Gardens of Noor hearing and transcript

Okay. Okay. Well, we will proceed to the um Gardens of Noor Cemetery proposal.

You want to hear recent board actions? Oh, yeah. I'm sorry.

That's all right. The board of supervisors met this morning and they uh certified the final EIR for the Wicklow Specific Plan and adopted the plan.

Okay. Thank you.

As recommended by the planning commission.

Due to the large number of people here, I regret to have to do this, but we have to have a three minute speaking limit.

Um, like I said, I regret having to do that, but considering the number of people here, I want to give everyone the

opportunity to speak, and I think everyone in the this crowded room can understand that.

planning staff will time the three minutes and then let us know.

So let's proceed. Who would like to address the commission? Please go ahead.

Wait, excuse me.

Hi. So I can introduce the the item. So it's um the request for use permit application UP222-3

for Gardens of Noor Cemetery which proposes 1832 grave sites is divided among seven blocks on the north end of

the property located at 16630 Lambert Road with an alternative address of 857 Carbondale Road. Uh the parcel is 46

acres and zoned R1A single family residential and agriculture with an MRZ mineral resource zone general plan designation. The proposed improvements

include driving parking, driveway parking for up to 100 cars, a parking lot with 64 permanent spaces, and permanent restrooms. The proposed number

of funerals is 60 funerals a month with a limit of 50 attendees per event. The APN is 0012200013.

Um the applicant is Mounir Kaddoura and tonight the possible planning commission action is to review the project, determine the ad adequacy of the

proposed environmental document proposed to be a mitigated negative declaration and um a decision on the project to approve or deny the use permit with the

recommended conditions of approval, mitigation measures and findings included in the staff report. I did want to make a note that staff does have um

recommendation. One of the comments um that was submitted regarding the project does um note that the mitigation measure bio- did not make it into the draft

conditions that were in the upload. So it is found within um the secret initial study, but it wasn't called out separately among the mitigations in the

initial study nor at this the chapter 21. So, it's staff's recommendation if the project is if the commission chooses

to approve the project to amend the final conditions of approval and the final initial study to include that mitigation measure which is in reference

to um specific to oak uh tree preservation and that's following the recommendations of the bi biologist uh

selected by the applicant. Um other than that um yeah this project was reviewed

by TAC um the technical advisory committee and they um have no I guess uh

objections to approval of the project with the proposed mitigations as presented. Um the applicant is also

present so he's on Zoom so I would say he would also have the opportunity to present his item.

Oh if the applicant's here I'll sit down.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you, sir. One moment right here.

Make a host.

Where's I need to see. I can't see.

I did. Where is it? allowed.

One moment, please. It's hard to see with the video up there. We'll put John right back.

When are you able to unmute yourself? Hello everyone. Hi.

Thank you.

Perfect. One moment. Let me put John back up on the screen in the chambers.

Mounir, I don't

Go ahead. I don't When did you have any comments or did you want to introduce your project or have any presentation for the the commission and audience?

Well, I would uh thank everyone uh for the hard work and for reviewing the uh application.

Uh I know I took a lot of your time but uh again thank you very much all for your hard work and uh for looking into

the matter

I think some people in the back of the room had difficulty hearing you. Are you able to turn up your microphone? We turned you up in the the room as well.

Okay. Can you hear me now? Yeah.

Yes. We got lots of Okay.

I would like to thank every one of you for participating in this. So if there is any mistake on my side, I would

correct it. I thank the commissioners uh for the time that they have spent on uh reviewing the uh the application the

request. Uh thank you all for that. uh whether you are the commissioners or the neighbors because we are here to respond

to every concern that you have as neighbors and uh we will f we will fulfill all the conditions uh and we

will go with your conditions as well and again thank you all for coming and uh that's it.

All right. Thank you, Anir. If you um wish to speak again, feel free to raise your hand. I know that the applicant is allowed to speak multiple times. So, but

for now, we will mute you because of the the background noise.

Okay. We we will proceed.

Mr. Chairman and staff and audience, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Uh I live on built and live on sir airport.

Excuse me sir.

Please introduce yourself before speaking. Uh Wesley David Wardall.

Okay pilot number 18093. Okay. Uh thank you for everybody coming.

Uh we give you a little bit of background. We bought the airport uh built the airport and have a lot of fun

with it. It's a recreational outdoor activity which falls under uh the SECO

guidelines for recreation. Uh this airport is the biggest airport in the county. It will take a Boing 757. The

day after 911, we had two Air Force colonels out there and they said if all hell breaks loose, you want to hide F-16s. I told them we're going to Defcon

Alpha, come on in. Now, we didn't get any water out there. We drilled on the east side 10 wells as

deep as 700 feet, no water. But uh I I want to get into this and just say the report I looked at and I have CEQA

experience. We had a volunteer CEQA specialist in in Calabaris County come in and help us. Our report to the county

was 443 pages and it showed all the problems of it. the county's applicant

that submitted that data is a fairy tale and the act the applicant being processed by the county is full of

errors emissions and problems. We have a whole bunch of specialists and I'm going to ask the county, the audience to to

help me out here, about 10 or 12 of them. I'm a licensed engineer, other licensed civil engineers, a doctor, and

and some very professional people that are uh contractors that are very familiar with the NFPA, a fire chief,

and so on. So, I'm going to ask the audience to to help me out on that.

Okay. I'm going to talk about first uh no water. There's no water on the east side of Lambert Road. We dwell

uh 10 wells as deep as 700 feet on the property. The five wells on the east side of Lambert were dry. Nothing. Okay.

The uh fire protection water there we put in a 6-in C900 water mane for 37,000

ft or over 7 miles and it is capable of about 490 gallons a minute. that fire

flow. That fire flow goes to our subdivision and we have 4 in and 3-in lines going to each house with warf

hydrants. There is no excess water there. The Amador County uh mainline agreement, amendment 4, limits it to 35

connections for tuna 5/8 inch water meter and we are at capacity. So there is no water available now. We had to

drill four producing wells in order to get our subdivision, one in each quarter section. We can't we didn't get it. What

I look at and then looking at the history, the county says, "Well, you can go up Cameron Park and get Billy Bob Wheel Drilling Service and give you a

letter and we'll take it." That is unacceptable. It's a change in the specifics and the and the technical

applications we had to comply for and relaxing them for the applicant. It's not fair. Okay, next.

I'm not done yet. Seat belt and hang on.

Okay, let's talk about the vehicle trips. The county ignored and didn't look at the governor's office of

planning and research. They have specifically for vehicle trips added to a project what the threshold limit is.

That threshold is 110 trips a day. Now, we did a lot of work and research and

we've come up with the applicant was told by a staff member in the planning department to download the numbers that

you have so you can get your foot in the door. and they went down to uh 20 cars

and 50 people. We have the documentation on it and we will present it in private to any one of the planning

commissioners. Now, if you look at this, the Islamic funeral community is is has a

practice of going out on WhatsApp or whatever that thing is is uh I don't do all that social media stuff and they ask

all of the the the community to attend the funeral whether they know the deceased or not. So we came up here the

numbers are four uh 225 attendees driving 150 cars which is 1.5 persons

per car. Two funerals a day 60 uh every

day for a year. So that works out to uh

300 trips per day and that's well above the threshold of 110 trips. you're around 200% exceedence. Nothing is in

the report about that from the the county report. If we look at the bathroom load, the bathroom load in

there is set for a 500 uh gallon septic tank. My wife and I in our ranch have a 1500-gallon septic tank. You have 450

people on there visiting and using the toilet. You know, there there's just another problem. I'm showing and painting the illustrations there. Now,

I've talked enough and I'm going to uh ask for Keep going. Keep going.

I could write a book on this, folks.

I I'm going to I'm going to relinquish to some very very knowledgeable people. Peggy, she is responsible.

Mr. Wald, Mr. Wardall, can you please address your comments to the commission? Okay. Thank you. I'm Peggy is is our CEQA specialist.

She'll be up there in just a second. She worked two months as a volunteer, unpaid. She is very sharp and has a lot

of SEO experience and went through and found dozens and dozens of problems and she will address that. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Any questions?

Okay.

I have the the uh signature sheets for people donating time. Do you want It's going to be hard to hear on the recording, Dave, if you're still talking.

I have the signature sheets for the time donations. Would you Do you want those for We're donating minutes to according

to Mr. Gonzalez, I have a email from him. We could donate minutes to from people that won't speak to a speaker.

Donate them. I have the forms if you need them.

Commissioner Bennett. Commissioner Bennett, as the chair of this meeting, it's at your discretion if you would like to abide by the 3minut time limit

limitation that has been advertised. I will advise that we do have to apply that equally. So, it would be best practice that we enforce a 3minut time

limit universally. I understand there might have been another arrangement.

Additionally, chair, it's at your discretion um in to facilitate this meeting to advise that the audience

limit and minimize side talk and sidee so that we can hear the individual commenters. Yeah, I I believe I said

that at the beginning that I hate to have to do this, but considering the number of people here, we really do have

to have a threeminut limit because I want to give as many people as possible the opportunity to speak.

Go ahead, please. You can have my three minutes.

He can have my I ask for 15 minutes if that's possible.

Well, I think the people have spoken. You have your 15 minutes. Very good.

Thank you, Vice Chair, Commissioner, uh, chair, and all the commissioners. My name is Peggy Flynn and I'm speaking on

behalf of myself and the citizens who have joined the Eagle's Nest Estates Owners Association

in opposition to adoption of the initial study and proposed mitigated ne negative declaration for use permit number 22-2-3

the gardens of no cemetery project. I appreciate the commission allowing additional time because this is not a

routine project record. The question before you is not whether a cemetery can ever be appropriately located in Amador County

County. The question is whether this particular project on this particular 46 acre rural parcel served by this

particular road network with this particular water wastewater fire access drainage and groundwater setting has

received the level of environmental review that CEQA requires. The answer is no. The initial study and proposed M

andd do not sub do not provide substantial evidence that impacts will be less than significant. They leave

major project impacts unquantified, unsupported, deferred to later review or excluded by defining the project too

narrowly. The record instead presents substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that this project may have

significant environmental effects. Under CEQA, that is the point at which an EIR is required. This commission should

therefore decline to adopt the MND, declined to make the required use permit findings on this incomplete record, and

direct staff to prepare an EIR that evaluates the whole project, not simply the latest reduced version of it.

I want to begin with the central problem, peacemealing. The project now before you is not a newly conceived 800

1832 plot cemetery on a small self-contained piece of land. It is part of an entitlement application that has

remained open on the same 46 acre Amador County parcel since 2022 under the same use permit UP22-2-3.

