladay. The community is not just where we live. It is where we build our family, our memories, and our life. I love this community. I take great pride in calling it a home. And I want families who live here now and the families who will move here in the future to feel that same sense of pride. I understand that change is coming. I don't like it, but change is coming to every city that I have driven by. And in fact, there are exciting things planned for our area. There are 90 new homes that are slated to start in 2050, literally 100 feet from my house, 90 homes. There is also new businesses, other community development like walking paths, sports complexes. These are the kinds of investments that can make our community an even better place to live, raise a family, and build a future. That is why I'm asking you tonight to look beyond the immediate concerns surrounding this kill floor. and consider a much bigger question. Does this belong in the middle of a community that is growing? There are concerns about roads. I did pave mine. I spent $22,000 to pave it from the city all the way to the end of my, that everyone uses beyond me. I've paid the money for that. Once this facility is here, it becomes part of the community and part of its identity. What message does that send to the families considering purchasing from those new 90 homes that are coming? What does it mean for businesses looking to invest here? What impact could it have on the sports complex, the walking trails, the parks, the property values, and other community ventures that are coming? Please do not look at whether this facility can operate here today. Please consider whether it belongs here tomorrow. Land use decisions can shape a community for decades. I oppose this kill floor, and I hope that you hear that our community has a future, and we want it to be a safe and fun place.

The next speaker is Christy Vernick- Meridan?

Sorry, if I pronounce that.

Hi there, I'm Christy Venerick-Martin. I want to thank you guys for listening to us and hopefully everything the CPAC lady said represents our community. We are less and less rural. We're expecting housing is coming in to Alberta from Roseville. We also have an Alberta-specific plan that could allow up to 4,500 houses in our very small area. And Paladay is expected to continue into Roseville pretty soon here. This is going to be a neighborhoods with park with children playing, hopefully outside like our other neighbors mentioned. And this is making it a place that you don't wanna buy housing in, that you don't want your children playing in that park. And so the community, as you've heard with the CPAC, hundreds of peoples came out that original CPAC meaning to oppose it. Unfortunately, 530 on a Monday outside of Rio Linda and Alberta did not allow that. You guys are probably grateful because there was a lot of people. But the community has been out, they've been supporting it. I've been at every single one of these meetings Every meeting, the person who is putting this on, the Kilford gentleman, changes his answers, and he's going to tell you that he only picked 30 because the CPAC told him that he had to pick a number. But he didn't pick five. He didn't pick six. He picked 30. And he's going to tell you that it was only because. And then every time somebody in the community mentions opposing, we hear snickers, smirks, laughs from him as if this is a joke. AND HE HAS TOLD US AT THE LAST ZONING MEETING THAT HE TALKED TO HIS NEIGHBORS. ALL THE NEIGHBORS HAVE COME UP AND SAID NO, WE HAVE NOT BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH HIM. WE ARE A RURAL AREA AND I BET HE COULD HAVE GOT HIS NEIGHBORS ON BOARD BUT INSTEAD HE CHOOSES TO NOT COMMUNICATE WITH US AND CONTINUE TO LAUGH. I HEARD HIM SMIRK WHEN I WAS TALKING OR I HEARD HIM LAUGH WHEN I WAS TALKING AND WE JUST WANT YOU TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY AS WE ASK YOU TO SAY NO TO THIS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. The next speaker is Olivia Zeider.

