Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Thank you very much for joining us today, Monday, June 22nd, 2026, for the meeting of the County Planning Commission. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Absolutely. Members Rockenstein?

Here.

Members Verga?

Here.

And Chair Borja?

Here.

Okay, and let the record reflect that Members Devlin and Members Corona-Savagnano are absent at this time.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Can you please make the announcement?

Do you want to do the pledge? I'll do the pledge first.

Yeah, let's do the pledge first. Sorry. Commissioner Berg, can you please lead us to the pledge? Thank you.

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.

My apologies. Thank you very much. Now, Madam Clerk, can you please make the announcements?

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 very much, Madam Clerk. I think we're ready to...

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Given the nature of this... Would it be better for us to wait until our other esteemed colleague comes since we're going to be having a conversation about this decline and be in the middle of the discussions? Okay. No, I just hate to get in the middle of this, have him walk in and not have full knowledge of what we're doing.

Understood. Thank you very much, Commissioner Rurga. Barring any other concerns for my fellow commissioners, if you'd allow me, I'd like to go ahead and move the agenda as advised by counsel, and perhaps we can start with item number two, miscellaneous. That should be the planning director's report. Sorry, Madam Clerk. Can you?

No worries. I was going to read the item into the record, but that is item number two is the planning director's report.

Thank you very much. Director Smith.

Yes, really a short report tonight. I do know we have one, two, three, four items, excuse me, three items on the next agenda, the July 13th Planning Commission agenda. One of those is a zoning code amendment, one of many in our work program this year that we're trying to prioritize. This one is related to our design review program. We had a lot of outreach with that effort. I think this commission heard perhaps an earlier iteration of it, but it is moving forward for approval. Hopefully we'll get a successful recommendation from the Planning Commission to the board because we're trying to target August for the board hearing on that item Other news the crowing fowl Last meeting I reported that it was going forward to the Board of Supervisors the following week It has been Approved now. We're in the waiting period the 30 days before it goes into effect so the board actually took action on the final action on the 16th introduced and had some deliberation on the 9th but took action finally on the 16th so that is now in place we're working with code enforcement and animal care to work through an enforcement plan for those problem properties that we know about and then the other thing I'm going to report on Upper West Side was approved by the board last week on the 16th also unanimous 5-0 approval so we'll see where we go next And that's all I've got for tonight.

Understood. Thank you, Director Smith. Any questions for the Planning Director?

Just one. Don't we also have an appeal on the 13th?

Yes, we do. That was the Eswaran tentative parcel map out in the Fair Oaks or Carmichael area, excuse me.

And if we don't hear that, do we not miss the five meeting thing?

Should be okay.

We should okay if we hear it.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you So that is our fifth meeting for that. I believe so, but we can have Folks double-check the number of hearings Understood. Thank you.

Thank you. Looks looking like we're having a busy next couple of meetings Understood Thank you. Let the board recognize Vice Chair Devlin. Thank you for joining us this evening. Okay. Barring any concerns, I'd like to now move back to our original run of show. Madam Clerk, please call item number one.

And for item number one, you guys will be acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals. Item number one is PLMP 2026-00035, El Fernito Temporary Use Permit Denial of Appeal. This is an appeal of the denial of a temporary use permit for El Fernito horse training facility and host events. And the property is located at 13301 Renneke Road, approximately 0.3 miles south of the Quiggle Road and Renneke Road intersection at the southeast area community. And the environmental document is not applicable.

Good evening, Ms. Weiss.

who has reviewed all of the temporary use permit applications associated with El Frenito Horse Training Facility. Two previous temporary use permits had been granted to the subject business. However, Planning and Environmental Review denied their application for a temporary use permit to host events in 2026. I am here today to request the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals, deny the appeal upholding the Zoning Administrator's denial of the temporary use permit. The project is located in Galt at 13301 Ranke Road. The project site is in the southeast community and falls within District 5, represented by Supervisor Hulme. The subject parcel and surrounding areas are zoned agriculturally, with some parcels roughly a quarter mile away zoned agricultural residential. The zoning general plan and community plan designations for this area were established to eliminate and protect against land uses incompatible with long-term agricultural use of the land and to preserve the physical, social, aesthetic, and economic assets of the agricultural land and open space for current and future residents of the county. A temporary use permit is an administrative permit that allows for a property to operate a temporary use for a limited timeframe or number of events without the requirement or cost of an entitlement process involving public noticing hearings or environmental review. As such, there are a number of findings that are required to be met in order for a temporary use permit to be approved, such as the temporary use or structure shall not be detrimental to property or improvements in the surrounding area or to the public health, safety, or general welfare. The temporary use shall comply with all applicable general and specific regulations of the zoning code. The temporary use or structure shall not violate any applicable conditions of approval that apply to a principal use on the site. And the temporary use regulation of this section do not exempt the applicant or operator from any other required permits such as environmental management department permits. These findings are used to balance the wants and needs of an applicant pursuing a temporary use while also protecting the land and neighbors from a potentially detrimental use whose impacts have not been formally reviewed through the entitlement process. Details of Planning and Environmental Review's analysis on why the proposed temporary use does not meet the required findings are outlined both in the original denial letter and in the staff report. I am happy to expand upon or answer any questions should you have them. As such, Planning and Environmental Review staff recommend the Board of Zoning Appeals take the following action. Deny the appeal upholding the zoning administrator's denial of the temporary use permit. In addition to myself, the zoning administrator, Wendy Hartman, and Supervising Code Enforcement Officer Rosa Orellana are available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Weiss. Going back to the dice, do we have any questions for staff this evening?

Yes, I do. Okay. Mr. Berger? Basically, I'd like to hear from staff about what are the issues that caused the denial this time versus the fact that a temporary use permit was granted twice before and what supposedly has changed to cause the decision to be a denial instead of allowing it to be done a third time.

Yes. So as an administrative permit, as long as all requirements and findings are met, we must approve. The first year we got the permit, we assume positive intent on behalf of the operator. And so when we issue the permit, we provide the conditions of approval. So we do not know until after the fact whether or not the conditions are going to be met or not. The second year that they applied for a permit, we did not have enough evidence to prove whether or not they had complied with the conditions of approval. However, this third year, there had been actions from code enforcement documenting noncompliance, as well as issues brought forth by the sheriff, as well as the district attorney's office, Communication with an environmental management department that they had not received any applications for permits to serve food on the property as well as Communication from supervisor Hume's office that there had been complaints from neighbors and concerns about the events occurring on the property Can you give me examples of what they've supposedly done to violate that? Yes, so for a temporary use permit, there is a limit on the number of events, and the applicant was required to provide the specific dates that events would be occurring. Due to records of one-day alcohol licenses being approved by the alcoholic beverage control department, there is evidence that they were hosting events outside of the approved dates that were listed on the approved permit. Additionally, some of the conditions of approval included obtaining all required licenses such as a business license for the primary use which business licensing had issued a warning that no business license had ever been obtained by the operating business and that is included as one of the attachments as well as a notice that Apologies.

I'm going to defer to Wendy. so in their prior years permit they also had requirements that they were to notify the sheriff's department prior to having events and the sheriff's department notified us that they looked through their records and had not received the proper notifications prior to hosting any events and that was similar for environmental management department and other conditions of approval so the applicant and property owner had the responsibility to make sure they were meeting the intent of what through the meetings with the district attorney's office. That one was held in July. We went over in detail the conditions of approval on the project. They indicated that they understood those conditions. Throughout code enforcements, records of communications, they also indicated they were familiar with the requirements but failed to meet those requirements. that we are able to use. As such when we' re looking the past application and their performance in meeting those requirements as a Determination on whether or not the use is going to create a public or private nuisance and the findings can or can't be met and in this case based on the number of times that they had been informed of what the requirements were and the number of times that they had not followed those conditions of approval there was enough of a record in place to show that Approving the temporary use permit would likely not result in them complying With the conditions since they hadn't been complying with them in the past years either I can and could you?

Provide some context to the last two letters that we received just recently unsigned letters from the DA talking about meetings I

Sure. So staff, excuse me, Todd Smith, planning director, staff from planning, myself, Wendy Hartman, as well as code enforcement and the sheriff and the deputy district attorney who wrote those letters actually met with the property owners, as Wendy indicated. actually set up the first meeting all parties were there that's where wendy was describing how we communicated the requirements of the conditions of approval the notifications the process that a legitimate operator would need to go through to make sure that they're operating and conducting the events and consistent with the conditions of the temporary use permit They indicated they understood what the requirements were and that they're responsible for anything that happens outside of those conditions because they are the property owner. We invited the property owner to a subsequent meeting earlier this year. However, they did not show up.

Okay, and that's kind of the context of what the letters from the DA are covering here? Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Any other questions from fellow commissioners? Vice Chair Dublin.

Just to be clear, prior to the in-person meeting, was there written notice given to the property owner of the past violations?

i can't speak towards written notification outside of any notices of violation they received but i do know that in code enforcement's logbook there were several entries where they had had emails or various phone calls to that nature and i'm going to go ahead and turn it over to code enforcement to provide any additional details but there was quite a lengthy log that they had

thank you Mr. Chair. thank you Mr. Chair. good evening I' m the supervisor for code enforcement as when he was explaining that' s right our first notice that was mailed out to the property owner and operator was in conducted a total of six inspections, which have resulted in communication either in person or in writing through notices. And in addition, we've had six emails or phone calls, so 12 instances total where we've communicated. And then on top of that is the meetings that were described, like the meetings with the DA and such. So there's been quite a few opportunities to communicate what the violations have been.

And did any of the violations occur subsequent to the meetings with planning and the DA? No.

I see heads nodding. I would have to piece together the timeline, but it's my understanding that violations have continued to occur before and after the meetings and before and after our notices.