The 2022 application proposed a dramatically larger development as many as 50,000 grave sites, a major assembly

building described in the applicant's materials as 10,000 square ft and 30 ft high with an occupancy of 1,200 people,

as well as an office, caretaker structure, equipment building, access roads, parking, and additional

facilities. The applicant's own 2022 engineering sheets did not leave the phasing issue to inference. They labeled

the cemetery and internal road as stage one. They separately labeled a large assembly building and a second road as

stage two. That evidence matters. CEQA does not allow an agency to review the first phase while ignoring the larger

documented foreseeable project of which that phase is a necessary precedent. CEQA guidelines section 15165

directs environmental review to address the scope of the larger project where a phased project is being undertaken. This

is precisely why the current project description cannot be treated as a fresh isolated proposal. The current iteration

reduces the stated scope from 50,000 grave sites and a large assembly use to 832 grave plots over 1.7 acres, but the

application still covers the same 46 acre parcel.

The applicant has not placed a recorded restriction on the remaining land. The earlier plans document the larger program. The applicant has reportedly

stated at the September 18th, 2025 TAC meeting that he intended to apply for another addition in approximately 6

months and would proceed with further proposals later. And at the June 11th TAC meeting, 2026, future use permit

amendments were repeatedly invoked as the anticipated answer to questions about the project's ultimate limits.

That is not evidence that the future is uncertain. It is evidence that future expansion is anticipated. The math

reinforces the documentary record. At the applicant stated rate of 60 funerals funeral events per month, 720 per year,

the 1832 plots would be used in about 2 and 1/2 years if each plot received one interment. Yet, the cemetery plan allows

as many as three bodies per plot. The actual stated capacity is therefore up to 5,496

interments, not simply 832 plots. Even taking the larger number, the project

fills in approximately 7.6 years at the stated rate, and the cemetery plan describes a 100year development horizon.

The present proposal thus cannot reasonably be understood as the entire long-term project on this 46 acre site.

Indeed, the current density also tells the story. The proposed 1832 plots on approximately 1.7 acres produces a

density which if extended across the full parcel closely recreates the earlier 50,000 grave concept. The

proposed the supposedly reduced project is not a new project with a different future. It is the first piece of the

same development pattern. This is exactly the kind of segmentation CEQA is intended to prevent. The concern is not

that the applicant may someday seek a lawful amendment. The concern is that the county is being asked to approve a first phase while treating the known

documented foreseeable subsequent phases as though they do not exist. If the county approves the MND, later

expansions may expansions may be portrayed as merely incremental changes to an already approved cemetery. The

public and this commission would then be asked to analyze each piece after the first precedent has been established.

CEQA requires the opposite approach. It requires the county to disclose, analyze, and mitigate the environmental

consequences before it makes the commitment that facilitates the larger project. The traffic analysis is another independent reason an EIR is required.

The project application identifies 60 funerals per month and up to 50 attendees per funeral. That equates to

roughly two funerals a day, but it also asserts an average increase of only 20 vehicles per day. Those figures are

facially incompatible. 50 attendees at a funeral cannot ordinarily be transported in 20 vehicles for an entire day if

there are up to two funeral events per day. Even using a very generous average vehicle occupancy, the county's own

operational cap produces approximately 40 to 50 arriving vehicles per funeral or 80 to 100 vehicle trips on a day with

two. And that is before considering return trips, employees, deliveries, maintenance, visitors, or future phases.

Yet, the initial study provides no actual quantified trip generation analysis. It provides no supported VMT

calculation. It does not disclose total cumulative trips over the actual interment capacity and it fails to

reconcile the applicant's stated event program with the applicant's much lower lower traffic number. A conclusion is

not substantial evidence simply because it appears in an initial study. CEQA requires analysis supported by facts, calculations, and reasoned explanation.

Here, the core traffic assumptions do not match the project description. More importantly, the initial study confuses

a VMT question with a physical safety question. Under sequest transportation checklist, the county must consider

whether the project would substantially increase hazards due to a design fit feature, dangerous intersection, or

incompatible use, and whether it would result in inadequate emergency access.

Those are separate questions from vehicle miles traveled. The initial study did not meaningfully analyze the physical safety questions. Instead, it

relied on a generalized statement that cemeteries generate infrequent visitation for BMT purposes. That does

not analyze road width, curves, sight distance, shoulders, pavement condition, funeral processions, and traffic,

driveway safety, emergency response, or the collision history of the actual access corridor. All project traffic

must use the Carbondale Road corridor approached from State Route 16 or State Route 104 and Michigan Bar Road. The

county's own regional transportation plan describes its non-state roadway network as including narrow curving

slight limit sight limited roads and minimal shoulders. It identifies safety needs along SR 104 and Mish Michigan

bar. The record further identifies multiple fatal collisions within the immediate access network in recent years. We should be clear about the purpose of mentioning these tragedies.

The purpose is not to exploit them. The purpose is to recognize that the safety conditions described in the county's own

transportation documents are not theoretical. They are real conditions on roads. Project traffic will use

a destination scale funeral. use use concentrates traffic at emotionally difficult moments, frequently involving

visitors unfamiliar with rural road geometry, potentially arriving in groups, following GPS navigation, and

traveling at particular times of the day. The MND does not analyze that setting. The proposed mitigation does

not cure the omission. It directs traffic away from certain roads and toward Carbondale, but the county's own public works director reportedly told

the applicant that patrons will follow GPS routing. That is not a criticism of any individual. It is a realistic observation.

A condition based on posting directions has no monitoring mechanism, no vehicle counts, no enforcable performance

standard, and no correction corrective action if attendance or traffic exceeds the assumptions underlying the MND. The

proposed MMRP contains no meaningful long-term monitoring of funeral attendance, vehicles, or cumulative interments. A mitigation measure that

depends on an unmonitored operational cap is not enforcable mitigation in perpetuity. It cannot support a less

than significant finding. The site's physical setting presents equally serious unstudied impacts. The initial

study dismisses flooding based largely on FEMA zone X mapping, but residents have supplied testimony of recurrent

local flooding, flooded road conditions, erosion, drainage failures, and roadside hazards in the immediate area. FEMA

mapping is not a substitute for sight specific analysis of actual on the ground drainage conditions, especially

on rural land with small drainages and localized flooding patterns. The project also includes grading and site

modification. The record indicates grade changes that ma may be approximately 2 feet in areas of the site, but the MND

does not include a complete two-scale engineered grading and drainage plan adequate to analyze how grading will change runoff patterns, concentrate

flows, increase erosion, affect nearby roadways, or interact with known flood conditions. The problem is not simply

drainage. It is the interaction among drainage, shallow burial, groundwater erosion, and water quality. The

applicant's own geotechnical reportedly found groundwater quote consistently encountered actively seeping through

fractures in the underlying silt stone and pooling or ponding shortly after excavation. End quote. That is the project's own evidence of shallow

fracture-fed groundwater. At the same time, the proposal involves shallow green burials reportedly as shallow as

18 in with unimbalmed remains and in some descriptions without conventional casket barriers. This is not an issue to

be dismissed with generalized best management practices to be developed later. The county's own council previously identified water

contamination as the most significant potential impact and requested before the application was deemed complete a

detailed grave site plan, hydraologic data identifying flood areas and water table depths and soil profile

information for burial areas. Those basic studies are still not demonstrated in the MND record. The county's

environmental health and public health staff likewise raised concerns about groundwater contamination and pathogen leeching. Those are not community

inventions. They are concerns reflected in county correspondents about this very project. The MND must answer the

question, what happens when shallow burials are located over shallow fracture-fed groundwater in an area of annual rainfall, local flooding, and

potential runoff? It must analyze burial depth standards, groundwater separation, sight specific soils, hydraulic

pathways, monitoring setbacks, flood exposure, and the consequences of a failure. The MND does none of that at

the level CEQA requires. Feral swine is a ne another omitted site condition. The

record identifies an uncontrolled regional feral pig population and evidence of trapping activity nearby.

Feral swine can root substantially deeper than the proposed 18-in burial depth. The federal and state materials recognize their damage to cemeteries and

burial grounds. The initial study does not even discuss the issue. It does not analyze whether the proposed 5-ft fence

will exclude swine, whether it has a belowra barrier, whether burial depth is sufficient, or how disturbance of remains could affect public health,

soil, water quality, and neighbors. A foreseeable impact cannot be avoided by saying nothing about it. Water supply,

wastewater, and fire protection are also not shown to be feasible. The Amador Water Agency has reportedly limited the

parcel to a 400gallon per day average water allocation, one equivalent dwelling unit because the

serving line is undersized and susceptible to pressure drops during high demand. The proposal contemplates funerals, visitors, restrooms, landscape

irrigation, and potential future assembly uses. The MND has not demonstrated how those demands can be met within that allocation. Their

proposed supplemental well was described as producing only two gallons per minute. Yet, the project's water source remains uncertain in the application

materials with references both to public water and to a new well. CEQA must analyze the actual project, not

alternate alternate descriptions that have not been reconciled. The same is true for wastewater. There is no complete engineered septic design sized

to the maximum visitation and actual water demand of the proposed use. The county itself previously found the application incomplete for lack of a

septic design of verified water supply and a two-scale grading and drainage plan. Those were not trivial paperwork

defects. They were the very studies necessary to determine whether impacts to groundwater, drainage, public health, and fire protection could be mitigated.

Fire access deserves particular attention. The MND defers compliance with fire and fire life safety

requirements until after approval, but the internal access road and site design should have been analyzed now because

compliance may require additional grading, paving, tree removal, widening, structural load capacity, vertical clearance, turnarounds, and restrictions

on roadside parking. California fire code access standards require adequate adequate road width, clearance grade,

load capacity, and turnarounds. A narrow roadway cannot also function as emergency access and overflow parking.

The earlier plans depicted parking along a 20 foot wide interval gravel road while the fire code requires fire access

width to remain unobstructed. If fire code compliance requires redesign, then the MND is not evaluating the project

that would actually be constructed and there is no demonstrated fireflow supply. A limited undersized public line

and an unproven low yield well do not establish adequate fire suppression water for a gathering place in a rural

highf fire risk setting. These are not details that can simply be conditioned after the commission approves the M

andd. The conditions themselves may materially change the project footprint and its effects. Deferring those

fundamental feasibility questions improperly postpones environmental review until after the county has made

its approval commitment. I also want to address the county's own recent appellet case, Olden Golden Oaks LLC v. County of Amador County.

In that matter, the county successfully defended its position that it could require a developer to provide

additional environmental and CEQA information before treating a grading application as complete. The court of appeals upheld the county's authority to

require that rigor and the opinion remains published and citable. The county's position in Old Golden Oaks was

sound. CEQA compliance is not an afterthought. An agency may require the information necessary to determine

environmental consequences before advancing a project. That is the standard the county should apply here.

