Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. My name is Marcus Rudix, assistant assistant planner. I'm here tonight to present use permit application number PLN2024Dash0010114SherbelleSons. This is a request to permit an existing truck parking facility for up to 12 tractor trailer combinations on a 19.2 acre parcel in the General Agriculture A 240 zoning district. The proposed truck parking facility will take place within a 1.47 acre graveled area with 12 parking stalls for 12 tractors and 24 trailers.

The project site is located at 2500 West Barnhart Road between Mountain View Road and North Tully Road in the Turlock area. The site has a general plan designation of agriculture and a zoning designation of General Agriculture A 240. Project site is surrounded by irrigated orchards and scattered single family dwellings in all directions, a dairy to the Northwest, State Route 99, and the community of Keys to the West, and the city of Turlock to the South. Parcel is currently developed with a 2,100 square foot single family dwelling, a 900 square foot modular office, and a barn. The applicant proposes utilize the existing 900 square foot modular office outside of the parking area on-site as part of the parking facility.

The barn and dwelling will not be used as part of the parking facility, and no construction is proposed as part of this request. The trucks will transport nonhazardous dry goods and produce interstate. The proposed hours of operation for the facility are from 8AM to 5PM, seven days a week. That would be for the office on-site, but the facility will be open for drivers to park twenty four seven. 13 employees consisting of one on-site administrative staff and 12 drivers will report to the site on a maximum shift with an expected 12 truck trips to and from the site each day.

Access is proposed to be taken off county maintained West Barnhart Road via 20 foot gravel driveway. The parking area is enclosed with a seven foot tall chain link fence with barbed wire treatments and a wrought iron gate. Do you want me to continue with the staff report or just kinda want a broad overview for now?

Please continue. I I would like

it to.

Okay. Thank you.

The full. Okay. The applicant stated the trucks leaving the site travel west via Barnhart Road to north West Barnhart Road to North Golden State Boulevard, north via North Golden State Boulevard to East Keys Road, and then west via East Keys Road to the State 99 State Route 99 on ramps as shown in the diagram above. Trucks returning to the site travel the opposite direction via the same roadways. And condition number approval number 20 one restricts trucks entering and leaving the project site to traveling along this route with any revisions to the truck route subject to a staff approval permit with referral to public works in Caltrans.

To provide a bit of background on the history of truck parking in the area in Santa Claus County, Due to a recent surge in code enforcement cases related to truck parking facilities and the A 2 zoning district, an ad hoc committee was formed in early twenty twenty five comprised of supervisor Chiesa and planning commissioner Marad and supported by staff from various county departments to address community concerns related to issues surrounding allowances under the current ordinance for truck parking. Following feedback received during public outreach as part of the ordinance development process with stakeholders and community members, The following use permit criteria were identified for use permits in addition to previous requirements, such as the business owner being the property owner who lives on-site and the 1.5 acre maximum size for the parking area. There's been proposed a defined concentration standard for what constitutes concentration of commercial uses in the A2 Zoning District, a prohibition on on-site maintenance, truck washes, and stockpiling of tires or other truck parts, whether indoors or outdoors. A five year lifespan for approved use permits with extensions permitted via staff approval permits, and also a new process for annual inspections of permitted sites.

There are also a set of considerations, and the fact that driveways, any requested offices, and newly required on-site restrooms, which wasn't in the current ordinance but will be in the proposed ordinance. Those are set to be included within the calculation of the total one and a half acre parking area. Final draft amendments are tentatively scheduled to be presented to the planning commission on 10/16/2025 at the next public hearing. The planning commission's recommendations then are tentatively expected to be presented to the board of supervisors for final consideration in November for the zoning ordinance amendment, and then in December for the general plan text amendment. The subject application is being presented to the Planning Commission for consideration in advance of those final draft amendments to the use permit allowances and criteria.

Accordingly, the subject application has been evaluated under the current existing criteria for truck parking in the A 2 zone as defined by section twenty one point two zero point zero three zero g of the zoning ordinance. Conditions of approval have been added to the project that incorporate some of the feedback received from public outreach conducted by the Ad Hoc Committee. Some issues that came up regarding the project during processing of this application were related to community opposition to the project, the concentration issue, conditions addressing community and agency concerns related to truck parking, and code enforcement action and unpermitted structures on-site. General community concerns relating to truck parking in the A two zoning district have been primarily focused on operations in the Keys and Turlock area. As required by state law and county policy, notice of this project was provided to surrounding landowners and also to persons with an interest in the county potentially amending the current truck parking ordinances and allowances.

