Good evening, everyone.

Thank you so much for your patience.

Really appreciate it.

Hope you are having a wonderful Monday evening.

We are now ready to call our February 9, 2026 County Planning Commission meeting into order.

Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll?

Absolutely.

Members Corona Savignano?

Here.

Members Virgo.

Here.

And members Borja?

Here.

And with those members present, we do have a quorum.

Thank you.

Would you please stand up and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge for allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands.

One nation undervisible, Madam Clerk, can you please read us the meeting announcement?

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 a 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 followed.

Email a comment to Board Clerk at SACCounty.gov.

Mail a comment to 700 H Street, suite 2450, Sacramento, California, 95814.

And that concludes the announcement.

Thank you, ma'am.

Can we go ahead and please call item number one?

Item number one is PLMP 2023-00290, bar none auctions.

This is a general plan amendment, county amend county plan amendment, rezone, use permit, special development permit, and a design review.

The property is located at 6190 Bradshaw Road in the Vineyard Community, and the environmental document is a mitigated negative declaration.

Looking at my fellow commissioners here in the dice.

Seeing none, I think we'll be passing the item for presentation at this time.

The applicant is present if you'd like.

Thank you.

I will now like to ask the applicant if you would like to uh proceed to the podium and make any public comments.

I'm John Buckle here on behalf of Barnon Auction.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Thank you for having a quorum.

I appreciate it.

Um I'm here to answer any questions you have.

I think staff has done a great job of pulling this together.

As you saw, it was kind of a laundry list of uh things that we were asking for and uh keeping us on track and keeping all the various departments working together was uh no small feat.

Uh Emma, thank you very much.

Um, and uh I'm here to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, sir.

Looking at folks in the dice, do we have any questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

Don't have any questions at this time.

Okay, thank you.

Madam Clerk, are there any public comments for this item?

Yes, we have received public comment for this item.

And if I may, for any members of the public who will be speaking on any of the items, can you please stand to be administered an oath?

And that's for items one through three.

Please raise your right hand and the appropriate responses I do.

Do you swear 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.

And then when you do come up to the podium, please state your name for the record and the statement I have been sworn.

Yes, please scratch that.

That was the public commenter who we had signed up.

I thought he was the commenter, but he was the applicant.

Understood.

Okay.

Seeing that we don't have any um public comments at its item.

I do want to turn it back to the diet.

Um, are there any commissioners who would like to provide any comments or feedback?

I would like to entertain a motion.

I will make a motion to approve staff recommendation.

I second the motion.

All right.

We have a motion from Commissioner Corona Sabignano and a second from Commissioner Verga.

And we are now voting for this item.

And with those members present, that item does pass with all members voting yes.

Thank you.

Okay, Madam Clerk, let's move on to item number two.

I have no item number two is PLMP 2025-00010 quick quack car wash at 6717 Fair Oaks Boulevard.

This is a use permit, a special development permit, and a design review.

As I stated, the property is located located at 6717 Fair Oaks Boulevard in the Carmichael community, and the environmental document is exempt.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Irving Huerta, associate planner and project manager for the Quick Quack Car Wash at uh 6717 Fair Oaks Boulevard.

Oh, looks like the presentation's up here.

Perfect.

I'll go ahead and uh kick us off with a short presentation of the project.

Uh location and setting.

So the project site, as denoted in that yellow rectangle over here on the right, is located over at 6717 Fair Oaks Boulevard, approximately uh just northwest of the corner of Angelina Avenue and Fair Oaks Boulevard in the Carmichael community.

Uh the project site uh is currently vacant, no structures um at this time, but it is paved uh as an empty parking lot, as well as with some landscaping planters.

Moving on to community context, so the uh project site is located within the Fair Oaks Main Street Special Planning Area, and it's located within the Main Street District sub-area of the SPA.

Surrounding land uses uh includes an auto repair shop over to the north, commercial and retail uses over to the south and east, as well as uh existing multifamily apartments over to the west.

Moving on to site and entitlement history.

So, according to county records, there are no records of prior planning entitlements associated with the project site.

However, aerial imagery does indicate that the site was uh developed in this instance into the current parking lot sometime between 1973 and 1985.

Additionally, staff has reviewed uh recent code enforcement violations and has concluded that there are no active cases.

The entitlement request uh that's being brought forth uh this evening for consideration uh is composed of a use permit, and that is to allow for a drive-thru car wash on a.9 acre lot within the Fair Oaks Main Street special planning area.

It also includes a special development permit, and that is to allow for the proposed project to deviate from the following development standard.

That is the landscape setback between drive-through lane and right of way.

The request also includes a design review to determine substantial compliance with the Sacramento County countywide design guidelines.

These next couple of slides, we're gonna go over uh real brief uh over the project exhibits um associated with this entitlement request as depicted over here on your screen.

Uh we are looking at the site plan.

So again, this is an overview of the proposed site plan.

Uh access wise, we'll talk a little bit about that.

So the um car wash building is gonna be located right here, but essentially um patrons are gonna be able to enter the site along the uh Fair Oaks Boulevard uh frontage over here within this uh existing entranceway.

Um essentially, you're gonna have your dual lanes right here for queuing for the cars in order to enter the car wash building.

And then right over here, exit the car wash tunnel itself.

And then you're going to have your vacuum area right here.

That vacuum area is going to be composed of 17 vacuum stalls.

That's also going to have two parking stalls for staff parking.

And then we do have two existing cross-access entrances over here to the parcel over here just south of the site.

They do have currently common ownership.

So that's just one thing to point out.

Some additional items, we do have the vacuum equipment enclosure and canopy structures as well.

They're going to be located right over here in the vacuum area.

That vacuum canopy stall is going to be situated right over here, as well as with the proposed trash enclosure.

Moving on to the floor plan, so this is just a floor plan overview of the proposed building.

So again, that's going to be the one that's going to be housing the car wash tunnel itself.

The building size itself is going to be approximately 3,600 square feet.

Of those 3600 square feet, just under 2500 square feet is going to be dedicated to the car wash tunnel area.

So again, this is where your cars are essentially going to enter, get washed, and dried.

And so this is it located right here along this area.

The remaining area of the building, which is located right over here on the northern part, that's going to be composed of equipment rooms, storage rooms, restrooms, as well as the office rooms for the proposed use.

So right over here, this is going to be the entrance over here located along the western side.

And then our exit is going to be located over here on the eastern side, facing over here towards Fairwich Boulevard.

These next two slides are depictions of the proposed building elevations for that car wash tunnel building.

So as you can see right here, this one depicts the building facing north and south.

Meanwhile, this uh depicts over here the uh east and west sides of the buildings.

So again, those would be uh where the entrances and exits are located.

The uh building in height-wise is gonna be just under 30 feet in height, and as you can see, the uh color theme that we have going on is pretty typical for car wash uh car quickwack car washes.

Uh again, green, yellow, gray uh colorways for the most part.

And while it's not shown right here in these elevations, um we do have some quick quack signage that's gonna be proposed around the building.

Um, you can kind of see right here, they're gonna have some uh quick quack signage right here as well as over here, and pretty much just around the uh building.

This slide right here depicts the proposed landscape plan.

So uh we do have uh extensive new landscaping that's gonna be proposed uh pretty much throughout the project site, uh, particularly along the property lines of the property and around the car wash tunnel, and then uh as well as the car wash tunnel exit area, and then along the street frontage along Farroaks Boulevard.

Trees are gonna be proposed uh in the landscaping planters along the property lines as well as the street frontage with evergreen trees located along the western uh property line.

Again, that's gonna be the one adjacent to the multi-family residential.

And then we also do have some evergreens as well, uh proposed over here along the northern uh property line.

Also, want to point out, might not be uh shown, but there is some notes right here on the landscape plan.

Uh, there is uh as well a proposed seven-foot-tall masonry screening wall located along the uh what would be the western property line right here, and again, that would be uh adjacent to the existing multifamily residential.

And then, according to the landscape plan, there's a note right there stating that the screening wall is gonna be covered in Vine for aesthetic purposes, and then uh coming back over here towards the uh exit of the tunnel.

We also do have a proposed uh just under three and a half feet tall screening wall.

It's gonna be composed of CMU block, and uh essentially it's gonna help screen that exit right here from the car wash tunnel.

That screening wall is also going to be covered in volume for aesthetic purposes.

Lastly, I just want to talk about the landscaping deviation uh that's being requested under the special development permit, as you can be seen right here.