Good evening. My name is Livia Zeider. I am here on behalf of Only Sunshine Sanctuary. We're a non-profit animal rescue and sanctuary located in Alberta. We are very close to where this kill floor is proposed to be. And I'll get this out of the way. I'm vegan. I rescue animals. But that's not why I'm here today. I'm here to talk on behalf of the entire Alberta community. We have neighbors that kill animals for food that oppose this project. The community does not want this kill floor. Our small country roads are not equipped for this operation, even if it's labeled as small scale. There's nothing small scale about killing 30 animals a week. The livestock trailer traffic alone is going to be a huge issue on our small local roads. You can barely fit two SUVs passing each other without having to slow down. allowing this project to pass would also likely lead to a decrease in home values which I know a lot of people have talked about Not only our new homes coming in but their values will decrease knowing that there's a slaughterhouse in the general vicinity Another huge issue that I know a lot of people have talked on is the drinking water most of the residents in the general area are on the same water table and rely on well water and Even if they are you know, they talked about removing the wastewater and all that it's Slaughterhouses are disgusting animals are gross. I work with them. It's really hard to keep areas completely clean And killing them is even the next level, you know, keeping them alive is dirty. So Our communities truly need more sanctuaries not more slaughterhouses slaughterhouse workers have some of the highest injury rates and drug addiction rates out of all jobs and I can't blame them. Can you imagine killing animals all day? So I just feel like even if you don't care about animals, what this is doing to our broader community is just not okay. And we need to keep Alberta small, local, rural, and the community clearly doesn't want it. So the community doesn't need it.

Thank you. Thank you.

The next speaker is Pa Walti.

Going once, going. Nope, that's not it.

The next speaker is Agnes Milner.

Hello. My name is Agnes Meunier. I live on Alberta Road. I'm not exactly in Alberta, but I got aware of the project and I'm firmly against this project because of the traffic it's going to cause. But first thing first, I think we should go back to what the halal slaughter involves. And I'm sorry if I'm going to get into details. I'm a scientist, so we're going to go into details. So, hell slaughter implies that the animals are not stunned, right, and their throats are slit without being stunned. So, here is why I'm saying this, because as you said, you have seen that many, many houses are right next to this facility, right next to it, and including a Buddhist temple. including a Buddhist temple. So when those animals are being slaughtered, they scream, as you heard just before. So you're going to have kids, like six-year-old, four-years-old, that are going to grow in backyards hearing those screams every day, smelling those smells every day, and potentially risking everything because if, God forbid, something happens and there is a leak, then they are going to be affected by the whole safety problems that are going to ensued. So that's why I'm here today to beg you to deny this operation because it is just going to be potentially terrible for everything for the families around but also for the project that are going to be built around because people are going to lose values on their house because at the end of the day who wants to leave next to a slaughterhouse where every day you hear goats screaming and sheep screaming I don't know if you want to do that. I don't.

Thank you.

And that concludes our public comments that we've received.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Would the applicant like a chance to present on anything or offer any rebuttal?

