Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Just a couple of reminders. Silence your cell phones. During the public hearing, we're happy to accept any and all comments on the projects, but please try to avoid repetition. Just say you agree or disagree with the speaker before you. For the roll call, let the record reflect that Commissioner Brachetto and Commissioner Campo are absent this evening. And will you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? The Citizen's Forum is a time for the public to speak on issues that are not on tonight's agenda. However, we, the Commission, cannot take action on any of those items. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on an issue not on tonight's agenda? Seeing none, we'll move along. I would like to entertain a motion for approval of the minutes from June 4th, 2026 of the Planning Commission.

Move to approve.

Thank you. Second?

I'll second that.

Thank you, sir. All those in favor of approving the minutes from June 4th, 2026, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, nay. And I will abstain. The motion carries. For correspondence, Director Freitas, do we have any correspondence this evening?

You have one item of correspondence that was included with your agenda. It was an email dated May 18th, 2026 from Randy Garcia regarding the non-consent item 7A. the areola parking truck, trucking use permit.

Everybody have a chance to read it?

Yes, sir. Yes.

All right. Any commissioners wishing to declare a conflict this evening? Seeing none, we'll move right along. We have no consent items this evening. We do have one non-consent item, use permit application number PLN 2025-0038, areola trucking. Ms. DeAnda, your staff report.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, members of the public. Emily DeAnda, Associate Planner, here tonight to present Use Permit Application PLN 2025-0038, Areola Trucking. This is a request to permit an existing truck parking facility for up to 12 tractor-trailer combinations on a 3.8-acre parcel in the General Agricultural Zoning District. The proposed truck parking facility will take place within a 1.5-acre graveled area with parking stalls for up to 12 tractors and 24 trailers and 11 passenger vehicles. The project was originally scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission on May 21, 2026. However, due to a lack of a quorum, the item was rescheduled to the June 18th meeting. The project site is located at 4136 Tegner Road between East Service Road and East Grayson Road in the Houston area. The site has a general plan designation of agriculture and a zoning designation of general agriculture with a 40-acre minimum. The project site is surrounded by ranchettes and single-family dwellings to the north, east, and south, irrigated orchards to the north and west, and a permitted truck parking facility located to the northeast of the project site. The parcel is currently developed with a single family dwelling, an unpermitted accessory dwelling unit, and the truck parking operation. The balance of the parcel is currently vacant and unplanted. A TAD canal borders the project site along the south and east property line. And while the parcel will maintain the ability to irrigate, the applicant has indicated they no longer intend to farm the parcel. The existing dwellings on site will not be used for the truck parking operation. No construction is proposed as part of this request. According to the applicant, 80% of the materials to be transported by the operation are agricultural products from hauling and shelling facilities located throughout the county. And 20% of the hauled material is comprised of general freight, lumber, and concrete. The proposed hours of operation for the facility are from 4 AM to 8 PM, seven days a week. Currently, a total of 12 tractors and 17 trailers are owned by the property owner who also lives on site and will drive one of the tractor trailer combinations. Eleven employees will report to the site per day, and a modular restroom is being proposed within the truck parking area for the drivers. Access is proposed to be taken off County-maintained Tegner Road via a 30-foot-wide driveway, which is proposed to be graveled under this request. The applicant also proposes to enclose the parking area with a six-foot-tall wood fence and plant evergreen trees along the frontage and near the south property line to screen the use of the facility from the right-of-way. Access to State Route 99, the applicant has provided their anticipated truck routes, as can be seen on the screen. The trucks leaving the site will travel north via Tegner Road, then west onto East Service, south down Pioneer to East Keys, then west on East Keys Road to access SR 99. Alternatively, the applicant also anticipates trucks to travel along East Service Road to Mitchell to access State Route 99, and trucks returning to the site will travel the opposite direction via the same roadways. Condition of approval number 25 restricts trucks entering and leaving the project site to traveling along the applicant's proposed routes. If approved, any revisions to the truck routes will be subject to a staff approval permit with referral to Public Works and Caltrans. Issues were identified as part of the processing of this application. The issues are related to code compliance, community opposition, code enforcement and building code violations, and current property ownership. A required finding to approve the use permit application under the current ordinance is that the use will not create a concentration of truck parking facilities in the vicinity. For areas of the county that are more than one mile from state highways, A concentration is considered to be created when any property in the county has more than one truck parking facility within a mile radius. Approval of a new truck parking facility should not result in any given property in the unincorporated A2 zone of the county having more than two truck parking facilities in one mile radius of that parcel. The project site is located more than one mile from SR 99. Based on the applicable standard, approval of the project will result in a concentration if there are more than two truck parking facilities. The areas of concentration above in the diagram show a circle with a one mile radius centered east of La Follette Trucking, which is parcel number six on the diagram, and west of the project site, which is outlined in red as the triangular site. When assessing surrounding approved truck parking facilities, there are a total of seven permitted truck parking operations in the surrounding area, which include the following reflected as numbers one through seven on the screen, starting clockwise from one, is Schaffner Truck Parking, Juan M. Torres Trucking Incorporated, Sun Valley Transport, Ernest Prouty, Pitar Trucking, La Follette, and Goblers Trucking. Based on the concentration standard, the concentration would be considered created upon approval of this request due to the project site's proximity to two permitted facilities, number two and number six on the diagram, being situated within a one mile radius. In this case, staff believes areola trucking would exceed the allowable concentration. However, a higher concentration of parking facilities may be allowed if the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors determine that the facilities are sufficiently separated by a physical feature, for example, a river, a canal, a railroad, or a highway, which precludes the trucking facilities from consistently traveling the same roadways. As required by state law and county policy, notice of this project has been provided to surrounding landowners. Notice of the project was also provided to persons with an interest in truck parking allowances. In response, various letters and emails opposing the project have been received from 11 individuals, which include eight property owners and residents within a 0.12 mile radius of the project site and three interested parties. Additionally a phone call was received from a local landowner in opposition of the truck parking facility after the staff report for the item was written The concerns expressed were primarily associated with the operation of the truck parking facility itself including aesthetics nuisances traffic and safety noise impacts to agriculture the environment concentration of facilities and the concern regarding the ownership of the company for the truck parking facility a The project is being