So this is uh where we're looking at the deviation, and sorry that the pointer is a little off, might be that this might be interfering a little bit, but I'll try my best to explain.

So uh the requirement uh for the landscape setback between drive-through lanes and right-of-way uh is when a drive-thru lane is adjacent to public right-of-way, a minimum of 25 feet of landscaping shall be provided between the drive-through lane and right-of-way, as measured from the back of the sidewalk.

Uh, in this instance, the applicant is proposing a landscape planter.

So, again, this is this area right here, that's going to be approximately 13 feet wide.

So, moving on to advisory recommendations.

Uh, the design review advisory committee, known as the DRAC, met on November 13, 2025, and uh they do recommend that the Board of Supervisors find the project in substantial compliance with the design guidelines.

As well, the Carmichael Community Planning Advisory Council, known as the CPAC, met on November 12th, 2025, and they recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the request of entitlements as well.

Uh, that vote was a seven yes, zero no and zero absent.

Uh at the CPAC meeting, we did have uh some public comments, a total of three public comments uh in opposition to the uh proposed entitlements.

Uh pretty much the public commenters uh cited concerns with the potential for increased traffic, uh increased safety concerns regarding pedestrians, uh increased noise, over concentration of car washes, as well as uh concerns with compatibility uh regarding the proposed use with the SPA and Carmichael Plan.

Moving on to project analysis.

So the proposed project uh is consistent with the general plan, community plan, and zoning code as conditioned.

The project is compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses.

There are no significant environmental concerns.

The project was supported by the CarMecle CPAC and found consistent with the design guidelines by the DRAC.

Additionally, staff has provided uh some conditions or have conditioned the project, I should say, with the key conditions.

Um I'll go over them real brief with y'all.

Uh condition number eight is uh hours of operation, condition nine is pertaining to uh having entrance and exit uh closures, the condition number 10 is regarding compressed unit location, condition 11 is regarding the CMU wall requirements, condition 12 is regarding having signage posted uh in regards to sound amplification devices, and lastly, condition number 13 is in regards to compliance with the noise with the county's noise ordinance.

So again, these are key conditions that were added by staff uh in anticipation to uh relieve some of the concerns brought forth at the CPAC.

Moving on to staff's recommendation.

So planning and environmental review staff recommends uh that the Planning commission make the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.

That is to recognize that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA, pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15303.

Approve the use permit, subject to findings and conditions, approve the special development permit, subject to findings and conditions, and lastly, find the project in substantial compliance with the design guidelines, subject to findings and conditions.

This concludes the end of my uh presentation.

I'm available to answer any questions that you may have.

Additionally, we do have our applicant representatives in attendance as well, who are available for questions if needed.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Any questions from fellow commissioners?

I do have a couple of questions, sir.

If you can walk me through, we use 15303 as a categorical exemption.

What in the 15th three guidelines would make this exempt?

Um, there was a public comment regarding why the project did not look at potential groundwater runoff, any infiltration that could potentially affect stormwater and groundwater.

Um, can we just go on a record as to why this is exempt based on that category?

I'll defer to our environmental coordinator Julie Newton, who's in attendance.

Good evening, Julie Newton environmental coordinator.

So when we're reviewing projects for CQA purposes, the first thing we look at is if they meet criteria for an exemption.

Um under class three, this is our uh small structures class, which generally um exempts new projects that are of a certain size, which this one did in the small structure.

In reviewing the project, we do have to confirm that there are no unusual circumstances that would prompt us that would warrant further analysis, which is something that we consider when we're reviewing all of our projects.

Um issues such as uh runoff and drainage are accounted for by our drainage standards um requirements of SWIP during um construction.

We also consider things like noise, traffic, um, and we have um this applicant did submit a traffic study and a noise study in support of their application, which demonstrated that there would not be um impacts associated with the project.

So we do look holistically at those impacts when we determine that there are not any unusual circumstances, then we move forward with an exemption.

Okay, thank you.

I'm looking at the exemption here, and it says that it's typically for projects not exceeding 2500 square feet of floor area.

It's um from the staff presentation to car wash itself might be at 3,000.

I drove at the site, I think it used to be a Bank of America um uh site.

Yes, and then we're turning a section of the parking lot into a in a car wash would then be introducing like a different purpose.

It's not a parking lot anymore, right?

Now we're gonna be washing cars and potentially using.

I I don't want to assume that it's harmful chemicals, but chemicals nonetheless, right?

I did use to use QuickVAC before.

They they tend to do a really good job.

So I was just wondering why it seems like it's a very different use case from what it originally was intended, and now we're telling the public that it would be exempt.

That's where I'm I'm a little kind of loss, um, as to why we're I mean, it's over 2500 square feet.

The CQA guidelines are that they are um they're general recommendations and not necessarily um exclusive limits.

Okay, okay.

Um I'm assuming that the water that is captured from the car wash purposes would be going through sewage system or a combined stormwater system, something to that extent.

That's right.

That's yeah, that's my understanding.

Do you know if SAC sewer or regional sand required a pre-treatment?

Um, I know they did prove uh conditions of approval um for the project, um, where I believe they would uh scope that out.

Um, potentially maybe the applicant might uh know a little bit more about how uh that process uh kind of functions.

Um I know I used my first job actually out of high school was at a car wash, wasn't a quick quack, but um I know that usually when the uh was it the drying and the the washing, it all kind of drains uh into a sewage system gets treated.

Uh but specific to the site, uh, maybe perhaps our applicant might have more details on how that functions.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you so much.

Um other questions from my fellow commissioners at this time.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate the presentation.

I'd now like to ask the applicant to maybe join us at the dines, or at the podium, sorry.

Hi, my name's Don Shively.

I represent Quick Quack.

Um I'm here to uh um ask for approval of our application and answer any questions that you may have for me.

Okay.

Well, biggest question, sir that I have is um, in your opinion, how do we kind of exempt the project from having it, or do you guys have any like treatment ways?

Because there was some question about like water quality and how that could potentially impact our our sewer system.

Well, we don't use any chemicals, we use biodegradable uh soaps, and uh the processes is that we capture all of our water on site.

There's gonna be very little water that is going to be on cars, residual or truck beds that'll drive off the lot that we just can't control on that.

But we typically are able to capture over 95%, 98% of the water that we consume on there.

What happens is that is as it runs off of our um in our building, it goes into our drains and our drains filter into three large holding tanks that then filter through this process.

We then will use it for our own purpose, which we will do an osmosis system to clean it and reuse it on site for that.

Anything that we cannot reuse has already been filtered through our uh through our tanks, and it'll go back into the steward uh system.

All right, awesome.

Thank you for sharing that with me.

Um as far as like the traffic studies concerned, um, what did you guys find on your on your traffic study?

Would there be an additional impact to this specific corner or corridor?

We will not we will not add additional to it.

What we do is we capture um traffic in the area as they're going to get coffee, run to the kids to the store, uh, or to school uh that we're able to capture it at that point.

Our uh traffic engineers have worked with the uh engineering department um on a uh report that uh shows very little impact to the community.

Awesome.

Thank you, sir.

And your operating hours, what are you guys hoping to uh open and close?

Working with the staff, we know that we need to um open from 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

Got it.

Understood.

Thank you.

Um, any questions for the rest of the commissioners?

All right, thank you, sir.

Appreciate your time.

All right.

Uh moving on to Madam Clerk.

Do we have any comments from the public?

Yes, we do have one public comment.

May we invite the public commenter to the post.

Anna Gather.

Good evening.

Hello, my name is Anna Growthero.

And um I think I'm supposed to say that I take that pledge.

And um I don't have a bunch of fancy words to say.

All I have to say is that I live on Angelina Avenue.

It's adjacent to where the Bank of America is.

It's a dead end street.

I've been there since 1958, and my father and his family have been there since the 40s.

Um, it was a dead end street, and when those apartments had come at the top of the street, uh, we tried to oppose that because of what it has now caused traffic jams on because it's a curved street going up Angelina.

Um to this day, we have people speeding down the street thinking it's a throughway, or they're getting mad because it's not, and they speed back up the street.

Our eldest uh resident has been there as long as I've been live, and she's 105, and she still walks up and down that street.

My uncle is 88, he lives right right next door.

Um, there is a car wash that's less than a quarter of a mile of south of where they're speaking of putting this um quick quack.

I don't see that it's feasible to have another car wash there in Little Low Carmichael, especially right there at Angelina.

We have been impacted by the apartments um it is um detrimental to the people that live on Angelina.

We were old school people there.