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Bahadur Amiri. I am the applicant for this project. It's a lot to take, honestly. This is the third meeting. It's not easy when you're just by yourself and the whole community comes against you. I literally asked the project manager, I said, can I attend this meeting via Zoom because that's how I felt hurt so much. A lot of people doing a lot of businesses. Many people don't like alcohol, but they're living right across by the alcohol shop, by the smoke shop, by the other. I did not do anything illegal. I went to and I checked the AR-5 is the zoning decided by the state, not by myself. A lot of people did research on that. A lot of people worked on that and they have decided. They had 14 comments. Out of 14 comments, what was the among all of them the same. You know the noise, the contamination and all that. We have talked about that. It's gonna be sealed tank. It's gonna be, the rendering company is gonna be taking. A lot of them were worried about the road. I saw only three or four of my neighbor who lives on Palladay Road. The rest of them literally a mile, even more, away. And one of my neighbor, yeah, two of them, they live right behind my property. It's a 20-acre property. And this operation is not gonna happen in the middle of, yard is going to be inside the building. And that building will be inspected by the building department. That building will be inspected by the CDFA guys. Before I even applied for the permit, the CDFA too inspector. I came and I sent their business card to the project manager. They came and they inspected and they said, yeah, I'm not the first one building a kill floor, our slaughterhouse. I'm going to answer why I jumped from 2 to 3 to 30. When I was filling the application, I said, all right, I'm doing everything by the code. So I just filled it out. I said, because it's a business. Anybody who start the business, a restaurant, when it opens, they get five chairs. But when the business grows, they get more and more and more. They open franchises. If I'm doing everything according to the code, according to what I'm asked to, what does it make the difference? What does it make the difference? If you guys are a lot worried about the road, okay, I'm not gonna bring 30, whatever is the weight limit, I'm gonna just follow that rule. But no, you guys are not worried about the road. It's only one thing I respect for that. If I would have been one of them, maybe I would have thought the same way. They're worried about the value of their property. I have repeated myself so many times. It's gonna be inside the building. Literally, the building is in the middle of a 20-acre lot, and the operation is gonna happen inside. The walls will be insulated. It'll be checked by the building department, by CDFA. How far you can hear that? The CPAC lady, when they denied it, she told me specifically, she did not deny that by the operation. She denied it because, not she, only herself, but the whole community, because they said the county did not provide enough information. That's why it was denied. And that's why they opened, left the motion. So my point is, I understand their concerns, and I have respect for that. But why, if the place is already designated for the kill floor, slaughterhouse, and I'm doing everything what I'm asked to, then what's the problem? Every time someone tells me move to Reno, open it in Reno, why? I have bought that property. Why should I move? Every time a whole community, someone made their agenda, you know, like throwing the calling people, sending the meals to other neighbors. Come on, come against this guy because he's changing. He's new. He's not like one of us. Why? I'm honestly, I'm so tired of it. It's like every time you come, same questions. Every time, same question. Okay, if it's concern, you save the concern. And one of the, my neighbor, I would say, they say, I was smirking and all. No. Why I would smirk? You can accuse me like of many things. Then they say, okay, who will be counting this, how many animals? Clearly, in the representation, Emma said it, the CADFA will visit the site occasionally, even once a month or even before. Is it like, just issue the license and that's it? No. Here's the rule and the regulation, everybody must file. Other people were concerned, okay, when my kids see the slaughter, how that gonna happen? One of their neighbors said that everybody has a property and they kill once in a while in their property because it's a rural area. Then what about that time? What about the smell at that time? I'm repeating myself, it's not gonna be outside. It's gonna be inside the building according to what I'm asked to. Stainless steel, tile floor, insulated walls, everything inside. The water is going to go to a sealed tank, and it's going to be taken away. The waste is going to go to another tank. It's going to be taken away. I'm so sorry if my voice was a little bit raised. I apologize. But honestly, I'm just tired of it. It's just too much to take. I'm so sorry, guys. Thank you for giving me the time. I respect my neighbors. I respect their concerns, but it's too much when you know someone's directly, call your project disgusting, call your, what you're doing is not good, go away from here to Reno and all that. That's not fair. Thanks for your time, and I'm so sorry if I raise my voice.

Thank you. Your passion is understood. Don't go too far. We might have some questions for you, though. Absolutely.

Actually, I have a few. Yes. As part of the requirements for this process, CDFA requires you to have an on-site inspector. Yes. And that inspector is an employee, usually, of the plant.

Yes, sir.

Have you worked with CDFA to determine who that inspector is? Do you know what that process is like to go through to be trained to do that?

Once I am, you know, done with these appeals, once I am, was they giving me a thumbs up that, okay, you, the county approved my site, then, of course, that'll be the next step. Of course, the site build will be the next step. Of course, there will be, you know, the septic and all that, they're going to check it. It's not going to be, you know, like, all of a sudden, I got the approval. Emma clearly said it. No, we, it needs to, before I start the operation, all must be inspected.

I'm just trying to get a sense of whether you have a general idea of what that process is going to be like.

I have no idea. I have no idea. But definitely there will be a process for it. And whatever is the process, I am good to go, just work with it.

That's all I have.

I don't have any questions for the applicant. I have questions for staff.

Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Amiri.