In response, two letters of opposition were received to the project generally citing opposition to truck parking operations in Sandsauce County and the conversion of farmland to truck parking related uses. One of the required findings to approve the subject application is that the approval of the use will not create a concentration of commercial and industrial uses in the vicinity that comes from the current zoning ordinance for the A 2 zoning district. No specific definition or threshold for concentration has been adopted yet, however, and the Planning Commission maintains the ability to assess the concentration on a case by case basis. During the processing of use permit application PLN2024Dash0134, Lucky Star Logistics Incorporated, commissioners had discussed at the April 3 public hearing, 04/03/2025 public hearing that more than two truck market facilities in a one mile radius of a project site might be an appropriate threshold to constitute a concentration of commercial uses. The concentration threshold has been further refined to establish a threshold dependent on a project site's proximity to a state highway or interstate.

These are in the proposed ordinance amendments as a result of public outreach and community meetings during the adult committee process. For facilities located less than one mile distance of the state highway or interstate, it has been proved that there shall be no more than two truck parking facilities within any one mile radius. So two would be the maximum within one mile radius. And approval of a new truck parking facility should not result in any property in the unincorporated a two zone of the county having more than two truck parking facilities in a one mile radius of it. So that wouldn't just be within a mile radius of the project site.

That would be any property in the county, which I'll kind of get into in a minute with some examples. The project site is located less than a one mile distance from the edge of State Route 99 And 90 Nine's right of way. Using the concentration standard proposed for the draft ordinance amendments, there shall be no more than two truck parking facilities within a one mile radius of any given property. And that is what the circles, the areas on here are trying to convey. They show a one mile radius as well as a few different truck parking facilities located around the project site for Sherrill and Sons, which include Petar Trucking, a recently approved general plan amendment rezone, La Follette Trucking, number two on the pull up my laser pointer.

La Follette Trucking, a recently approved use permit site, Prouty Trucking, a legal legal nonconforming truck parking site along Gear Road, and then Sun Valley Trucking along Alderson Road, four different approved truck parking facilities. Based on the concentration standard being proposed in the draft ordinance amendments, concentration would be created upon approval of the subject request due to the project site and two permitted facilities being situated within one mile radius of those areas. Because parcels like these ones along here, they would be within a mile of the project site as well as at least two other truck market facilities that have already been approved, which would be past the concentration federal threshold to be established with the new zoning ordinance amendments proposed at this time. The draft ordinance amendments do, however, have an exception to this concentration criteria. A higher concentration of truck parking facilities may be allowed if the planning commission or board of supervisors determine that the facilities are sufficiently separated by a physical feature such as a river, canal, railroad, roadway, etcetera, which precludes tractor trailer combinations accessing the facilities from consistently traveling the same roadways.

In this case, staff believes that Qatar trucking could be excluded from concentration assessment due to it being separated from the others by State Route 99 and utilizing different on off ramps being Taylor Road most often than the other truck parking operations. However, the other three permitted truck parking operations do not have a physical separation from the project site that would potentially minimize the likelihood of trucks utilizing the same roadways. Accordingly, if you using threshold that has been developed during the ad hoc committee ordinance development process, the project site would create a concentration in this case. Moving on to another potential concentration threshold. This project would not meet the concentration standards of the draft ordinance, it could potentially meet the standards that were discussed back in April at the public hearing for Lucky Star Logistics, which were that more than two truck market facilities in a one mile radius of a project site might be an appropriate threshold to constitute concentration.

So then, if a similar one mile radius was applied to this project site, set at the center of the project site, which is what this diagram shows, then a concentration would not be met in this case. But, again, there isn't a current definition or threshold for concentration in the current zoning ordinance, which is all that we would be able to hold the subject application to. So it is at the planning commission's discretion to apply or not a concentration threshold in this case. As this project is being considered in advance of the draft zoning ordinance, only the currently adopted standards can be used to validate the project. Conditions approval have been applied to the request taking into consideration valid regulatory and operational issues that have been raised during the processing of developing draft amendments to the truck parking allowance.

