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 Rakenstein.

Members Verga.

Here.

And Chair Borja?

Here.

Okay.

Let the record reflect that members Devlin and members Corona Sabanyan are absent at this time.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Can you please make the announcement?

Do you want to do the pledge for I'll do the pledge?

Yeah, let's do the pledge first.

Sorry.

Commissioner Berg, can you please leave us here fled?

Thank you.

The United States of America into the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

My apologies.

Thank you very much.

Now, Madam Clerk, can you please uh 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 serve 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 board clerk at ZachCounty.gov.

Mail a comment to 708 streets, suite 2450, Sacramento, California, 95814.

And that concludes the announcement.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

I think we're ready to excuse me, Chairman.

Given the nature of this, would it be better for us to wait until our other esteemed colleague comes since we're gonna be having a conversation about this decline and be in the middle of the negative discussions?

Yeah, I expect to have an uh 10 or 15 minutes on the end.

That's not gonna be a sense, but we're on the agenda.

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 Virga.

Barring any other concerns for my fellow commissioners.

Um, if you'd allow me, I'd like to go ahead and move the agenda as advised by council, and perhaps we can start with item number two, miscellaneous.

That's that should be the planning director's report.

Sorry, Madam Clerk.

Can you no worries?

I was gonna 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, uh, really a short report tonight.

Um I do know we have uh one, two, three, four items, excuse me, three items on the next agenda of the July 13th planning commission agenda.

Um one of those is a zoning code amendment, one of many in our our work program this year that we're trying to prioritize to um this one is related to our design review program.

We had a uh a lot of outreach with uh that effort.

I think uh this commission heard perhaps uh an earlier iteration of it, but it is moving forward for approval.

Uh hopefully we'll get a successful uh recommendation from the planning commission to the board because we're trying to target August uh for the board hearing on that item.

Um other news uh the crowing foul uh last meeting.

I reported that it was going forward to the board of supervisors the following uh week.

Uh it has been approved.

Now we're in the waiting period, the 30 days before it goes into effect.

Um so the board actually took action on the final action on the 16th introduced and had some deliberation on the ninth, but took action finally on the sixteenth.

So that is now in place.

We're working with code enforcement and animal care to uh work through an enforcement plan for those problem properties that we know about.

Um, and then the other thing I'm gonna report on upper west side, uh, was approved by the board last week on the 16th, also.

Uh unanimous 5 0 approval.

Um, so we'll see where we go next.

That's all I've got for tonight.

Understood.

Thank you, Director Smith.

Any questions for the planning director?

Uh, just one.

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

Yes, we do.

That was the as we're on to the parcel map uh out in the Fair Oaks or Carmichael area, excuse me.

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

Uh we should be okay.

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 uh number of hearings.

Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Looks looking like we're having a busy next couple of meetings.

Um, thank you.

I hope the board recognize Vice Chair Devlin.

Thank you for joining us this evening.

Okay.

Uh, barring any concerns, I'd like to now move back to our original run of show.

Um 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.

L for any sorry.

Um, this is an appeal of the denial of a temporary use permit for El Penito Horse Training Facility and um host events.

And the property is located at 13301 Reneke Road, approximately 0.3 miles south of the Quiggle Road and Renoke Road intersection at the Southeast area community, and the environmental document is non-applicable.

KDP, Miss Weiss.

My name is Richima Weiss, and I am the leading planner who has reviewed all of the temporary use permit applications associated with El Fronito 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 administrators' denial of the temporary use permit.

The project is located in Gault at 13301 Rankie Road.

The project site is in the Southeast Community and falls within District 5, represented by Supervisor Hume.

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 time frame 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 user 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 user 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 reviews 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'm 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, Miss Weiss.

Going back to the dice, or do we have any questions for staff this evening?

Yeah, yes, I do.

Okay.

Um, basically, I'd like to hear from staff about what are the issues that caused the denial this time versus the fact that it was grant uh use 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, uh 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 non-compliance, as well as issues brought forth by the sheriff as well as the district attorney's office, as well as a um communication with an environmental management department that they had not received any applications for permits to serve food on the property, as well as um 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.

Um, 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.

Um, 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 gonna defer to Wendy.

So in their um 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 um other conditions of approval.

So the applicant and property owner had the responsibility to make sure they were meeting the intent of what they were approved for and following all of the conditions of approval.

Through the meetings with the district attorney's office, that one was held in July.

They indicated that they understood those conditions.

Throughout code enforcement's records of communications, they also indicated they were familiar with the requirements, but failed to meet those requirements.

As such, when we're looking at a renewal for a permit, we are able to use past 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.

And could you provide some context to the last two letters that we received just recently?

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 um deputy district attorney who wrote those letters actually met with the property owners, as Wendy indicated.

We 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 in consistent with the conditions of the temporary use permit.

They understood or 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 uh 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 um 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 gonna go ahead and turn it over to code enforcement to provide any additional details.

But there was quite a lengthy log that they had.

Hi, good evening.

Um, Rose O'Reilly, supervisor for code enforcement.

Um, as Wendy was explaining, that's right.

Um, our first notice that was mailed out to the property owner and the operator was in April of 2025, and that was describing the violations, and throughout the life of the case, we have um conducted a total of six inspections.

We have which have resulted in communication either in person or in writing through notices, and in addition, um we've had six emails or phone calls, so 12 instances totals 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 um 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?

I see heads nodding.

Um, I'm you know, I would have to piece together the timeline, but it's my understanding that violations have continued to occur uh 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 um 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, um, making sure that all of the vendors and whatnot in the site had been inspected by uh EMD.

Um, overall, um, we have received numerous um communications from Supervisor Hume office from neighbors complaining about events occurring outside of the dates that they had been approved for with the prior two um temporary use permits, um, complaints regarding uh speeding and activities occurring on that roadway, trash including um alcoholic beverages and whatnot being um 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 a couple things, but not ready yet.

Thank you.

Um Ms.

Hartman, I do have a couple of follow-up questions.

Um, one of our attachments, um, I believe it's attachment number seven, it's 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 Miss Weiss, who whoever might be able to apply.

Uh certainly.