So initially, I believe after the July meeting with the district attorney's office, they did try to keep their events to those that were listed, but they still did not meet some of the other conditions of approval, such as the notifications, their business license. When I said notifications, notifications to the sheriff's department, making sure that all of the vendors and whatnot in the site had been inspected by individuals. overall we have received numerous communications from supervisor human office from neighbors complaining about events occurring outside of the dates that they had been approved for with the prior to to temporary use permits complaints regarding uh speeding and activities occurring on that roadway trash including um alcoholic beverages and whatnot being thrown in neighbors yards and just just general noise noise complaints as well due to some of the concerts and other events that had occurred on the site commissioner rockstein

I'm formulating couple things, but not ready yet.

Thank you. Miss Hartman, I do have a couple of follow-up questions. One of our attachments, I believe it's attachment number seven, is a letter from the Sacramento Sheriff's Office. Can you please walk us through the concerns that were brought by the Sheriff's Office regarding this property? or Ms. Weiss, whoever might be able to apply.

Certainly. So first of all, whenever we get a request for a temporary use permit, particularly for an outdoor event, we have a small list of departments that Planning and Environmental Review distributes to. And one of them is Sheriff. And they look at their call logs and provide us information on whether they have any concerns with us issuing the temporary use permit. In this case, based on some of the past activities and calls that occurred in non-compliance with the previous two temporary use permits, the Sheriff's Department has indicated that that for those reasons, even though they didn't receive complaint calls, as I mentioned, the majority of the complaints were going to the Board of Supervisors office. That's often something we hear. If folks want to remain anonymous, they notify through the Sheriff's office. But even without a significant list of call logs, they believed that the temporary use permit

was problematic in that they were not um historically following the conditions that were given to them understood just so um just so we're we're all on the same page the sheriff's office letter did note and i quote they found zero crime reports in their system and they did not find any calls from the neighbor citizens complaints for every activity occurring at the location And that it's more so that they're disturbed but applicants failure to give prior notification However, since there were no complaints if the department planning department do choose to move forward with granting them That they then ahead and one had enlisted a number of additional conditions For consideration correct. These are not necessarily things that they have failed to do prior to

They would be conditions that the Sheriff's Department would want added to a permit if we had approved the temporary use permit for 2026. And as I mentioned, while they didn't have calls for service, we were receiving regular communications as I believe code enforcement was from Supervisor Hume office regarding complaints they were receiving from neighbors. And while we directed folks to contact the Sheriff's Department, apparently they chose not to. Understood.

Commissioner Borja, could you say the last part of your question again? I thought I interpreted it to mean or to ask. whether these new or the conditions outlined one through four on the second page of the sheriff's letter whether those conditions were new or previously included in the temporary use permit and were followed yes can you please uh line me on that the second yeah so i'll just real quick the first condition number one notification to the communication center is actually a condition on the prior use permits that was not followed. So going back to the first page of the sheriff's letter, attachment 7, he states that he had checked a number of sources. So the two entries in the CAD system during the stated timeline, and then it goes on to talk about zero reports or initiation from the applicant. And so what they're effectively doing, at least on my read of this letter, is saying we still want the same conditions that were in the prior temporary use permits that weren't followed if, in fact, this temporary use permit is approved. Understood.

And then I'm just kind of following through the analysis and the staff report. So on April 6th, that's when the applicants did request the denial to be overturned as they believed that the property or the property owner did not authorize the unpermitted events, was unaware of additional permitting requirements, and alleged that complaints from neighbors were made in bad faith. I was just wondering, since that was part of the... the request to overturn the appeal? What, if anything, was done by staff to analyze, purport, or recognize whether there's validity or truth or any impacts to the statements that were made by the applicant on the request for appeal? What kind of investigations have we done outside of the, I believe we can all recognize that there's a bit of a history of noncompliance, but let's just maybe focus on the April 2nd request.

I'll start to answer that and then go to Wendy and others if needed. I Don't believe we took much We didn't do a lot of research based on that request from April because we had previously Communicated to the property owner that they are responsible as the property owner for what's going on on their property Whether it's permitted or not permitted. They are ultimately responsible and we informed them at the meeting in last year that Ultimately the temporary use permit rests with them as the property owner. They have the ultimate responsibility to comply with the conditions Even if it's an unpermitted event They're on the hook and so because of that prior communication and outlining the steps that are necessary to comply with the conditions we thought we had been extremely clear and

Understood thank you, and if I'm understanding correctly the enforcement follows the parcel and the property ownership not necessarily the people or persons that are hosting the event so for example if there might have been any issue So to speak it still falls within the person that applied the temporary use permit correct and in this case that's the same as the applicant and the owners if I recognize and

We also had email communications indicating, making it clear to them that they were not to operate any events until and if such time that they had a new use permit submitted. And it appears that code enforcement and others have had done some verification that they were continuing to have events.

Understood. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, our office, when we received a complaint about upcoming events, we verified Facebook posts or any other online presence to confirm that the events were being advertised and that they continued.

Understood. What other actions does code enforcement typically take if there is a perceived or investigated or, in this case, a finding that there are violations that have been made?

Thank you. Yeah, of course, our office always wants to start with education and outreach. So we did conduct six inspections. Only three of them were billed or had to be associated with them because we do want to make sure that we're all on the same page and understand what the violations are, how to come into compliance. So that would be our first step is to of course reach out establish contact even from that first inspection when we met with the property owner on site. That's what we intended to do and then once we do move to enforcement our official process is to mail out notices that include all the necessary information to know what the issues are and how to come into compliance.

Understood. Thank you. And then Sorry that I might kind of going back and forth. I'm just kind of following the thread in the staff analysis the the meeting that occurred in July 9 2025 staff report says here that the owners and their representatives indicated they understood the requirements that would ensure that the remaining approved events for the years were in compliance representatives were those their legal representatives members of their family or folks that might be giving them any legal advice to making sure they understand the contractual obligations of the use permit or how would you characterize the representatives i just want to make sure that

Sure. I believe, if my memory serves correctly, there was the two property owners, I believe their husband and wife. I could be wrong. And there was one other party who I believe they introduced as their attorney.

Okay, understood.

I think I might pause for now. I just want to clarify on the inspections. Out of the three you mentioned, was the applicant present for all three? You mentioned the first, the property owner. You mentioned the first one, yes. How about the other two?

I don't believe they were present at all three. Some of them were just monitor inspections where we were sort of doing a desk audit of monitoring the online presence and we were just documenting everything that we were finding. But each time that we went out, we, I know, at least attempted contact and I can double check on the three that We're followed by notices to confirm if somebody was present, but I know that we had pretty constant contact, even if it wasn't at the inspections. We were exchanging voicemails and live phone calls back and forth.

Is there a deliverable that comes with an inspection, meaning that, you know, here's what we find? You do an inspection, do you verbalize it, do you memorialize it in some memo or...? How do you do that once you, as a new commissioner, how do you do that on the inspections? Do you typically leave them with something in terms of here's what it is after you explain it to an owner or whomever it may be?

Got it. Yeah, there's nothing that's left in terms of a piece of paper that's left with them. We just communicate what our findings have been and then follow up with mail.

Okay.

All right. Thank you.

I have just a general process question. When you say you do inspections, do you go out and expect it when the event's going? Or do you go out after the fact and have a conversation with the applicant and or the landowner?

In terms of process, we have the ability to do both. Typically, our staff work Monday through Friday between 8 and 5, something like that. So if there's events occurring outside of that, we can coordinate or facilitate an inspector going out during the time of the event. But typically, our inspections occur during the daytime.

So the inspections dealing with this particular issue, was there any face-to-face inspections during events, or were they all paper reviews?

They were inspections face-to-face. I don't believe any were during the event.

So they were after the fact or prior to the fact?

That sounds right.

And during these inspections that you're having, you're explaining to them what they should be doing versus what you hear they're doing? Because you're obviously not there watching what they're doing, so you're actually responding to what you hear what they're doing.

I guess yes, but it's I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question.

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm used to an inspection. That means it's a face-to-face on-site during an event. Not look at Facebook, see if there's any comments about it, and then do a phone conversation or a letter back and forth saying, based on what we see on Facebook, you're outside your use permit. I mean, if you were doing an inspection, let's use brick and mortar store, you guys go out and do inspections on brick and mortar stores face-to-face when they're acting and when they're working. And if there's violations or issues, you talk to them about how to fix them or you cite them. I know that firsthand. So what I'm asking you is, were those inspections you talked about with this applicant and landowner, those type of inspections, or were they more of a paper inspection where you had a complaint so you looked Was there any calls to the sheriff's department? What was on Facebook? Calls to the supervisor's office. And based on that, you made your evaluation. Is that the way you did those inspections?

It's both. It's both, yeah.

But on this land, you didn't go out during an event and see what was going on, right?

We did go out.

Whenever an event was going?

And sometimes, you know, our office or the different offices represented here were made aware of events happening after they had happened. But we have, like was mentioned, sources from the Sheriff's Department, from business licensing, our office in code enforcement, from planning, from the board's office, and everything was consistent with what was happening. And when we spoke to the property owner, they... They also were not denying that those events took place. They agreed that the events took place.

I'm just trying to determine whether it's an actual face-to-face inspection during an event or if it's just a paper review. And it sounded to me that on this particular issue, it was a paper review, usually after the fact, right?

No, we were present. Our officers responded to the property and spoke face to face with the property owner and communicated the conditions that were on the permit and what violations were taking place and how to come into compliance.

I understand that. I think he's asking if anyone from code enforcement was there during an event.

Understood. As I stated, we were not, I believe, I can double check.

It's okay. If you weren't there, it's not the end of the whole proceeding. I understand.