I want to add one more thing. Even they mentioned that, like, 3 to 30, I'm totally against that. From my understanding, you are forcing someone to do something that you didn't like. What I'm saying, if I'm doing everything according to what you asked me, I shouldn't be told how many I have to do. If you are concerned about weight limit, yes, definitely you can do that. But slaughter, there shouldn't be a limit. From my understanding, we're not going to get that 30. But the general understanding, why? Just tell me why 30? Why I have to stop there? If I'm not following the legal way, it's the same thing between 1 and 30. It's the same thing. Just a general concept. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Commissioner.

Questions for Stan?

Yes, I have a couple. Is that okay? So the applicant will be working with the California Department of Food and Ag. EMD, is EMD, okay, just making sure. That's environmental management. What's the department? And then, so the building, it'll be inside where they conduct the slaughters. And it's inside the building with ventilated, I'm assuming, and all of the requirements, it's CDFA requirements, correct? Correct.

So the county building department, building permits and inspections, BPI, will do the building permits for interior improvements as well as any exterior that may be required, which are not currently anticipated. But should they arise, there is a condition of approval that says if you do need exterior improvements, go through that process as well. So the building permit and inspections department will handle overseeing of the physical improvements of the building, but those physical improvements will have to meet the appropriate standards of the California Code of Regulations for sanitary handling and storage of waste. So environmental management will handle, basically there's three different agencies involved for different aspects. BPI and EMD, Building Permits and Inspections and Environmental Management Department are county agencies. And then CDFA kind of just establishes the regulations and then oversees the ongoing operation.

And the permit, how long is the timeline? Do they have it forever?

So use permits do run with the land. It is in perpetuity. There is a clause that says if they violate any of the conditions of approval, it could be revoked. But they have to meet... the conditions of approval. They have to go get their CDFA license. They have to do the improvements to the building. They have to install the tank. All of those requirements have to be met before the county will issue a building permit, before the county will issue a business license, and before CDFA will issue a custom livestock slaughter establishment license. So there are multiple agencies that are going to be doing several rounds of inspections before all of the permits coalesced together are issued and approved to allow them to begin operation.

And last question. I went online to look for the Ag Advisory Committee's minutes to see if they were there to see what they said about it, but I didn't find any. So can you summarize what they said about why they denied the project?

Yeah, definitely. So... In both our Board of Zoning Appeals staff report and the original Zoning Administrator staff report did provide a brief overview of the Agricultural Advisory Committee's review. The majority of the meeting was spent on public comments, but the AAC staff noted that they appreciated the applicant responding to the CPAC's concerns by establishing that maximum cap and trying to address some of those other things, but they felt that the applicant could further address a lot of the CPAC's concerns by being more familiar with the state regulations and communicating those more readily to the CPAC, which happened prior to the AAC, as well as to the community. And so it was my understanding of the AAC's concerns were more that They felt the applicant had a ways to go in terms of understanding licensure of CDFA and operation. As I mentioned a minute ago, the applicant has to follow those procedures before they can start operating. So that's something they will have to learn about as they go through that CDFA process. My understanding was not that the AAC had concerns about the facilities like compatibility with surrounding agriculture or anything like that. That was not the ultimate opinion that was expressed to my understanding.

Okay. And then in the maps, I noticed that the buildings that are currently existing are in the middle of the property. It's kind of L-shaped. And they're pretty much in the middle. There's kind of like a long driveway. So those are the buildings that they plan to use to convert to the

That's correct. They're not proposing to construct any new buildings at this time. There is one approximately 365 square foot barn that is in the general location you described that would be converted. Were the applicant to ever want to propose a new building in the future, they would have to come back in and go through the entitlement process again to revise, to do an amendment to their use permit.

Okay. I think that's all my questions. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? So basically, what you're describing is the normal building process for any kind of a business. They have to go through the process to get the permits. They have to go through all the planning, the inspections, and everything else, correct? That's kind of what you're describing?