So, first of all, whenever we get a request for a temporary use permit, particularly for an outdoor event, we um have a small list of departments that we that planning and environmental review distributes to, and one of them is sheriff, and they look at their call logs and um 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 and non-compliance with the previous two temporary use permits, the sheriff's department has indicated um that um that um for those reasons, even though they didn't receive complaint calls, as I mentioned, majority of the complaints were going to the board of supervisors' office.

Some that's often a something we hear.

Folks want to remain anonymous, they notify through the sheriff's office.

But um, even without kind of a significant list of call logs, they believed that the um temporary use permit um 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 in the same page, the 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 recurring at the location, and that um it's more so that they're disturbed by the 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 went ahead and listed a number of uh additional conditions uh for consideration.

Correct, but these are not necessarily things that they have failed to do prior.

They would be conditions that the sheriff's department would want added to a permit if we had um approved the temporary use permit for for 2026.

And as I mentioned, while they didn't have calls for service, um we were receiving regular communications as I believe uh code enforcement was from Supervisor Hume office regarding complaints they were receiving from neighbors.

Um, and while we directed folks to contact the sheriff's department, apparently they chose not to.

Understood.

Commissioner Borhood, 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 outline 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 enlighten 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.

Um so I'm going back to the first page of the sheriff's letter, uh attachment seven.

Uh he states that um, he had checked a number of sources.

So the um two entries in the CAD system uh during the state of timeline, um deputy initiated events not related to any calls regarding complaints or prior notifications of any events, um and then it goes on to talk about zero reports or or initiation from the um 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.

Um then I'm just kind of following through uh the analysis and the staff report.

So on April 6th, that's when the applicants did request the denial to be overturned, as they believe that the property or the property owner did not authorize the unpermitted events, was unaware of additional permitting requirements and alleged and alleged that complaints from neighbors were made in bad faith.

I was just wondering since that was part of the uh the request to overturn the appeal.

What if anything uh was done by staff to um 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?

Like what kind of investigations have we done outside of the I 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.

So I'll start to answer that and then go to Wendy and others if needed.

I don't believe we took much um 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.

Uh and we informed them at the meeting in last year uh 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, um, they're on the hook.

And so, uh, because of that prior communication and outlying the steps that are necessary to comply with the conditions, we thought we had been extremely clear.

Understood, thank you.

And if I'm understanding correctly, the enforcement follows the parcel and the property ownership, not necessarily a people or persons that are hosting the event.

So, for example, if there might have been any issue, so to speak, it's still false 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, we 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.

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

Understood.

Um what other actions does code enforcement typically take if there is a perceived or investigated, or at this case, a finding that there are um violations that have been made?

Thank you.

Yeah.

Of course, our office always wants to start with education and outreach.

Um, so we we did conduct six um inspections.

Only three of them were billed or had a fee 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'm like kind of going back and forth.

I'm just kind of following the thread in the staff analysis.

The uh 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 uh characterize the representatives?

I just want to make sure that sure.

Um I believe my memory serves correctly.

There was the two property owners, I believe their husband and wife.

I'm could be wrong.

Uh and there was one other party who I believe they introduced as their attorney.

Okay, understood.

Um 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 mentioned the first one.

Yes.

How about the other two?

I don't believe they were present at all three.

Um, some of them were just monitoring inspections where we were um sort of doing a desk audit of monitoring the online presence, and we were just documenting everything that we were finding.

Um but each time that we went out, we I know at least attempted contact, and um I can double check on the three that um were followed by notices to confirm if somebody was present.

But I know that we had um pretty constant contact, even if it wasn't at the inspections, um we were exchanging voicemails and live phone calls back and forth.

Is there a deliverable that comes with an inspection?

Meaning that you, you know, here's what we find, you do an inspection, do you verbalize it to uh memorialize it in some memo or um how do you do that once you as a new commissioner?

How do you 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 maybe got it?

Yeah, there's nothing that's left in terms of a piece of paper that's left with them.

Um we just communicate what what our findings have been and then follow up with mail.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Um, uh I would just a general process question.

When you say you do inspections, do you uh go out and inspect it when the events 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.

Um typically, you know, our staff work um Monday through Friday between eight and five, something like that.

So if there's events occurring outside of that, um we can coordinate or facilitate an inspector going out during the time of the event.

Um, 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?

Um 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.

Um, but it's I'm not sure if I'm understanding your question to meaning that.

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 letter back and forth saying based on what we see on Facebook, you're outside your use permit.

I mean, if you were to do an inspection, let's just use um 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.

Um, 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 um 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 of the sheriff's department, what was on Facebook, um, you know, calls to the to the um supervisor's office, and based on that you made your evaluation.

Is that the way you did your those inspections?

It's both.

It's both, yeah.

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

We did go out.

When it was a bit was going, and sometimes you know, our office or the different offices represented here were made aware of events happening after they had happened.

Um, but we have like was mentioned um sources from the sheriff's department from business licensing, our office in code enforcement from planning, um, from the board's office, and everything was consistent with what was happening, and when we spoke to the property owner, um, they also were not denying that those events took place.

They agreed that the events took place.

Okay, 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 it's a paper.

This was on this particular issues, it was a paper review, usually after the fact, right?

No, we we were present.

Our officers responded to the property and spoke face to face with the property owner and communicated um 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 it's anyone from code enforcement was there during an event.

Understood.

Um, 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.

No, 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 just a point of at least clarification for me, um, but there were events that were taking place that were not scheduled or as otherwise on the 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.

Um just a couple more questions, if you yes don't mind, and really appreciate uh your due diligence on these things.

Um just read through uh attachment six and attachment five, which are for the record the letters receipt from uh Carolyn Massingale, uh community prosecutor within Sacramento County District Attorney's Office in our research looking at what the community prosecution office do um part of that is looking at public nuisance.

I think one of the letters attachment um five dated May 28, 2025 had a very strongly worded conclusion that's uh essentially kind of warning them that uh or a legal notice that the property may be a public nuisance now.

Just kind of elucidate me here, uh, or uh educate me here.

I'm not too sure.

Are there were they 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?

Uh as of based on my knowledge, as of right now, there is not uh 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 uh of any uh charges being filed.

I think we were trying to resolve this.