This is not a request for special treatment or a heightened standard uniquely applied to this applicant. It is a request for consistent treatment.

The county previously found this same application incomplete because it lacked a verified water supply, an engineered

septic design sized to anticipated vis visitation, and a twocale grading and drainage plan. Yet, the proposed MND

now advances despite the continuing absence of the same foundational information. County council and the commission should recognize the

institutional concern. The county cannot persuasively tell a court in one case that thorough upfront environmental

information is necessary before an application can proceed and then accept a materially thinner record here without explaining the different treatment.

Equal application of the county's own standards protecting the integrity of county decisionmaking the applicant the neighbors and the county itself.

Finally, beyond CEQA amidor county code section 1 19.56.04 040 requires the

commission to make affirmative findings that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety,

peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons in the neighborhood and will not be injurious to property or the general welfare of the county.

That is not a ministerial recital. It is a substantive finding that must be supported by evidence on this record.

How can the commission make that finding when traffic and emergency access have not yet been analyzed? When known roadway safety conditions have not yet

been evaluated, when water supply, septic capacity, and fire flow remain unresolved. When sight specific flooding and groundwater impacts are deferred.

when feral swine and shallow burial risks are omitted and when the project has been reviewed as a small first phase

despite documented plans for a much larger development. The record supports only one legally sound conclusion. There

is at least a fair argument that this project may cause significant environmental impacts. If not outright

denial of the project, the remedy is preparation of an EIR. An EIR would provide the public, the applicant,

staff, the commission, county council, and responsible agencies with the information CEQA requires before the

county commits to an approval. It would evaluate the whole project and reasonable future phases, reconcile the

actual project description, quantify traffic, and evaluate emergency access.

Prepare a sightspecific drainage flood, groundwater, water quality, septic, water supply, and fire protection

analysis. Address feral swine. Evaluate enforcable mitigation and consider alternatives and feasible project

modifications. That process is not an obstacle to good planning. It is good planning. For all those reasons, I

respectfully request that the planning commission first decline to adopt the initial study and proposed mitigation and negative declaration. Second, find

that substantial evidence supports a fair argument of potentially significant effect environmental effects. And third,

direct preparation of a full EIR addressing the entire reasonably foreseeable project and all connecting

phases. And fourth, def declined to make the use permit findings required by

county code section 1 19.56.040 until the county has a complete legally

adequate environmental record. The county should not approve first and study later. It should follow CEQA, apply

its standards consistently, protect the public record, and require an EIR. Thank you.

I'd like to thank Miss Miss Flynn for the work she's done uh as an individual

and on behalf of everyone here, but judging from the applause that is necessary.

Hello. uh commissioners and uh fellow citizens of Amador County. Uh my name is Mark Kerry. I'm a registered

professional civil engineer. I live uh 800 Eagles Ranch Road immediately adjacent to the subject property or very

very close by within a few parcels. Um I would also like to ask for a bit of time asking for 9 minutes was what I was told

I had. Otherwise, I'd have to restructure my my my topics. and uh I was told that that's acceptable.

Thank you. Um just for perspective um my background includes uh almost 40 years 36 years uh as a civil engineer

practicing civil engineering in California. It includes a initial stint as a roadway drainage and uh highway

design engineer hydraology included. uh and the bulk of my experience over the last 36 years has

been in water supply, wastewater treatment, specifically dealing with the impacts of groundwater from land

application of wastewater in particular, although we are dealing with different um constituents to some degree. We're dealing with our decaying organic

matter. There's a lot of parallels here and I'm going to talk about that briefly. Um, the other background I have is dealing with groundwater treatment

and groundwater wells with an emphasis again on supporting failing systems. So, I've been around long enough now to know that the things we did in the 70s and

the things that have now come to fruition have long-term effects on the environment. And I believe this is an example. I'm going to talk first about

impacts to underlying groundwater. Uh, the on-site wastewater treatment uh system. I actually designed my own. um thought I knew a little bit about

on-site wastewater because I deal with a lot of large systems, but in fact, these are special circumstances in Ion. The Ion clays, the perched groundwater, and

the conditions that we've encountered in even in my property required extensive scrutiny by environmental health. I have

not seen that scrutiny to date by your environmental health, Christa. I don't know if you've gotten their full comment on the design, but I don't think it

would pass the muster even on that. It is a fraction as Dave mentioned the size of my own residential system and we're talking about an unload unknown loading

that could be increased over time and that runoff and the potential for downgradient degradation is severe. In

particular, I want to emphasize as a wastewater engineer we look at something called the vados zone. The vados zone is an unsaturated layer where the

biological treatment takes place for waste contaminants and the like. Waste water is not unlike the things that

we're dealing with here. We have a thing called nacroliche associated with cemeteries. The fate and transport of those contaminants needs to be

addressed. It doesn't simply disappear and gas off into the air. This is a known contaminant associated with with

with cemeteries. It contains things like ammonia, chloride, sulfates, dissolved organic carbon, and even healthy bodies can can

ex exume uh have decaying bodies can have dangerous levels of ecoli, salmonella,

streptococcus for up to 5 years after death. There's also approximately 5 pounds of nitrogen for an average body.

And then pharmaceutical and residuals from cancer drugs etc. All these things have not been addressed in terms of potential contaminant particularly in

the absence of a viable vados zone. I dealt uh extensively with your prior environmental health person when I was designing my septic. I actually wanted

to hire her because she understood that principle and she held me to a very high standard when it came to how to design a simple system. Now we're talking about a

massive concentration of these contaminants with unknown disclosure to the water table to the adjacent wells

the and the adjacent properties. I've seen these things in my clients. I can give you lists of of clients that I've worked with in Tahoe Keys where

contaminants have migrated over a mile and a half from one business contaminated the entire Tahoe basin essentially clear lake that is no longer

clear. We conducted a countywide study looking at on-site systems largely placed below the water table and there

is no breakdown of the organics when you're in the water table folks. It doesn't happen and that is what we have

here. This is not a good site for graves. When I worked for the development community, I was charged with finding sites to dispose of

effluent that would not adversely impact waters of the state. We had to search extensively for small communities throughout California. We had to look at

nitrogen balances. We had to look at the effect of salinity on the waters of the state. In in the case of a concentrated load like this, it can be very

significant and it has not been addressed. There's a reason why Clear Lake is no longer clear and a lot of that people don't want to look at. Um

I've also did several systems u related to contamination of fertilizers and other things that over time can can

accumulate. So, um, with that, um, I want to talk about our neighbors, too.

We have a a downstream neighbor that's here tonight. He has a pond immediately downstream. We talk about the impacts to surface waters and runoff. And the

engineer uh, for the applicant even mentions groundwater was persistent and countered in the geoexatory borings.

Page eight. However, perch storm water runoff, both surface and subsurface from on-site and from upper grade, should be

accounted for in construction and design. I beg to differ. These are significant potentially significant impacts that have not been adequately

disclosed which this is a disclosure document. It's a legal document and they have not been mitigated

to the extent necessary by CEQA. Um and these are supported by the four borings and the five test pits done by the applicants engineer.

Next, I'd like to talk briefly about other downgradient impacts, uh, including nearby wells. There's a well

that for 1400 ft away that belongs to a friend of mine, Paul Niclage. Uh, there are other downgradient potential impacts and I don't think we've consulted the

regional water quality control board, Christa, on this, have we? State water regional water.

They've been notified and um, everything has been posted to sequence.

Okay. Well, I would like to see their formal response. I I think we'll be reaching out if we don't get it soon. As well as Sacramento County Environmental Health. It's a mile away. These

contaminants, I'm sitting next to a lady that has wells a fraction of that distance away, you know, from from these contaminants.

So, um, the other thing is the roadway and drainage. We've talked about that.

The thing that happens out there, I don't know if Chris or if any of you folks have driven out there after a storm, the water is running over the roadways. the the the structural section

cannot handle it. The county crews can't go out there and deal with it. And what happens to a road section when there is inadequate roadside drainage? It falls

apart and it and it fails. And we don't have the tax base with this particular client to help us address that. They

have lots of visitors from a ways away, but and they are obviously sleeping for a while. They're not going to pay the taxes on fixing the road. Who's going to pay that?

These people are going to pay it.

And it's not fair. And then lastly, I want to talk about property values. I worked for a large developer. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on our entry feature. And why did we do that?

Because it it made a setting in the property values. And we got a return on our investment. We built massive waterfalls. We built beautiful

landscapes and and people got a return on their investment because it made the first impression. Imagine your neighborhood that the entry feature is a

cemetery. What does that do to your property values? is well documented by by people that I cited in my letter that

I provided to you, Christa, and the commissioners that property values will decrease. And there are several multi-million dollar homes out there. If

you have a 12% increase in a $2 million home, that's $250,000. Where is that mitigation? Where's that fee to those property owners that are going to have

that decrease in property values? Well doumented decrease in property values.

So u lastly um I'm going to cite what has already been stated the obvious that is unmmitigable and that is section

190402 of the purpose of the zoning plan. Why do we have general plans? I know as an engineer why we have it because we have inadequate

infrastructure. We can't support the type of traffic loads, water, wastewater etc everywhere. So we have d less dense

development and and ultimately you are mandated as as the commissioners here to make sure that the health, safety,

peace, morals and comfort and convenience of the of the people of Amador County is addressed. And I would argue that these people are the final arbiters of whether they're comfortable

with that or not. It is not upon you as commissioners to make that decision. And I think as witnessed by the people here tonight,

that standard has not been met. So lastly, keep in mind this is a discretionary approval. This is not something that's inconsistent with the

zoning. There are CEQA issues. There are long-term groundwater impacts, traffic and roadway impacts that must be addressed. Thank you.

Wow, those two are going to be hard to follow. Um, I was asked if you could put uh Maner on the screen. People aren't

seeing his reaction. They'd like to get him a little more center centered. Your name, sir?

Yeah, my name's Ron Woodhouse. Ione Ranch uh off of Lambert Road very close to this uh cemetery.

I wonder if you could pull up um the video 0628. You could do that for me.

I'm going to do my best here, Ron. I need to show John um because he's zooming.

It's part of the Okay.

So, I had it all prepared, but it's a little challenging to to keep him at the same time. So, you need to be very patient, please.

Okay.

Yeah. While I'm uh waiting, um I can't see.

It's uh pretty obvious that we have a crowd here. They're all pretty much in fact, if everyone that's opposed to the

cemetery, I wonder if you could please stand up. I have it already.

Just so there's no doubt about anybody that's in favor of it, would you please stand up?

Yeah, I don't think that's going to happen. Uh, okay. My uh my topic here is um the environmental report.