That's correct. Even though there isn't a new building proposed, the improvements themselves will trigger permits and an inspection process to the existing building.

Then overall... review of their operations as they're up and running and Maybe I'm asking the wrong person, but are we basing this that that's all going to be governed under CDFA so

The slaughter process, handling of waste, handling of food product, inspections for sanitation purposes, basically the food chain part of it, would be, yes, it's all regulated by California Code of Regulations and inspected by CDFA. The land use operations, so if they were to ever operate outside of their business hours as set forth by the conditions, exceed their 30 slaughters per week, anything that's sort of land use regulations set forth in the conditions of approval, that would be the county's purview, and that would be done as part of the regular code enforcement process. So if there were a complaint, it would be handled by code enforcement.

Okay, then the typical process.

for complaints, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

I guess just briefly as to the 30. I guess if you could just kind of WALK THROUGH HOW THAT NUMBER KIND OF CAME TO BE. I GUESS, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THIS, AS I LOOK AT THIS THROUGH A BUSINESS WITH 20 SOME ODD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO IT, CDFA REQUIREMENTS, HOURS OF OPERATION, I MEAN, ALSO WHAT ARE 375 SQUARE FEET, 400 SQUARE FEET, THERE'S A You know, there's a functional kind of throughput, if you will, that can only be done. I mean, you couldn't process 2,000 animals a day through there, right? It's too small of a facility. But I guess, why not 31 or 35 or just whatever number that can be processed through there, right? adhering to the terms and conditions and the requirements set forth by CDFA?

Yeah, so neither the zoning code nor CDFA establish a maximum cap on the number of slaughters per hour, per week, per day that constitute a kill floor. The limitation that the zoning code establishes is in the definition of what a kill floor is, which would be a small-scale customer-oriented facility. staff between the CPAC meeting and the AAC meeting, after hearing the CPAC's feedback about looking not for an average but for a true understanding of what the maximum slaughters would be, went to the applicant and said, hey, you know what your business goals are, what your business operation plan is. Staff are not business experts in the kill floor. And so in working with the applicant and in understanding the county's definition of a small-scale customer-oriented facility, we found that 30 struck an average where the kill floor is operating eight hours a day, six days a week. So that averages out to about, if it's an even average across the week, about five slaughters a day. When you're operating eight hours a day, that means you're not doing a slaughter every hour. You've got some turnover where you've got time to handle sanitation, record keeping, things like that in between each appointment, if you're even taking five appointments each day. And staff, between looking at the county definition, talking to the applicant about their business plan and their business operations, felt that this was an appropriate average that would meet that small scale facility definition.

So if I'm kind of hearing you, that number is possibly within the practical throughput of this facility within some margin of error.

The number was originally volunteered by the applicant, but in looking at that number and assessing it in comparison to the hours of operation, the number of parking spaces, the size of the building, things like that, staff did feel that that number was appropriate for the limitations of the size and the scale of the facility and what the county defines a kill floor as.

Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Any other questions for staff? All right. I'll go ahead and get us kicked off tonight. I appreciate everyone coming out and taking an evening and time to be here and drive all the way downtown I did a quick search of trying to understand when animals were first slaughtered and processed on agricultural land, and the best answer I could get was 12,000 years ago. And that's probably far short of when it actually started to transpire. So I think the restrictions on doing that are far newer. As I look at the surrounding areas and the area itself, it is agriculture. Animals are raised on agriculture. Animals are slaughtered on agricultural property and have been for centuries. And as I look at this project, I believe that it certainly does fit in within the rural agricultural broader community. We are and have claimed to be farm to fork and the farm to fork capital of the world. However, one of the probably biggest gaps within that farm to fork is the actual acquiring and harvesting of meat that is locally sourced. You talk to chefs, you talk to other producers, people that follow this. And it is one of the gaps. And I'm not sure how many people in the audience or on the dais have seen an animal slaughtered in Halal. I have. It was in a celebratory event. And thing is part of tradition and practice and custom of a second largest religion in the world and to that I'll be supporting the applicant and Not supporting the appeal of this project So is that motion you're making? No, that is not a motion. If necessary, I would make a motion when appropriate.