We're we've been there for long years, and um just recently actually in my front yard, um the county had to come out and repair some sewage problems because there it's very old down there.

Um, the gentleman um and then tonight I believe a lot of my um neighbors haven't been here tonight because the county's actually laying asphalt on the street today.

And um, just to out of out of respect for other speakers.

If you could wrap up your comment, just because we have a time.

Um, okay.

So I just I just want to say I oppose.

I oppose.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Um might there be any other speakers to the item.

There are no other um speakers for this item.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um now we'll bring them back to the commissioners.

Um, actually, yeah.

I would bring I'd welcome the applicant back to the podium if you have any responses to any of the public comments.

Uh our traffic study has shown that we have that we'll add very little impact to Angelina.

Most of our all of our traffic will be coming in and uh right in, right out onto Fair Oaks.

Uh, and our traffic report supports that uh finding on it and uh car wash use.

We're competition out there.

We want to be able to capture our clients that are in the area.

We are a membership base model, and what uh what happens is we offer convenience to our customers that uh they're able to use our facilities at any one of our car washes.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, bring it back.

Okay, um let's move on to commissioner deliberation.

Um, any comments, questions, feedback?

Do we have a motion?

I just have a question, maybe to staff.

Do we it sounds like the problem on that street is existing and not a new problem that this um potential car wash could bring, but I'm just wondering if there's anything that we can do to look into that.

Um, or put any signage or in this business put a signage or something to say that it's not uh, it's what is it?

It's a dead end.

It's a dead end.

Commissioner Sabino, uh Todd Smith Planning Director.

I can contact our Department of Transportation uh see what they can do there.

Obviously, if there is not signage, then uh and folks are coming through expecting it to go through and getting upset as uh the commenter indicated.

That's an issue we can solve for.

Okay.

Thank you.

May and first hand a motion, or is there any commissioners that would like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to pass the item as with the staff recommendations, second, okay.

Let's go for a vote.

And that item does pass with all members present voting yes.

Thank you.

We are now ready for item number three.

Item number three is PLMP 2024-0026, crowing foul ordinance zoning code amendment, a zoning ordinance amendment, and this is countywide, and the environmental document is exempt.

Uh commissioners, before Young gets started, uh just wanted to um have a couple of opening remarks.

This is a uh zoning code amendment that you're hearing tonight.

Uh, there is an accompanying county code amendment uh that uh just for your information, county code amendments go straight to the board of supervisors.

They do not come before the planning commission just as a matter of practice.

Excuse me.

I think Young is going to provide some background on this, but the reason we're here tonight with this zoning uh code amendment is to try to address um what is from my perspective a loophole in our zoning code that does not have an upper limit on the number of uh crowing fowl or roosters in this case uh that an individual may keep on their property.

Um there are circumstances out in the county where um some members uh some residents have been adversely affected by neighbors on agres uh zoning property and some ag properties holding upwards of uh 200 uh birds, roosters in certain conditions where they're uh crowing very loudly at all hours of the day.

Uh we receive videos, pictures, etc.

Um, it is creating a nuisance issue that we don't have the enforcement tools to solve for right now.

So that's the um in a very high-level nutshell overview.

The reason we're pursuing zoning code amendment, uh, and young and wendy can um and as well as uh Chris, our ag commissioner uh can speak to any details, but just want to give you some opening remarks before we get into it.

Thank you, Todd, and good evening commissioners.

My name is Young with Planning and Environmental Review.

I do want to make a quick a quick correction that the today's date is February 9th, not 6th.

Again, as Todd had mentioned, um, I'm here with Ms.

Wendy Hartman and Miss Chris Flores, who'll be um assisting me with answering some of the questions that you may have.

I know Todd quickly went over um some of the uh background, but I'll quickly go over them as well.

Um, this is an amendment to chapters three, five, and seven of the Sacramento County Zoning Code to address keeping of crowing foul.

Um, this zoning code is part of the larger county effort to address ongoing concern.

An amendment is being uh the county code amendment is being um concurrently proposed as well.

The final decision body will be the uh Board of Supervisors, and this amendment will affect countywide.

So the county has been seeing increasing number of concerns related to the noise to public health, safety, and land use compatibility of crowing fowl.

And we had an initial outreach um to our um agriculture advisors committee and indicated that the amendment should really target the roosters rather than the entire crowing fowl species.

With that uh county has received over about 800 unique cases related to crowing fowls since beginning of 22 to July of 25.

Um, majority of this complaints were related to the noise and keeping of roosters, inhumane treatment, and cock fighting as well.

Almost all complaints uh were related to roosters with about 30 cases being about peacocks and a few other cases that just generally mentioned the foul.

Um I did provide a quick map today for you today that highlighted some of the areas that we are seeing.

Um, even though the highest number of um the concentration is in our South Sacramento and Vineyard, um, most of our cases is really um in all of our urban areas in our county.

I wanted to quickly go over our current um crowing foul ordinance.

Um, we currently define crowing foul as any rooster, peacock, goose, quaking duck, or guinea foul as crowing foul.

And our county allows um crowing foul on lots over 10,000 square feet.

It is not allowed in RD 10 through RD 40, uh RM2O mixed use and M2 zoning district.

And as Todd had mentioned, there is no limitation of number of roosters that could uh be kept.

Currently, the minor use permit is being offered to reduce a lot size only if they are part of educational program.

So through the extensive public outreach um and stakeholder meetings, planning staff um developed the following proposed amendments to the existing zoning code.

Um, this reflects the really the community input concerns and the values that we've heard from the um previous outreach that we've done.

So, majority of the amendment is on the section 393G, which pertains to the incidental agricultural accessory structure uses and or keeping of animals.

In our amendment, we are going to clarify that this ordinance only applies to small-scale non-commercial agricultural activity, and that is incidental and accessory to the primary residential use.

We are also amending and uh to include the language to say that the compliance is a complaint driven with a 30-day period to comply or register with our agriculture commissioner if applicable.

I do want to note that this was a requested change from the public reach that we've heard previously, and almost all of our ordinance, the uh compliance date really starts under date of ordinance.

However, on this case, it will be a complaint driven.

Um lastly, all of the equipment and material that has been utilized for keeping of animals will now be subject to applicable development standards, which is the setbacks.

Continuing on, we are also clarifying the general standards for um keeping of animals.

This is not a new standard.

This was nestled under uh section 346c.

Um, but for clarification, we have brought that over to the current section of the ordinance.

Uh, next that we are allowing our planning director to enforce the entirety section of section 393G.

Currently, um, our director is only limited to enforce on incidental egg laying chickens and ducks.

And lastly, the appeal of our director's determination will now be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeal, which is consistent with other um directors' determination appeals.

Continuing on, um, the keeping of rooster will continue to be permitted on a non-commercial incidental base on the lot that is currently being allowed on, which are agricultural, agricultural residential, and RD1 through RD7 zoning district.

We are proposing a minimum lot size with a rooster limit, which I will go over in the next slide.

Um I do want to emphasize that with the new ordinance, the education programs such as FFA or 4H will no longer require use permit, and they will not require to even register with the county commission agriculture commission.

The registration process will allow legitimate hobbyists, breeders, or any individual maintaining roost uh uh crowing file for legitimate use as determined by agriculture commission, will be allowed to exceed the standard rooster limits or to reduce the minimum lot size at no cost.

I do want to spend just a little bit of time going over the maximum allowed uh limitation by lot size and zoning district.

Staff is proposing two categories of the limitation.

One for the agricultural and agriculture residential and big residential lots, second being more smaller, typical small single family lots.

So for agricultural, agricultural residential and RD1, RD2, and RD3 zoning districts.

If you have 10,000 square feet to one acre, you are allowed five roosters, and if you have 20 roosters, you are allowed to have 15.

And 40 acres will allow up to 25 roosters, and if you have 40 acres or larger, that'll be up to 50 roosters.

I do want to clarify this is only the rooster limits, does not include any hens or other growing foul numbers in this.

Separately in RD4, RD5, RD7, and these are a lot of smaller residential lots.

We do have two options, but I'll first go ahead with the uh initial staff's recommendation and talk about our advisory committees um advisor recommendation as well.

So for RD4, RD5, and RD7, if you have up to one acre, you are allowed up to three roosters.

If you have one acre or larger, you are allowed up to 10 roosters, provided that you provide 10,000 square feet per one rooster.

The agriculture, our AAC did have concern on smaller lots such as um half acre or less or one acre less, that they still may have concerns.