Moving into issues, again, conditions addressing community agency concerns. Condition approval number 12 requires solid fencing to be installed around the parking area for circle and the suns and screen landscaping to be installed along the road frontage. Condition approval number 13 requires parking stalls then to be demarcated for all parking to occur within the marked stalls to maintain orderly parking and enhance the aesthetics of the facility overall. Number 14 has been added restricting the parking of Surface Transportation Assistance Act rated trucks on-site. That was an issue that came up during the processing of Lucky Star Logistics, but SCA trucks aren't proposed to be parked on-site.

It's just being added to apply consistent standards. Condition approval number 15 requires that any refrigerated trailers be powered off when stored on-site just to prevent noise or excessive emissions from those uses, although, again, none of them are being proposed at this time to park on-site. Condition number rule number 16 then requires all tractor trailer combinations parked on-site to be in full operable condition and prohibits any stockpiling of tires or truck parts whether indoor or outdoor on-site. And then condition number 17 requires on-site restrooms accessible to drivers and employees to be maintained on-site at all times. To give a brief overview, this the history of this specific application and code enforcement action against it.

The business began operating at this site in 2021 without having secured the proper land use entitlements for it. And in 2022, a code enforcement case was first opened against the property. In 2023, the property owner obtained a home occupation business license, allowing the parking of up to three tractor trailer combinations owned and registered to the property owner on-site. However, the facility has since exceeded the permitted number of tractor trailers parked on the property. And in 2024, the current request, this application for a use permit was submitted and has been processed by the planning department.

The property during this process has been cited by code enforcement three times since an initial notice in order to abate back in 2022 and currently has $600 in outstanding fines from code enforcement left to be paid. That's also written here on this slide. Condition approval numbers nine through 12, again, they've been added requiring building permits be obtained for existing improvements on-site, including lighting, signage, and use of the existing unpermitted modular office on-site, which was installed under previous ownership of the property, but was not permitted. And conditional approval on 24 has been added requiring a grading permit be obtained, including a timeline of three months to obtain the required permits, the building permits, grading permit, and twelve months to finalize associated improvements just to ensure that project site comes into compliance with Stanislaus County code and public works standard specifications as soon as possible. General plan met and zoning ordinance consistency must be evaluated when processing all discretionary projects, including the project site's general plan land use designation of agriculture and consistency with land use element.

Unless the planning commission determines otherwise, parking facilities are not subject to agricultural buffers. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an initial study was circulated to interested parties and responsible agencies for review and comment. Negative declaration has been prepared for approval. Conditional approval reflecting referral responses have been placed on the project. As discussed in previous slides, the initial study prepared and circulated for the project has been amended to provide further clarity to the project's truck route and potential impacts to sensitive receptors, are expected to be less insignificant.

Those that was in response to initial study comments from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. But, again, oops. Sorry. These were minor modifications to the initial study and consistent with CEQA, staff believes. To conclude, staff has not provided recommendation of approval or denial to the planning commission based on the issues previously discussed. If the planning commission should choose to approve the project, exhibit a of the staff report includes all required findings for approval, including findings regarding the environmental review, use permit findings, and project approval. And then that concludes my presentation. Staff will now be available for any questions that planning commissioner and public might have.

Thank you very much for that report. Do any of the commissioners have any further questions regarding the staff report? I understand that that the applicant wants to continue it, but if there were any questions at all, I'm sure it would be proper to ask at this time.

One question. So on your exhibit b eight, that was the one with the two radiuses listed. So you mentioned that there's a concentration if you for a along Keyes Road, basically, because of all the all the sites that are around there, numbers two, three, and four already in addition to this one that would be added. Was it considered to route the trucks via Taylor Road instead?

From my understanding and from correspondence with the applicant, Taylor Road is not, truck traffic like that is not allowed on Taylor Road, I believe due to the the, City Of Turlock's zoning ordinance and some of their county, municipal code. So the route that the applicant currently uses, along Barnhart, Golden State Quays, that is generally consistent with what is allowable. And public works staff, I believe, had also responded with the same about. It's not necessarily a concentration along Keyes Road. It would be the same trucks using that from different facilities using Keyes Road specifically, but the concentration threshold established, which again isn't currently adopted, that would be proposed for the ordinance amendments.

