Tulare County holds informational hearing on contractor yard after years of neighbor complaints

On Sept. 24, 2025, the Tulare County Planning Commission held an informational public hearing on Special Use Permit PSP22-098, a contractor storage yard and service operation run by Samuel Cortez (Sam's Air Conditioning) on Avenue 196 in Strathmore. The hearing examined a multi‑year pattern of neighbor complaints alleging noise, after‑hours unloading of air conditioners, parking on the frontage road, dust and harassment between adjacent property owners.

Planning staff and code‑enforcement officials described a long history of complaints and inspections. David Alexander (planning staff) and Hector Ramos (chief building official) told the commission that code enforcement has responded repeatedly to complaints but that most inspections found no ongoing violations; staff said one code case led to a minor modification of the permit. Ramos told the commission that inspections are unannounced and that, where noncompliance was found, the owner came into compliance; he said most subsequent complaints were determined to be unfounded.

Property owner Samuel Cortez described repeated legal actions and county complaints he called harassment. “I submitted this declaration ... in order to document patterns of repeated baseless complaints and harassment made by my neighbor,” Cortez said, summarizing his view that many complaints were meritless and that enforcement actions had not been taken against him. Neighbor Johnny Maciel said the operation sits “within 5 or 6 feet away from our bedrooms,” and alleged early‑morning unloading of air conditioners and repeated disruptions that, he said, harmed family members.

Staff described the permit conditions at issue. Condition of approval number 9 states that the site is not open to the public and that parking for business deliveries on the street is prohibited; staff advised the commission that restricting deliveries on a public roadway is likely unenforceable and recommended removing that prohibition. Staff also proposed a standard compliance approach of two site inspections per year (county practice is normally one inspection annually for use permits, with an added check every six months if warranted). Staff presented three possible paths for the commission: direct no further action by staff, direct staff to prepare a minute order and proceed to a revocation hearing (which could result in amended conditions or revocation), or direct staff to amend the permit conditions (for example, remove the prohibition on deliveries on the public road and set a specified inspection schedule).

Commissioners discussed mediation, buffers and operational changes to reduce conflict. Several commissioners urged the parties to consider professional mediation; others suggested reconfiguring parking and truck storage away from the complaining residence and planting trees or moving parking into the orchard side of the parcel to create a buffer. Commissioners noted that the site is in an AE‑10 exclusive agricultural zone within a rural valley lands plan and that some agricultural operations carry different expectations for dust and activity.

Counsel advised the commission that the meeting was an informational item and that no formal vote should be taken at this session. The commission provided direction to staff to prepare a minute order reflecting the guidance heard and to return the matter to the commission; staff will provide public notice for the minute order and any subsequent hearing. The transcript records that staff estimated roughly 80 complaints to date (document copies were said to exist) but clarified that these were complaint reports, not sustained violations in every instance. The permit was originally approved in 2022; staff said the condition allowing hours of operation generally permits work a half hour before sunrise to a half hour after sunset, with 24‑hour exceptions for bona fide emergencies (e.g., air‑conditioning repairs for vulnerable residents).