Um, I taught high school biology for 30 years and life science. Pardon me. I

know a little bit about biology and this is really a piece of garbage and the county is going to be liable if

they approve this based on the endangered species that occur on that property and you can't mitigate that.

Now more and I'm getting ahead of myself. I wonder if you could put up u the I own manzanita on my property. I think that's the name of it.

I own Manzanita on my property.

Are you referring to the video or the image? I had the image up.

The image. Yeah. I want to show you the I own um Manzanita.

That's a plot map. I had a feeling this might be a problem.

I'm uh not too There it is. Okay.

The plant on the left is an I own manzanita. It is extremely rare, protected by the federal government,

protected by the California uh state uh endangered species act. It is also uh

protected by the California rare plants society.

In fact, they're they're listing it as extreme danger of extinction right now.

that plant, the photo of that plant is about 25 ft from the entrance to his property.

There's no doubt that they occur on that property.

And yet, uh, the Moore biological um, report

doesn't mention I own Manzanita at all at all. In fact, they talk about destroying the chaperel to go into phase

two of grave sites. Now, it's not just the Ion manzanita.

There are four other endangered plants and I'll read them off to you and I wouldn't recognize any of them. There's

a I own buckwheat that occurs in this I own formation between Ion and going west of the county line.

Pardon me. There's a Irish Hill buckwheat named after Irish Hill Road where they found it. The Brisb Peak Rush

rose. I have no idea what that is, but it's a very small plant. And the Perry's Horchelia. All of those are federally endangered species.

None of them are mentioned in this environmental report. The habitat is exactly where they occur. In fact, two

of those occur on the airport. And yet the environmental report, more environmental report doesn't mention any

of those plants. Uh the California Department of Fish and Wildlife uh has all kinds of uh

requirements to take care of those plants and make sure they're not disturbed.

if you approve this project and do what he's already done, which is phase one, grading and taking out the grasslands.

His report on grassland doesn't mention any of these plants. It talks about foxtails and clover. And he del I don't

know, he deliberately omits all of the endangered species. In phase two of his cemetery, he's going on into the

chaperel and he's taken out those plants. He's going to knock out the Iome Manzanita and no mention of the I am I am Manzanita.

And then in fact most telling as he wants to mo move into the oak canopy, the woodlands.

This is a blue oak zone. And I wonder if you could pull up pictures of blue oaks.

Here I have uh blue oak. Four photos of blue oaks. A 400y old blue oak. You have that one. Put that up.

Yeah, pardon me. Um, those those trees are all over this county. Those are the

kind of the signature tree you see out in the middle of a grassland savannah. Actually, they're called blue oak savas.

That tree there is probably four and a half, 5 ft across the trunk at breast height. It's probably in the range of

400 to 500 years old. They have trees just like that on this property. I haven't been able to walk the property.

Uh but I can see blue oaks all the way down Carbondale.

Um they're extremely hardy for this climate. Uh they uh grow in rough soil, lack of water.

They grow in western Amador County is where they one of the reasons they grow all the way up and down the foothills.

So, pardon me, those oaks, there's a whole ecosystem named after them.

More biological uh report. Let me read you what she

said. She said, um, the interior live oak is the only oak species observed on the property.

That's what she said. and she said no valley oaks are present. That's her environmental report in a blue oak zone.

Now this this is just garbage. I mean it's laughable that she'd say something like that, but she did. And that's the

environmental report that this whole CEQA is based on. Everybody's talking about water and and the roads which are

compelling. This will shut the whole thing down. If if uh you approve this and you don't mitigate those endangered

species, you will be sued. I'm not I'm not uh threatening to sue the county, certainly, but California Department of

Fish and Wildlife will sue you. They don't have a lawyer.

They don't employ a lawyer, but they have uh the attorney general's office of California that will pursue this and

take everybody involved in this CEQA report to court along with the county.

And I don't think anybody here wants wants Amador County to defend this

cemetery and spend hundreds of thousands of our dollars to do it. Now, that's not that is that's reality. those plants

exist there. He goes after he's wiped out the chaperel,

pardon me, he moves on to the woodlands and he talks about

taking out 50% of the oak tree canopy on the property. Half the trees, 25 acres.

He's going to cut them down to make room for these grave sites. Well, those uh those trees are a pretty rich

ecosystem. Lots of hawks nest in them. I mean, we can go on. Tree tree treehole nesters like bluebirds, for instance, are out there.

He's going to take half of them down to build this cemetery. This is phase one, phase two, phase three. It's all described in this environmental report, every bit of it.

Um, wonder if you go under uh find the video buttercups.

You see that one?

Um, there's there's a number of videos here. Buttercups is 4799.

It's a video.

One moment. You're going to need to please be patient. Sorry about this.

while she's pulling it up. This uh video was taken on Maxwell Road and the camera

is aimed right at where the cemetery is located across a wide open pasture. That's not it. No hit it.

Now, it's important to understand a large portion of this environmental review in this more report ignores

required u investigations. One of them is you're supposed to go to the nearby properties and analyze the plants and animals. He doesn't do that at all. Ignores it.

Right across the street from that cemetery and I most of you have seen it. There's just wide open fields out there.

There are vernal ponds all over those fields. And what I was showing you, buttercups grow where vernal ponds dry

up. And when they dry up, the fairy shrimp lay their eggs in the mud. And then when it fills up again, fairy

shrimp start growing again. Fairy shrimp are protected.

There it is. You can see them. Those are all ponds.

Okay, we need to share it.

And you can see the video if you keep going.

I know. I have to share it with We're trying to share it with our zoomers.

Those are all ponds that that have dried up and the wild flowers have grown where the pond used to be. And when the pond dries up, the fairy shrimp swim uh lay

their eggs and then uh the the cycle continues the next spring. Well, that's right across the street from the

cemetery, those vernal ponds. In fact, if you go all the way to the end of that, you can see a big blue oak that's like 100 yards from his driveway.

They don't talk about that at all. Those those vernal ponds have shut down entire developments. UC Merge said was sued

because their original site for their campus was covered with vernal ponds. They had to move campus of University of

California Merrced because of Vernal's ponds. They're right across the street.

Nobody went in there, the the Moore consultant and look for Vernal Ponds.

They don't mention it. It's uh it's pretty compelling.

Um you might Can you pull up 0406?

That's a video.

We're going to see if this one's what you're wanting.

It says pigs running on M Maxwell with Yeah, there they are.

We're going to we're going to attempt to share this. One moment. Show that again. Yes. One moment, please. Ron twice.

I gave you a little background. That's Maxwell Road and I and I own Michigan Bar Road. And those pigs Oh, pardon me. Pardon me.

Those pigs, that's right next to Maxwell Road. Those pigs are running across where those buttercups were and they're headed right for the cemetery.

They're going right at it. So, you know, I don't know if that's been considered, but there's a lot of pigs out there.

I think I've got one more. Yeah. 0628. Can you pull that one up?

That's That's the That's all right.

Those are the vernal ponds. Again, I've got game cams all over my property, so I've got a lot of the wildlife on

film. Uh but I'd like to say again is this. This Moore Biological Consultant

report is just full of holes and they have not addressed any of the endangered species. They're required to investigate

that not only by by department of fish and game, by CEQA, and by the questionnaire they fill out as an

environmental consultant for this project. They don't even look at it.

They don't even look at the adjacent properties. The county is is liable if they uh ignore all this. Thank you for your time.

I just my name's Thomas McCaffrey and I have a couple of questions. Um and I'm not even sure who the question would be

directed to but uh the question is if the impact and the environmental reports

are shown to be inaccurate sometimes even false.

Um my question is is are these reports used to make the decision of the

project? And if they are, who would be responsible? If if they're kning if they're known to be false

documents or inaccurate documents that makes this decision, who is responsible

for it? And if it's if it's the county that ends up being sued,

t us taxpayers don't want to have to pay a suit.

I mean, we see it all the time with with highway patrol getting in accidents. The taxpayer pays for the

suit. So my question is, if these false reports are used

to make a decision, who's reliable? And if it's not, if it's the county, can we get it so or to make it even more

understood is can the person is there a person that passes this or is it a a

group that takes the responsibility for it and can they be responsible for it and not the county is my question.

And uh is there any way that we would know as a public

what is used what impacts reports are being used for the decision? So if there's no corrections, we'll be able to

know that. And if there is corrections, then another list was used, another company was used with a more thorough examination.

And would we be informed of that before the decisions made?

Excuse me. I can't answer the questions.

the the gentleman just raised and if our county council could that would be wonderful.

There's an indemnity agreement included in the packet that project applicants must complete in order for the the application to move forward to the

various administrative levels. As far as the validity of the evidence, the commission's tasked with reviewing the substantial evidence in the record and

making an informed decision based on what's presented before them. if there's contradicting evidence and that it can also be offered.

Okay. Thank you. Excuse me. Respond to that.

Okay. So what what I'm hearing you say that is if we'll be able to hear and understand why

how it was passed or if it was passed or how approved that

that evidence the evidence that shows that it's inaccurate will be able to be shown before it was passed not after it

was passed. So the public comment portion of this public hearing is the public portion of the application review before this commission. So right now

you're offering contradicting evidence that's already been presented into the project application and it's before the commission and it's a part of the administrative record.

Okay. So the evidence that was brought up here about the the the plants that are going extinct that that wasn't in the other report. It wasn't in the other

report. So that that would be inaccurate information that's needs to be in the report. So

that could be done before anything was passed.

The additional information that's been provided is now a part of the project record. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

Uh that's loud. Okay. Uh Mike Prescar. Uh, I live at 17901 Lambert Road. Um, I own.

So, I live in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Uh, most of what I wanted to say was said by others, so I'm not going to bore you with all that

stuff. I'm going to get first first of all, I I sent a video to the staff today about flooding

on the on the property. Have Did you receive that? It's up.

It's on the county website. Did you want us to show it? You can we see that here?

Well, while you're looking for that, I'm just going to get right into I'm going to try to stay within my three minute four minute. Which video, please? There's three.

Yeah, the first ju just the first one.

The last one was the pigs. The the first one shows the flooding coming off of the property. the the the the

outflow of water anyway. So, I don't want to waste your

time here. So, I I want to I want I want to address the gorilla in the room here.

Um it would seem reasonable to expect the issuance of a use permit to be of some benefit to the local community or at least to Amador County. The

applicant's written response to the question on the use permit application.

What is the need for the project? His response was to meet the growing needs of the Muslim community of Amador County.

Per a demographic search, the Muslim population of Amador County is about 400 persons. That leaves the proposed

use at two burials per day from Amador County's need as absurd. Therefore, we must assume the applicant plans this project to be a destination cemetery.