Right.

It would just be any, more than two facilities within, a one mile radius of any property in the county would not be permitted, which that would be the case if this subject application would be approved. And that's why we had considered staff's position is that Pistar could be excluded from a potential concentration threshold just because it is separated on the other side of Highway 99. But, yes, you are right. Generally, it's believed that the most of these truck parking facilities would be traveling along the same roadways, potentially East Keys Road. Does that answer your question?

Yeah. So it's yeah. It was considered just not, but it ultimately rejected. Alright.

Any other questions for staff? K. Seeing none, we're gonna go ahead and open it to the public. Any member of the audience that wishes to address the commission on this item in opposition of this item, please step to the podium and state your name for the record.

My name is, Calvin Lee Haim junior. I went to series high school with this guy, class of '71, and Ed Morring is a friend of mine. I don't know if he's related. But, anyway, I live across the street from this. I grew up in in Ceres and traveled this route all the time.

And this Keys and and Highway 99 is become a truck plaza. And there are several retail truck operations going on right at Keyes, with hundreds of brand new trucks and servicing right there at where Barnhart comes into Golden State. My big concerns always, I mean, why are we having trucks in the agricultural area? They just don't belong. It's an besides being an eyesore, it's it's one of the best soils in the in the country that we're paving over to put truck parking on.

And there's so much truck parking going on. And I would take issue with the I I appreciate the Planning Commission's report there. But I think there are some errors, a little inaccuracy. It's more than a mile from the freeway. It may be exactly a mile from the edge of where you can't get to the freeway, but if you go around the Keys Road and get on the freeway, we have trucks extending their their impact well past a mile to get to this site.

The the road condition is listed as good. I would say West Of Mount Of Mountain View is is pretty good, where the dairy is. East, where this is about a quarter of a mile, quarter to half a mile is very poor. It wasn't designed for 60 or 80,000 pound vehicles to travel on. The drainage is very poor.

If we get more than a quarter inch to half an inch rain, there is a lake about a 100 yards long up to maybe four inches of water for weeks, and these trucks go right through it. Now right before they moved in, the county repaved this thing. And I I thought that's unusual. Why? They've they never repaved this.

There's potholes and it's a country road. And then they repaved it and oh, it looks great. And then the trucks came. So I don't know how that how the two combined in there, but I would be speaking against this because it is not a proper land use, in my opinion. It's almond and beans are growing across the way, corn. There's peaches next door. It is the only access. You can't get there from Taylor Road with these kind of trucks. There's a canal, Taylor

Mhmm.

And

then whether it's too close. There it Taylor's like a freeway now. People travel fifty, sixty miles an hour and making a left turn onto Mountain View to get to that place off a tailor would be pretty much impossible. Since I live across the street, I hear these trucks idling all night long. Not all of them, occasionally.

Some are. There's apparently no power to to refrigerated the refrigerated trucks. And there's not three. They might have started with, like, eight trucks, but now they routinely is close to 20 trucks there. Now, I'm not separating trailers and and and trucks, but it's constant.

And it is starting before six in the morning. And, just as I drove out here today, a big gravel hauler or something was going down that road. Forcing other traffic, if there is any, and there's not usually, to go off onto, my property, which is orchard and and a berm and destroy the berm. You know, there's just a lot of problems having this kind of use there. Anyway, that's my two my 2¢.

And I know this commission has approved another group of trucking outfits to go on North of Keyes Road, on Golden State towards Keyes. And, there's more trucks there, more new trucks, and there's used trucks being worked on. There's, the, all the, fresh fruit place, is there. The county approved a RV storage at Barnhart and Golden State. Remember that?

It was to be called the Barnhart Storage or something like that. Now it's mega storage. Brick walls 20 feet high. You ought to take a drive down there. This this whole quadrant is getting redeveloped with industrial usage. And it's it's kinda sad for someone who grew up in the country, my remembering it how it was country. But anyway, I would vote against it. I I think they took it, seized the property, you know, under the wire, but in the gray zone of a real estate agent that said, oh, yeah. Yeah. Put it put something here.