It would kind of help to know which way tentatively you're leaning so we can figure out how the findings are going to work and also if it ends up being 2-2, what we should do in that circumstance.

Okay, well, I'll follow up. Having been a CDFA meat processing inspector...

You're just now dropping that on us?

And having gone through that very significant training and being responsible for all that, that's a very arduous thing to do. I believe, if you want to know where I'm going to come down on this, that it is not compatible with Alberta. isn't please it's not compatible with over it's an issue that is allowed by code that necessarily isn't the right fit for that area having understanding and going through some of that process on how to do what he's talking about doing through, as some people in this building may know, through my brother's business, that's a very difficult thing to get through and a very difficult thing to create. And you're not just gonna limit or slow things down when you start doing that kind of meat processing. So given the, to me, given the lack of it, it's not compatible, the fact that there's a specific number of questions that should be at least discussed, with CPAC and anybody else before you even go down this road, I would not be in favor of approving the appeal, just so you know where I'm coming from.

First of all, thank you everyone for being here. Applicant, the appellant, the individuals who came about 25 to 30 minutes down Alberta to 99. It's exactly where I went today. So I went to look at where this was in question. You saw on the prior item that that's typically my process. to go and visit and just to look. And there is a private road there and I'm very respectful of that as well. So I just wanted to, in terms of my decision-making process, that goes through this head of mine. YOU KNOW, A NUMBER OF THINGS, DIRECTOR VERGA SHARED MY CONCERN AS WELL ABOUT THE PROCESS INVOLVED IN EVEN DOING THIS WORK, GETTING APPROVED BY CDFA. IT IS A VERY TOUGH PROCESS. YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING, AND YOU'VE GOT TO CROSS ALL THE T'S, DOT, THE I'S, ET CETERA TO DO THAT, HAVING DONE SOME CONSULTING WORK AT CDFA MYSELF A LONG TIME AGO. Secondly, it is taking into account something that Mr. Pritchard, our first speaker, spoke about, 40-year resident of Alberta, which is about echoing the personal property, which I'm aligned with personally and also considered that in my decision-making. And then... but the potential harm down the road and also the long-term planning that this development could have especially in light of what is happening on baseline what is happening in alberta what is even happening on palladay as well in the future and third is around the decision-making related to the the cpex as well which which is taken into consideration plus the agriculture review agriculture review board as well plus some of the concerns that the two lanes were expressed around traffic etc. There' s still two lane roads I was behind a semi driving up on the two lane until I made a left to get out to alberta and it' s a pain and it' s also the roads are extremely narrow in that respect which is a separate I will be supportive of the appeal and vote to deny the application. And please don't, don't, I know you guys, I know everyone's very passionate about it, and again, I respect that, but this is a deliberate body that we're trying to do our best. But again, thank you for being here.

Thank you everyone for all your public comments. I applaud you for being here and for going to all of the hearings. I too have visited the sites, both the item before this one and this one. And I agree with the chair. I believe that it is a Rural agricultural area. I do have experience with living in an agricultural and rural area and also with obtaining my food from a processing plant or kill floor or a slaughterhouse, so I Think we're at a impasse

Okay, so it's 2-2. As you know, you need three votes to take action. So without Commissioner Borja here, we can't get to three votes one way or the other. So, okay, before making my recommendation, I guess I'd say if there was a motion and it failed, you can't get enough votes to grant the appeal. No.

Bill, sorry, really quick. The zoning code for the Board of Zoning Appeals, it does state that notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary of this code, if a vote of the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals results in a 2-2 tie vote, the matter is denied, and all actions of the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be final for all purposes.