Yeah. Okay. There there you go. This is taken several days after the rain. This is taken by Ron Woodhouse.

And the water just pours off of this property. Pours off the property. That's their drive.

That's their driveway right there. You got it. So, I don't think I need to say any more about flooding on the property. Just look at the video. Okay.

I don't know. Okay, let let me let me carry on here. So, therefore, we must assume the applicant plans this project

to be a destination cemetery, drawing from the general population of California and perhaps the western United States. There is also no

financial benefit to Amador County and more than likely would require more of our county's precious resources that

they do not have. The only benefit of this project is a financial gain for the applicant. Additional research into

Amador County's need for a new cemetery reveal reveals that are that there are 40 cemeteries in the county. Some are

small pioneer cemeteries while others are large and very active. Amar Memorial in Pioneer, Sunset View in Martell and I

own public cemeteries were all contacted today and I asked about space available and if they could accommodate a green

Muslim burial. They all had plenty of space space available and all with room for expansion. I own public has room for

100 years of need. They all answered yes to a combination of a green natural

burial and even the direction of the burial. I think that's somewhere toward Mecca.

And in fact, Sunset View, well, yeah, and in fact, Sunset View se Cemetery already has plots which are sold to local Muslim families.

In fact, there already exists an active Muslimonly cemetery just 16 miles west

at Highway 16 and Eagles Nest Road in Sacramento County. The applicant has clearly not demonstrated a growing need

for Muslim burials in Amador County. I have shown the opposite.

In summary, the destination cemetery is a propo is proposed by a single non-resident of resident of Amador County

County for his own enrichment to the detriment of the residents for all reasons listed above. And most importantly, this cemetery will disrupt

the peace, harmony, tranquility of our quiet rural neighborhood and our daily lives and will do so for all residents

of the area and those yet to be born for the next 100 years. This cemetery does not fit this neighborhood. As planning

commissioners, you have a grave responsibility, pun intended, to

you have that responsibility to county residents and the county at large to adjudicate projects based on their need

and the benefit to our local Amidor community. Since both are negative and even detrimental to our health and well-being, I would posit the use permit should be denied outright.

Since if I'm within my time limit, I'd like to

say two more words. Super County Code 9056.040.

The applicant uh the applicant ongoing well well I missed that. Who pays for the roads road

upgrades uh and ongoing maintenance to the taxpayers for county code 1956 040.

The applicant must must I represent enter into a contract with the county to pay for any injury and to pay for all

road maintenance and repairs before before any use permit can be issued. Has this been done yet? I probably think

not. There are 12 miles of narrow potholeinfested roads leading into this site.

And lastly, is uh

losing my space. So, has the Amador County Water Agency, GSA,

have they looked into the have they done an EIR for this project and address the effect of 720 unmbbombed open casket

green barrels per year on the quality of local groundwater, which they are obligated to do by sigma of two 2014 2014? I think not.

Thank you for your time.

I'd like about another minute or two for mine and I have already been given that by some of the people in this room.

Thank you. Okay. Good evening members of the planning committee commission. My husband Michael who just spoke and I are

residents of the Carbondale area. My background is an emergency nurse of 12 years, a realtor, a substitute school

teacher, a sociologist, author, and a survivor of a heart attack, and a potentially fatal accident at Ion and

Carbondale Roads has provided me with a unique insight into the need for a rapid

emergency response and for the mental and physical well-being of our residents. The zoning laws were put into effect in 1906. The use permit process

began in 1916, but only allowed permits if they had no negative effects on the local community. The last 100 years,

this has stood across America to protect people that have stood where we stand today. Our code is 19.56.040

040 and clearly states by its very wording that a project such as a destination cemetery in our area is not

acceptable for a use permit. In fact, courts have blocked cemetery projects because of negative neighborhood

impacts. I cite Fairlon Cemetery Association versus Zoning Commission where the zoning was upheld because the

proposed cemetery would increase traffic hazard, depress surrounding property values, and because the town already had

adequate burial facilities. It was decided it was decided it could be prohibited because it would harm public welfare and

neighborhood character. In 2024, in Quickenbush versus Brooks, the record shows the cemetery was denied and based

on traffic congestion, environmental disturbance, and loss of neighborhood amenity. Both of these cases treat

increased traffic as a risk, and legitimate ground for denial. A destination cemetery that draws dozens

of vehicles or more for burials would meet the same hazard threshold that forced the Fair Lawn Court to protect its residents.

Modern appraisal studies and my experience as a realtor confirm that traffic can reduce home values by 5 to

10% in rural communities and the presence of a cemetery by up to 18%. The courts have upheld bans.

Oh, the court have upheld bans when the county already has sufficient burial capacity. Amir County does not need a

cemetery as earlier stated from the research into Amador County cemeteries. The health of our community is at risk.

Anxiety is a normal phenomena and shown in cases that involve use permits of all denominations of cemeteries.

Anxiety studies consistently show that communities exposed to the introduction of a cemetery, such as in Atlantic

Muslim cemetery case in 2022, have a rise in anxiety and of every kind. The most harmful is the strong visceral one,

the gut related symptoms that can't be controlled. It comes on automatically as we pass by the potential cemetery site

daily. Our neighborhood has lived with thoughts of the negative inputs impacts of this cemetery for four years. This

automatically activates the body's fight or flight system which raises blood pressure and inflammation. These

physiological changes are can precipitate heart attacks. Largecale studies link psychosocial stress to a

2.5fold increase in heart attack incidences.

According to the Mayo Clinic, chronic stress impairs immune function, making the body more susceptible to

infections and inflammation and other illnesses. I have listened for four years to neighbors and their concerns

for safety in an emergency. The American Heart Association and American Stroke Association guidelines stress that every

minute without definitive care reduces survival odds dramatically, underscoring the need for unobstructed emergency

routes. The American Nurses Association, Ambulance Service, as well as Fire Department support the golden minute principle, warning that delays longer

than five minutes marketkedly raise risk of irreversible brain damage and death.

These authoritative bodies make clear that the proposed permit threatens lifesaving response time and the overall

health of our neighborhood which is now being threatened with this use permit.

The increase in traffic is certain for there will not just be 50 attending these burials. The Islamic funeral process published on the Islamic

community website outlines the standard steps for burials and funerals. They phone. They use the WhatsApp to send out

notices of the service, posting notices on mosque boards and reaching out to other mosques for wider attendance. This

principle is a collective obligation and communities customarily inform other mosques so that as many believers as

possible can attend. Given all the information above and much more available, I respectfully urge the

commission to reject the cemetery proposal and uphold the code 19.46.040

which protects the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general well-being of not only our neighborhood, but for

all of Amador County represented by the more than 450 signatures collected in opposition to this cemetery. Thank you

to the planning committee for listening and to all who attended.

Good evening uh chairman and commissioners. Uh my name is Jim Warfl and I'm a property owner at Eagle's

Ranch. And today I'd like to talk or tonight I'd like to talk about the firewater issues. And so what I'd like

to start with is um just a little bit of history with regard to the airport community that's out there. And you've

heard past speakers talk toward the um exploratory well um seeking out there for groundwater. Um and it was not

possible to supply the water needed for fire protection for the residents.

So, a pipe was installed and you might be aware is coming from Mule Creek and it's quite long about 37,000 ft. So,

that was put in place in order to prepare for the community that's out there now. That um pipeline is overt

taxed and so um I want to bring to your attention the importance of additional firewater for a commercial use. So since

um these folks are looking to provide a commercial use and say we if we agreed to the 225

person event um these poor people would be on this property and god forbid

something were to happen um you know where's the water going to come from? So that's what I want to speak towards. So

the history shows that um we as the Eagles Nest folks and Eagles Ranch folks

put this pipe in and have approximately 490 gallons per minute coming out of the hydrants now as a residential fire

protection uh capacity. So, in looking at the uh NF uh PA um chapter 13 tables

for commercial applications, um 1,000 gallons per minute is the minimum for any commercial operation. Now, I know

there's been a lot of talk about the project early on was significantly larger than it is now. So, I'm not going

to jump to the table where it says 1750 gallons per minute. We'll just stay with the,000 because it's the minimum. So

with the minimum in consideration um we need to figure out where that water's going to come from. So right now they

have a 5/8 uh tap off the pipe for that residence and it's u bringing about 20 gallons per minute. So there's a very

big net that needs to be brought in. So I just wanted to bring those facts to you so you could be looking at that when you go back to the applicant and asking for their solution to the lack of water.

Um, so I think there's three possible answers that may come out. One would be a storage tank. So storage tank, if we

just did the,000 gallons per minute and the 2-hour requirement per the NFPA, that'll be at about 120,000galon tank.

Um, I'm not sure how that tank will get filled, so that's still another issue.

But we would have to figure out that piece, or at least you would have to figure that out. um a well could be proposed, but we've already proven to

you in 1989 there's a sequest study that showed the wells that were drove along that area that they were they couldn't produce the water.

And so the next would be for them to provide another pipeline. So, you know, they could consider I guess bringing in another pipeline to provide the fire water.

So, um I guess in closing, what I'd like to say is that we should not approve a project first and figure out where the

water's coming from after, right? We should take a look at the requirements for a commercial entity and the current

codes and discuss you know amongst yourselves with the applicant where this is going to come from. Thank you for your time.

Good evening. Uh my name is Dan Pippen.

I live in Jackson. I worked at the fire service in the US and CA and and Canada for 30 years. I retired as a fire chief.

I wrote articles on uh wildland urban interface fires for firehouse. Those are often referred to as WOOI fires and gave

presentations based on my articles at fire conferences in San Diego and Nashville, Tennessee. I'd like to comment on the purport cemetery project

in Ion. I toured the area recently and a few things stood out. The roads in the area are in poor condition, have no shoulders.

I expected that vegetation would be grassy fields with occasional oak trees.

I think the oak savannah is what they refer to. In the fire service, we call grass a light flashy fuel. Fire can

spread rapidly in this type of fuel, particularly if pushed by wind. What I saw was a combination of grass as well

as manzanita and other highly flammable types of vegetation often referred to as chaperel.

Uh this would be considered a heavier fuel load capable of sustaining burning and producing embers that can create spot fires away from the main body of

the fire. On the borders of the subject property facing the road, there were dense rows of dead branches making the

fuel load even heavier. I visited Amador County Fire Protection District Station 121 at Highway 16 and D Martini Road in

Willow Springs. This station recently went from being a all volunteer station to a full-time staff station with two

firefighters backed up by volunteers. I asked who would respond to a medical call at Carbondale and Lambert. I was

told that the sta that station andor the one in Ion would respond as well as an ambulance from Plymouth. The response time from that station is about 10 minutes under ideal conditions.