Another disturbing rumor was my neighbor to the north told me the other day that Taylor and Gere, there's a 45 acre parcel there, that someone who could be related to Scherger and Sons bought these 40 acres, 45 acres with cash, a 100,000 an acre. Farming cannot exist with that kind of competition. If the farms are gonna be replaced by trucking organizations with this kind of money, it's just gonna destroy the buffer between Turlock and Ceres as agriculture. It'll just be developed all up, which is sad. You know?

We grow a lot of good stuff there. Anyway, that's my my thoughts. Any questions? Or

Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it.

Thank you. I appreciate the time, and I'll be here on the sixteenth.

And I'll

Any other members of the audience that wish to address the commission that are in opposition of this item?

Yes.

State your name for the record, please.

Yes. Good evening. My name is Matt Nosimento. Actually Hey, Matt. Yes. I farm the ground that we're talking about right here on Barnhart. I was ready to fall on my sword tonight because I'm I expected them to be here, and I was ready to fall on my sword and lose the place. I had prepped with my family beforehand. Like, we're probably gonna lose this place if they're here seeing me here because I give them money for rent to farm it. Everything you said is correct.

The only thing I would say the key that he forgot is that once it transitions Barnhart past Mountain View to the east, it's no longer two lane. It's one lane. And so it's kinda that old cut, like you were talking about, that used to be just the old road where kids would go high school drink in the corner. Well, as he said, they did repave it, and it's beautiful. It's a nice one lane stretch, but you go down there, and the semi owns the road. He owns the road. There's nowhere to go. Luckily, I can just drive off and get next to the pipeline or something. Other than that, the site on the picture, if you could go back to the picture where it shows the actual truck parking site, I'm the one that scrapes the ground for the truck parking when they first got there. It goes completely to the back of the property.

I'm the one that scraped the pad for it. It goes all the way to the back. And the assumption or the not the assumption, but the early talk was so you can see it goes all way to the back, the red line right there. It goes all the way to the back. His dad the father parks his trucks in the back there, and the and the customers' ones are more to the front. And so like you were saying, there's probably at least I counted today. I think I counted 15 total units, trucks, tractors, and trailers. But the key thing is there's that one lane. Like you said, you ain't turning. You're going Barnhart. There's urine bottles all along the road. I don't need to discuss that. Do we need to discuss that? I think not. The road is the one lane there.

The main thing that really upsets me, it's not just dirt anymore. They bring in yards of road base, and they put that down. They smash that down. That's never farmland ever again, ever again. And that's what really upsets me. Plus, you could probably get somebody that's smarter than me that's gonna say that's some sort of environmental hazard too just putting ground up road or not road based. It's ground up asphalt. Sorry. It's ground up asphalt. So there could be something environmentally involved wrong with that too.

I don't I don't know, but it just seems like that would be common sense, that that would not be okay. Like, if I wanted to asphalt my driveway, I have get a permit. Right? So there's kind of that same idea there. But the other thing is that the very beginning of this is that they were supposed to be the permit, I think, says it looks like they're a family that is hauling their commodities that they produce on the land. I could be wrong, but that's what I was told. Now that's not just not true. I'm farming the beans on it. I grow the land on it. They haul there's a Uline trailer there right now. Uline office supplies. They're not hauling I mean, he does his dad has been known to outhaul pumpkins and cantaloupes and fruit from, like, Oregon and stuff, but it's not there. It's not from there. It's not on the site. So that's some fudgery if you ask me.

Look at those leddies, by way. Those are non GPS. You're welcome. Those are pretty nice. But the the main thing is that Barnhart is now, like you were saying too, there's absolutely it's more than a mile. I can tell you from bicycling it and riding it my whole life. I've grown up on Barnhart my entire life, and it is absolutely more than a mile, like you say, going to the Golden State. And the main reason is Barnhart. When you get to the end of Barnhart, you most of the time, you just look right and keep going. You just don't even have to stop the truck if there's no traffic coming to the left. You can't turn left there. You can't go to Taylor because that's a big old hard hairpin left with the 53 foot trailer. But going right, it's like nothing. So they go right, and they get in the turn lane, jump on keys, and you're there. Everything he said, I agree with.