Uh, again, this is the the May or excuse me, um 2025 letter that refers to scheduling another meeting uh later in um the year, which the second meeting uh the property owners did not show up to.

Understood.

Thank you, Director Smith.

Um, kind of just overarching going back to the attachment number two, which is the actual um letter sent to Chris Trapp, who is the applicant, um, and then which also included the property owner.

Um, it's titled denial temporary use permit control number PLNP 2026 0035.

Um, looking at this document as if this is the uh essentially the rules of engagement in which uh the planning commit the planning staff is looking at the boundaries with which they have the ability to either deny or not accept uh a renewal of a temporary use permit.

In this case, you have uh 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 um provide you with uh a renewal of of this temporary use permit.

Am I understanding that correctly, sir?

Yes, that is correct.

Okay, so we're not really like 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 um get the actions.

Um and if I 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 the balance for denial based on the ordinances and the rules that we have as accounting.

That is correct also.

Okay, understood.

Um, there is no any other questions.

Um, we'd like to uh uh I think that concludes our questions for staff.

Would like to uh uh request uh or offer the opportunity for the applicant or any members or uh well not opportunities for the applicant first and then we will be taking public comments afterwards and 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 true so help you God?

If you do not swear, do you so affirm?

Thank you.

Good evening.

Well, good evening.

Uh I introduce myself as uh the new guy that is helping uh the person that was actually helping them before, like you guys mentioned earlier.

An attorney, no, he was actually a uh friend that was helping him out.

Unfortunately, um he's no longer here because of the lack of uh doing his work.

So now um I'm here.

I'm the one that is helping Mr.

Davida with the new permit.

How did this happen?

I hired Chris, who is the one that is on the application to fill out the forms because I'm I lack a lot of that time for for 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 and involved in real estate.

So I'm coming familiar with a little bit of loss here and there regarding the horse racing in regarding the the real estate aspect of it.

Um Mr.

Davila has asked me to help him out due to the issues that he's been facing lately with what the planning commit uh 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 that it's that I wanted to bring up to you guys is that first he was given that, you know, the permit last couple years, which um that's one of the parts that has done in the past, why not 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 it was brought up was uh sheriff department that there he's supposed to call and and um let him know about the event taking place.

He actually mentioned to me this is in Spanish because his language is lacks uh English a lot, so he's that 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 he's they're actually they called the sheriff department, and when they called the sheriff department would tell would 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 department.

There's a sheriff by the name of Salvador Robles, which I got his business uh 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 you know what to do, you know, what how to take you know approaches to what's happening at the events.

So he was the one that basically was helping him out a little more when this events were taking place.

Why would I ask, you know, for the appeal to 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 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 to support there, they're 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 it's a restaurant.

As restaurant owners, they they've been, they currently are running a franchise, a family-run franchise franchise.

Just and I'm saying this so you can know the tip the type of people they are to this community or the community that they go to.

They've been uh they opened already over 18 um places where they brought over 250 jobs to different communities.

So they're not trying to, you know, 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 years.

The person that was with them, there's a couple of times that they took uh initiative to do events that he was not aware of.

He was given violations, he was given uh the time to uh uh basically to he was fined for this for this uh violations, which he did pay for those violations, knowing that the owner who's responsible to whatever happens in those proper in that property.

So even though he lacked the knowledge that those events were gonna take place, he still paid for those fines.

So that being said, is it's not like this gentleman was trying to you know do something wrong to the community or anything like that.

He's just that unfortunately that 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 is gonna help him.

Now he knows that someone's gonna 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 that what the laws are to be followed now with this premises, if allowed by you guys to have that the new uh temporary permit for the following year.

Um what I could say more about this incident is that unfortunately, a lot of the meetings are like he was saying to me while we were on the side, is like he was not present.

And the last meeting, I guess they were they mentioned earlier that he was asked to for a meeting that he didn't show up.

He was told me him and his wife they were not aware of it.

That's what they mentioned to me.

So that's that's another thing.

And this gentleman that they helped them out, he's been gone for the last three months.

So ever since that new application was done, I'm the one that'd been in charge of that.

So um if there's any questions that you guys have or you have for Mr.

Davila, please let him, you know, I'll welcome those.

Thank you, sir.

Any questions for the applicant?

Just a few.

Um so is he the property owner or the applicant for the use permit?

His owner and she's the owner.

So the applicant was done by by Chris Pratt.

He spelled out all the paperwork.

Okay, so he's gonna be the one, he's the one responsible for whatever events occur on his property.

That's what you're that's what I'm trying to get to.

Correct.

And you're saying over this last year and all these um issues brought up by um other groups, um, the complaints and stuff, he wasn't aware of those complaints, but not issues aware, meaning what we're talking about this 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 was my knowledge.

The sheriff not to do nothing.

So the the letter here from the DA's office on May 25th, or excuse me May 28, 2025, where they talk about he could be committing a misdemeanor and a public nuisance.

Um he wasn't uh made aware of this.

He attended that meeting, okay.

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

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

Correct.

Okay.

And then the subsequent meetings that are referenced in this the other DA meet uh 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 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 too.

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, so he was there some of the times he wasn't there other times.

Mr.

Davila wasn't there, and sometimes yes and no, sometimes no.

Okay.

Um county uh county staff has talked about may 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?

I actually that the we were asked to have a business license, but that business license was declined because due to the fact that there is outstanding uh violations on the property.

That's the reason what 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're taking approach to it to do it, but now is it's a denial after a denial because of the fact that we've been denied the temporary the permit for this.

So you're you're saying the previous two use permits he had, he never had a business license to operate those two permits.

He he didn't.

And you said earlier that him and his family um have opened up and run um some restaurants and stuff of that nature in the community, right?

Correct, sir.

So does the understanding he's supposed to have business licenses for those businesses as well?

Uh the reason why is it for him it was different because it's more like a a training facility.

He's currently owns over 20 some horses, which are stall that have stalls right there at the property that we're you know, talking about.

So he currently has uh a trainer there at the facility, but he was not aware that you know there's by you know a business license needs to be done for this.

So he thought that it was just you know I I own the property, I 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 you said earlier he has several restaurants out there, he employs a lot of people.

Um, and I I would hope that he obviously knows he needs business licenses to do that kind of a uh event, right?