So they are providing an option for your commission to make today to also provide either optional, which is uh 10,000 to half acre, would be only two roosters rather than three.

And for half acre to one acre would be three roosters.

With that, we are now moving to chapter five.

We have table 5.6, which is the development standards for incidental agriculture accessory structure.

We are not changing anything, which would allow up to 10 roosters just a reformatting for clarity, and um there are no changes to underlying standards on table 5.6.

Uh with 5.

Um 10 point B for incidental agriculture accessory structure.

We are now allowing for larger group sizes for bigger lots.

We have increased setbacks for neighborhood compatibility.

Um also the registration process, which is no cost, would also allow for our uh residents to deviate from these coupe sizes as well.

The standards for hog barns pens are not changing.

We are also modifying some of the definitions that's contained in chapter seven for the definitions for structures, incidental agriculture accessory, and incidental keeping of animals.

Um they are very minorly corrected to reflect uh update from the previous amendment that was already approved by the Board of Supervisors.

We are changing the definitions.

Uh, we are amending the definition of agricultural uses general.

Um we're updating the uh definition to recognize certain commercial agriculture activity where the use constitutes uh the lot's principal dedicated activity and/or uh the primary source of income for the operator.

And a new provision is added to supply that the keeping of rooster shall not be considered an agricultural use unless it is directly associated with food production or recognized breeding or exhibition program.

We are also including in the definition that the use shall not uh so it's be associated with animal fighting or other unlawful activity under agriculture use general.

Staff started the um outreach on in 2020 for December with our agriculture advisory committee.

Um, and through that uh we have also met with various internal and external stakeholders to really balance the cultural and individual needs.

Um, and some of our internal stakeholder um department includes environmental management department, our court enforcement, our agricultural, um, our ag commissioner's office, uh, animal care services, as well as the Secretary Sheriff's Department, who provided a lot of insights on some of the enforcement and um existing regulatory framework.

First wanted to share um with our agricultural advisory committee on December 11th, 2024.

This was the very initial um meeting that we went to to hear about some of the feedbacks to for the scope of our zoning code amendment.

Um our AAC members um wanted to learn about how other jurisdictions are regulating their growing fowl um or roosters.

They had a support for focusing regulation on roosters and rooster hybrids rather than the entire growing fowl species.

Uh they opposed any permits or business license requirements, had concerns about new regulation impacting legitimate operations, educational program or hobby, hobbyist breeders.

They also emphasize protecting commercial agricultural operations from unintended consequences, such as highly pathogenic avian influenza, which is still being um passed around as well.

And our agriculture commission, um, Chris may speak a little bit more about the impacts that's being currently having in our um commercial agricultural industry.

Uh with that, um uh we have started our public outreach uh from August and September.

Uh we have offered uh CPAC and Delta Simica the proposed draft zoning code amendment.

Uh we requested three uh from North Highlands Consumnus and Carmichael CPAC.

So key concerns that were raised in these CPAC were the maximum rooster allowance and the minimum lot size requirement.

Um sorry, I before I uh talk about the concerns.

I do want to note that um this the we've provided the uh August version, which was provide uh presented to you in September.

So this was the uh feedback based on our original August version.

So on the August original version, we heard the concern that the maximum rooster number when the minimum lot size was a concern.

Um there were potential cost and burden of the use permit requirement, which was including the August draft.

Um we received a lot of uh wanted a clarification on how we would handle the complaints, and as well as some noise impacts and how distinction of incidental commercial use, tethering limitations, and to consider cultural and religious consideration.

And then some and in September, Planning Commission hosted also an information workshop countywide.

Very similar concern was also received on this one regards to the rooster allowances and neighborhood compatibility as well as the use permit burden and the noise concern with the public health impacts.

We did provide information from the county code by our director of animal care services.

And I do want to note that following the workshop, staff met with additional stakeholders, including cultural organizations, to really balance to learn and balance the agricultural needs, community compatibility, and public health and safety.

And from this time to November, staff really kind of looked back to all the comments that we received and really rewrote the ordinance.

And we hosted another workshop in November to the community.

So on here, as I mentioned, and the complaint was the enforcement timing was changed to a complaint-based.

We are addressing the noise uh in the residential zone.

Um, but I do want to note that in agriculture and agriculture residential zones, the right to farm still remains.

Uh we have increased the uh maximum rooster allowance based on lot size up to 50 roosters.

Uh we have separated the RD4, RD5, RD7 allowances relative to the agricultural and agriculture residential allowances.

We have removed the use permit requirement for education program, and I do want to note that the registration process is also not required for the educational program.

And this registration process really allows any legitimate keeper of roosters to exceed the standard rooster limit as long as they uh meet the uh general standards keeping of roosters.

We did uh get some feedback on this draft from the community members.

Um we had a question whether the proposed limits uh were appropriate.

Uh we had a concern about the noise impact, whether it would be adequately addressed in residential neighborhood, which uh we are going to use our county noise ordinance.

Um that we had also requested to curb illegal activities and to recognize religious cultural uses, fruit production, um, and we also had comments just uh opposing general um opposition to any limits of roosters.

With that being said, we did get some public speakers that did acknowledge the changes between the August and November draft as well.

Um, to quickly go over some of the concerns that were raised, um, like I mentioned, the noise is being addressed through our residential zone standards.

Um, the free registration process does allow any legitimate users to exceed the standard limits without a use permit or any cost involved.

Um, egg-laying hands and commercial poultries are not affected by this amendment.

Um, this ordinance is really to aim broader public health, land use compatibility beyond the enforcement of illegal activities.

And as I mentioned, the 311 data also shows that the uh we do have um correct fall problem really all over our urbanized county area as well.

So we went back to our AAC in uh December 10th of 2025 and reintroduced the November version of the draft to our AAC members.

Um I won't go over the same uh since I just mentioned in the last slide, but I'll do talk about some of the discussion and feedback that we receive from our AAC meeting.

Um they were generally, they thought the limits that we had were generally reasonable for non-commercial situations.

Um they did have a concern that even maybe a five rooster could still create a nuisance impact, especially on parcels that are either less than an acre or half an acre, which is the reason I did provide an option for you for the table one that I talked to you about previously.

Um they supported the complaint-based and gradual compliance rather than starting, you know, the 30 days after adoption of the program.

We did receive the tethering concerns, however, that is part of the county code, and the zoning code amendment does not touch on the tethering at this time.

We did also receive public comments from the public at the AAC meeting.

We also had uh comments from the Gamefall Preservation Group and local feasture owner as well as some of the residents and former four-age leaders and participants.

Um, our uh committee emphasized um to the need for the solutions focused feedback to the staff rather than a general objections and voted 5-1 to recommend the proposed zoning code with directing county staff to continue the uh public outreach and provide planning commission with updates.

We did we did reach out to the stakeholder groups for additional comments, but at this time we have not yet received any additional comment other than what was already raised previously.

Um I want to continue on some of the analysis on the rooster um ratio and the rooster numbers that county staff has researched, uh both the other jurisdiction and the recommendation from various cooperative extensions, university, and agricultural organizations.

My apologies for the uh such a small fonts here.

Um I do want to say that the Placer County does allow 24 poultry per acre only when they are in agriculture combining zone.

Um our ordinance, the Sacramento County ordinance is the most flexible as we do allow free registration program to exceed the numbers.

Um, some of the counties just outright bans in all residential zones.

However, we still do allow uh roosters in our residential zones.

So this is the uh distinctions between the county jurisdictions.

I also have some information on the cities, city as of Sacramento, Sacramento roosters are just not allowed in many cities in residential zones.

The roosters are also not allowed as well.

And again, uh county is providing a no-cost registration process process to exceed the numbers of roosters or reduce the lot size limitation.

And we also looked at the uh rooster uh to rain uh rooster to hen ratios.

Um there were various papers, you know, looking at six or sixteen, uh, we also heard from eight to twelve, um, but we picked the middle number 10.

Um the average was one to ten rooster.

Uh roosters are generally not required for egg laying um hens, however, they do have potential benefits such as protection, increased egg production, and repopulating the flock.

Um, too many roosters could also cause a problem and also cause some stress anxiety among the henless as well.

Um, it could also provide some increased potential for infection and other illnesses if the basic management practice are not kept.

So, based on these ratios, um, based on the best management practice, uh, if you have 40 acres, you may have up to 500 hens.

And again, this number is not um looking at the uh roosters, but the hens that's allowed.

And even in RD4 through RD7, a lot of hens would be still allowed with that the rooster limit.