I'm not gonna repeat it. It's just ag land. It was fudgery at first. In my opinion, I thought it was like, oh, I'll scrape it for him. I kinda wanna keep the ground. Now that it's been around, there's tires everywhere. The fence is all smashed up from people backing up into it. Like, the tires they hauled the tires away, I noticed. There was a big old stack of tires there, kinda shrapnel and stuff everywhere. It's just not well kept. I think you listed an example earlier. Lafayette, that's a clean yard. That's a clean yard. There's some clean yards around that I could show you as an example, or we could talk about. There was another one you mentioned too that was in right in the area there, not Lauflette, there was another one. The Tarr and

then Sun Valley Transport.

Sun Valley. Now those are show trucks. Now that's a difference. Now, no offense, but Tarr, that's a third that's a dump. And same with Taylor and the Taylor Off Ramp. You get off the Taylor Off Ramp. It's a third world country. It's a third world country. What are we doing here? Like, this is not okay. You go there. I promise. Get out of the car and just stare and look. How could we be okay with this? I don't understand this. It's not just, oh, look at the trucks with this it's not like Dan Avila with just sweet potatoes or, like, your stuff, you know, tomato trucks and all that sort of stuff. No. No. They're taking advantage of the ag land prices because they know it's they cannot afford industrial zoned or commercial zoned to park their trucks. They can't afford that, or they don't want to, or there's not enough room, so they go for the ag land.

You know, $3,540,000 an acre, and like you're saying, a 100, well, I'm out. Mhmm. I'm completely out. I got no I can't afford to buy a $100,000 ground. $30,000 ground's ridiculous. My main pinch is we were going to buy this ground, and we got pushed out at 1,200,000.0. And so that's kind of my main beef. Now, I've kept it close to me because it's been around my dad a lot, and it's a good piece of dirt, to be frank. It's a really good piece of dirt. It grows effortlessly.

But long term, this is not okay. This is not okay. Barnhart is not meant to be just truck traffic all the time. If it's the milk truck, if it's the fuel truck, if it's a load of hay, that's what it's been for a hundred years. Reefer trucks, this is not acceptable, in my opinion. This is I don't the concentration thing, the conscient one is too many. The one mile rate, one is too many. But Tars is a dump. The other one that got closed down around the corner in Faith Home, they got shut down. They put asphalt right over a manure corral. There's no assimilation. There's no hard lines. Yes. No. Yes.

No. They're just setting up shop and going and waiting for the repercussions, and most of the time, there's none. And it's the people are tired of it, and I'm speaking on behalf of everybody in the area that's afraid to come here and show their face because they thought they'd be here, and I like I said, I was ready to die on this. I'm ready to fall on the sword and lose that ground. I haven't even cut the beans yet, and I was a little worried I was gonna get some retaliation here, but Jimmy's obviously busy. I would say no, and I can say, north, west, south, east, all the directions, no. Jason didn't wanna come here. I don't wanna have any hard feelings. Cedarland to the East. No. Robert Tick Sarah at the dairy? No. Across the street, Bernadette? No. Linda Murphy Lopes?

I farm the trees right there to the east? No. Everybody? No. If you could go get everybody spinning. No. It's terrible. It's unsightly. Like you're saying, the run those are the reefers that are running all night. And then the other thing too, they got the guy that's in their twenty four hours, seven twenty four seven service. You're impact wrench, busting wheels off in the middle of the night. I know because I irrigate in the middle of the night, and I hear it. There's no bathrooms on-site. I can promise you that. There's no lighting. There's, like, one little dust of dawn light out by the road. There's it's it's it's very much not good. It's not set up correctly. So thank you. I appreciate that.

And I hope you guys really think about this going forward, not just with this one, but with all of them. Because like you said, you are not you're not getting that land back. Measure that all the way. You could do that. That's a six sixty by thirteen twenty. You could do that. That's more than 1.5 too, by the way. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Appreciate your time. Are there any questions from any of the commissioners regarding the item before us? Any other member of the audience wishing to address the commission in opposition? Any in favor of this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission for further guidance. Further questions?

I have a question. What kind of fees what kind of fees were is being referenced here that they don't have the funds for?

Partially, the previously referenced code enforcement fines, the $600 outstanding, and then also, use permit applications submitted in response to a code enforcement case are charged at costs. So the initial, $59.21, that's the current use permit application fee. That's an initial deposit. And then if staff time during the processing of the application goes over, then the applicant would have to pay the remaining balance. That's also referenced there. That what they were referencing.

So we're talking about $1,200 maybe?