I'm trying to answer the question accurately. I can double check to make sure. As I understand it, we were there at the property, but not during while an event was occurring.

Thank you. That's kind of what I wanted to know. Thank you.

But if I may, just a... Maybe a point of at least clarification for me, but there were events that were taking place that were not scheduled or as otherwise on the permit, right? So had you a plan to attend every event that was listed on the permit for person, you would have missed some number of events because there were activities that were occurring outside of the regular scheduled permit.

That's correct.

All right, thank you.

just a couple more questions if you guys don't mind and really appreciate your due diligence on these things just read through attachment six and attachment five which are for the record the letters received from Carolyn Massingale community prosecutor within Sacramento County District Attorney's Office in our research looking at what the community prosecution office do part of that is looking at public nuisance I think one of the letters attachment may be a public nuisance now just kind of elucidate me here or Educate me here. I'm not too sure are there or they're being charged when any Crimes misdemeanors. Is there any other pending legal action that's being stamped from the DA's office at this time?

As of, based on my knowledge, as of right now, there is not, from a criminal perspective, obviously the letter is, like you said, pretty strong language. It talks about the public nuisance being a misdemeanor crime. I'm not aware of any charges being filed. I think we were trying to resolve this. Again, this is the May, or excuse me, 2025 letter that refers to scheduling another meeting later in... the year, which the second meeting property owners did not show up to.

Understood. Thank you, Director Smith. Then kind of just overarching, going back to the attachment number two, which is the actual letter sent to Chris Trapp, who is the applicant, which also included the property owner. It's titled Denial Temporary Use Permit Control Number PLNP 202600035. I'm looking at this document. This is essentially the rules of engagement in which the planning staff is looking at the boundaries with which they have the ability to either deny or not accept a renewal of a temporary use permit. In this case, you have eloquently put that, one, you violated prior temporary use permits, there's an open code enforcement case, there's sheriff concerns, and there are neighbor concerns. now sounds to me that those are four pretty strong valid points that are kind of a black and white so to speak like this is just you either not have these things on your record then we approve you or if you have these things therefore by our rules we cannot We cannot provide you with a renewal of the temporary use permit. Am I understanding that correctly, sir? Yes, that is correct. Okay, so we're not really litigating, potentially, or not litigating, but questioning ethically the validity, the legal aspect of the actions that happened. It's more so just looking at, okay, there's a contract in which they have agreed upon, which is the temporary use permit. but because of the reasons that I've laid out below, we cannot move forward because they have failed to meet or at least get the actions. And if I understand correctly to Director Smith, we would not need to have any ongoing legal action by both the sheriff's office and or the DA's office in order to not invalidate but deny as long as all these other requirements were failed to have been met that you the planning director have to bounce for denial based on the ordinances and the rules that we have as a county that is correct also okay understood um No, any other questions? Okay. We'd like to, I think that concludes our questions for staff. We'd like to request or offer the opportunity for the applicant or any members or opportunities for the applicant first, and then we will be taking public comments afterwards. Then go back to deliberation.

And I will go ahead and administer an oath for anyone who will be addressing the commission. Please raise your right hand. And the appropriate response is I do. Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give to this board is the truth? So help you God. If you do not swear, do you so affirm? Thank you.

Good evening.

myself as the new guy that is helping the person that was actually helping him before like you guys mentioned earlier an attorney no he was actually a friend that was helping him out unfortunately he's no longer here because the lack of doing his work so now I'm here I'm the one that is helping Mr. Davila with the new permit how did this happen I hired Chris the one that is on the application to fill out the forms because I lack a lot of that time to do all this stuff so I hired him with the permission of Mr. Davila to be able to file for that application for this year. Myself I've been involved in horse racing for the last 30 plus years also I'm involved in real estate so I'm coming familiar with a little bit of loss here and there regarding the horse racing and regarding the real estate aspect of it. Mr. Davila has asked me to help him out due to the issues that he's been facing lately with what the planning review has been saying. He doesn't deny any of the work that they're saying. Basically, they're truthful and all that stuff. The only thing that I wanted to bring up to you guys is that, first, he was given that you know the permit last couple years which that's one of the parts that is done in the past one at this time well I'm here to try to appeal for that why it's not this why it should be this time And one of the things that was brought up was the sheriff's department, that he's supposed to call and let them know about the event taking place. He actually mentioned to me, this is in Spanish because his language, he lacks English a lot, so he's the one asking me to talk to you guys right now, so that's the reason I'm here talking to you guys. So they called the sheriff's department, And when they call the sheriff's department, we tell them that they're too busy to handle that. So that's what happened when they were calling, when the events were taking place by the sheriff's department. There's a sheriff by the name of Salvador Robles, which I got his business card right here. He was the one helping him out. He's the one that was giving him guidance a little bit more about what to do, how to take approaches to what's happening at the events. So he was the one that basically was helping him out a little more when these events were taking place. Why would I ask for the appeal to be on his favor? first of all before he lacked experience he had no knowledge of what was happening what happens during an event and actually he wasn't explaining a lot of this stuff to him so um for you know as you could tell him his wife is right here in the front his son is also here in the front They came here because they want support. They're here because they're a family that they've been involved in horse racing since they were kids. So this is kind of like a side thing for them. And their main thing that they do is a restaurant. As restaurant owners, they currently are running a franchise, a family-run franchise. And I'm saying this so you can know. the type of people they are to this community or the community they go to. They opened already over 18 places where they brought over 250 jobs to different communities. So they're not trying to harm any community that they go to. So what's happening right now is just a lack of understanding. That's what happened in the last couple of years. The person that was with them, there's a couple of times that they took initiative to do events that he was not aware of. He was given violations, he was given the time to basically to, he was fined for this violations, which he did pay for those violations, knowing as the owner who's responsible to whatever happens in that property. Even though he lacked the knowledge that those events were going to take place, he still paid for those fines. So that being said, it's not like this gentleman was trying to do something wrong to the community or anything like that. It's just that unfortunately what happened is that he was not aware of what was going on and how to take the process that goes along with it. Now, fortunately, hopefully it's not too late, it all depends to you guys, is that now he has someone that's going to help him. Now he knows that someone's going to know, goes by the laws, that as a real estate agent, we know that we're liable for all the stuff that we do. So we know the laws that we have to follow. So now I know what the laws are to be followed now at this premises, if allowed by you guys to have that new temporary permit for the following year. What I could say more about this incident is that unfortunately, a lot of the meetings that he was saying to me while we were on the side is like, he was not present. And the last meeting, I guess they mentioned earlier that he was asked for a meeting that he didn't show up. He told me, him and his wife, they were not aware of it. That's what they mentioned to me. So that's another thing. And this gentleman that helped him out, he's been gone for the last three months. So ever since that new application was done, I've been the one that's been in charge of that. So if there's any questions that you guys have or you have for Mr. Davila, please, I welcome those.

Thank you, sir. Any questions for the applicant?

Just a few. So is he the property owner or the applicant for the use permit?

He's the owner and she's the owner. The applicant was done by Chris Pratt.

I filled out all the paperwork.

Okay. So he's the one responsible for whatever events occur on his property. That's what I'm trying to get to?

Correct.

You're saying over this last year and all these issues brought up by other groups, the complaints and stuff, he wasn't aware of those complaints, but not issues aware, meaning what we're talking about, the county has done. I'm talking about the complaints of the community and the issues with the sheriff's department. You're saying he wasn't aware of those? well with the sheriff department there was no no violations no nothing that was you know given to him on it so there's nothing by the sheriff that was given to him that is my that's my knowledge so the letter here from the da's office on may 25th or excuse may 28 2025 where they talk about he could be committing a misdemeanor and a public nuisance um He wasn't made aware of this?

He attended that meeting.

Okay.

But like I say, the lack of English with the gentleman that went to the meeting, he was explaining a lot of the stuff, but not completely detailed what exactly was happening during those meetings.

So you're saying the individual who was trying to interpret for him wasn't doing an adequate job?

Correct.

And then the subsequent meetings that are referenced in this other DA letter, are you saying he wasn't aware of those?

The last meeting that was said that he was supposed to show that it was a no-show, he was not aware of it.

So who had conversations with county staff about all these issues that have come up and their investigation was that with The interpreter or with him?

I'll ask that question to him. The gentleman that was in charge.

And was he present during these conversations?

Some of them he wasn't, so no.

So this individual who was acting on his behalf, he was there some of the times, he wasn't there other times?

Mr. Davila was there and sometimes yes and sometimes no.

Okay. And county staff has talked about that they've made him very aware of what the requirements are. Is he aware of the requirements as he stands here before us now?

Actually, we were asked to have a business license, but that business license was declined because due to the fact that there is outstanding violations on the property That's the reason was denied So he's attempting to look now that like I said mentioned to you earlier that no we know what has to be done We take an approach to it to do it But now is it's a denial after now because of the fact that we've been denied the temporary Permit for this So you're you're saying the previous to use permits he had he never had a business license to operate those two permits He didn't

And you said earlier that him and his family have opened up and run some restaurants and stuff of that nature in the community, right? Correct, sir. So does he understand he's supposed to have business licenses for those businesses as well?

The reason why for him it was different because it's more like a training facility. He currently owns over 20-some horses, which are stalls right there at the property that we're talking about. So he currently has a trainer there at the facility, but he was not aware that a business license needs to be done for this. So he thought that it was just... I own the property. I run the business. And matter of fact, he had Pedro, the one that was helping him out, pretty much running the show for him.

Well, I guess my point being, you said earlier he has several restaurants out there. He employs a lot of people. And I would hope that he obviously knows he needs business licenses to do that kind of event, right?