considered under the recently adopted Truck Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendments, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 18, 2025. The concerns expressed regarding operational issues for the project are addressed by the newly adopted operating standards as outlined under Section 218940C of the County Code, and standards have been made conditions of approval of this project should the project be approved. In particular, the operational concerns raised regarding aesthetics and nuisances such as dust emissions are addressed by the amended ordinance. The concerns expressed regarding traffic and safety centered around dangerous roadways with trucks turning in and out of the facility, trucks parking on the side of the road, and potential damage to the local roadways and a TID bridge located to the south of the facility. The project was referred to the Department of Public Works and TID, and no concerns were expressed regarding the project. Conditions of approval reflecting the comments received from Public Works have been placed on the project, and they address parking, loading and unloading within the right-of-way, encroachment permits for driveway approaches, and that trucks do not block the right-of-way as they enter and exit the facility. Idling of trucks at the facility was noted as both a noise and health and safety concern by nearby residents. The project was referred to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. If approved, the project will be subject to the state's anti-idling regulation, which limits diesel-fueled trucks to no longer than five minutes of idling at any location. And a condition of approval has been added to the project to reflect this requirement. Concerns expressed regarding the use of trucks on site included agitating vermin and causing dust to settle on neighboring orchard trees. The truck parking facility, if approved, will be required to gravel to reduce dust emissions pursuant to county code and limit agitation caused by truck movement on site. The concerns raised regarding potential environmental impacts included air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, degradation of soil and concerns around groundwater contamination. The Air District commented that the project will not exceed district thresholds of significance for emissions. The air quality and greenhouse gases were not analyzed under the initial study for the project and no significant impacts were identified. No on-site oil changes or maintenance or loading or unloading of tracks will be permitted on-site pursuant to the amended ordinance. Impacts to groundwater and soils were discussed in the initial study as well, and no significant impacts resulting from the project were identified. A complaint was received regarding the ownership of the company name not being registered under the applicant's name. Staff confirmed to the property owner and applicant, as well as the state filing websites, that Jimmy Areola is the owner of the registered limited liability corporation known as F Areola Trucking LLC. The truck parking facility zoning ordinance requires that one of the tractor trailer combinations be registered to the property owner and the property owner live on site. While the property owner purchased the parcel in March of 2025, there was an issue with the grant deed that was initially recorded with the clerk recorder's office. And the transfer of title following the purchase was not able to be processed. The project was originally scheduled to be heard at the April 16, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. However, staff recommend the item be continued to May 21 to allow for additional time to clear title for the parcel. The applicant was able to work with a title company in the assessor's office over the course of April and May of 2026 to address the transfer of ownership, which is now in the applicant's name. And he does live on site. The application process for this proposal began in 2025 following a code enforcement case, which is code enforcement case number CE250146, which resulted from a complaint about unpermitted parking of trucks on the property. The business has been in operation at this site since 2025 without having secured the proper land use entitlements. An application for the use permit was submitted to the county in May of 2025. While processing this request, staff found that the then existing detached garage was converted to an ADU under the previous ownership of the parcel without obtaining a building permit. If this project is ultimately approved, the condition of approval has been added that a building permit be obtained within six months for the approval of the accessory dwelling unit. The property has been cited two times by Code Enforcement since the initial notice and order to abate and accrued $300 in fines from Code Enforcement, which were paid in full by the property owner in December of 2025. General plan 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 the land use element. Unless the planning commission determines otherwise, parking facilities are not subject to agricultural buffers. The request is for an unmanned parking facility, meaning no employees will remain on site, and does not propose construction of buildings for the parking operation. The project was referred to the Ag Commissioner Office and no comments have been received to date. While truck parking in the agricultural designation can be found to be consistent with the county's general plan, the use must also be consistent with the zoning ordinance to minimize impacts within the designation. The proposed project will meet the requirements of the truck parking facility zoning ordinance with the one exception of the concentration of truck parking facilities as previously mentioned. The proposed facility under this request would be considered as inducing a concentration of parking facilities as it would expose properties within the area to more than one permitted facility within a one-mile radius. In accordance with the County Code, the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors may make an exception to the concentration threshold if they find that the sites are separated by a physical barrier. However, it does not appear that a physical barrier exists that would prevent each facility's trucks from using the same roads. In the green is 1M tourist trucking, and the proposed project is within the red triangular area on the diagram. The applicant of this request has stated that trucks will utilize East Service Road to access State Route 99, and trucks associated with 1M tourist trucking also utilize East Service Road to access State Route 99. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, initial study was circulated to interested parties and responsible agencies. A negative declaration has been prepared for approval if the project is approved. Conditions of approval reflecting referral responses have been placed on the project, which can be found in Exhibit C of the staff report. The concerns received from adjacent landowners and residents and interested parties regarding the onsite operation will be addressed by requirements contained within the amended truck parking ordinance and conditions of approval. The proposed facility under this request would exceed the allowable concentration. Therefore, all the findings required to be made to approve the operation cannot be made at this time. Ultimately, it is up to the Planning Commission to determine if the required findings can be made. However, staff is recommending denial of the project. If the Planning Commission should choose to approve the project, Exhibit A of the staff report includes all required findings for approval. And if the operation is approved, it will be subject to the new standards, which do include an annual inspection by the county. The annual inspection will be used to verify that the facility is in compliance with all conditions of approval. And following the annual inspection, if violations are found, the county may take steps to address any nuisance conditions or violations of the county code that are determined to exist and not abated within 45 days. If approved and the parcel is sold in the future, the use permit will automatically expire and the new owner will need to apply for and obtain a new use permit in accordance with county code if they desire to continue truck parking on site. So that concludes my presentation. Staff is available for any questions.