Again, I do want to emphasize that there will not be a limitations on hen, but just wanted to provide some of the best managed practice and how many roosters versus the hens that could be uh support.

With that being said, other than certain types of specialty breeder, staff have not received any comments specific to the adequate ratio for flock health.

We do know that if they are raising more than one breed or rare breed or rare bantam species, or if they're looking at conservations to keep the uh species alive, they do need a higher ratio.

However, other than that, we have not heard any specific numbers that works for uh uh um a lot of people.

And in conclusion, um we do believe that current limitation in the number that we are proposing, which is up to 50 at 40 acres, is more than adequate to accommodate the needs of individual household as an incidental keeping of animals.

Again, the educational program will not be subject to use permit or registration um but specialty breeder exhibitor or other legitimate purpose may exceed the number of roosters through our registration program staff uh did an in notice of exemption for the environmental review as a general rule exemption this proposed amendment only consists of regulatory changes that clarify and modify the development standard for the incidental keeping of crowing foul uh this amendment does not authorize new development uh it does not expand allowable land uses and does not facilitate physical construction activities this is limited to administrative and regulatory amendment uh that govern incidental keeping of animals and does not result in any physical change to the environment nor create any necessary sorry any reasonable foreseeable indirect physical environmental effect uh before I move on to the uh planning uh staff's recommendation um I do want to provide some of the next steps uh the next step would be the board of supervisor which we do have tentatively scheduled for March 24th uh staff is still open to uh we are still getting um open to uh any public comments that we may have so please send any comments to me or any of our staff here so with that uh planning environmental staff is recommending the planning commission make the following recommendation to the Board of Supervisor to determine the notice of exemption is adequate and complete and to approve the ordinance amending chapters three five and seven of the Sacramento County zoning code again uh Wendy and Chris is here to help me answer any questions um and I'm also here to answer any of the questions that your commission may have and that does conclude my presentation thank you thank you Mr.

Choi very thorough uh turn back to the rest of the commissioners if you have any questions for staff at this time yes thank you for that um presentation very detailed thorough can you talk a little bit about the registration process and what that's gonna look like sure um I'm going to have Chris help me with this question um but this is really intended for very simple registration um no cost um what we're going to be asking for is that what they're raising um what they're raising for so are they raising the roost for exhibition or breeding or are they doing for 4H even though it's not required um and then we'll be asking for how many roosters they have and a simple site plan of where they they'll be keeping their animals um to their property line and to any existing structures that they have um Chris do you want to add any other items um at the registration process good evening Chris Flores at Commissioner for Sack County um so we thought of the registration process as being something similar to what we've done in my department with bees so we register currently apiaries all the beehives in the county and so it's a um we would as young mentioned it would be free of charge and what I collect is like he mentioned um contact information location number of um roosters the breed maybe what they're what they're with why they have them if if there is a specific reason like um cultural reasons religious reasons um breeding specialty breeding showing um and we would ensure that they're following best management practices and that the roosters are being cared for um in accordance with our animal welfare um you know and so you know we haven't done this before it's a little new right but it I would model it after our registration process for bees so we have something to kind of um follow.

Okay.

So cultural reasons would also be yes okay okay perfect.

And then um I'm just curious about I'm looking at this diagram that was provided um I'm just curious looking at the zoning districts here.

Five roosters, 2550.

Is there a sense of the ones that are 50 plus calls or 21 to 50 calls?

What zoning districts those might be?

I don't have that details with me.

Majority of the lots were found to be over 10,000 square feet.

Okay.

Thank you.

Questions?

Commissioner.

Just a couple of follow-up, Ms.

Choi.

I feel like we haven't had a chance to really discuss like the biggest elephant in the room, which is cock fighting.

I think I'm just gonna say that straight up.

What kind of coordination and input have you received from either the sheriff or the INMR control services?

Um what kind of feedback do we have from that?

Um it's unfortunate our Lieutenant Um Greg Richard and I'm able to make it tonight.

Um, but um they did share some of the enforcement difficulty with our department during some uh many of the stakeholder meetings.

Um at this time, the sheriff cannot act on cockfighting unless they see the activity happening, even if they know the potential or if they know where it's going to happen unless they catch them in the act, um, their hands are pretty much tied.

Um at this time, um, they do suspect certain areas to um potentially hold cockfighting, but with our current ordinance, we do not have any mechanism um to assist uh Sacramento Sheriff or a code enforcement uh with the keeping of roosters as as long as they have 10,000 square feet, they're allowed to have roosters.

Um, do you have uh and Todd uh has additional comments to add?

Commissioner Boha, excellent question.

Um as uh young noted, Lieutenant Gorgic was not able to be here, but he has been engaged uh throughout this process from the very beginning at the first Ag Advisory Committee or Commission meeting, uh, as well as our director of animal care services.

She has been uh working behind the scenes with Chris Flores and others on the county code side of this.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

And if I may, we've also had several meetings with our code enforcement officers because they have assisted at times with both animal care and sheriff in some of these complaint issues that we've received.

Thank you, thank you, Ms.

Hartman.

And I'm just a general question.

I guess the lieutenant's not here, but to my memory, cock fighting is still considered a misdemeanor, right?

I know it's illegal.

I don't know whether it's a fouling or a misdemeanor.

Yeah.

If I remember correctly, it's a misdemeanor.

But that's been years ago since I remembered going through that.

Thank you, Commissioner Virgo.

Um, if we don't seem to have any questions at this time, I do welcome the um the clerk or the public to provide their comments.

And we do have seven um individuals signed up for public comment.

And the first speaker is B.

Yang.

Hello all.

My name is B Yang of JB Oriental Bantam Game Farm.

I'm a vacator for the Mong community regarding uh Bill AB928 that previously did not pass in the Senate.

The author Chris Roger requested to cancel and pull the bill on July 1st of 2025.

I previously also wrote um article uh for the Fresnel B back in June 25, 2025.

I'm also a member of the APG California Association for the Preservation of Game Fowl.

Before I start, I want to state empathetically that we are against cockfighting and we support legitimate efforts to prosecute those who engage in those types of activities.

Impeding my rights to practice my religion here in the United States and more so here in Sacramento County, is basically a violation of the oath.

You all are sitting here today and has sworn into the line of duty.

We, the Mmung community, use these roosters to see and see these roosters just as the United States, see how important the bald eagle is to them.

We cannot specify how many roosters we need because we use them to cure and to seek our ancestors to help protect our well-being.

If you can tell me how many times you are being sick, going to be sick, then maybe we can determine how many roosters we need in the Mmong community.

There are at least a minimum of 11 key factors on why roosters are important to the Mmong community.

The color of each roosters are being used for specific reasonings in our religious belief.

Keep in mind that this violation of religious rights will also impact Catholic Christians, Buddhists.

If we all allow government to impede one religious group, they'll impede upon other religious groups.

Now, this is a violation of my First Amendment right, which is a freedom of speech, press assembly, petition, and religion.

Also, violates my Fourth Amendment protection, my Fifth Amendment, my Eighth Amendment, and my 14th Amendment.

California Penal Code 602, also known as a criminal trespass statute, makes it a misdemeanor to enter or remain on someone else's property without permission.

California Constitution's Article 1, Section 1 also states that all people by nature are free to independent and have inalienable rights.

Among these are enjoyable and defending life, liberty, acquiring, possessing, protecting property, and pursuing obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Looks like my time is up, so I'll just pass along there.

I'll go and email my proceeding notes over.

Thank you, Mr.

Yang.

Next speaker is Dal Yang.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Dal Yang, uh, and I am honored to appear before you guys uh today as the president of the mall community in Sacramento here.

Um I represent nearly 50,000 uh mall residents who live in Sacramento County.

And I would like to first acknowledge and respect the board's intention behind the proposed ordinance to limit the number of um roosters within the county.

We understand that the goal is to reduce a nuisance like with noise concern and promote community harmony.

Uh, the community, the Mong community share this commitment and strive to be responsible and respectful neighbors.

However, uh I have here to uh respectfully express our serious concern that this ordinance as proposed will have significant and unintended consequences uh on the cultural, religious, and economic livelihood of the Hmong people.

Uh for the Hmong community, roosters are not mere animal race for community, but it's actually they are essential and sacred components of our religious and cultural practices.

Uh roosters are required for weddings, um, funerals, healing ceremonies, and other uh traditional rituals that have been practiced by our ancestors for thousands of years.

And uh these traditional uh these traditions are not optional.

They're actually the foundational to our identity and also spiritual beliefs.