Well that's that's the reason now that he found that that he had to do it, that's the reason he applied that we applied for the announced one that was denied.

And also about I know there was mentioned earlier about food at the premises.

There's a trailer that has you know tags and everything that's legally, you know, uh approved by the city the county of Sacramento.

That was the one that was serving the food.

So it was the food truck or a food trailer?

As a foot trailer, I'm sorry.

Yeah, okay.

And that was registered with the county?

Yes, sir.

Through the health department, yes, sir.

I don't have anything right now, any anything further and maybe later.

Good evening.

Yes, thank you.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening.

Um I think I'm kind of piecing some of this together, but uh gentleman is the is the landowner, 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 is 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 you know, was taken about pretty much taking advantage of him doing this events.

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

Correct.

Okay.

Um and he said they're not they weren't big, but you know, still they were taking place.

If you could maybe kind of help me understand, because um I haven't been out to the property and I don't own horses or race them.

Um but if you could maybe help help me understand kind of like what's the 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 pretty much that's what it is.

It's just he has currently a racetrack there that where he trains the horses, and basically basically where they're time him.

They time him and they're just he's got a couple quotes that he's preparing to go to uh tracks in Southern California, Los Alamitos.

I don't know if you guys are familiar with that, but he's uh that's they're pretty much have him there where they'll train them to see if they're gonna be good enough to be able to ship them down to the tracks, you know, and compete for good purchase.

Sure, but at some point people are coming out to to watch this, they're even at the food trucks.

So is this a daily, weekly, monthly, oh it's more like an kind of like an event.

There's times that you know that they're testing their horses just to see you know what type of uh velocity, you know.

I don't know, like you sometimes you test horses that are fast at the beginning and then then you test the horses when they're fast at the end, so that we kind of give yourself an idea the speed of a horse, you know, how the horse reacts and if it's gonna be good enough to be able to beat some times for to be competitive at the racetracks.

Yeah, I thank you.

I understand that part.

I I guess what I'm trying to understand is, you know, what what was the intended frequency of these events?

Because it's it's it sounds like well, it did, you know, those those number of events exceeded exceeded the, you know, kind of permitted scope of the of the conditional use permit here or the special use permit.

So I mean what was the intended, what was the intended you know, frequency of these of these events?

As you could tell, there was ten dates that were asked for the year, and those 10 times pretty much it's just family friends, invite you know, people that you know are 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 that live close to the to where you have your horses.

So for him, it was kind of like having that the 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 follows to that is you know, seems to be some at least complaints of um you know parking and blocking roadways.

So I mean, how many people can this property kind of like realistically?

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 gonna 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 or they're just for the kind of family and friends, kind of close relatives that uh let's say an example.

His family consists of about 50 people.

So just imagine if they're gonna have an event, just himself, his family, and about 30, 40 people just come on, you know, the come to the to the meeting, you know, to the meeting to to watch this races.

So I asked him about that, and we'd you know, because I need to know, you know, what I'm getting myself into, and we talked about it, and we say, Max, we're talking about maybe 200 people coming into this events.

Well, I I I guess in my head there's a little bit of a distinction between um inviting some people and uh um and a y'all come, you know, I've created flyers, I've got advertising, and I've no idea how many people are gonna show up.

I mean, those are very different events in terms of like what and how to manage and those potential impacts.

And so are we asking for the, you know, 200 people?

We're asking for 50 people.

Can you park 200 people on on the property?

Well, we we're sure for asking around, you know, anywhere from 80 to 200 people.

But like, like I say, depending on the on the location, that's when you know, you'll have a lot of a big turnout or a 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 of Madeira and they come from different areas of 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 gonna be only 80 or 100, but we have agreed that it's for sure it's not gonna be more than 200 people.

That's a fact.

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

Uh see what 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, it's I'm the one in charge of doing all that.

So for me it's not permitting that, and I'm not gonna do that myself.

So that's how I could say that there won't be no more than 200 people.

All right, thank you.

I think so I guess I guess for me, um thank you.

Uh for me, and thank you for being here.

For me, it's uh the intent, and so it's it number one the intent sounds like it was for the purpose of testing horses, but yet as you acknowledge in your one of your sentences, it was racing.

Um, and then regardless of who coordinated it, it was on the property owner's property uh on a small road, um, and run by the person who's no longer who hasn't been around for three months, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And um essentially what commissioner Devlin it asked was was there advertising?

Because it would change things.

You know, if you're doing kind of an informal test of a horse versus advertising, there could be it could be construed that this is uh not so much an official race but more advertised out there to bring additional uh folks in to watch correct well well I I bring myself back a little bit it seems like I'm I'm giving that impression it's just all racing and racing and racing no there's also some of that some of that uh uh riding horses I don't know if you guys are familiar with uh Charreadas that's those are my Mexico traditional like rodeo type of things where they're where they're you know families come and and they're just having a good time with the families riding the horses having their daughters like myself and 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 of not being busy we keep them doing you know traditional stuff that reflects our culture so that's what we try to do so that's that's what they're trying to do as well there too.

So it's twofold it's really kind of informal writing and then racing correct is that what it is that was that the original intent of the use permit to for that purpose or was it just was that explained originally that this is the purpose what we're gonna we're requesting this use permit.

Well like I say the the gentleman that was here before he he could have said something to you but I'm here now saying to you that what it is is more of a like a training facility is a training facility that's what he wants to have there.

Okay and one you know during the training facilities when there's you know gatherings being able to to you know have a permit for those locations.

And that's why it's limited.

Okay thank you.

That was followed yes sir um for staff um or actually would you like to maybe save the question afterwards and then allow the uh allow any other questions to the applicant at this time actually I just have a kind of a follow-up for the applicant um basically you're 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 um are you saying now that the applicant knows what the requirements are because to 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 it three months and he's back in the same boat with doing what he was doing before is he have he runs businesses so he's got to be able to have some kind of a way to communicate um I can can I can I try to say to be honest with you I'd rather we need to hear from him you have to get the wife yes she's far away from she's more involved in the restaurant business but that's her husband.

Madam Clerk do we need to uh swear it's a board before one moment.