Obviously from Plymouth a little bit longer for the ambulance.

I checked with the California Fire Marshall's website to see what the property fire hazard severity zone is.

Allow me to quote from the California Fire Marshall's website. The fire hazard severity zone maps are developed using a

science-based fieldested model that assigns a hazard score based on factors that influence fire likelihood and fire

behavior. Many factors are considered such as fire history, existing and potential fuel, in other words, natural

vegetation, predicted flame height, blow blowing embers, terrain, and typical fire weather for the area. The area, the

property in question is rated high hazard with a portion rated very high hazard. The area along Carbondale Road east of the subject property is rated

very high hazard. That's obviously the highest uh hazard rate. I observe brush close to the road in this area. In my

opinion, if there were a fire in this area, it'd be very dangerous to drive on that road in an attempt to evacuate.

This information raised some serious life safety concerns. And the fire service, that's our number one priority

is life safety. If there was an emergency call in the area at the same time a funeral procession was making its

way down the narrow roads, an emergency response could be delayed. This could be either a fire or medical call where

seconds count. Extra vehicle traffic and increased people in the area are likely would likely cause increased calls for

medical aid and collision response. If there's a vegetation fire in the area at the time of the funeral and evacuation

was ordered, the narrow roads would become clogged with extra traffic.

Additionally, there are many ranches in this area and I would expect that livestock would be evacuated in stock trucks and trailers. The funeral

attendees may not be familiar with the area. They would likely try to evacuate the way that they came in. This road

route may be blocked. During an evacuation, visibility can drop dramatically very quickly because of

smoke. There are few landmarks in the area. It's easy to get lost even in good visibility. With no shoulders, it would

be easy to drop into ditches and get stuck, particularly with low clearance cars. The possibility of traffic jams and blocking accidents would be greatly

increased. Responding emergency vehicles uh would be delayed. If there are high winds pushing the fire, the situation

would get much wor could get much worse very quickly. In a worst case scenario, the fire could overrun the stop vehicles

with tragic results. This happened during the fire in Maui in 2023. 15 people died in their cars attempting to

evacuate. Others survived by jumping into the ocean to escape. And of course, we all know about paradise. Just this year, there was the same thing happened

in Spain in July of this year. So, in my opinion, this area is not suitable for

this project. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to comment on the project. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Nita Patel. I am an emo Amador County resident.

Commissioners, the people who will live with this decision 50 years from now cannot speak tonight. That makes our responsibility greater and not smaller.

This proposal includes 1,832 grave sites and 60 funerals a month, 720

a year if that rate continues. But counting funerals does not measure the full life of a cemetery. Families may

return on birthdays, anniversaries, holidays, and festivals. As more graves are occupied, more more families have

more reasons to visit. Has the analysis examined a nearly full cemetery, not just opening day? What happens when

ordinary visitors and multiple services overlap? 50 attendee per event. It's not

necessarily 50 people on property. What is the total sight limit and who enforces it?

Here is another question. When the last grave site is sold, who pays for the next 50 years?

What funding supports maintenance, drainage, restroom security, and fire prevention? How does it account for

inflation? Who remains responsible if the operator changes or the organization

closes? Please identify the protections, not simply the intentions.

This is not about questioning anyone's right to a dignified burial. It is about applying careful, consistent, and

standards to a lasting land use decision. The application The applicant is planning a cemetery. Your

responsibility is to plan Amodo County's future.

Please do not ask future residents to solve problems we had the opportunity to address tonight. I urge you to vote no

on the proposal. Amador County's future deserves more than asurances. It deserves evidence and lasting protections. Thank you.

Good evening, chairman and commissioners. My name is Tom McCclary.

I'm the flight safety officer for Eagles Nest Airport and live out there pretty close to this property.

The applicant's project parcel is within 1 half mile of Eagle's Nest Airport. The

initial study should have analyzed the project's proximity to the airport, particularly because the cemetery

involves outdoor gatherings and the historical plans include a large assembly facility.

Federal Aviation Administration Regulations Part 91, Section 119

stipulates that over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement or over

any open air assembly of persons and aircraft must maintain a minimum

altitude of 1,000 ft above the highest obstacle.

a cemetery/event use that regularly gathers dozens if not

hundreds of people in the open for funerals, grave site services, and at

buildout a large assembly/event facility creates

such an open air assembly of persons directly adjacent to an active airirst strip

That is a two-sided safety conflict.

It constrains lawful flight operations while at low level over an assembly of

people and it places the assembled people beneath takeoff and landing operations.

It raises compatibility concerns. If instructional, classroom, church, or

assembly components are part of the project, those questions can't be avoided by

describing the current filing only as a cemetery while leaving future uses unresolved.

The current MND reportedly does not address these issues.

Given the historical 1,200 person occupancy proposal and the project's

proximity to the airirstrip that poses a potential significant safety and land use issue.

Eagles Nest airport has proven to be a valuable asset to area first responders

and has used been used in connection with air ambulance operations responding to serious medical emergencies.

Cal Fire, I own Fire, as well as the Jackson Fire Department have been to the

airport and have attended staging site training and in the event of an

emergency or wildfire in western Amador County.

Calire has landed tankers and helicopters at our airport. Helicopters have a designated landing area for refueling.

The proposed project's access corridor raises emergency access concern.

If a serious crash, wildfire, medical emergency, or evacuation occur while

funeral traffic is entering or leaving the site, local response routes may be constrained

before granting the use permit. that could attract reoccurring groups of visitors. I would request the commission

ensure that the county understands the full emergency context of the site and the surrounding transportation network.

I respectfully request the commission reject this project.

Good evening, commissioners um and board and everybody else that's here attending. My name is Diane Bennett. I

am a resident of Fiddletown. I have been a resident of Amador County for 51 of my 52 years. I have a master's in

American history. I am a teacher. I used to be a loan processor in this county. I used to have my real or my um insurance

license. So, I know a lot of these different things that go into this. Part of my other things that I've helped with is animal evacuations during wildfires.

I can tell you I have been out those roads. I have seen those roads. We lost Daffodil Hill because of the traffic

congestion, something this community loved.

We were worried about getting people, you know, fire trucks and medical response up there if need be. And now we

have somebody that wants to put in a proposed cemetery when we have enough sites at or enough space at other sites who has already started ground work.

Was that permit issued to start that groundwork and to potentially destroy the flora and fauna of the area?

Most of us, me included, if I go and start doing ground work and I haven't got it approved by the county and building, I'm gonna get fined.

We need to stick to the rules that are on the books. What this county just

fought a lawsuit and won on my best. You can't pick and choose and handpick who you're going to do. You need to follow the rules. The rules

apply to everyone. I am a history teacher. I just got done with consent of the govern and rule of law and all sorts

of the democratic ideals for my students and then oh good for thee but not for me. That's not what we want. Follow the

rules that every one of us in here has to follow.

So, we need to ask you to deny this in its entirety because I can make some

damn good brochures and I can sell ice to an Eskimo, some people have said and that is what this project is. They have scaled it back so we can say phase one.

No, we want to see the whole thing. Oh, I'm just going to build me a little 400 square foot house. All of a sudden, 10

years later, I have me a McMansion. No, we can't do that. So, stop them now.

Stop the dirt work. What environmental impacts have we already had to the protected species out there? Do not let

this go in. We cannot have fires out there where people cannot have response times. We can't have this so that when somebody has a heart attack, I know some

people that live out that area. They had a massive fire in the shop next to their house and the response time for firefighters to get out there.

They were lucky they had a D8 dozer in their own driveway.

In conclusion, you're right.

Oh, yeah. Out there. So, in conclusion, the depth doesn't work. The water runout

doesn't work. I mean, how many times just this last year did the county have to go put signs out there, road flooded?

This year, we're expecting a massive El Nino.

Yes, I can get through. I got 40inch tires on my truck.

That doesn't mean they can, but it means if somebody's stuck out there and the group I'm with gets a phone call, I can go in. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission and staff, thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Colleen Santos. We have

researched and found disturbing historical facts that provide a questionable operation history for Mr.

Mounir Kaddoura. More specifically, we are listing five situations that indicate substandard reasonable business practice

history. Item one, 2017 and 2018 Sacramento County Consumus Community Planning Advisory Committee applicant

Mounir Kaddoura, Antioch, California project number pl 2017-124 mosque and 45,000 burial plots. Project

failed in consuma CPAC 2018. Item two, August 4th, 2022, Amador County TAC meeting. Times are in reference to the

start time of the meeting at 0 minutes and 0 seconds. 34 minutes 12 seconds.

Mounir Kaddoura joins the Zoom meeting by phone 34 minutes late. 52 minutes and 38 seconds. Mounir Kaddoura advises that he

wants a maximum of 400 attendees for each funeral. Then on advice from county planner Christa reduces number to 50

attendees. Ends at 63 minutes and 15 seconds listed in our 443page report on

page 176. Item three, June 11th, 2026 Amador County TAC meeting. Times are in reference to the start time of the meeting at 00.

Local Ion resident Ron Woodhouse stated the failed history in Sacramento and Amador County counties. 50 minutes 14 seconds.

Mr. Mounir Kaddoura says he never applied for a use permit in Sacramento County.

50 minutes 40 seconds ended statement listed in our 443page report on page 393.

At 5124, David Wardall made a statement that Mounir Kaddoura filed for a Sacramento County use permit with the Consumnness Community Planning Advisory Committee, document number PLNP 2017-124.

At that point, David Wardall provided copies of the document number PLNP207-124 to county staff and to the TAC members.

This application was rejected by the consumer seat back in 2018. 5225 ended statement listed in our 443page report

on page 394. Item four, May 14, 2025, Yuba County Board of Supervisors meeting

imposed a board meeting imposed a $43,91342 fine for property code violations

pertaining to electrical panel and other problems. Item five, April 29th, 2025, California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau

imposed a $500 fine for untagged bodies and/or lag of a facility room. Cited FD2346,

IC2024994, code section 1623.1, Embalming, Preparation, and Storage of

Bodies. The summation of the above facts indicates a history of not complying with existing laws, codes, and rules in Sacramento, Yuba, and Amador County counties.

Our concern is that Mr. Kaddoura will not comply with use permit provisions and Amador County. Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. for compliance.

Chair, may I ask, do you need would you like us to take a recess?

I think we'll be in recess for 15 minutes.

better finisher.

And uh that means it's five minutes after finish what you wanted to say.

Miss Santos may finish. My intent was not to ask her to stop speaking. Our chair had left the dis. So I asked for a brief recess.

Yeah, it's biological.

You did that intentionally.

to order at least to the extent possible.

Someone was beginning to speak when I walked out for a biological necessity.