Can I disclose the The invoice was I don't know the exact amount, but it was over $2,400, I believe, $24.96?

$50.91 plus 600, so forth. Something like that.

Mhmm.

K.

So what are the odds then that they have sufficient funds to actually do all the improvements that you're calling for in three months?

I can't really speak on that.

That's a point though. I get it. Yeah.

Seems pretty slim to me.

I don't have much to the comment besides that

we

are removing ag land and putting in truck parking, and we know that approving stuff like this is gonna lead to more, and we see that happening all around us. I witness to it in my area. If we can, I would like to vote on this tonight, but that'll be up to

I have another question for the for staff? So there there was a the director, you mentioned that there's a truck parking thing that's on this agenda for next meeting. Yes.

So the planning commission will be taking a look at an ordinance amendment, the one that was kind of referenced in the presentation this evening, to address the truck parking issue at your next meeting on October 16. It will be a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. That item will then go to the Board for a decision. It's in mid November. Ordinance November 16. The ordinance would not go into effect for thirty days. So at this time, the consideration of this application can only be done under the current existing ordinance.

Except for he also asked us to reschedule.

Correct. And it is at the discretion of the Planning Commission if you want to if you want to continue it or if you want to hear it this evening. It was advertised. Everybody was noticed of it. The applicant knew the project was coming was coming this evening. So it's at the discretion of the planning commission.

If I could comment, I agree with commissioner. Project doesn't fit the zoning. It was done without a permit. They haven't paid the fines, which doesn't even show good faith compliance. We've obviously seen from the neighbors that it's a nuisance, and it's it's, in a place that's just totally inappropriate. So, I mean, I'd I'd like to vote on this tonight. I I feel confident that that's that's where I stand, but I I'd like to let my fellow planning commissioners comment before I make a motion.

Yeah. I I I attended all the outreach meetings from the ad hoc on the on the proposed amendments. And and I I was a little bit concerned about this coming up on the on the agenda tonight before there was any decision based on those amendments. And I wanted to hear from the fellow my fellow commissioners on on that as well. But I don't have a problem with voting for this, on this tonight for sure.

I think it is inappropriate. I think if you look at the concentration based on on what the potential amendments might be, with this mile radius, I think it's too much. And and I believe it would be taking Agland out of production. So, I'd like to vote on this tonight as well.

I I I although I understand where you, commission three of you gentlemen so far is are coming from. I do believe that even though you come up with valid reasoning, the applicant is not here, and I don't think it's fair to vote on it without at least listening to their side. I too had concerns about the item, nevertheless, because of what is going on with the ad hoc committee right now. We really need direction because we have been getting several of these that aren't originally an application for a use permit. They are an answer to to our code enforcer going out there and finding out that they are operating illegally.

This is the reason why the ad hoc committee was formed so that we could get some kind of direction, some kind of guideline so that we wouldn't have to be doing piecemealing and maybe you know, because this guy is gonna have more money to pay all of the permits, and he's gonna go ahead and and and and complete all of the conditions, etcetera, doesn't necessarily mean that some of us are okay with losing AGLA to begin with. Under this item, at least with me, and I hope you guys consider that, that although you may be passionate about this, I don't think it would be fair to the applicants to vote on it this evening. He did request a continuance, and he is asking for the approval under the current ordinance. But just because we're so close to enacting the new changes, I would recommend and and hope that maybe there is a motion for a continuance. I think it's only fair that we hear from the applicant.

But if you feel the other way, that's I I understand.

I would probably prefer that we kick this to after the board of supervisors has voted on the on the amendment. So if they voted down, then whenever. But if they if they voted and pass it, then I would prefer this to be heard after that subject to maybe new guidelines. Like, okay. It it may be real obvious if they adopt the concentration standard that is discussed in the report.

That that would, like, negate it.

It would negate it. It would it would be obvious that it's a no. So I I would prefer to kick it to Yeah. Basically next year is what it what it sounded like.

So so we received an application. We processed an application. An applicant has a right to have their project heard, and they have a right to have that project heard under the ordinance that is in effect at the time that the decision is being made. So there has to be kind of a reason to to delay it past the ordinance. There is time to bring the item back before the ordinance goes forth. It is a viable application. So to continue it past the time that the board would make a decision on the ordinance would really not be giving them their right under the current ordinance.