Let me get my okay do you swear or affirm that the statements um that you're about to make to this board or the true so help you got 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 to get um you know when we're stressed out keeping this as a like a family event as well um 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, um, the meeting they had said on April, we weren't aware of it.

So I don't know how exactly did they get a hold of us about that meeting.

So I mean, like I said, I I speak English, but when it gets down to these paperworks, I get really nervous about it.

And yes, we 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 aware of all of 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 know you asked me to have a question.

And I'm gonna translate that to him so that way he's aware of what and he could answer that to you.

Okay, that's too yet to say, and that's it.

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.

So, any other questions to the applicant?

Thank you very much for your time.

Okay, we're gonna go back to um uh questions to staff.

Oh, 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.

Um, thank you.

Thank thank you.

Vice Chair Dublin.

Do you have questions for the staff?

Um I hope we understand.

I guess the delineation line between having my family over to go ride a horse or you know, 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, um, we don't charge ticket prices, we don't advertise broadly through different um social media venues, things of that nature.

Um is is one key key difference.

Um, their current Facebook page has a number of events um that have historically been advertised on there with ticket sales, including things that were beyond what we originally um anticipated were going to occur on the site.

But the biggest thing is is I think for the most part, when people are having friends and family over, it is not something that you purchased uh tickets for.

Thank you.

Um, any other questions, Commissioner Verga?

Just just so I'm we're clear.

Um, when you met with the applicant, um did you feel comfortable that he was understanding what you were trying to tell him his responsibilities were?

Um when we met on July uh what day was it?

July 9th, I believe it was in July of 2020, uh 2025, um both he and his wife was were there.

His wife spoke uh 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.

Um they all seem to speak and understand um what the requirements were.

Um his wife is also I believe listed as the nonprofit who is sponsoring the uh temporary use permits in the prior um approvals.

That's one of the requirements we have is that they have to be under sponsorship of uh of the uh of a nonprofit, and we have listed El Frenito 2 as the nonprofit, so we had a pretty uh 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 feel comfortable he like just a minute ago you felt comfortable he uh he was being guided accurately as I believe was mentioned earlier by um 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 um with the DA's office um 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.

I think I'm just have a couple questions procedurally and just to try to understand so we have an open compliance enforcement case now here.

How what's the mechanism for that to conclude or how is that 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 um so that would be the type of entitlement that would be brought before the planning commission uh to have so the public noticing and then the formal vote um 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 um 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 case uh code enforcement case would remain closed.

What's okay thank you that's what I like you it was like how does it end if we did if we uh pull the denial how does it end yeah basically they would need to stop having e having events would be the one mechanism and but they would still be allowed to have their commercial stable and training just no events.

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

They don't 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 disenforcements case.

Yeah um so for a business license there's kind of two parts to approving it one is a recommendation from planning that it 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 uphold should you grant the appeal and then we issue the temporary use permit, then 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 close, 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 would not be any prejudice if the this 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 clean, because obviously we have paper trail and there's history behind it, but I also and I do believe there's an opportunity for them to uh follow or at least be good characters and and for the county to not hopefully stifle uh for needles.

Actually, little breaks, so we don't want to be the Frenito in this opportunity if they want to actually comply.

So in my 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 um business.

So correct.

Regardless of what happens with the temporary use permit appeal tonight, 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 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 uh use permit to the board of supervisors, I believe, right?

Because it's an event center and equestrian center, and so it would be go to the planning commission as a recommendation and then onto the board.

It would be similar to uh I think we have Brookside, Equestrian facility, and a few coup a couple others where they're doing kind of a combination of of activities and event center with their their agricultural operations.

Yeah, just a minor point of clarification, but uh the difference between the temporary use permit uh that this has operated under for the last two years, and the the permanent use permit is the limitation on number of events.

The temporary use permit is limited to up to 10 per year, uh which is what it is, it's what the zoning code uh allows.

Uh the permanent use permit may or may not have limitations on it depending on the public process.

Yeah, the other restriction is is that under the temporary use permit, they have to have a nonprofit that's sponsoring the event, they would be able to just operate it as a yes as 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, um, and then also um if they are having events that are deemed music festivals, which we have had a few complaints about, those would fall under a different or ordinance, and so those types are the types of things that could be addressed under the more permanent uh type of outdoor recreation facility that can't be addressed under the temporary use permit.

Thank you, Ms.

Hartman.

Mr.

Trap, I or Mr.

Trips, I see you uh raising your hand.

I I just want to confer with counsel.

What is the 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.

Um, I see your hand going up.

I also am raising my hand because I think we want to address the scope of this, what the action is, and this is also gonna require some more information from staff.

Um, 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 what will be left?

So that uh 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 um BCA 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 um, could direct staff to work with the applicant on uh 10 days or 10 event dates for the remainder of the year.

Understood.

So yeah, oh yeah, go ahead.

So just my my question is pretty basic.

Um in terms of uh 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 um prescriptive in terms of what the license under the license as far as if there's any conditions placed on it or elaborate further on that?

Yes, so um, with many of our business license, we'll make references to different portions of our zoning code that may have requirements on um how they're allowed to operate for stables.

We do have some criteria that we typically reference regarding uh on-site maintenance of those facilities for vector control dust, things of that nature.

Um we also typically condition those types of uh uses for no events, and so that way when we do have writing academies and things of that nature, um, they they typically, if they do want to have um 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 Council Burke?

Sorry, you had to follow up?

Right.

I was just gonna say for due process reasons, yes, the the appellant should be able to come back up if we're finished with the this is the last round of uh questions for staff.

You can still do some more, but if we're done asking questions, yeah.

Understood okay.

Um any other questions for staff at this point.

I I just want it to be uh very perfectly clear.

Um we've um 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.

Um was that ever provided to them?

Was that an option that was given where at least had an option to provide public documents in Spanish?

Was that something that was afforded to them?

Um I don't believe they ever made such a request to us.

Um, 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 a 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 gonna be requesting this, and this is the time where staff you know denied.

Um, and then um, 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 or let's just say that uh assuming that their appeal is denied, right?

So uh if the appeal was denied and right now that they're unable to so we're if effectively the Sacramento County is not allowing them to have a temporary use permit.