Hang on a second.

It's Zoning Code Section 613D3.

Kimber, if you could just.

restate this the Substantive portion of that related to so for so under the Board of Zoning Appeals Under action it says the boat of Board of Zoning Appeals may review the entire proceeding or Proceedings relating to the act or decision being appealed and in the process of such review may rehear the matter de novo and make any order it deems just and equitable including the granting of any permit Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary of this code if a vote of the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals Results in a 2-2 tie vote the matter is denied all actions of the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be final for all purposes Yeah So if we could hold on hold on hold on It says if there's a okay, there's a 2-2 tie

then the effect is the matter is denied. But the appeal would be... I construe that as being the appeal being denied.

Right.

Okay, so I... You still have the option of continuing this to get a full commission? I would. I would recommend.

I'd recommend continuing it as well. I don't have a stomach for it.

I don't think we should.

That's just my opinion.

Yeah, I'm kind of with you on that Well, we would just redo this again Correct and there is precedence for taking items into account when there has been in to to impasse. Correct.

Mr. Burke Well, what we'll do is we're gonna contact Commissioner Borja We're gonna have make sure he views the video of this hearing so we're not gonna have to redo the entire hearing He'll be aware

Correct. If we decided to continue that.

Yeah, if you decide to continue it. So did I answer your question or no? Yes, you did.

Okay. Which we just did not too long ago. Pardon me? Which we just did not too long ago.

Yes, we did.

Yeah.

A couple months ago, we did. I wish that zoning code provision was a little more clear, but saying the matter is denied, what the matter you're considering is the appeal. Mm-hmm. Okay, so- I think it's a cleaner record to have a full commission.

I would recommend a continuance of this item. Is that a motion? It is a motion. Okay.

I'll second it.

Can we get a date?

Okay and that item fails with two members voting no to continue and two members voting yes to continue.

Evidently it does fail. So I would make a motion to deny the appeal adopting the findings set forth in the staff report.

Well, okay, so the staff report has findings that would, oh, that works though, doesn't it? You do have, yeah, you have findings that would deny the appeal and thereby approve the project. So go right ahead, that works.

Is my motion clear enough? All right, thank you. So move to deny the appeal in adopting the findings as set forth in the staff report. Is there a second?

Second.

Please vote.

So a yes vote is to approve the application, a no vote is to- Deny it. Deny it. Correct.

And that motion fails.

Okay, motion fails, so then we go to the language of the zoning code, which says in the event of a 2-2 tie, the matter is denied. I construe that as the appeal is denied. Okay.

All right, I believe that concludes that item.

Our next item is item number four, the planning director's report.

Nothing to report this evening. Thank you.

Our next item is number five, miscellaneous scheduling items. And the clerk's office has nothing to report.

Thank you. I will be unavailable or away the 14th of September. No. The 14th of September? Yeah, because we don't have a meeting on the 7th.

No, we do not. So it's the 14th and the 28th. Okay. And the 28th or the 29th?

I will be absent the 14th.

Okay. Yes, also September 28th as well.

Hold on a second.

Okay.

I'm not sure. 14th, 28th?

That works. I won't be here on the 28th.

Okay. I will note that as well. And I'm sorry, Commissioner Rockenstein, did you say that you were going to be out in one of those states? You're good for both? Okay, thank you. I'm good for both. All right. And item number six is public comments, and we have not received any additional public comments.

Can we go back to Commissioner's availability for the next two hearings? It's pretty important.

14th, 28th, yes.

You are?

Yes.

So Commissioner Devlin- I'm not the 14th.

Oh, yes.

you're out the 14th but here the 28th yep and then I'm here the 14th but I'm out the 28th okay and then I will still send out a poll so that we can have that all in writing and I'll send that over to you as well and then as I said there's no additional public comments

All right. All right. Thank you. That meeting adjourned at 8 o'clock.

Thank you.