Well, that's the reason, now that he found that, that he had to do it, that's the reason that we applied for the announcement when it was denied. And also about, I know there was mention earlier about food at the premises. There's a trailer that has, you know, tags and everything that's legally, you know, approved by the county of Sacramento. That was the one that was serving the food.

So it was a food truck or a food trailer?

It was a food trailer, I'm sorry. Okay.

Yeah, okay, and that was registered with the county?

Yes, sir.

Through the health department?

Yes, sir.

I don't have anything right now. Anything further, maybe later? Good evening.

Yes, thank you.

Good evening, sir. Good evening. I think I'm kind of piecing some of this together, but...

Gentleman is the is the land owner, but am I kind of getting this correct that he's not the operator of these events Actually, he was there for one of the events because he requires him to be there for the events But there was multiple instances where he was not there because of the fact that the other Gentleman that was helping him out was running the taking care of that You know was taking a bet pretty much taking advantage of him doing this events

Okay, so we potentially have events taking place without his knowledge. Correct. Okay.

And he said they weren't big, but, you know, still they were taking place.

If you could maybe kind of help me understand, because... I haven't been out to the property and I don't own horses or race them. But if you could maybe help me understand kind of like what's the kind of the goal or kind of purpose of what they were initially trying to like accomplish with these activities? I mean, is this a weekly horse race? Is this a... once a month horse show, give me some color on that.

Pretty much that's what it is. It's just he has currently a racetrack there where he trains the horses, and basically where they time him. They time him, and he's got a couple of colts that he's preparing to go to tracks in Southern California, Los Alamitos. I don't know if you guys are familiar with that. But they pretty much have him there where they'll train him to see if they're going to be good enough. to be able to ship them down to the tracks and compete for good purses.

Sure, but at some point people are coming out to watch this. They're eating at the food trucks. So is this a... Daily, weekly, monthly?

It's more kind of like an event. There's times that they're testing their horses just to see what type of velocity. Sometimes you test horses, they're fast at the beginning, and then you test the horses when they're fast at the end so that way you kind of give yourself an idea. The speed of a horse, how the horse reacts... And if it's going to be good enough to be able to beat some times to be competitive at the racetracks.

Yeah, thank you. I understand that part. I guess what I'm trying to understand is, you know, what was the intended frequency of these events? Because it sounds like, well, it did. You know, those number of events exceeded the, you know, kind of permitted scope of the race. The conditional use permit here or the special use permit. So what was the intended? What was the intended?

frequency of these As you could tell there was ten dates that were asked for the year and those ten times pretty much It's just family friends invite, you know people that you know, or you know knowledgeable about horse racing and all that sometimes you just want to know what's what's out there yourself and other people around the around, especially the leap close to where you have your horses. So for him, it was kind of like having that property once in a while, have an event, kind of like invite people to come and look at it, just, you know, show them what they got there.

Okay. And, you know, how many people are we really talking about? And it's followed to that is, you know, it seems to be some, at least complaints of, you know, parking and blocking roadways. So, I mean, how many people can this property kind of like realistically.

The property consists of about 30 acres. So there's plenty of space for, for parking. However, there's times that you don't, you know, you don't, you advertise and you don't know what you're going to have coming in. But right now he has to the point where like, you know, he just wants to have it more limited, more like people that, They're there for the horses. They're there just for the kind of family and friends, kind of close relatives. Let's say an example, his family consists of about 50 people. So just imagine if they're going to have an event, just himself, his family, about 30, 40 people just come to the meeting to watch his races. So I asked him about that, because I need to know what I'm getting myself into. And we talked about it, and we said, Max, we're talking about maybe 200 people coming into these events.

Well, I guess in my head there's a little bit of a distinction between inviting some people and a y'all come event. YOU KNOW, I'VE CREATED FLYERS, I'VE GOT ADVERTISING, AND I HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SHOW UP. I MEAN, THOSE ARE VERY DIFFERENT EVENTS IN TERMS OF LIKE WHAT AND HOW TO MANAGE AND THOSE POTENTIAL IMPACTS. SO ARE WE ASKING FOR, YOU KNOW, 200 PEOPLE? ARE WE ASKING FOR 50 PEOPLE? CAN YOU PARK 200 PEOPLE ON THE PROPERTY?

Well, we're sure asking around, you know, anywhere from 80 to 200 people. Like I say, depending on the location, that's when, you know, you'll have a lot of big turnout or short turnout. and sometimes people come from another city that they want to test their horses and try to see what they have also that come from a deer madera and they come from different areas are close to the sacramento region that they'll come and they'll test them right there on the on his track so that's where that's where it's like hard for me to tell you it's going to be only 80 or 100 but we have agreed that it's for sure it's not going to be more than 200 people that's a fact

Well, I'm not sure how you know that if you're just advertising.

See, with me, it was no advertising. The gentleman that was doing all this, that was helping him out, he was the one doing everything. So for me, I'm the one in charge of doing all that. So for me, it's not permitting that, and I'm not going to do that myself. So that's how I could say that there will be no more than 200 people.

All right, thank you.

So I guess for me, thank you. For me, and thank you for being here. For me, it's the intent. And so, number one, the intent sounds like it was for the purpose of testing horses. But yet, as you acknowledged in one of your sentences, it was racing. And then... regardless of who coordinated it, it was on the property owner's property, on a small road, and run by the person who's no longer, who hasn't been around for three months, correct?

Correct.

Okay. Essentially what Commissioner Devlin asked was, was there advertising? Because it would change things. If you're doing kind of an informal test of a horse versus advertising, it could be construed that this is not so much an official race, but more advertised out there to bring additional folks in to watch, correct?

Well, I bring myself back a little bit. It seems like I'm giving that impression it's just all racing and racing and racing. No, it's also some of that. Some of that riding horses. I don't know if you guys are familiar with charreadas. Those are like Mexico traditional rodeo type of things where their families come and they're just having a good time with the families riding the horses, having their daughters. like myself. In the past, I had my daughter join one of those teams where they're just, you know, instead of being outside doing crazy stuff or not being busy, we keep them doing traditional stuff that reflects our culture. So that's what we try to do. That's what they're trying to do as well there, too.

So it's twofold. It's really kind of informal riding and then racing. Correct. Was that the original intent of the use permit for that purpose, or was that explained originally, that this is the purpose we're requesting this use permit?

Well, like I said, the gentleman that was here before, he could have said something to you. But I'm here now saying to you that what it is is more of like a training facility. It's a training facility. That's what he wants to have there. And during the training facilities, when there's gatherings, being able to have a permit for those occasions. And that's why it's limited.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Yes, sir. For staff.

Actually, would you like to maybe save that question afterwards and then allow any other questions to the applicant at this time?

Actually, I just have kind of a follow-up for the applicant. Basically, you're saying that the individual who was helping him operate this process Basically didn't give him any information or limited information as to what he was really doing limited correct sir and with the language barrier Are you saying now that the applicant knows what the requirements are because be honest with you you're saying it you're talking about somebody else who was doing the same thing and He's standing there not saying anything. So I'm kind of concerned that because of the language barrier, what happens if you leave in three months and he's back in the same boat with doing what he was doing before? He runs businesses, so he's got to be able to have some kind of a way to communicate. can I translate that to him? To be honest with you, we need to hear from him. You have to get... It's a wife.

Yes. She's far away. She's more involved in the restaurant business, but that's her husband.

Madam Clerk, do we need to swear it?

One moment. Let me get my... Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the statements that you're about to make to this board or the truth still help you God? And if you do not swear, do you so affirm?

I do.

Thank you.

Okay. So basically, I'm mostly involved in the restaurants. This is something, you know... that we do at times when we're stressed out, keeping this as a family event as well. I speak English. When it comes down to paperwork and all these things, it gets me really nervous, so I try not to get involved. So then that's why we hired them to help us out. But I mean, from here on, I mean, the meeting they had said on April, we weren't aware of it. So I don't know how exactly did they get ahold of us about that meeting. So, I mean, like you said, I speak English, but when it gets down to these paperwork, I get really nervous about it. And yes, we do have businesses and we do know we have to have business license, but for this, since it was just like a permit event, we weren't aware that we were supposed to get a business license.

Okay, so basically you you are doing the translation for him.

No not for this No Just for the businesses, but like I said when it comes down to this For the restaurant. I'm where evolving it because we've been doing since 2008 So I'm just mainly involved there this he hires someone else to get it done, and I do own the property as well, okay?

All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. I could have him I

I know you asked me a question, and I'm going to translate that to him so that way he's aware of it and he can answer that to you.

Can I say something else now that you said if he's gone within three months now, I'm starting to get more involved So definitely I'll keep track of everything if we get approved and make sure everything is done correctly Thank you Any other questions to the applicant Thank you very much for your time.

Okay, we're gonna go back to Questions to staff? Are there any other public comments?

And we have not received any public comments for this item.

Thank you. Thank you for the reminder, Council Burke. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Chair Devlin, do you have questions for the staff?

Help me understand, I guess the delineation line between having my family over to go ride a horse or barbecue. And when we need a special event permit,

Certainly. So I would say that most of us, when we are having family and friends over, we don't charge ticket prices, we don't advertise broadly through different social media venues, things of that nature. is one key difference. Their current Facebook page has a number of events that have historically been advertised on there with ticket sales, including things that were beyond what we originally anticipated were going to occur on the site. But the biggest thing is, I think for the most part, when people are having friends and family over, it is not something that you purchase tickets for.

All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Verga.

Just so we're clear, when you met with the applicant, did you feel comfortable that he was understanding what you were trying to tell him his responsibilities were?