There was 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 uh having a more permanent change to the allowable use or something that a matter of I'm 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 for calendar year, but that would require an actual not necessarily zoning change, but an a separate application, for example.

It would be for a conditional use permit.

A conditional so 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 departments well equipped to at least advise, understand, or at least inform and educate.

Yeah.

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 um using um kind of your scenario where the um uh uh 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 um boarding and training facil facility.

And while that was going on, then they could work towards what other avenue they 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.

Okay, chairman.

Just one quick follow-up.

If we um uphold the appeal that of the temporary the um use permit, is that decision property lifelong?

They can never come back and try to get a temporary use permit.

Is this like one and you're done?

Do you want to go, Bill?

Otherwise, it is in our zoning code.

For this year, I mean, yeah, it's one year from the date of action, then they can apply for it.

Um there's a section in chapter six of our zoning code.

I don't have it exactly in front of me, but in chapter six of our zoning code, when a permit has been denied or revoked, they you have the opportunity to reapply one year later for the for the exact same type of of permits.

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?

Um 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 on the read of the code, since I don't have it directly in front of me.

So it's either April or June.

So but they get the they will get they come back later on and right and resubmit and try to make sure that they're in compliance with all the requirements.

Um, 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 uh illegal or unapproved events or activities on their site because that would also be grounds for subsequent denial.

Yeah, correct.

Okay, but we but but the case would be technically closed if we were to uphold the BCA, and you mentioned that there would not be any prejudice.

So I'm trying to figure out whether or not they would be starting us a brand new slate, right?

I just don't want uh inadvertently put them in an inadvertent cycle with which they're we're kind of driving a behavior.

I understand compliance, but yeah.

So if if um let's just use tonight as an example since we have to look into it.

So from 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 gonna continue to be uh an entity that is going to struggle operating in compliance with any conditions since 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 denial.

So we would 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 your resources right now that you would have, because regardless of the action right now, you would just be looking at a uh kind of the a few months backwards, right?

Because you're going to be kind of creating evidence based on research.

Um correct.

So if they applied in a year from now, we would get the application, we would distribute out to our various departments like the sheriff and code enforcement, they would let us do 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 the Mr.

Rockins.

In 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 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 get a 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.

Four is do not, you know, the applicant does nothing, you know, and but uh and is and is in with compliance with the the zoning requirements.

Is that correct?

Those are all the sort of scenarios.

Okay, all right.

Okay, any other further question to staff before we invite the applicant um back to the podium.

Applicant team, floor is yours if you'd like to trust the commission at this time.

I think you know, thank you.

I think it's been sworn in right.

Um, you want me to do the spoiler in?

Yes, please.

Do you swear or do you swear or affirm that the statements um you're about to make to this board are the true so help you got?

And if you do not swear, do you so affirm?

I do.

Thank you.

My name's Chris Trapp.

I have been in the permit acquisition business, I guess you could call it for 15 years.

Have yet to lose one, bet in a thousand, 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 a an allowance for what that parcel could activities could occur.

And I originally had started down that road, then I found out that they had had temporaries, so I reached out in that direction because I figured it'd be quicker.

You already went to blow right through and get a third one.

Then I found out there was issues, so kind of through 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 at you know, application and this kind of fun stuff, but um 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 I way back when, and she had mentioned stay with the temp, so figure temp could go while we're applying for the conditional use permit.

So go transition from temporary right into permanent because it takes 10 minutes 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.

But uh, 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.

Just 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 the you know, if you were to grant the permit, we get the additional dates for 10 10 times.

It's just because of the the way the 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, it's a given breast time and everything.

So it would be almost impossible to be able to gain all those dates that are already lost in the last few months that passed.

So all I could say is if you guys were to grant the permit, just give me the opportunity to show you guys the next couple events.

You know, take it as you know, someone coming you and trying to do the right thing for us, and just be able to take that into account that you know there's someone new, someone that knows what he's doing, someone that has never had any issues with that, and um that I'll be bringing this up and in the future something happens.

Of course, we're gonna 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 you're coming into the to the grounds and and that he will just whatever left dates are.

It's probably like four dates left on the calendar or left, and um why not a try out for for for me for the new for the family?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I think that concludes our our comments here.

Um, I was just gonna 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 and um if I can just maybe ask one quick question of staff, it won't it won't require rebuttal.

I think this is a pretty yes or no.

Um, are they is there um with this application?

Um 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 uh horse racing exhibition.

Um 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 in activities, and we probably would have conditioned the temporary use permits differently in those cases.

That was it.

Last question, all right.

Not a problem, Vice Chair Dublin.

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 you're gonna need to adopt findings.

Um we're gonna need to see, you know, that the the way it breaks down with full review.

So if we could do that, um and then I've got some draft findings here, depending on which way you go.

So we'll need to talk about uh what you do with those.

So you don't want to kick off deliberation, yeah.

Let's give it up.

But I'd like to ask the question about the findings.

You know, counsel's telling us we have to make some findings.

Um I think that's gonna 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 if you grant the appeal and allow them on other whatever it is, six or ten dates to have these events, then you wanna you gotta have findings to say why.

And if you're gonna 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 uh either way we're gonna have to we're gonna have 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.

Volunteer first.

I have three sets of eyes looking at me.

You don't have to go first.

No, I could I no that's fine, Mr.

Vice Chair.

No, I I think there's you one, it's acknowledged based on the agenda packet, you know, and going through the chronology that you know that's obviously there's a there's a breakdown communication, there's a breakdown in the process, there's a breakdown, you know, caught leading to a cause of uh violations.

And and thank you to staff for you know for going through the the and documenting all those.

And that's the 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 uh in that I uh 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, you know, and we deny the the appeal, but you know, 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, you know, allow a you know, showing of good faith, uh, whether it's you know long-term, I'm talking a year, you know, at most, or you know, or if you know 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, uh so there aren't any code enforcement uh violations or perceived code enforcement violations.

There's also you have to remember you do have residents, even though it's zoned agriculture as AR20.

There are there are residents there, and it's a small street.

So those things all have to be factored into this.

I you know, I I like you know, this business to continue.

Um but I also want to make sure that um the community is considered, and then secondly, that um that there aren't any, you know, any violations uh moving forward.