Given the size of our community, the need for roosters to fulfill these cultural obligations is substantial.

Limiting the number of roosters and individuals may race would make it extremely difficult for um families to continue to practice their faith and traditions.

And um this would place a disproportionate um burden on our um community and effectively limit our ability to to practice or preserve our culture.

So I'm here to ask the uh uh commissioners to actually think about that as well before you guys making the decision to uh you know amend this because this is part of our culture, and we'd like to uh work with you guys to make sure that it actually works with the city.

At the same time, he also works for our community as well.

We're not here to against it, but we're here to work with you to make sure that this ordinance will come out and support the entire community uh overall.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Catherine Plummer.

Good evening.

My name is Catherine Plummer.

I have been raising and showing fancy exhibition chickens since 1988.

I oppose this ordinance, is trying to tackle noise concerns and cock fighting at once, but does not directly deal with either of those issues.

The people that it will affect mostly are the legit breeders like me.

People breeding chickens for show, usually have several different breeds and color varieties.

To maintain genetic diversity, one must have several roosters of each breed.

So that number can vary a lot over the year, anywhere from single digits to well over a hundred if you want to count the babies.

In regards to cockfighting, solutions that have been suggested are other than a cap on the number of roosters one can own, are to increase the penalty for cockfighting or to set up a tip line and a reward system.

Since currently the only way to catch a fight is in the act.

If this ordinance is indeed about noise, why not treat noise complaints as noise?

While roosters can't be told to stop crowing, the noise level can be mitigated by the way they are housed, or in select cases, perhaps by reducing the number of birds.

But I feel that this is something that should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not with an assumption that everyone with multiple roosters is causing a noise problem.

Does cockfighting need to be addressed?

Absolutely, yes.

And I support the increased prosecution of animal cruelty crimes.

Are there sometimes noise issues because of roosters?

Again, absolutely yes.

And you're going to hear from people who have legitimate concerns.

But I feel that nothing in this ordinance specifically addresses cockfighting or noise.

While the underlying premise has lots of merit, and I do appreciate the progress that has been made on this ordinance, I don't feel this version is quite ready for it to be the way to go about it.

Lastly, today is my birthday, and I'm asking you to vote no for me.

This ordinance just isn't quite there.

We need something that will target the problem without interfering with the lives and hobbies of people who are doing nothing wrong.

Thank you.

Thank you and happy birthday.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Sue Zong.

Good evening.

My name is Sue, and today I'm I'm here to represent our California Hmong Chamber of Commerce.

At the same time, I'm a proud owner of a uh retail business store, animal fee store in the Sacramento County.

I have a little uh letter here for uh you all, and if I don't have time, I'll have copies.

Okay.

Dear commissioner, we are the California Hmong Chamber of Commerce headquartered in the state of uh Capitol Region.

Our member consents of small business owners across the state and position, and the position stated here is that of our members.

We are writing on behalf of community stakeholder to express strong opposing to the proposed ordinance to keep roosters within Sacramento County.

We respectfully urge the commissions to reject or substantially revise the proposal, which raised serious constitutional concerns and proposed practical difficulties for communities whose cultures and religious practice depends on the roosters.

Under the First Amendment freedom, the Hmong community in Sacramento County, among other practice religious rituals that improves that involves roosters as part of ceremonial uh activities and ongoing observances.

An ordinance limit rooster would impose a financial burden on families seeking their uh exercise their uh sincerely held religious belief.

The count the constitution protects free exercise of religion.

Local ordinance must be religiously neutral and generally applicable.

When they are not, they are subject to strict certainty.

Court has held that laws which singles out or disproportionately affect uh religious practice, cannot stand unless they advise a compelling interest and are the latest restrictive means of doing so.

A rooster ordinance that has an effect of burdens to the Hmong religious ceremony will fail this test.

It directly implies free exercise without demonstrating that the country has adopted the latest restricted means.

Why it interferes with Ammong religious practice and culture for the Hmong community, rooster are integral for ceremony offering in daily religious expression restricting the number of roosters will intrude on these practices, effectively price pricing would pricing out families and undermining long-standing cultures and spiritual uh custom.

The ordinance is a draft, risk disproportionately impacting minorities, religious communities, raising equal protection and free exercise concern, and fostering unnecessary cultures uh divisions.

Sir, if you can wrap up so we can get the other speakers.

Thank you.

I have a copy for you guys.

Appreciate it, sir.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Vince Banakid.

Hi, my name is Vince Bonican, and uh I'm a game foul enthusiast and hobbyist, and so I raise a bunch of game foul in order to sit there and show them at shows.

Well, there's standards that you have to sit there and take when showing these birds.

I sit there and raise different fouls, different colors based on different leg colors.

Um, you'll sit there and see white roosters, red roosters, gray roosters, brass back roosters.

There's different categories for these roosters and everything like that.

And we have to raise abundance of these roosters in order for them to be flawless.

You know, when you sit there and hatch a baby and stuff like that, it's not uh you can sit there and raise it, and as it grows, if it sits there and perches on uh the roast wrong, it can develop a crooked breast, crooked toes, and the standards um when you show these birds.

If they don't follow um follow in those standards, then they're disqualified.

I sat there and showed birds at the state fair and didn't properly um dub the the combs and everything like that, meaning cutting cutting it up and cleaning it out, and so I got disqualified, and they explained to me that you had to follow these criteria in order to show the birds and not disqualified.

They also sit there and go after, like if you enter it into the wrong category, they disqualify you.

So I know they sit there and want to limit us for the the noise ordinance and everything like that, but I think you know, to me personally, they're just going, they're trying to sit there and limit us and say that we're all cockfighters that raise all these birds, which is wrong.

You know, if they want to sit there and go after the cockfighters, go after the cockfighters.

Make it if it's um, I think um Mr.

Tim sat there and said that it's a misdemeanor, then make it a felony.

You know, go after those guys.

Don't penalize me, don't sit there and say, hey, you know what, he has a hundred roosters.

He's a cockfighter.

Come on.

You know, I enjoy this.

It's my hobby and stuff like that.

It also affects people that sit, the farmers that grow the grains.

It also affects the people that uh own feed stores and everything like that.

It affects the economy.

So I mean, if they're going after the noise and everything like that, have they compared the rooster crowing to a diesel truck to an airplane to the rice rockets that go down the streets and everything like that, and the modified cars that are excessively loud.

Motor motorcycles.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

The next speaker is Robert Schmidt.

Yep.

Okay, um if you can see in the time frame on this, this video was taken this morning at 4 30 this morning.

This is in my backyard outside my bedroom.

Um I'll start the process.

Okay, good evening.

My name is Nancy Dewey.

Uh Bob is my neighbor.

Uh I live directly behind the property that has over 200 plus roosters.

Um the video that you're going to hear in a few minutes will show you the trauma we go through every day.

Uh first of all, let me start over and say, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

We're happy to know that Sacramento County is working on the crowing foul ordinance.

And um, you got it.

Okay.

Our neighbors.

Okay, he's got it now.

Well, this is over in Europe.

January 5th, 2024.

This compound is put up in less for two months.

And since then, we listened to this 24 hours a day.

Every day of the week.

There's over 200 roosters in this podcast all along the wooden fest.

There's roosters every three feet.

We cannot get away from this.

I'll try to see if I can get the other one.

Go ahead.

This is my bedroom.

This is right outside my door.

We listen to this like I say every day.

One of the things about this new code.

Religious breeders, for so, are exempt in this code.

These people have remembered for you.

For us, it's not exempt.

We have to have it with this.

And we've been fighting it.

In fact, my wife and I and Nancy are the ones who brought this up.

Brought this up over two years ago.

We brought it to the city of the planning.

Everybody else with a petition of 19 people in our neighborhood that complained about the noise.

And so we want you to vote yes on this and put the misery that we have to go through for the last two years out.

I want to finish by saying you can't begin to imagine the torment we have to listen to Crowing Fall each and every morning throughout the day and night.

We take refuge in our homes with our windows and doors closed 24-7 for over two years.

And my husband and I are in our mid-70s, we have essentially lost over two years of our lives, and we'll never get that time back.

Family no longer comes to visit us.

We no longer have gatherings with family or celebrations.

They can't handle the noise either.

And I hope and I pray that you will stop this property owner before spring or summer, this next spring or summer, before the pathogens, odors, and flies start hanging out in our backyard, clinging to my doors again, which they do every warm weather season.

Thank you.

That's all I had to say.