If they would come back and continue, please ch uh vice chair. One moment, please.

The recording has not been started yet. Okay.

Okay, we're recording now.

Okay, go ahead. To conclude the history of Mr. Kaddoura.

In addition to what was previously cited, he has also had a criminal history, including charges for driving

without insurance, driving without a license. In 2006, a charge for criminal misdemeanor, violence against an

intimate partner. These things, in addition to what was previously cited, indicate somebody who is not trustworthy, either in his personal life or in business.

Bringing in a business that is run in this way and with the previous citations

is going to cause pose harm to Amador County in a myriad of ways. Thank you.

Excuse me one moment.

Excuse me. Did you want your name for the record? Because I don't believe I heard your name.

I I might have missed it in the beginning. Yes. My name is Colleen Santos. Thank you, Colleen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. if I could have a moment here. Um, if you'll excuse me. Go ahead. For just a moment.

This evening, our first potential commission action relates to the determination of the adequacy of the

proposed environmental document. And I think we've come to a place here where we've had a lot of testimony. We've reviewed a lot of information.

And it's my opinion on this that there there's no way I'm in good conscience going to be able to approve the adequacy of the existing document.

Please please please if if we could I think it would be a good time to talk about this amongst ourselves here and um

I think that we really do need a environmental impact study to be completed. Um, I' I'd like to to call

for a vote, but I'd like to kind of discuss this so that we make sure we understand what we really need here.

Commissioners, I might just add the applicant hasn't had a chance to respond to any comments that have made. So, I would just encourage before you close

the public hearing to give the applicant one additional opportunity. He's had his hand raised.

Oh, understood. Understood. Would now be the appropriate time before you move on to your deliberations. If you're inclined to close the public hearing and there's no one else in the room that wishes to be heard before you do that.

I I it's at the disclosure of the chair.

We we would like to hear from the applicant at this time. If I may take few seconds of your time.

Um I had no uh application done in cases communities. I didn't have any uh uh

land in Sacramento County. I did not propose a cemetery nor a uh mask in

Sacramento. I'm I'm not that lucky. Uh regarding other personal issues about

driving without a license, uh uh if that was done, I'm sure I paid my dues for it.

uh regarding the domestic violence. Uh my wife is a lawyer and uh we had

properties in Contracasta County and she decided to uh retire.

So uh even though that's a personal one but I just want to mention that and uh I

went to court and uh the case was dismissed after what 2 3 years. Uh the

first court was in uh Antioch no sorry uh Contracasta. The

second court was in uh uh Santa Clara County.

But after a long u uh years of uh going back and

forth, they dismissed the case because they knew it was just a accusation

uh regarding uh uh the uh usage of uh uh a storage area.

the regulations with the c with the state has changed. before they allowed

uh the usage of religious facility which I had uh and I still have today

uh two places where they uh where we can have the deceased uh

uh kept for a day uh maybe a night maybe a portion of the day.

And as they changed the regulation, they said you better get a commercial property and develop it. And I am in the

process of doing that. And uh there is no u uh outstanding

uh uh issues with it. They said, "Well, we're going to we're going to symbolically charge you $500 for that." And I said, "Well, that's fine with me.

and I am in the process of getting the commercial property for the storage of the deceased.

Other than that uh it's not uh I mean again these are personal issues

that does not without the permit uh that should not affect the operation

of a cemetery as you uh regulate it and uh as you uh organize it and uh pretty

much uh ask for whatever you want to ask for that operation. So I am under your uh command and and I'm under your

direction as well and also the direction of the neighborhood. So we can make this

uh a uh successful uh journey for myself as well as for the neighbor in the process.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Um, at this time, Mr. Chair, I'd like to call to close the public hearing.

I want to correct the record here, please, if I can.

My name is Wesley David Wardall, a California driver's license 0077645.

I'm a licensed engineer and I have several other uh FAA and Department of Transportation licenses. I'll put all

those licenses on the line because the applicant has lied. I gave at this the

May 26 28th uh TAC meeting. this issue came up

and Ron Woodhouse stated that the uh uh all these problems with the applicant

had in the uh Sacramento County with a consumless uh CPAC and that's the uh trying to

think it's the consumless community uh planning action council. Okay. I gave

this to legal. I gave all of the the TAC members copies of the application, the

application number, the dates and and it was uh Monè Kaddoura.

So what what he is saying that he never been in Sacramento County is a lie. I don't know how else to be so blunt, but

that's that's what's going on. And that's the character of the person you're dealing with. Now, I'm also going to give you I'll give this to uh

Maryanne. This is a statement of facts on Monera Kaddoura. And everything that was listed is hardcore proofed with

court records and everything else. We did our homework. And I'm going to enter this into evidence.

Thank you.

And in in in response to the request to close the

public hearing, I would like to say two things.

one, I don't want to deny anyone their right to speak, obviously, but at the same time, I don't think

we're hearing any new information, so I'm kind of torn.

Um, I'd like to get a second.

And the applicant has his hand raised again al as well. I'm sorry to interrupt.

Well, are you interrupting? Are you interrupting him or me?

Let the applicant speak. Okay. And then just hold on a minute.

He should have to show himself.

Uh, this is for uh Mr. Ward Doll. I would be interested in knowing the address of that property that you

mentioned about Sacramento that I proposed a mosque or cemetery or whatever and I would thank you for do

you mind if I call you later on? I had your number. You gave it to me a while back. Is that okay?

No, cuz I' I'd like to get that that that address.

Chair, I'd like to respond quickly to that. He says he didn't own the property. That

doesn't mean he didn't apply for uh the mosque and the cere the cemetery. He did the same thing in Amador County when he

made his first proposal. He didn't own the property, but he proposed a 20,000 foot mosque and a 50,000 gravesite

cemetery. So, he may be saying he didn't own property in Sacramento, but he definitely, in fact, I know people who

were on that committee in Wilton and who fought that proposal and thankfully Sacramento County had enough sense to turn it down.

Again, I'm sorry. I do own properties in Sacramento, but I did not own a land in

Sacramento. Neither I applied for a mask or for a cemetery in Sacramento area.

I have the document and it's been given to in a prior meeting to Sacramento County. When I get home, I can give you

the address. It is uh the property fronts the property fronts Dillard Road and the physical address is on Me Road

which is a crossroad. And for everybody here, if you know where the turkey farms are down on Dillard Road, it's the big white mansion property across the

street. And I I I'm sorry I my memor is going that I don't remember the exact street address, but the physical street

address was on Me Road. However, the driveway and and frontage was on Dillard Road. And I do I talked too to friends

that were in the CPAC committee and that that got in there in 2016 and if it was

adjudicated in 2017 and the project was denied and I don't know who the owner of the property is but the name on the

application for that CPAC committee uh which is the first step to go to the planning commission was the the current applicant.

Um, chair, if I just might make two advisements. It's within your authority to remind public commenters to direct their comments and questions to the

planning commission directly and to address the commission on matters within their jurisdiction um to the extent that they're relevant to this application,

not necessarily pertinent to previous applications and other jurisdictions which are not within the purview of the Amador County Planning Commission. And

as recording secretary, uh, the applicant is muted currently. I don't know if he was done speaking or not. And

so I'm just I know there was a discussion going between people.

So I'm going to go ahead and unmute you.

Um, Mounir, in case you What What did you want to say, Christa?

I was going to say, raise your hand if you have any comments relative to the application you have currently submitted that is before the planning commission tonight.

No comment. Thank you.

Uh my name is Linda Woodhouse. I had no um plans to speak tonight, but I know

that this meeting was advertised as from not advertised, but was announced from 6 until 10.

All of these folks have driven, made arrangements to be here. I think it's disrespectful to cut it off short.

Mr. Chairman, I I do have a motion pending.

Well, I think it's time for the other commissioners to discuss your motion. Yes, sir.

Uh, can we get a second for discussion? I I would like to move to close the public hearing so that we

may um discuss um my proposal to deny the environmental document and request a

full EIR and I have a variety of conditions to propose that we should discuss to determine amongst ourselves the appropriate EIR required.

I second Are we're muted?

We can't talk. Oh, yes, we can. In that case, I will talk to all of you.

I wasn't going to speak.

Ma'am, everybody spoken to already. If you're not going to abide by the conditions of the public hearing, we will ask that you are removed from the room.

Well, you go ahead.

So, you can address you can address your you can address your comments to the commission, but at this point in time, they're discussing a motion.

I want to address the commission. Sir, I would make the same advice.

I'm sorry. My name is Walter Roberts, and I would like to address the commission and their obvious attempts to

silence the opposing views of these people.

That's right. Especially you, ma'am.

You keep trying to silence people who just want to talk.

Mark, your microphone is muted.

I I don't think anyone's trying to be silenced. I think there's a feeling that although some people want to express

uh their feelings on this, I don't think that there's going to be any new information given. And that's why I

think that a motion was proposed.

Can we get a roll call, please?

It's up to the We have a first and a second in place.

We're We're awaiting for the chairman to call for a roll call. Okay. Could we have a roll call then?

My name is Stanley Cella. I'm a local resident in this county. I actually have these comments not only for the chairman's but for everyone here.

Sabrina, you're doing a wonderful job. You're working hard. Thank you. We're providing due process to everyone.

But when your enemy speaks, let them talk so they can make fools of themselves. For all of us sitting here,

they want to discuss this information because you've been so compelling.

I have no doubt that each of these chairmans sitting here right now have heard the words that you have said and

that they have been compelled to look into this further. I can't make the decision for them, but this motion here

should be a sign of victory because otherwise we'd go home without any answer. Thank you.

Thank you.

I also have a clarification that the chair, if they wish, can always o reopen the public hearing. Correct. No, they can't. No. Okay.

Okay.

We we have a motion here among the Yeah. Before you pass that motion real quick, I put up with this hell for four years.

Okay. A lot of these people out here.

Yeah. I don't want to kick the can down the road with an EIR. I want to terminate the project.

If okay, if if here's the deal. If if the applicant doesn't feel he's getting a

fair shake at it, we don't feel we're getting a fair shake at it by not getting a determination tonight.

So, I am asking to amend your your motion to terminate the project and we can go home and have a glass of wine.

Okay. Um, there were two affirmative actions to the motion and no other actions.

So, can I can assume that it has died? We have not asked for a roll call yet.

Okay, that's right. We have roll call. Commissioner Poore I. Commissioner Christman.

Hey. Chair Gonsalves. Thank you. Hi.

Could you please repeat that? Chair. Hi. Commissioner Bennett. No.

Commissioner Reese. No.

I Oh, he was the second. Yeah. Repeat the question.

Can you clarify what the Yeah.

The eye is to close the public hearing.

Okay. So, the public hearing is therefore closed. Okay.