When we met on July, what day was it? July 9th, I believe. It was in July of 2025. Both he and his wife were there. His wife spoke quite a bit. There was also a gentleman named Pedro, I believe. Rodriguez, who they're referring to as the person who's no longer with them. They all seem to speak and understand what the requirements were. His wife is also, I believe, listed as the nonprofit who is sponsoring... the temporary use permits in the prior approvals. That's one of the requirements we have, is that they have to be under sponsorship of a nonprofit. And we have listed El Frenito II as the nonprofit. So we had a pretty strong comfort, I think, both Todd and I, that they did understand what the minimum requirements were between the three of them.

Okay. And the actual individual applicant, you felt comfortable he, like just a minute ago, you felt comfortable he was being guided accurately?

As I believe was mentioned earlier by Todd Smith, is we made it very clear that ultimately the property owner is responsible for ensuring they understand what's happening on the property. And I believe when we met with the DA's office, they all very clearly understood that it was their responsibility as the property owner and as the nonprofit to ensure that the conditions were met.

And you believe they understood the conditions, right?

At that time, yes. At least two of them very well.

All right. Thank you.

Are there questions for staff? I think I just have a couple questions procedurally and just to try to understand. So we have an open compliance enforcement case now here. What's the mechanism for that to conclude or is that just open in perpetuity?

yes so to come into compliance they would need to obtain either the temporary use permit or go through the formal entitlement process for a use permit for non-temporary activities so it would run with the land so that would be the type of entitlement that would be brought before the planning commission to have so the public noticing and then the formal vote Yes, so there are two ways to come into compliance, which is to obtain either the temporary use permit or the permanent use permit. And then also when those permits are issued, continuing compliance with the conditions of approval on whatever permit they do obtain.

Okay, so two options.

There's actually a third, I'm sorry. The third option would be the temporary use permit is not issued. They choose not to proceed with a permanent conditional use permit for outdoor recreation and don't have any special events going on on the property. They could still use the property for a commercial stable as long as they obtain their business license for a commercial stable, but they would not be allowed to have any events that would close the code enforcement case and then as long as we didn't receive any complaints of events occurring the code enforcement code enforcement case would remain closed

Okay. Thank you. That's what, like you, it's like, how does it end? If we pull the denial, how does it end?

Yeah. Basically, they would need to stop having events would be the one mechanism, but they would still be allowed to have their commercial stable and training, just no events.

Which is what is currently being allowed to be used in the land. That is their current entitlement.

They don't actually have an entitlement for that. It's a use in our agricultural zones that is permitted so long as they obtain their business license for that use.

But they're being held up with a business license due to this enforcement case.

Yeah, so for a business license, there's kind of two parts to approving it. One is a recommendation from planning that the use is compliant with the zone that it's located in, as well as there are no open building or code violations. I think the part that you're getting tripped up of is that we did recommend denial because of this hearing. We did include in the denial letter that pending the result of this hearing that the business license could be reopened and then approved so they wouldn't have to reapply. So should you grant the appeal and then we issue the temporary use permit? we would then approve the business license for the horse stable but as long or if you deny the appeal and then they stop operating the events the code enforcement case closed and then we can also approve the business recommend approval of the business license and planning is just a recommendation and then the business licensing um within the department of finance does make the formal determination of whether to approve or deny the business license understood and just kind of point of procedure there will not be any prejudice

if whatever decision this body is to make on the decision that will impact their business license, correct? Correct. So I don't want to say the slate's being cleaned because obviously we have paper trail and there's history behind it. But I also, I do believe there's an opportunity for them to follow or at least be good characters and for the county to not hopefully stifle For needle is actually little breaks. So we don't want to be the for needle in this opportunity if they want to actually comply So am I understanding that regardless of the decision that the business license?

Again, there's a bit of an order there So there's two aspects to their business license. One is their current commercial stable and training Business so so correct regardless of what happens with the temporary use permit appeal tonight is that could move forward, it would be conditioned to make it clear that no events are permitted as part of that business license. And so, yeah, so it would not affect them from being able to operate that business. And it also wouldn't prevent them at some point in the future if they decided to submit the larger application form for the permanent outdoor recreational facility that Regina had mentioned. That requires a use permit to the Board of Supervisors, I believe, right? Because it's an event center, an equestrian center. And so it would go to the Planning Commission as a recommendation and then onto the board. It would be similar to, I think we have Brookside Equestrian Facility and a couple others where they're doing kind of a combination of facilities of activities and events center with their agricultural operations.

Just a minor point of clarification, but the difference between the temporary use permit that this has operated under for the last two years and the permanent use permit is the limitation on number of events. The temporary use permit is limited to up to 10 per year, which is It is what it is. It's what the zoning code allows. The permanent use permit may or may not have limitations on it depending on the public process.

the other restriction is is that under the temporary use permit they have to have a non-profit that's sponsoring the event they would be able to just operate it as a yes it's kind of a commercial event center and equestrian facility under the permanent one so yeah so there's there's more restrictions on the temporary because it is supposed to be for limited term operations and then also If they are having events that are deemed music festivals, which we have had a few complaints about, those would fall under a different ordinance. And so those types are the types of things that could be addressed under the more permanent type of outdoor recreation facility that can't be addressed under the temporary use permit.

Thank you, Ms. Harmon. Mr. Trapp, I see you raising your hand. I just want to confer with counsel, what is the process here? The applicant, I think, would like to have a follow-up comment. I mean, have they already exhausted their speaking?

No, they should. They should be allowed to come back up. I think after you have your discussion with staff, they should be able to come back up and respond to any of that. I see your hand going up. I also am raising my hand because I think we want to address the scope of what the action is, and this is also going to require... some more information from staff. So what was denied was an application for a temporary use permit. I believe that was for a certain number of dates in the current calendar year. So if you were to grant the appeal what will be left so that we're halfway into 2026 does that mean that they'd have a permit for 10 more events during this calendar year or what what's left and what they're what they applied for I think that's relevant information.

So if the BZA was to overturn staff's decision and grant the temporary use permit, they would basically have a couple options. They could go off of just the dates that were already listed in the 2026 calendar year or could direct staff to work with the applicant on 10 days, 10 event dates for the remainder of the year.

Understood. So yeah, oh yeah, so just my question is pretty basic in terms of a of a license and The license potentially being a trainer, you know a training facility, you know, and then with horses Yes with training there is galloping and so forth as part of that training. Is it very? prescriptive in terms of what the lights under the license as far as if there's any conditions placed on it or Elaborate further on that

Yes, so with many of our business license, we'll make references to different portions of our zoning code that may have requirements on how they're allowed to operate for stables. We do have some criteria that we typically reference regarding on-site maintenance of those facilities for vector control, dust, things of that nature. We also typically condition those types of uses for no events. And so that way, when we do have writing academies and things of that nature, they typically, if they do want to have recitals or a few special events throughout the year, they do come through and get temporary use permits for those.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Council Burke? Sorry, you had a follow-up?

Right. I was just going to say, for due process reasons, yes, the appellant should be able to come back up if we're finished with the... This is... The last round of questions for staff. You can still do some more, but if we're done asking questions. Understood.

Okay. Any other questions for staff at this point? I just want it to be very perfectly clear. We've... Does the county have a mechanism for us to translate these documents and or provide an avenue for a translator if requested by the applicant? Was that ever provided to them? Was that an option that was given or at least had an option to provide public documents in Spanish? Was that something that was afforded to them?

I don't believe they ever made such a request to us. We do have some ability to provide translation services. It's not uncommon when folks come to our public counter or things of that nature for us to provide verbal translation. Some of our brochures and things of that nature are translated. As far as permits and entitlements, historically, no.

Understood. But if I understand it correctly, this is... They've had one in 2024 calendar year. They've had one in 2025. So ignorance of the process may not necessarily be the case because this would be the third year in which they're going to be requesting this. And this is the time where staff is, you know, denied. Okay, and then just out of curiosity, what might be the typical timeline process for them to be able to go from here? Let's just say regardless of the decision that happens here, or let's just say that assuming that their appeal is denied. Right. So if the appeal was denied and right now that they are unable. So we're effectively the Sacramento County is not allowing them to have a temporary use permit. There is a scenario that said that one, you can pursue the business license that way within limited scope. And then there's conditions that they would need to kind of abide by. The second one is having a more permanent change to the allowable use or Something didn't matter. I apologize that I'm butchering your explanation, Director Smith. That would essentially allow them to still be able to hold these types of events, but more in a permanent fixture and not necessarily limited to just 10 times per calendar year. But that would require an actual, not necessarily zoning change, but a separate application, for example.

It would be for a conditional use permit.

Okay, so a typical conditional use permit in which the county already has a mechanism because like you stated, Ms. Hartman, there are several equestrian centers that may or may already have similar types of events like this in the future. So this is something that the planning department is well equipped to at least advise, understand, or at least inform and educate. Conditional use permit can range for a few months depending on the process.

This one would require Board of Supervisors approval. An environmental document would probably be looked at. We would need more information from them on the types of events that they wanted to have on a more permanent basis, the size of events. So typical processing times that we've had on similar types of requests is usually about 10 to 12 months from complete application being Received and so it's not from when they submit it's from when we deem it deem it complete We have all the technical studies ready and and what have you so a lot of it will depend on the type of information They submit to us the quickest path forward using kind of your scenario where the BZA upholds staff recommendation and does not overturn the denial of the temporary use permit would be for us to work with code enforcement, close that action, and allow them to proceed with the business license strictly for the boarding and training facility. And while that was going on, then they could work towards what other avenue they wanted to for events if they wanted to go with the conditional use permit route, since it would probably take them some time to pull together the application and have that processed.

Understood. OK. Mr. Chairman, just one quick follow-up. If we uphold the appeal of the temporary use permit, is that decision property lifelong they can never come back and try to get a temporary use from it is this like one and you're done do you want to go bill otherwise it is in our code for this year I mean I

Yeah, it's one year from the date of action that they can apply for it. There's a section in Chapter 6 of our zoning code. I don't have it exactly in front of me, but in Chapter 6 of our zoning code, when a permit has been denied or revoked, you have the opportunity to reapply one year later for the exact same type of permit. So we've had that happen with short-term rentals before where they've had to wait a year.

