The Tulare County Planning Commission continued the public hearing on Special Use Permit PSP25-030, a request to authorize an ag-service/tree-trimming business at 13426 Avenue 232, and set the matter for a date-certain continuance to Nov. 12, 2025.

Staff presentation and site visit: Russell Castro, project processing staff with the Resource Management Agency, told the commission that the item had been continued from the Sept. 27 meeting to allow the applicant and the neighbor to meet with county staff. Castro said the project originally proposed an operation with up to 40 trucks and 40 employees; at a staff-facilitated meeting held Oct. 6 the applicant agreed to reduce the truck count to 35 and discussed additional mitigation measures. Castro said staff visited the site on Oct. 7 with photographs and submitted additional materials (including police reports) from the applicant.

Applicant and neighbor positions: Property owner Kevin Bacher said he operated a tree-trimming business at the address and that he had already reduced his fleet (telling the commission he had sold five trucks to reach 35). Bacher said the black mesh screen was installed to provide interim privacy, disputed assertions about noise and dust, and described alleged harassment and vandalism that he reported to the sheriff.

Neighbor Tara Dominguez, who lives at 13446 Avenue 232, described privacy, noise and safety concerns. She told the commission she and other neighbors can see activity on the site from their front door and expressed concern about trucks entering and exiting near a high-speed roadway and about the frequency of employees and truck movements. Dominguez asked that the county require a more permanent visual barrier and measure decibel levels.

Key issues under discussion
- Fleet size and employees: The business initially listed 40 trucks; staff and neighbors discussed reducing the number of vehicles. Bacher agreed to a cap near 35 trucks; the total number of employees remained unclear in the transcript (application listed 40 employees; the owner referenced two workers per truck and a higher potential employee count). Staff recommended clarifying total employees and office personnel before final action.
- Visual screening and walls: Neighbors requested a block wall; staff said county practice typically requires chain-link fencing with slats plus landscaping for use permits but that a block wall could be required by the commission if it finds it appropriate given the commercial nature of the operation adjacent to a residence.
- Noise: Staff said county nuisance powers and guidelines apply; typical agricultural-setting reference levels mentioned by staff include up to roughly 75 decibels, while Caltrans standards for sound walls use a 45-decibel target at a front door. Staff offered that decibel measurements could be taken by a third party as part of follow-up.
- Access and Caltrans encroachment: A formal deceleration/encroachment improvement on the roadway is a condition noted from the original permit; staff said obtaining an encroachment permit from Caltrans could take at least a year and that the county would keep the requirement as a condition.
- Civil disputes and police reports: Both parties described alleged harassment, removed cameras, and police calls. Staff emphasized many of those items are civil matters and not enforceable as permit conditions.

Staff recommendation and next steps: Given remaining disagreements about mitigation measures (wall versus screening, timing for planting trees, exact fleet/employee counts, and noise monitoring), staff recommended returning with drafted conditions that reflect the concerns heard. Commissioner Matt Stoll (speaker identified as Stoll) suggested mediation and an exchange of information between parties so issues could be narrowed before the commission reconsiders the permit.

Commission action: The commission voted to continue the item to a date-certain Nov. 12, 2025, to allow staff to draft conditions and for the parties to pursue mediation or further agreement. The transcript records the motion to continue to Nov. 12 and subsequent proceedings; the transcript does not include a recorded roll-call tally for the continuance in the provided excerpt (vote not specified).

Why it matters: The permit would allow a commercial-like operation in an AE-40 (agricultural) zone adjacent to a residence; the conditions the commission imposes — on truck counts, screening, hours, and access improvements — determine how the operation may affect neighbors and public safety.

Ending: The commission left the public record open for the record materials already submitted, directed staff to prepare proposed conditions and suggested the parties consider mediated discussions before the Nov. 12 hearing.