So that's how I start.

I guess for me, um torn.

I mean, I think I share a lot of those same um concerns.

You know, the 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, 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.

Um 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 two, three years of a history of performance on a temporary use permit that was not problematic of and didn't have code violations, you know, but that is not where we are at.

Um the other thing I'm struggling with is you know, while there are certainly language barriers, um hiding behind your agent of going, well, 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, um, because it sounds like it could be something very, you know, I think at some point, you know, interesting and beneficial to the community and um, but I just don't know if it's there right now.

And so um certainly if you know the appeal is to um 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.

You know, here's we're gonna have 200 people, and here's our plan of how to park it.

And here's, you know, our plan for having security.

I mean, I've seen I've seen, you know, more robust plans for smaller events.

Um, 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 gonna change this.

Here's what has changed.

And right now it's like, well, we're just gonna do it differently.

We've got somebody else running it.

And I don't know if that necessarily is enough uh of an assurance of that these problems won't be replicated.

Um, this is a tough one for me.

I I do appreciate and um am sympathetic to the language barriers, um, but it's clearly become a an issue.

Problem with the neighborhood, not the language barrier.

So, you know, if you're talking about a straw pole, I'm kind of on the on the same concept to what you just heard with the two previous commissioners.

Um I don't want to shut down a family event in an event center um or a future possibility to make it um something good for them at the same time.

I don't think that you know that there shouldn't be some kind of a consequence to what has appeared to be at least two years of stuff that um has gone awry, and regardless of who was there acting as the intermediary with the property owner, it's still a property owner's decision and responsibility.

Um I'm not quite sure process wise, whether our denial or granting this appeal, say if we were to grant this appeal, then 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 you can't change the entitlement, but you can grant you can impose conditions.

So if you're worried about things like parking or or total attendance, I think the last permit said max 300, but then the number we discussed earlier was 200.

Um if you want to discuss number of events or dates, things like that.

Yeah, you can attach conditions.

I mean, I don't if I don't get a big protest from from staff, but yeah in my opinion yes you can condition the uh 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 don't do a good job and there are the violations there were the issues um at the same time I don't want to totally shut down this family's ability to do this this thing so um I'm looking more in the realm I would be willing to do more the realm of granting it with our restrictions so but I'm not stuck on that and um response Mr.

Chairman so it's kind of one of those things that you know you may be the one that have to have to help craft this.

Yeah please um for our council um what are the maybe this is for Todd also but what is the clock that we're kind of operating under this current appeal.

It's on the agenda today if it was on the agenda tomorrow I mean is there 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 my concerns are if you guys end up two 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 make to take any action and if we need to have a full a full board of zoning appeals that's gonna require a future meeting so that's been running through my head right now.

The other aspect of that that occurred to me is how long if you were to grant the appeal thus allowing 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 or three I don't 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?

Typically process new business licenses are typically processed within 45 days from completion from from receipt of complete application and payment 45 days or four to five days 45 okay so month another month and a half commissioner I I would I mean going back to my initial comments about being um not so much torn but trying to find a solution here to one as uh commissioner verga indicated some consequences but secondly looking at okay not trying to um eradicate a family owned business I mean I think we could look at potentially looking at conditions in terms of and and I've I have co-chaired I've chaired events for 500 people downtown where I've had a parking plan have to submit downtown Sacramento partnership work with the police meet with the city um 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 um that's not what I'm at you know necessarily say you know I 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 it's gonna be how security is going to be handled, I would potentially be looking at, you know, in terms of um you know were it grant the uh the appeal um condition of maybe uh well along with a business license and also what the sheriff indicated in the letter, you know at least three events for the rest of the year, three, four events, not ten.

Uh to show to demonstrate, you know, for the applicant to demonstrate good faith, you know, with that.

And if they're looking to do a longer term conditional use permit, then then that's correct.

I wanna I want to I appreciate what code enforcement pointing out because you know there has to be some, you know, regardless of a language barrier.

Uh there has to be some accountability, you know, for this process.

And if there are any, let's say, code enforcements that are there, that could be subject to me uh revocation potentially.

So the some some food for thought on this, so I I think for me where I'm I think settling is if neither, you know, deny this appeal and then 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.

Um the other I guess kind of question in my head, which where I was going with my prior question, so if this item was continued for six months, and they were to return with a plan, you know.

That was I 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, but however, but their clock would start one year, so their clock upon denial would begin in in July.

So I'm gonna clarify on that one year piece.

Well, we looked up the zoning code, uh 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.

Uh and maybe this is an interesting uh 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 um I think what I heard was that the planning commission or the board can allow an approval within one year.

So they can apply, so thank you.

Um I think I I think I heard Todd's nodding too.

So if you so hypothetically, if the Board of Zoning Appeals uh denies the appeal right now, the owner and applicants could apply for a use permit or a temporary use permit.

Um, well, no, because the temporary wouldn't go to the planning commission or the board.

Um, a CUP, correct that runs with the land would go to the board, it sounds like with a recommendation for planning commission.

They could get that going right away, but they're still looking at the same we're gonna have a similar kind of hearing, I would expect uh the same issues, the noncompliance, the you know, their defenses, that kind of stuff.

That that would all be reheard, 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.

Well, the thing is, yeah, I mean, but how do you make that exception if it if the application doesn't come before us?

But the 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 and I are asking is could the planning commission shorten based on this, could they then acting as the planning commission shorten the time period from one year to a shorter time period to reapply?

This is not the planning commission here right now, yeah.

And they can't change the zoning code and it's not agendized.

And the and the a temporary use permit wouldn't go to the planning commission anyway.

No, but this is saying that the board, 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.

That's what I except except as I read this as if the planning commission or the board had jurisdiction over the entitlement.

Okay.

That's okay.

That's where we were wondering if there was any little 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 that's um and if but they could come in right away for a normal use permit, a CU.

Conditional use permit, yeah.

Yeah, they don't have to wait for it.

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.

Um is there any other language in the 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 I don't read it that way.

So Mr.

Chairman, hearing all this, I've kind of come down on the side that um 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.

Um, you know, there's got to be a consequence, but I just don't want to shut it all the way down.

And staff have 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.