And is that one year from the date of denial?

I would need to confirm with our county council, but I believe it would be one year from tonight's action since it was appealed. Otherwise, it would have been one year from when our denial letter took place. So it's going to be one of those two, depending on the read of the code, since I don't have it directly in front of me.

So it's either April or June. But they come back later on and re-submit and try to make sure that they're in compliance with all the requirements. Year after today.

Correct. And I would caution in those cases, we would be verifying that during that one-year time period, they were not continuing to have any illegal or unapproved events or activities on their site because that would also be grounds for... Susquent denial. Correct.

But the case would be technically closed if we were to uphold the BZA. And you mentioned that there would not be any prejudice. So I'm trying to figure out whether or not they would be starting as a brand new slate. I just don't want inadvertently... put them in an inadvertent cycle with which they're kind of driving a behavior.

I understand compliance, but... Yeah, so if... Let's just use tonight as an example since we have to look into it. So, they apply a year from tonight, and during the past 12 months, they did not have any events. we would have no reason then to assume that they wouldn't necessarily comply as long as we could meet all our other findings but if during this 12-month period they continued to have regular events then that would be an indicator to us that they hadn't really learned from the past denial and are going to continue to be an entity that is going to struggle operating in compliance with any conditions since does does that kind of make sense we have a situation on another property where they have historically operated without permits and we've we've used that as grounds for for denial so we want to see a record from them that they they understand and we're not holding events understood if i understand correctly though that trigger would be an application in the future

X amount of months from now in which you would be using the resources at your disposal to look at the prior months, not necessarily resources right now that you would have, because regardless of the action right now, you would just be looking at a kind of a few months backwards, right? Because you're going to be kind of creating evidence based on research. Correct.

Correct. So if they applied in a year from now, we would get the application. We would distribute it out to our various departments like the sheriff and code enforcement. And that's when you would do the due diligence. And then at that point in time, they would let us know, hey, we've had a number of calls on this one. Or no, hey, it's been really quiet. And yeah.

understood so your due diligence was triggered by a future application in which you take a look back for the 12 or so months past with which they are supposed to be be in the behavior with which they are being compliant to establish the history okay on a clean slate

So really, in my, I've kind of jotted it down, there's really kind of a number of ways they could go about this. One is, should this temporary use permit be denied, they can go back and obtain a business license to operate a commercial stable. That's number one. Second one, they could still need to obtain a business license during that period of time, but also eventually apply for a commercial use permit if they want to make it more on a permanent basis. Three is the scenario of still business license a year from now apply for a temporary use permit or for do you always have to have do nothing for is do not you know the applicant does nothing you know and but and is and is in compliance with the zoning requirements is that correct those are all the scenarios okay all right okay any other further questions staff before we invite the applicant back to the podium

Applicant team, the floor is yours if you'd like to address the commission at this time. I think he's been sworn in, right? You want me to do the swear in?

Do you swear or affirm that the statements you're about to make to this board are the truth, so help you God? And if you do not swear, do you so affirm?

I do.

Thank you.

My name is Chris Trapp. I have been in the permit acquisition business, I guess you could call it, for 15 years. Have yet to lose one, about 1,000. done many conditional use permits. That's actually why I was reached out to. They wanted to go from a temporary annoyance of continuously reapplying and going through it and reapplying. They wanted to get it put into the deed as an allowance for what that parcel could, activities could occur. I originally had started down that road Then I found out that they had temporaries, so I reached out in that direction because I figured it'd be quicker. You already went two, should blow right through and get a third one. Then I found out there was issues. So kind of threw a pothole in it, but my original intention was for a conditional use permit. So they are in that frame of mind as well. They want a more permanent, less cyclic event of application and this kind of fun stuff. So they have the right intention to make it a complying, accommodating, more permanent activity out there. So I just don't think that was being brought about or anybody really even know. I think I might have talked to Regina, is it? Way back when, and she had mentioned stay with the temp. So figured temp could go while we're applying for the conditional use permit. So go transition from temporary right into permanent because it takes 10 months, I guess. It's a longer period to pursue that more permanent. So kind of threw the timing all off on trying to pursue that since we're struggling with the temporary. So I just want to let you guys know that I've done a lot of this stuff. So I was trying to bring that experience forward. There was all kinds of stuff that was being brought up that was out of my scope. I'm not a litigator, so. But anyway, I just wanted you guys to know they were trying to get the more permanent pursuit of completeness for the parcel. So that's all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

Also earlier you asked, you know, if you were to grant the permit, we get additional dates for 10 times. because of the way that the horses train and the way that the horses are, usually you tend to do every three weeks or so for the horses, you know, to give them rest time and everything. So it will be almost impossible to be able to gain all those dates already lost in the last few months that passed. So all I can say is if you guys were to grant that permit just give me the opportunity to show you guys the next couple of events, you know, take it as, you know, someone coming new and trying to do the right thing for us and just be able to take that into account that, you know, someone new, someone that knows what he's doing, someone that just never had any issues with that. And, um, that I'll be bringing this up in the future if something happens. Of course, we're going to do it next year again. Then you have the basis that that's it. You know, you guys didn't do it the right with someone that knows what he's doing. Then we're not granting it no more. So I'm just asking, you know, just take that into account that someone new is coming into the grounds and that he will. Just whatever left dates are. There's probably like four dates left on the calendar year. They're left. And why not a tryout for me, for the family?

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I think that concludes our comments here. I was just going to be opening up for, and we did confirm that there are no other public comments.

We have not received any additional comments.

I think let's go back to deliberation.

If I could just maybe ask one quick question of staff. It won't require a rebuttal. I think this is pretty yes or no. Are they, is there, with this application, I know with other events that are larger in scale, people are required to provide a parking plan, a security plan. Any of that associated with this type of event?

Not with the prior two use permits. We were primarily under the impression that it was supposed to be for showcasing the dancing horses and some horse racing exhibition. Since then, there have been indications that they're also doing rodeos, concerts, and things like that that may be having a larger number of folks and activities, and we probably would have conditioned the temporary use permits differently in those cases.

Not a problem vice chair Devlin any other questions for staff or any deliberations any thoughts feedback or entertain a motion Well, okay, let's um If we could get either deliberate or have a straw poll because I want to have a sense of how you're gonna vote So you're gonna need to adopt findings We're gonna need to see You know, the way it breaks down with floor review. So if we could do that. And then I've got some draft findings here, depending on which way you go. So we need to talk about what you do with those.

So you want to kick off deliberation? Yeah, let's kick off.

But I'd like to ask a question about the findings. Council's telling us we have to make some findings.

I think that's going to be dependent upon the outcome.

Well, he kind of indicated either way, right?

Right. For any decision that you make, you have to adopt written findings explaining why you made the decision. So if you grant the appeal and allow them another, whatever it is, six or ten dates to have these events, then you want to have findings to say why. And if you're going to deny the appeal and not allow them to have any more dates this calendar year, you have to adopt written findings to explain why. Okay, and you've already worked on some of that language both ways Not both ways, but either way we're gonna have to we had to scribble some down if necessary But I want to see you know which way you're gonna go and we'll figure it out Thank you Okay, have any of the fellow commissioners who would like to provide their thoughts and feedback as we deliberate here to volunteer first I

I have three sets of eyes looking at me.

You don't have to go first. No, that's fine, Mr. Vice Chair.

No, I think there's, one, it's acknowledged based on the agenda packet and going through the chronology that obviously there's a breakdown in communication, there's a breakdown in the process, there's a breakdown leading to a cause of violations. And thank you to staff for for going through the Documenting all those and that's obviously that's a concern of mine but also a second concern of mine is is the communication and understanding the process of what's involved so that kind of led into my scribbling of the four my four workflow processes in that I we talked about earlier and and really you know one it might give an opportunity for the applicant to be at fully educated on this so that you know in the event we say no and And we deny the appeal, but there's a mechanism here. It's not shutting the door. And that's what I'm trying to look at, is not shutting the door, but allow a showing of good faith, whether it's long-term, I'm talking a year at most, or if the other if the body contends yes we should put it on a temporary use basis but only have it for x number of events and not maybe the full maximum and make that and make that uh you know conditioned on that you know so that to me that my consideration is around an education process communication compliance with the conditions set forth so there aren't any code enforcement violations or perceived code enforcement violations. There's also, you have to remember, you do have residents, even though it's zoned agriculture, it's AR20, there are residents there and it's a small street. So those things all have to be factored into this. I'd like this business to continue. But I also want to make sure that the community is considered. And then secondly, that there aren't any violations moving forward. So that's how I start.