Out of just respect of the quorum and our process we've allocated just out of time.

If you could please give the clerk a copy of that, and then we can follow follow up with you and enter that into the record.

Thank you both Mr.

Smith and Ms.

Drew.

Madam Clerk, does that conclude our current list of speakers?

That does, yes.

That was uh we'll now bring it back to uh extra city applicant, which would be our county staff, if he guys would be uh able to join us or the comfort of the bench works too.

Um, I feel like we bet maybe I can get started.

I feel like we have a uh very clear concern of uh potentially um catching folks that may not be the intended uh may not be the intended target of this ordinance.

Uh I I do think it's it's um critical for us to make sure that we don't impede on religious and cultural rights.

Um, and with that regard, I was wondering for the staff if you could please walk us through um what in our current process or your intended process, if you could walk this through with the community members, how you would you know one maintain and ensure that we're respecting and protecting um you know cultural and religious autonomy, and two um to make sure that legitimate breeders are folks that are able to do this as both as a hobby and also as a business, um, assuming that they're not cock fighting, how they may not be um uh unintended consequences for this for this change.

Sure.

Todd, do you want me to start?

So, first of all, the um biggest change we made was this ordinance um, if passed as proposed, will be complaint driven.

That's very different than how most of our code updates work, where most of our code updates the minute that the code becomes effectuated, you have to come into compliance.

In this case, it is is complaint-based, which means if you are operating and maintaining your flock in such a manner that you are not creating an undue nuisance to your neighbors, chances are we will never know about it because we will not receive a complaint about it.

For those that we do receive a complaint, and as your commission has seen, we have received quite a number of complaints, it would allow our code enforcement andor animal care services to go out there depending on what the type of complaint is.

If it's just over the the number of uh roosters, it would probably be our code enforcement.

If it's more about the humane treatment, that would be more likely our animal care services.

So for the zoning code, we focus more on land use compatibility.

So our code enforcement officers would go out there and they would verify that the complaint was legitimate and they would try to educate the property owner on what our ordinance is.

To that end, um, what we've been very successful with in a couple other ordinance amendments is creating educational documents.

So once the board does take action and we know specifically what the provisions are that are adopted, we are prepared to create some handouts or flyers in various languages.

Our code enforcement officers' office does have folks who are fluent in Hmong as well as uh Spanish, and so we plan on having them at least in those three languages English, Spanish, and Hmong, so that the um inspectors out in the field can share that information on what the requirements are and give the person an opportunity to come into compliance.

If that property owner is making an effort, so for example, let's just say they have 20 roosters and they're only allowed to have 10.

Code enforcement would work with them on a reasonable time frame to get down to the 10 that they're allowed to have because we don't want them just dumping them, um, getting rid of them in some some fashion that could be inhumane.

So we want to work with the property owner for them to come into compliance.

Alternatively, if they are someone who has 20 and they're only allowed to have 10 and they're a breeder and exhibitor, or they indicate that for cultural or religious purposes they have these additional roosters, then we would assist them in how to register with the agricultural commissioner's office, which we will also be able to have any forms that she has translated into those languages as well.

So, being complaint driven, you don't have to register automatically.

If there's no complaint, you just keep doing what you've been doing.

Understood.

Thank you.

Commissioner Flores, did you want to add something?

Yeah, I was just gonna add, um, I think one of the the other issues is that um if it if it was complaint driven and we're going out to the site for a reason, then we would try to probably work with them to eliminate right the reason for the complaint if we could.

And so maybe that's um just establishing some best management practices for the site.

So looking at those as well.

Okay.

Would it be safe to assume that we are looking at this, even though it's procedurally kind of a uniform, but it's still a case-by-case basis.

Meaning that if I were to practice a religion and my shaman would need to have a number of roosters, but let's say my shaman's neighbor does not like the religion that we are practicing, how do you then delineate where there's cultural sensitivity and religious freedom versus you know, trying to enforce the law?

I think some of that is just gathering the information from the person on why they have the additional roosters and stuff like that.

And I think that's part of the registration program too.

They can list, you know, the reasons why they need the additional roosters.

Our biggest thing is also then to um Chris Flores' point is making sure that even if we say, yes, you we agree that for your religious purposes or your breeding purposes or whatever, you can have these additional ones.

It still does not exempt that person from ensuring that they're caring for those animals in a humane way, and that they're doing what they need to do to ensure that uh dust, flies, odors, and stuff like that are not being maintained through best management practices.

So some of that's gets into where the education component would occur, and whether that's through the agricultural commissioner's office, animal care or code enforcement.

Um so there are sections in the proposed zoning code that do talk about some of those best management practices.

More of it falls under the county code, because that's really kind of where um there's the separation between zoning is about land use compatibility to a large degree, and the county code talks more about kind of some of the illegal aspects of things that that the county can regulate.

I think one thing to add to that um to your question, Commissioner Borha, is uh not all the education component would have to be with the uh property owner or or tenant, uh whatever the case may be, who holds the roosters.

Some of that goes to the complaining party to educate them about uh the variety of cultural practices that are different from their own.

Um they may not fully understand what's going on, and they don't necessarily need to, but they need to understand that religious practices are protected.

Uh, sometimes um that can get a little sticky uh from an enforcement perspective, but that's something we have to balance as well.

Thank you.

And uh Mr.

Troy mentioned that there's a potential appeals process as well uh on this, is that correct?

I think in one of your slides.

I wanted to clarify that section pertains to the enforcement section in our ordinance.

So it's not the appeal of the uh the registration process.

So it would be that if uh our planning director finds that certain um property is having a nuisance that we just cannot work with uh the property owners.

So again, as Wendy mentioned, we will do our best to work with the property owners so they could reduce a number or they could fix a violation, but in very rare cases uh we uh do have sometimes go through a process where we just cannot work with the property owners.

In that case, we do have uh a mechanism for planning directors to um appeal, so basically get rid of their um uh registration process or um or to require them to do certain things um in that way that uh the processes that they could appeal the planning director's determination um that he made, um, and that goes to the board of appeals for the um appeal for that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Park.

Yeah, I just have a question.

How would this make it clearer clearer if you can how this new um changes would affect our last um individuals who were giving us very good footage as to what it's really like to live through?

How does what we have done address their issues or what we will be doing address their issues?

So we already have that complaint.

Um that was one of the properties that was the genesis of this effort, uh, as I think the Ms.

Dewey and Mr.

Schmidt alluded to.

Um we will then, as a result of that complaint go out, uh with the appropriate parties, whether it's code enforcement or animal care, et cetera, to uh visit that site uh and take enforcement action, so in that manner would it your enforcement uh action would mean you is that that's not a registration, right?

Would you have them register all those animals and then deal with it after registration?

At this point, we don't I can't say for certain that they can qualify for registration.

Okay, and then if they don't qualify, what do we do?

Then they need to come into compliance with the code requirements.

I think that property is AR5, if I'm not mistaken.

So they obviously can't have that number of roosters.

You would use a normal mechanisms to have someone come into compliance with the code requirements, correct.

Okay, thank you.

Can we just torment on a sabinano?

Yes.

Thank you.

Um I just want to follow up on the question I asked earlier about the registration process for cultural purposes.

I was looking at the material that we have, and I don't see that specified.

I mean, maybe I missed it, but it it talks about hobbyists, breeders, independent exhibitors, or individuals maintaining poultry for other legitimate purposes, but it doesn't really speak to cultural reasons.

Um so the individual maintaining poultry for other legitimate purposes uh will include cultural and religious purposes.

Yeah.

Okay.

We uh purposely kept it very broad, not to limit on cultural religious purposes.

So any cultural abilities would fall into a legitimate um purpose as determined by our ag Commissioner's Office.

Okay, and what so I guess what is the reason to keep it vague and not include it there?

There was some indication from our county council, not your county council, that keeping it vague was better.

Um there was some concern if we called out specific religions, religious practices changed.

So um there's also some regulations under um our lupo, which is the religious land use and something act about basically just treating people the same, which they felt that because we weren't specifically calling out religion, and we were basically saying regardless of why you are keeping them, if you show it's for a legitimate purpose, that that's how we stayed in concert with some of those provisions versus specifically calling out certain cultures or or religions, okay.

Thank you.

What I'm just interested, um, Ms.

Hartman and Director Smith.

What might be our mechanism of looking back?

Let's say if we were to make this move and that the board was sent to pass it.

What what is our um kind of our intention to close the feedback loop with the community and say, look, in two years we made this change, or in one year we've made this change.