Even though they asked for a reschedule.

Well, if I may if if I may and I'm not here to get involved. The facts they asked for the earliest possible. But what I wanna talk about is they didn't ask for after the ordinance.

Well, I know they didn't.

Okay. So and then and that might create some other downstream problems. They they made the application and, like, the director said under this ordinance. But I do wanna direct what I'm actually here for is the rules and laws. I'm looking at the Stanislaus County Planning Commission rules and regulations adopted 12/17/2013.

That's the most latest that I have. It's available on the website. But if you look at article four section three, which is entitled request for continuance, If a request is made for continuance, a motion may be made and voted upon to continue the public hearing to a definite time and date or to continue indefinitely. There's some other that doesn't really pertain to this. But what it's telling you is you could consider it, but you don't have to take a motion to continue. And so they obviously sent the email. That's their request. But if it's a request is made for continuous, the motion may be made. Motions come from the commission, not members of the public.

However, if one of the commissioners commissioners is comfortable making a decision, for recommendation of denial, then that the commissioners are in the right to do as well. Correct?

Oh, of course. All I was telling you is that if you may make a motion to continue, but just that the request you're not required to. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

K.

Without trying to get to the facts or or give an opinion as to what to do.

And and I just feel like the applicant should be heard one way or the other. That that's all. But if there's if if one of you commissioners would like to entertain a motion, then then

Well, I could put it on the other on the shoe on the other foot, Becky. We're here, and I'm sitting here talking about it, and he's not.

And so I'll make a

motion to deny use permit application number PLN2024000114.

K. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?

Second. Oh, okay. Yep.

Have a motion and a second. May we have a roll call for this vote, please? So that's a motion by commissioner Marring, second by commissioner Zipser. Yes. Commissioner Borcheto? Aye. Commissioner Campo? Aye. Commissioner Huff? No. Commissioner Maureen?

Aye.

Commissioner Zipser?

Aye.

Motion passes four one. Okay. So what that means is that this denial is going to be referred to the board of supervisors, or can the applicant choose to appeal to the board?

They can appeal. They have ten days to appeal to the board of supervisors. At this point, if there's no appeal, this was a final decision.

Very good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Alright. Next on our agenda, other matters. Any other matters that we have to discuss? We have none. Great. And item nine, report of the planning director.

Yes. Since the Planning Commission last met on September 9, the Board of Supervisors did conduct the public hearing and approved the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the rezone application for the West Stanislaus Irrigation District. This was the new facility they were proposing out in the community of Wesley. On the horizon for your next meeting on October 16, we will have the two housing element items that were continued from this evening along with a parcel map, and then we will have the truck parking ordinance amendment, which is two part. One is an ordinance amendment and the other one's a general plan amendment to the highway commercial plan development, but both related to truck parking.

For November 6, we have one parcel map variance in a Williamson Act cancellation application in the Crews Landing area. And then November 20, we are looking at one rezone and parcel map in the Modesto area. And for those who are members of the nuisance and baby hearing board, I do believe that there is a meeting scheduled for October 23 that will have some truck parking items on that.

Question. The October 16 meeting sounds a little bit packed because we have a lot of items. Will the discussion on the housing element take a long time? I mean, it's kind of hard to gauge, but just to just to gauge the timing.

I I will say to the planning commission that you should prepare yourself for some very heavy reading in in the days ahead as the report gets gets gets written. It's a detailed and complex matter. How many members of the public we have here to speak for it, hard to predict and and to know. It's hard to put a time frame on it.

Considering we had a couple even though they were Right. Moved to continue.

Correct. Correct. Yes.

I'd say there's gonna be much.

Any way that some of the material could be sent to the commissioners ahead of time if we do need to do some reading, any any progress that the ad hoc committee has any reports ready might be helpful.

With regards to the housing element, the housing element that you will be considered is posted online, and we can provide you with the link to where you can find that document online so you can start to read through through that document. With regards to the truck parking and the ad hoc committee, there really isn't much out there. I mean, are public documents, so yes, we can get you I mean, the the draft ordinances are available. Those are public documents, so we can't share those with with the with the commission. They were provided at the Ag Advisory Board at the General Plan Update Committee so we can share those.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you very much. Anything else from the commissioners? K. With that, then we're gonna go ahead and adjourn.