I guess for me, I'm torn. I mean, I think I share a lot of the same concerns you know if the applicant didn't understand it I mean that certainly I don't want language barriers to come in front of what sounds like you know really interesting and potentially fun activity however it's clearly becoming problematic with the community and the neighborhood and the neighbors um You know, maybe the long-term solution to this is a conditional use permit. However, if that item was before me right now, I'd probably have some real difficulty granting kind of what would amount to like a blank check of like potential events. You know, this seems to me like this is a good area for, you know, kind of walk before you run. You know, if this CUP was in front of us, you know, I'd love to see it. two, three years of a history of performance on a temporary use permit that was not problematic and didn't have code violations, but that is not where we are at. The other thing I'm struggling with is while there are certainly language barriers hiding behind your agent of going low. Well, that was somebody else who did it. Um, I struggle with, I struggle with that because that really gives us no one to hold accountable for, um, what has, I think kind of clearly become some problematic behaviors within the community. And so, you know, just saying, well, that was somebody else. Um, You know, I don't want to close the door on this entirely because it sounds like it could be something very, you know, I think at some point, you know, interesting and beneficial to the community. But I just don't know if it's there right now. And so certainly if, you know, the appeal is to or activities were to be permitted going forward this year, I don't. Certainly don't think I could support anywhere near 10 events. That just seems like a very big number. I think the other kind of thing that I'm kind of missing here is kind of like the overall plan for this. Here's what we're going to have. 200 people, and here's our plan of how to park it, and here's our plan for having security. I mean, I've seen more robust plans for smaller events, and I think that that's, I think in some ways, kind of like the missing piece that would maybe make me feel better of granting some number of events of like, look, here's how we're going to change this. Here's what has changed. And right now it's like, well, we're just going to do it differently. We've got somebody else running it, and I don't know... if that necessarily is enough of an assurance of that these problems won't be replicated. Yeah, this is a tough one for me. I do appreciate and am sympathetic to the language barriers, but it's clearly become an issue. Problem with the neighborhood, not the language barrier.

So, you know, if you're talking about a straw poll, I'm kind of on the same concept to what you just heard with the two previous commissioners. I don't want to shut down a family event in an event center. or a future possibility to make it something good for them. At the same time, I don't think that there shouldn't be some kind of a consequence. to what has appeared to be at least two years of stuff that has gone awry, and regardless of who was there acting as the intermediary with the property owner, it's still the property owner's decision and responsibility. I'm not quite sure process-wise whether our denial or granting this appeal, say if we were to grant this appeal, and we grant it and put restrictions,

on it? Yeah, it sounds like there's some, you know, some of you maybe are on the fence, but you can't change the entitlement, but you can grant, you can impose conditions. So if you're worried about things like parking or total attendance, I think the last permit said max 300, but then the number we discussed earlier was 200. If you want to discuss number of events or dates, things like that yeah you can attach conditions i mean i don't get a big protest from from staff but yeah in my opinion yes you can condition the temporary permit as part of granting the appeal so i i am on the fence in terms of i don't i want to support staff they did a good job and there are the violations there were the issues

At the same time, I don't want to totally shut down this family's ability to do this thing. So I'm looking more in the realm, I'd be willing to do more in the realm of granting it with restrictions. But I'm not stuck on that response, Mr. Chairman. So it's kind of one of those things that You may be the one that have to craft this.

Mr. Chair, could I ask a question of Bill? Yeah, please. For our council, what are the... Maybe this is for Todd also, but what is the clock that we're kind of operating under this current appeal? If it's on the agenda today, if it was on the agenda... I mean, is there a timeline in which, like, the appeal expires or that decision is made by default?

Well, my, okay, along those lines, I might not be answering your question directly or understanding it directly, but my concerns are if you guys end up 2-2, Um, that's not an action and how we handle that. I'd much prefer to see, you know, you need a majority of three to take any action. And if we need to have a full, a full board of zoning appeals, that's going to require a future meeting. So that's been running through my head right now. Um, the other aspect of that that occurred to me is how long, if you were to grant the appeal, thus allowing, um, six months of a certain number of outdoor events, how long it takes them to get the business license for that? Because I think that's a condition of this temporary use permit. So is that automatic or is that a whole nother process? Does that take them another two months or three? I don't know. Those are the time kind of considerations that I'm aware of right now. So, I mean, maybe staff can speak to that in terms of the business license, if that happens quickly, or is this all a moot point? Would it take them six months to get a business license?

New business licenses are typically processed within 45 days from receipt of complete application and payment.

45 days or four to five days?

45.

Okay, so another month and a half.

I would, I mean, going back to my initial comments about being not so much torn, but trying to find a solution here. to one, as Commissioner Verga indicated, some consequences, but secondly, looking at, okay, not trying to eradicate a family-owned business. I think we could look at potentially looking at conditions in terms of, and I have co-chaired, I've chaired events for 500 people downtown where I have had a parking plan had to submit downtown sacramento partnership work with the police meet with the city over and over and over and that was for 500 people and I did one for 2000 back in 2010 on capitol mall it was much more exponential with that in terms of written deliverables. So that's not what I'm necessarily saying. I do believe that there has to be some type of communication plan and outreach. I do believe, in this case, maybe a parking plan, how security is going to be handled. I would potentially be looking at, in terms of where it grants the... the appeal, condition of maybe, along with a business license and also what the sheriff indicated in the letter, you know, maybe three events for the rest of the year.

Three, four events, not ten.

To demonstrate, you know, for the applicant to demonstrate good faith. with that and if they' re looking to do a longer term conditional use permit then that' s correct. I appreciate what code enforcement pointed out because there has to be some regardless of a language barrier there has to be some accountability for this process and if there are any let' s say code enforcement' s that are there that could be subject to me revocation potentially. So some food for thought on this.

So I think for me where I'm, I think, settling is if either, you know, deny this appeal and they would have 12 months to kind of come back with a plan of what these events might look like as they apply for a new special use permit. the other, I guess, kind of question in my head, which where I was going with my prior question of, so if this item was continued for six months and they were to return with a plan, you know, that was why I was asking if like, is a decision made by default if

Well, if we're talking about six months, the application that was denied was an application for events during 2026. And so it's moot in six months. They would apply for a 2027 temporary or a normal CUP.

However, but their clock would start one year. So their clock upon denial would begin in July.

So I want to clarify on that one year piece. We looked up the zoning code. It actually says the planning director, except on approval of the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors, shall not accept any application for variance, conditional use permit or special development permit for a period of one year following the denial or revocation of any such permit for the same premises. So that clause except upon the approval of the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors is important. And maybe this is an interesting wrinkle, though. You're acting tonight as the Board of Zoning Appeals, but you're the members of the Planning Commission. Does that create any... challenge there.

I think what I heard, I wish I had it right in front of me, I don't, I think what I heard was that the Planning Commission or the Board can allow an approval within one year. That is correct. So they can apply, so thank you. I think I heard Todd's nodding too. So if you, so hypothetically, if the Board of Zoning Appeals denies the appeal right now, the owner and applicants could apply for a use permit or a temporary use permit. Well, no, because the temporary wouldn't go to the planning commission or the board. A CUP that runs with the land would go to the board, it sounds like, with a recommendation from planning commission. They could get that going right away, but they're still looking at the same... We're going to have a similar kind of hearing, I would expect. The same issues the non-compliance the you know, their defenses that kind of stuff that that would all be re-heard but yet that appears to be the situation so in terms of a temporary if you deny the appeal then It's another 12 months with this exception I The thing is, yeah, I mean...

But how do you make that exception if the application doesn't come before us?

But it wouldn't come to the... It doesn't come to us. It goes to the ZA, right, for a temporary use permit?

So what...

Yes. So...

shortened the time period from one year to a shorter time period to reapply.

This is not the Planning Commission here right now. And they can't change the zoning code. And it's not agendized. And a temporary use permit wouldn't go to the Planning Commission anyway, right? It would go into PCA.

No, but this is saying that the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors could lessen the... the amount of time from 12 months. The planning director can't accept an application for that site within 12 months, except as...

I read this as if the planning commission or the board had jurisdiction over the entitlement.

Okay, that's where we were wondering if there was any wiggle room for them to allow for them to submit sooner.

So no. So what does that mean? So denial of the appeal means they have to wait 12 months for a temporary use permit. But they could come in right away for a normal use permit.

Additional use permit. Conditional use right? Yeah.

Yeah, they don't have to or you Grant the appeal with conditions and you limit the number of events and you limit the number of people and you require a parking plan You can delegate some of that if you have a standard to the staff On what would be what would qualify as a satisfactory parking plan?

Is there is there any other I Language in the code that might grant us the authority to permit their appeal in shorter than one year? I know that's kind of what you're looking at.

Well, that's what Ms. Hartman was asking, and I don't read it that way.

I don't think so.

So, Mr. Chairman, hearing all this, I've kind of come down on the side that I want to grant their appeal with conditions that we set. That's where I'm at after all this. That's where I'm at now. You know, there's got to be a consequence. But I just don't want to shut it all the way down. And staff has done an admirable job trying to help us get through this process. But just because you're talking about a straw pro, that's where I'm at. Granite with conditions.

As I indicated, I'm the same way.

Number of individuals, maximum number, parking plan, outreach plan, road, you know, ingress, egress out of the area, and then also, of course, with a business license as well as following, adhering to the conditions set forth by the Sheriff's Department.

You know, I don't think I'd necessarily be opposed to that. However, you know, I think I'd need all that in front of me. I think the, you know, some of the violations are just too significant, which is why I was, you know, kind of alluding to like this matter could be continued to, you know, some point later in the year.