How do we measure success and how do we make sure that we do not inadvertently again pinch the folks that are law-abiding or they're just practicing their their cultural beliefs and practices?

Good question, uh, Commissioner Borja.

I'll take that one.

We have um built into our processes that we're um doing in the last couple of years.

These kind of internal, I'm trying to think of a nice way to say it, uh, just a review of what we're what we're doing and is it working?

Um it's uh, you know, some people call it a post-mortem, an after action evaluation, whatever you want to call it, where um whether it's six months out, a year out, whatever the frequency needs to be, um, we ask ourselves as a result of this change in the code, the zoning code in this case, um, is it effective and what we set out to do?

And so we expect to be doing that on this one and a number of other zoning code amendments that we're working on.

Uh, and we can always come back and make fixes through the normal zoning code amendment process, uh, to address whatever challenges might come up if we find that it's not working as intended, uh, if we um identify new issues that are coming up that we would didn't think of or didn't receive feedback on as a result of all the outreach over the last two years.

Um that's our mechanism for for looking forward um into the future while also looking back at what's working and what isn't.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Um I guess another follow-up question.

Um as far as like educating both the public and then the folks that are making complaints.

What is our um I guess what is our intention or our commitment to the community that we're also gonna be educating our own internal staff, whether Sacramento County Enforcement, Animal Cold Services, or the Office of the Agricultural Commissioners, so that we uh do recognize that there are cultural sensitivities and religious sensitivities when it comes to passing this.

Do you mind just sharing a couple of things about, you know, maybe understanding where one might be improper and one might be appropriate versus you know the opposite?

Well go ahead.

Okay.

Um, um so I work with the Hmong community already um through the agricultural, you know, industry and what we do, the farms, the small farms, and um, and we I have a couple of um colleagues over at UC Cooperative Extension who are Hmong and work directly with the Hmong community as well.

Um and so we have actually done some staff training around the Hmong culture and the Mian culture, um, and I will um be doing that kind of around this rooster issue as well.

And I've learned a lot through this process, uh things that I didn't know, and so um we're always continually educating staff about um cultural um differences, and um that's that's one of my my big you know points that I like to share with staff and make sure that we are conscientious of those when we go out in the field and we're working with different people.

So yeah, thank you for the question.

I'm gonna just add to that.

I think that opportunity is also one that can be shared with our code enforcement group um that are in the field day in and day out, working with all sorts of folks.

So I'll we know how to get in touch.

Do I have any other further questions from the dais?

Um, so uh procedurally, Director Smith and Mr.

Troy.

Um, you know, we we we have a county uh we have a staff recommendation here if I recall correctly, and then there's also in parallel um uh coding is it code enforcement that is going directly to the board of supervisors?

Is that correct?

The the county code amendment is going directly to the board.

Uh this zoning code piece comes before the planning commission before it comes to the board, and so we needed to come here first before the two come back together uh for the board.

Um I think uh Young also mentioned some um differences in the max number of roosters if the commission wanted to entertain those or not.

Yeah, yeah, because I was gonna ask him to put up the chart.

Yeah, we did receive a formal recommendation.

Um you it was in your packet from the agricultural advisory committee and um on the slide, and I'll let Young go ahead and and talk about what their recommendation was because they felt that the staff's recommendation was a little high in the RD zones.

So I'll first uh go with the staff recommendation on RD4, RD5, and RD7, then talk about the AAC's recommendation on RD4, RD5, and RD7.

So the county's original recommendation was to keep it in just two brackets, which is 10,000 square feet to one acre, which allows up to three roosters, or one acre or larger, which will allow up to 10 roosters with um each requiring 10,000 square feet.

Um the difference with the AAC's version is that they wanted to create a different additional tier, which is between half acre, uh, which is a 10,000 to half acre and half acre to one acre and one acre or larger.

So the AAC's recommendation was that if you have 10,000 square feet to half acre, I mean you have maximum of two roosters, and if you have between half acre and one acre, that would be three roosters.

If you have one acre or larger, there'll be three roosters with not to exceed 10 with one additional 10,000 square feet, or alternatively the planning commission could also make a separate uh number um recommendation as well.

Do we have any feedbacks from the commission?

Questions?

No.

If you can go back to that um that that chart, um these are the proposed uh numbers by the agriculture commissioner or by staff.

Uh there's a little bit of both.

It's uh mixed it into the second column, which is RD4, RD5, and RD7.

Um, so the very first two, which is 10,000 to half acre, 21,7800 uh square feet.

Um, that is the recommendation from the AAC, which is to keep it at two roosters.

Um, additional one is a half acre to one acre, would be maximum of three roosters by the AAC.

Um, the county did not, the county staff's version did not separate between 10,000 square feet or half acre or half acre to one acre.

Um so the AAC's version kind of creates a separation between half acre mark understood.

Chairman.

Sorry, unless you would have more questions, I'm ready to make a motion on this issue.

Any commissioner comments?

I just have a comment, yes.

I think as we appreciate all the work um that has been put into this for over a year, I guess over a year.

Um I think as it goes forward, um, I I believe that this should specify cultural purposes, cultural reasons, and making sure that that's clear and not left up to interpretation into the future or at this moment.

And so for me, I think I'd like for it to specify that um as it goes forward.

So, I'll make the motion that um we move forward with this as presented by staff with the AC AAC recommendations and with further commissioners' concern about adding a clarification in terms of the religious aspect of that process the process.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Uh, before I vote, I just I I like to appreciate um or at least extend my appreciation to everyone that came out here, sent letters, um, uh and the organizations that also represent a number of uh your community members about this.

This has uh been an educational opportunity, but I've also had the chance to drive over to uh kind of Mr.

Dwight's and Miss Dyer's neighborhood to really see the the issue.

Um, that's really actually kind of close by to where I live, and I didn't realize how extensive the potential Asian problem is.

So I I appreciate you guys coming over here and and sharing.

Uh I I think collectively we could agree, at least from what I'm hearing from the public comments and also from the staff recommendation that cock fighting is indeed bad.

The issue in the conundrum that we have here is that it's also a highly, highly organized type of activity that knows the moment that we have a complaint that speeds up the essence, and therefore the act of cockfighting is something that they're going to be stopping it do because then we would not be able to enforce.

I think we feel like we've been circling around that issue and where the evidence is there.

I just caution this to staff, and again, I'm very uh cognizant um uh about the Monk community and their concerns because we do not want to uh create an enforcement that unfortunately uh transits on religious freedom.

And I think that uh from what I'm hearing from the staff recommendation that this would be a case-by-case basis, and that we uh along with the legal review of the amendments being proposed, ensure that we are not one going against the constitution and or the ethical rules that we have in the county and as the state and as this country, but also that we provide an opportunity or a vehicle for folks to really understand uh what a religious or cultural um importance of the research can be.

Same thing with the folks that are breeding that are trying to you know have legitimate businesses in their hand.

And so I I welcome that opportunity to continue that dialogue and hopefully that again, like my line of questioning says, have have that feedback loop a year from now or two years from now to to make sure that we again continue this discussion with our community members, but also recognize that we wouldn't want to inadvertently impact communities and make it a burden for them to practice the religion, but also playing a little bit of devil's advocate, we don't want to inadvertently weaponize the code enforcement for folks that might be practicing a certain religion because of a difference in their beliefs, and so I'm very cognizant of that.

And and the third, um, that we may not inadvertently use the cultural exemption as a way to continue having 200 or so flocks of birds and then still diminish the quality of life that some of our neighbors have shown here.

So it's a fine balance, and uh I I appreciate that you guys are willing to consider that.

And thank you for bringing up the uh uh the perspectives from our sheriff's department on animal control services and all of the other organizations that um have been working on this behind the scenes.

And so um, I think we do have a motion as presented and a second, and I think I'm ready to call for a vote.

And with all members present voting yes, that item does pass.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, are we ready for item number four?

Yes, item number four is planning director's report.

Uh nothing this evening to report on.

Um, I do note that I think February is pretty light by way of commissioners.

Um we'll be obviously be moving forward uh to fill the vacancies on the planning commission.

I know there are a couple of applicants uh in district three that the supervisor is considering, but I don't know time frame as to when an appointment might be made.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh Madam Clerk, are we ready for item number five?

Yes, item number five is miscellaneous scheduling items, and I currently have none.

Thank you, okay.

So we're ready to move on to item number six, public comments.

And I have not received any additional public comments.

Okay.

With that, I'm closing our meeting at 728 p.m.

Thank you very much.