Okay, granted with conditions.

I'm I'm as I indicated, I'm the same way.

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

You know, and 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 know, I don't want to kick down down the road.

You can't, 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 couple couple of thoughts here.

I and I appreciate all my fellow commissioners and the staff for the hard work in making this.

I I think that we we need to go back to really what we're being asked, consider what would be potentially precedence casing and recognize not just a history.

I don't think that we're dealing with uh 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 um the the BCA's or we are the BCA overturned 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 my that's my that's kind of where my my conflict is rising.

Because these are the things that as uh one of the representatives have mentioned person's batting over a thousand percent.

I don't even know if that's possible, but that is seems to me from the evidence it's presented to us that they have now hired somebody who would be able to, and again, quoting what they had presented to this body, as 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 open, 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 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 us 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 fate 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, um I I I'm not a big believer that 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 TA, 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 uh essentially my concern.

Um, I'm I'm leaning towards, or at least my feedback, I'm leaning towards um denying the appeal right now, knowing in full good faith that this body would and the staff here would give every ample opportunity of providing them technical resources, language, um, and culturally uh significant uh culturally um available resources that will allow them every explanation.

Now we're not gonna 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 uh local chambers, the business education resource center like BERC, or their opportunities that's gonna be afforded for them now that they also have retained um 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're ready for the conditional use permit.

So uh I will pause there.

Um I am intending to uh move the item as uh and follow the staff recommendation recommendation with a 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, okay.

Sorry, that's pretty fast.

So now your two two.

Um, no, I didn't I didn't say that.

I was throwing out.

Oh, you're okay, you guys are tentative.

Yeah, okay.

It was 10 for the record, it's very tentative.

Okay, so at least so, okay.

So the there's a motion in a second now to deny the appeal.

Um, okay, so we've gone beyond the we've gone beyond the straw poll.

Wow.

Right.

Now we're gonna you're gonna 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.

I I did the findings I drafted were based on the staff report, so they are findings uh that support a denial of the appeal.

It's a page and a half, it's a 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.

Um I don't know how the forward you're gonna vote yet, but I'm gonna 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.

Um, thereby upholding the ZA's denial of the application.

Oh, thanks.

I'm gonna hang on to one.

Todd has one.

Do you do uh I have to just tell you I kind of I understand the process, it's just I have a hard time with you know denying something and having a reasoning handed to me.

Right.

That's why you can delete anything you want.

This is a suggestion.

Well, do we need to you need to have something in writing to correct?

Administrative appeal hearing, you've got to adopt written findings.

Do we need to read these into the record or no?

The so I've submitted the copy to the clerk.

Now, however, you however you may revise it, you need to read that into the record.

So this would be just become if we agreed to it 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 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 to do.

Well, 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, you know, whoever's gonna see an application for a use permit later, they're gonna say, well, the board of zoning appeals denied this appeal for their temporary use permit.

So take that however you want, but that's gonna be part of the record.

Okay, and just so you know that just to be completely um out, um open and standing.

I've been in their 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 haven't don't agree with maybe that's what we're gonna 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 them to get through the process, just so you know, regardless of the gentleman who says he's done it before, it's a 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.

Okay, but am I 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.

No, that is that is correct.

So I have had some experience where acting as the 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 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 sufficient.

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 said folks are here, which they will be, but that's concerning to me, grant another temporary COP, because we're just the scope of this motion back to council is we are either you know up or down on granting uh the appeal.

Right, and that could be modified by deleting the whole sentence or changing it to the evidence is sufficient to not grant this application for a temporary CUP, you know, however you want to do it.

Could we sorry I'm just thinking out loud here?

Absent the submittal and acceptance of an approved plan that clearly addresses past concerns as identified during the prior hearing body, prior hearings.

What I'm 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 gonna include a much more detailed plan of how we're gonna park this.

What is our plan for security, right?

Like, 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 just a question on that future application.

Yeah.

Um, 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 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 a hopefully a short-term.

Um decision is short term, but it could be longer term for, you know, in 2027 beyond.

Uh I'd like to strike the last sentence and include the uh the sentence that counsel Burke had just eloquently put together.

I apologize.

We should make sure it's read out much clearer.

So you're talking about eliminating the last sentence of the last paragraph on the second page.

Yes, sir.

That's correct.

That's on item number four, and then insert the non-prejudicial uh language.

Um and we're asking counsel to write language that says it's not presidential to or not prejudicial to the uh another.

Yes, sir, correct.

I think he just I'm doing that's what I'm doing, yes.

Yes, okay, I 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.

Do we need to so you need to um so the second motion and second need to concur on the changes to the findings?

Yeah, I would concur with with that change.

I concur with that change as well.

Okay.

So I think I'm seeing a a nodding head.

So I think you're gonna have a clean, looks like you may have a clean vote on this or enough to to not put us in the awkward position of a two-two.

Um, but any further deliberation.

If I could speak to the motion then, yes, so you know, to me, it's this is why I'm 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 a longer term of getting a conditional use permit to operate this more on it more than just on 10 dates or nine dates that it is but it does allow for um the ability to take the opportunities that are at that facility to a different level potentially I just have a general question is part of our our denial can we shorten on length of time that they have to appeal instead of a year well it's not an appeal I mean versions of that question have been asked and what I am right now is that the the use permit a permanent use permit they can come in and apply tomorrow.

Yeah at any point I'm talking about the temporary there's a temporary is a 12 months would apply and we could as a result of this we couldn't put in their six months and they can reapply no no okay so we're not changing ordinance okay that's what I was wanting to know um just want to make sure if the motion is still uh 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 um make a motion to uh deny the applicant's appeal um and declare that the findings that we have here are or include the findings that we have here with the edits that were made and it's discussed and I would still second that okay so that upholds the denial of the application by the zoning administrator just to be clear and that item um is 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 um madam clerk can you please uh read item number three and item number three is miscellaneous scheduling items uh the only thing that I have that will be upcoming is SB 707 will take effect at our July thirteenth meeting which will um allow us or we will be accepting um public speakers via Zoom so so and I I will have more information and give more direction on what that will look like for us.

Understood thank you very much 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 745 p.m thank you have a good evening and happy belated father's day thank you