I don't want to kick that hand down the road it you can I mean yes you if the question is can you continue this yes you can be good if I may now maybe share a couple a couple couple of thoughts here and I appreciate all my fellow commissioners and staff for the hard work and making this I think that we need to go back to really what we're being asked and Consider what would be potentially precedence casing and recognize not just a history I don't think that we're dealing with essentially negative actors I don't think so at all and with all the considerations that we brought up whether it's the language whether it's the turnover staff whether it's the impacts to the community my one question to the team is if we were to allow them to do this and essentially overturn the decision of the denial, are we then hampering their ability to, and I quote, that their representatives have mentioned this, that the opportunity is there nor the intent to make sure that this would be a more permanent change. And so things that you all have mentioned, compliance, plans, studies, more things to hold them accountable. These are things that are going to be put in an overall packet on a CUP. That's kind of where my conflict is rising. Because these are the things that, as one of the representatives had mentioned, person's batting over 1,000%. I don't even know if that's possible. But that seems to me, from the evidence presented to us, that they have now hired somebody who would be able to, and again, quoting what they had presented to this body, allow them to transition to a more permanent use with which case and the staff have already as well recognized that there will not be any prejudice because this would be wiping the slate clean and that they're going to be looking at it as a case-by-case basis and not necessarily what is being opened hamper their opportunity to actually get to a longer term and not just a cyclical way, with which case they could potentially have a much better opportunities for their communities as well as their family members. And so that is my concern right now. If you were to ask me, I am inclining to uphold the denial with the notion that this would help them transition over to the CUP and we've essentially provided as the same body a few months from now who would be looking at the CUP and looking at the evidence that's being presented by staff that this is not just a good faith effort of them being good characters addressing the compliance issues but they would also be providing the information that we then would be expecting as part of that CUP. I think that they have every ample opportunity to be able to be good actors, and I do believe that they're going to be compliant. However, like I said, I'm not a big believer that we're disregarding the ignorance of the law because they've had every opportunity. This is their third year of having to do this, right? There are also other agencies in our county that have been involved in this, not just business license, not just the sheriff's department. not just the DOT, which I failed to mention, but also the DA, right? And so we have to be able to, as a body, recognize that it's not just the planning department that's considering all of these, that we are trying to be good agents for our citizens of our county. to hopefully not just follow the rules, because we would expect every business to also follow the rules, but also make sure that they have ample opportunity to do the right thing in the shortest time possible. So that is essentially my concern. I'm leaning towards, or at least my feedback, I'm leaning towards denying the appeal right now, knowing in full good faith that this body and the staff here would give every ample opportunity of providing them technical resources language and culturally available resources that will allow them every explanation. Now, we're not going to be providing them legal advice. We have to make sure that we treat all of our applicants fairly and equitably by what's expected of us by the letter of the law. But if there are opportunities, let's say, from the local chambers, the business education resource center like FERC, or there are opportunities that's going to be afforded for them now that they also have retained potential not just counsel, but somebody with a real estate background and somebody that who's also applied for and have submitted over 15 years of applications. Now I am led to believe that they are equipped with a team that can help them transition from this and essentially not just wipe the slate clean, but an opportunity for them to bring forth a stronger application when they are ready for the conditional use permit. So I will pause there. I am intending to move the item and follow the staff recommendation with the full faith knowing that I think our staff would be able to support them when they're ready for their conditional use permit in the near future.

Second that.

Sorry.

That was pretty fast. So now you're 2-2.

Um, no, I didn't, I didn't say that I was throwing out. Oh, you're okay. You guys are tentative. Okay. It was 10 for the record. It's very tentative.

Okay. So let me just, so, okay. So there's a motion in a second now to deny the appeal. Um, okay.

So we've gone beyond this. We've gone beyond the straw poll now.

Right, now we're going to have to take a vote unless there's a withdrawal of a motion, but you don't have to do that. I just want to say you need to adopt findings. The findings I drafted were based on the staff report, so they are findings that support a denial of the appeal. It's a page and a half. It's a draft. You can do anything you want with it. You can modify it. You can add to it. You can take away. I don't know how the floor you're going to vote yet, but I'm going to pass these out right now just so you can look at it because that would have to be part of the motion to deny the appeal, thereby upholding the ZA's denial of the application. Oh, thanks. I'm going to hang on to one. Todd has one.

I have to just tell you, I understand the process. It's just I have a hard time with denying something and having a reasoning handed to me.

Right. That's why you can delete anything you want. This is a suggestion. But you need to have something in writing. Correct. An administrative appeal hearing. You've got to adopt written findings. Do we need to read these into the record? No. So I've submitted a copy to the clerk. Now, however you may revise it, you need to read that into the record.

So this would be just become, if we agreed to how it's written, it would become part of the record?

Yes. And what you've got is, I summarize the staff report. That's really all it is.

Just a question to the staff. Again, if we were to adopt these findings, my understanding in this, again, will be part and not just the only conclusive evidence with which you guys are going to be looking at should they resubmit or submit a CUP in the future. It would just be a fabric of many things that you would consider, including but not limited to potentially no other violations in the future willingness to follow with all the rules and procedures and willingness to provide with all of the other documentations that a regular CUP would require.

Commissioner Borja, I do want to comment on some of the terminology. You said wipe the slate clean a couple of times. I don't think that's necessarily true here. I mean, a vote by this board to deny the appeal, that's the main action that whoever's going to see an application for a use permit later, they're going to say, well, the Board of Zoning Appeals denied this appeal for their temporary use permit. So take that however you want, but that's going to be part of the record. Okay.

And just so you know, just to be completely open and standing, I've been in this situation, and a denial is hard to overcome. When you're going forward for something else. Not that you can't overcome it. It's just hard to overcome. And the more detailed the denial, the more difficult the hill is. Not that I don't agree with maybe that's what we're going to do. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying, you know, you keep talking about they'll have an opportunity. Yes, they will. But they'll be at the base of the mountain. And it will look like Mount Everest to him to get through the process, just so you know. Regardless of the gentleman who says he's done it before, it's an arduous thing for the applicant who has limited knowledge of government to do. It just is. So I just wanted to make sure I was out front with that.

Right. But am I right to understand, though, my understanding is that just having a finding like this does not automatically mean that their CUP would be denied, right?

That is correct. So I have had some experience where acting as the zoning administrator, I have denied applications. Time has passed. The person has reapplied. In the history of that site, it will list any prior activities, good, bad, or otherwise. That does not necessarily prejudice staff on their recommendation. the hearing body has the discretion to take that information in its entirety in making the decision. But I would say staff has had experiences before where we know there's a past history, but we still will look at the findings and what has occurred since then in making our recommendation.

I think in terms of just reading through this, the one sentence that I'm a little The evidence is, I mean, just the last sentence. That's the one where if somebody six months from now is reading this and has no visibility into this, which everyone, assuming that... the motion to grant another temporary c.o.p. That' s concerning to me. Grant another temporary c.o.p. Because the scope of this motion back to council is we are either up or down on granting the appeal.

that could be modified by deleting the whole

application for a temporary cup you know however you want to do it could we sorry i'm just thinking out loud here absent this middle and acceptance of an approved plan that clearly addresses past concerns as identified during the prior hearing body prior hearings What I'm hoping that any application for a temporary event that comes back at any time or a conditional use permit, whether it be the CUP or another temporary in 12 months from now, is going to include a much more detailed plan of how we're going to park this. What is our plan for security? How are we not going to be a nuisance? Any request, in my opinion, moving forward should include a plan to not be a nuisance. Well, you're not taking action on that future application. Yeah.

You could include language to the effect that your action is not intended to be prejudicial to a future application, whether it be temporary or for a permanent CUP.

I like that language. I think that, from my standpoint, that's what I want to make sure that that's addressed, that this is hopefully a short-term action. Yeah, the decision is short term, but it could be longer term for, you know, in 2027 and beyond.

I'd like to strike the last sentence and include the sentence that Council Burke had just, I'm sorry, eloquently put together. I apologize.

We should reach service right out and it's clear. So you're talking about eliminating the last sentence of the last paragraph in the second page?

Yes, sir. That's correct. Based on item number four, and then insert the non-prejudicial language.

And we're asking counsel to write language that says it's not presidential to another.

Yes, sir. Correct. I think he just.

I'm doing. That's what I'm doing. Yes.

Yes.

Okay, I got that. It deleted the final sentence of the draft findings and added a sentence to the effect that this decision is not intended to be prejudicial to any future application for a temporary CUP or a permanent CUP. Understood. So the motion and second need to concur on the changes to the findings.

Yeah, I would concur with that change. I concur with that change as well.

I think I' m seeing a nodding head so I think you' re going to have a clean looks like you may have a clean vote on this or enough to not put us in the

for the deliberation if I could speak to the motion yes so you know to me it's this is why this is why I'm here you know it's to look at and deliberate on what is best not just for the applicant but also in the county's interest and having the ability to not shut the door is i think in the best interest of the applicant and also provide some time to work out those those issues as well and it does not at all preclude longer term of getting a conditional use permit to operate this more on it more than just on ten dates or nine dates that it is but it does allow for the ability to take the opportunities that are at that facility to a different level potentially I Just have a general question as part of our our denial can we shorten the length of time that they have to appeal instead of a year I

Well, it's not an appeal. Versions of that question have been asked. Where I am right now is that the use permit, a permanent use permit, they can come in and apply tomorrow. At any point? I'm talking about the temporary. Temporary is at all months would apply.

And we could, as a result of this, we couldn't put in there six months and they can reapply?

No. Okay. We're not changing ordinance.

Okay. That's what I was wanting to know.

Just want to make sure if the motion is still Motion still stands if you could restate it to include adopting the findings and just restate it to make sure we're all on the same page Okay, I make a motion to Sorry, I had it in my head now.

I'm trying to pull the staff report Make a motion to deny the applicants appeal I And declare that the findings that we have here or include the findings that we'd have here with the edits that were made and discussed Okay, so that upholds the denial of the application by the zoning administrator that's just to be clear I

And that item passes with the deny to uphold the zoning administrator's denial of this appeal.

Thank you. I think that concludes our first item. And I do believe that we were able to complete the planning director's report. Madam Clerk, can you please read item number three?

And item number three is miscellaneous scheduling items. The only thing that I have that will be upcoming is SB 707 will take effect at our July 13th meeting, which will allow us or we will be accepting public speakers via Zoom. So and I will have more information and give more direction on what that will look like for us.

Understood. Thank you very much do we can we move on to item number four, please and Item number four is public comments and we have not received any additional public comments. Okay. Thank you any other comments or feedback from the rest of the commissioners Hearing none. I'm on the close of the meeting at 7 45 p.m Thank you. Have a good evening and happy belated Father's Day. Thank you