By 32 motion, the public hearing has been closed.

Okay. As I said earlier, I the last thing in the world I want to do is

silence anyone here, but I also You guys ought to be ashamed.

What? I I voted against closing the hearing.

I don't want to deny anyone their right to speak. I think that's wrong. But as I said just a few minutes ago, I don't

think anyone's saying anything new in terms of those of us on the commission.

We were given a huge pile of documents.

I've done nothing but the past four and a half days but read through these every page.

Oh, I I know I'm aware that everyone on the commission is fully informed of all the problems with this.

Okay. Since the public hearing is closed, I have a statement I would like to make.

three minutes.

There are many valid criticisms of this project I don't need to repeat, but I want to emphasize some. This is a cattle

grazing area. We are short cattle and beef prices are rising.

But more importantly, this is a mineral resource area zone. Minerals are where you find them.

Cemeteries can be anywhere or almost anywhere.

As as Alexander Hamilton said after that horrid winter at Valley Forge,

"We have no blankets cuz the blankets are made in England. We have no gunpowder because the gunpowder is made in England."

What is political independence without economic independence?

Protecting our mineral resources and therefore a sound economy and our future

economic and physical security benefits everyone including the proponents of this project.

The material I was given in preparation for this meeting only noted holes of 14 ft and 20 ft deep.

While it's not known what lies underground, it is known that we import rare earths, critical minerals,

and strategic minerals from dubious and unreliable countries that most of us would not want to economically support.

I don't know what's down there, but it needs to be noted that critical minerals change over time.

How many lithium mines were there 30 years ago?

We have zoning like mineral resource areas as the result of prior mishaps.

A study done in the 1960s in my hometown of Buffalo, New York,

said that it determined that it that what was what was then determined to be

probably the world's largest deposit of super high-grade gravel was underneath the skyscrapers of downtown.

We don't need to repeat those mistakes.

I want to thank those individuals and organizations that prepared the materials documenting this project

approval history. Also, I attended two prior TAC meetings.

This process has dragged on for four years now. It has been marked by ambiguity, distortions, acquisition,

acquisition, acquisition acing,

and many other cited and related in factors, including the current peace meal approach where they scaled down the

project to to something that could be approved and intend to enlarge it later.

Tea That's what it is. Deception of this sort is in the Quran.

I can My Arabic is a little weak, so I won't pronounce I can't pronounce this word, but I will spell it out for anyone

who wants to check it. It's T A Q Y Y A.

Tea. What? Tea.

Yeah. Thank you. According to Sharia, this is not only permitted but sometimes obligatory.

Deception is of a is of fundamental importance to Islam.

Practically every Islamic sect agrees with this and practices it.

We can go as far as to say that this practice of deception is mainstream in Islam.

Yes, it is.

This this deception is very prevalent and in Islam especially in the modern era

and I am paraphrasing and quoting from the website of the Middle East forum. So any of you can check that.

In the eyes of Islam, we are an infidel county.

To repeat a saying from the 1960s, tell it like it is, baby. Tell it like it is.

Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Mr. vice chair this evening.

I would like to propose a full environmental impact study to include

I'm sorry I'm I'm at the microphone at the moment and I do get to make this proposal.

My intention is to fully represent the people. I have I have heard uh and and read this report from Miss Peggy which

was quite thorough and and compelling and has aided in bringing me to this conclusion that certainly we need to

study traffic including holidays visitations we need to we need to study thoroughly

the impact on water the applicant the roads need to be studied thoroughly

and the impact and their future detegation as a result of this project.

We need to study the impact from the airport and the appropriateness of the application. It appeared to have

inconsistencies with the distance from the airport. And we definitely need to study the impact of the mining operations located adjacent to this

property and how this property could impact those mining operations.

And this EIR should contain a review of the entire project, not just this single phase, but all phases as proposed.

Before we motion, can we talk about ourselves a little bit?

Yes. No, that's Let's talk about this for a second. Yes.

There's a lot of property out there. I think this property is not suitable for this application. I'll just be honest with you. you know, from everything

we've heard, all the things, why on earth are we proving it right here of all places?

That's my personal feeling. You know, as I looked at that and my background contractor and all that, why why do this

here? I mean, the groundwater is bad, the road's bad. Why Why are we even really saying?

I'm just my opinion, right?

I mean, there's no way the road's going to h No, no way the road's going to take this kind of traffic. There's no way.

So, I'm we're gonna open it up among ourselves. We're going to talk a little bit and we'll kind of get how everybody feels about this a little bit.

If I may, um, Mr. Commissioner, my my immediate concern is if we deny this

application today, the applicant has the opportunity to file an appeal and it just goes right past us and goes to the next phase. it there.

Um, I would like to have the environmental information so that an appeal is filed and we have all of the

information to to go for before making a decision. Um, so that I'm not trying to kick this can down the road. I am trying

to seal this can tightly the applicant. The applicant.

The applicant.

Mr. Wardall, the public hearing's been closed. Thank you, Mr.

Okay, I'll make a statement. If this is goes to EIR, I will appeal it to the board of supervisors.

So, okay. You certainly have that option. Go for it.

Uh, Commissioner Pool,

if we uh deny this Excuse

me. If we deny this project tonight, they have the right to appeal to the board of supervisors.

Yes, sir. and and if we deny it tonight, I want to make sure that the applicant

understands that in order to apply to the board of supervisors, they need to go to the clerk of the board.

Okay?

And I want to be sure they know that because I want to avoid future lawsuits.

Um, as to your comments on the EIR, I think there's been enough evidence by credit credible

people and very professional people that this project is not feasible. It's a poor location.

Uh and in the meantime, we can buy our critical critical minerals from China.

I'd like to make a motion if I could.

I'd like to make motion that we deny this application. We would need to start with that.

Commissioner Gonzalez here. I'd like to second that. Commissioner

Roll call. Commissioners, before you can move forward with an action on the application, you have to make a determination on the adequacy of the environmental document, which in this

case is a mitigated negative declaration.

Commissioner Gonzalez, here I'd like to move that the mitigated negative declaration is inadequate for this project.

I second.

One moment, please. I need to as a recording secretary slow this down. Is this going to be two separate motions that need roll calls or are we merging this into one?

I believe they're two separate ones.

Commissioner Gonzalez, may I ask in your motion if that what you're saying is that to deny the mitigated negative declaration. Can you articulate some

level of substantial evidence that's been presented in the administrative record that would support a fair argument that the project may be have

potentially significant impacts that would necessitate a higher level of review which would necessitate an environmental impact report. I just want

to advise that that is what you are inferring with the motion and we need you to articulate the substantial evidence that you're relying upon. Objection.

Why is there an objection? Where's the objection?

Okay. So, what I'm saying is I I am objecting to council giving only one avenue.

She's wording the rejection of the environmentalist being inadequate because da da da da and we need an EIR.

No, Mr. Wall, the public hearing is closed.

I'll repeat, my advisement was directed at the commissioner who already indicated that his motion was to not find the environmental document adequate.

If that's it and to stop at that, that's perfect. But to throw in the the additional end of it would have to have an EIR is unacceptable.

Mr. Wardall, I did not I did not ask for that. The denial of a negative mitigated declaration

automatically implies that a higher level envir environmental review is needed. It means that there's potentially significant impacts. Those

are the legal implications of the motion. May I continue?

Yes, Commissioner.

Okay. So, there are significant environmental impacts

that impact the use of this property and it's clear.

So, I my motion to deny this mitigated negative declaration is based on those facts.

Thank you, Commissioner.

I'll second that. that we needed that we Okay. So, so we're starting fresh. We've got chair

for a first, Commissioner Christman for a second,

and this is only for the MND to they're denying the the M anddificant impacts. Is that what's being motioned?

I'd like to say something.

The EIR is inadequate, but all of the problems that have been raised, flooding, endangered species, the roads won't change.

If we have another EIR, we're going to go through the same merrygoround once again.

And it's a waste of everyone's time, including the applicant's time.

Um vice chair said it. This is just the first of two motions.

So the second motion which I I plan on motioning is I would motion that we reject this application.

We we haven't voted on the first motion. Okay, let's let's do that.

Okay. So, we have a first from the chair and a second from Commissioner Christman

um for the MND to deny the MND due to significant environmental impacts.

And so, we're having a roll call.

Commissioner Poore I.

Commissioner Christman, I chair.

Hi, Commissioner Bennett.

Well, I I would like to deny this, but I don't want to give them an excuse, as I said a minute ago, to start all over

again. Uh, this is to deny the adequacy of the environmental document.

So, by saying an I, it's actually denying it. You're agreeing to deny it. Is that correct, council?

Okay. Well, then I I will deny it. It's inadequate. We've had more than enough evidence that it is.

So, so I Are you saying I Yeah. I

to I I need for the record to make sure engraved in stone. Commissioner Bennett's I response I it's denied

and Commissioner Ree I that's unanimous.

That was for the first motion and if we could start fresh for the second would be very helpful.

I would like to further move to deny the project.

And Commissioner Gonzalez, may I just ask for clarification since we require findings in making a denial? Would that be based on the lack of adequate environmental document?

Yes. A second.

Well, we're back to what I said a minute ago. If we deny it based on the environmental document, that's

just an excuse for them to file another environmental document and waste their time and money and our time.

Vice Chair, the any action of the planning commission requires findings.

So if you would like to propose additional findings in your motion but one finding that is available in the record now since there is no

environmental document there can be no approval of the project today. So in this denial motion that is one basis for the finding you can propose additional findings that are included.

Okay.

But they must be based on sub substantial evidence in the record.

Okay. So I'm a little confused. We cannot deny the project.

You you cannot approve the project today because you have denied the environmental document. The current motion before the commission is to deny

the project and I asked Commissioner Gonsalves to also articulate findings which are required with required of any

planning commission decision and I asked to clarify if that was based on the fact that there is not an adequate environmental document that has been approved by the commission.

Okay. So, uh um first I want to apologize for not being there tonight.

Secondly, I'm having difficulties with the Zoom um app. So yes, I um

would like to um

make my motion with with the facts articulated to this evening that this

project is not conducive to the environment and is is not appropriate for this community.

I'll second. I'll second that. And roll call.

Uh, Commissioner Poore I.

Commissioner Christman, I com Chair I I Commissioner Bennett.

I'm asking again because I was I had asked chair first.

Okay. I I and we are denying the project. Correct. And Commissioner Reese, please.

I That is unanimous.

So, the Amador County Planning Commission has denied the application and the mitigated negative declaration found

inadequate for this project. Anyone wishing to appeal these decisions may do so by filing a written appeal with the clerk of the board of supervisors prior

to September 13th at 5:00 p.m. along with any required Okay, Christa,