Thank you very much for that report. Emily, commissioners, any questions for Ms. DeAnda?

Yeah, so the thing that goes against the truck ordinance, truck parking ordinance is there's only one issue and that's concentration within one square mile.

That's correct.

And then the conditions of approval, there seemed like a long, long list of conditions of approval. Is the applicant willing to do those?

The applicant has not expressed any concerns regarding the conditions of approval. Most of them reflect the new standards of the zoning ordinance. They were placed there for transparency and to make sure that they're read through by the applicant.

Go ahead. Is the 80% agricultural products being moved by these trucks, is that Jimmy Areola's products?

No, he has contracts with huller and shelling businesses around the county.

So it's not his business that's a huller and sheller? Correct. Okay. All right.

Can I get a report from Public Works on the condition of Pioneer East Service and Keys Road, please?

Pioneer PCI is a 68. You said e-service? Yeah. E-service is a 48 and 45, depending on the segment. The ones I have here, service from Pioneer to Tegner is 48, and from Tegner to Mountain View is 45. The other road you wanted is Tegner?

No, I just want Pioneer, East Service, and Keys. Keys.

I don't have Keys on here, unfortunately.

That's a major thoroughfare. That's okay. Pioneer is what again?

Pioneer is 68 from East Service to Redwood and the 72 from Grayson to Redwood. And again, those ranges, good is 70 to 100, fair is 50 to 69, and poor is 25 to 49. Super.

And what's Tegner?

Tegner, there's two segments in that area that I have here. From Redwood to East Service is a 76 and from Redwood to Grayson is a 69. Chair Greg Musil.

Emily, I did have one question. You mentioned that notices were mailed to persons with an interest in truck parking allowances. Yes. Are those people who have signed up proactively to be informed of these?

Those are the individuals that signed up during the ordinance amendment process. So it is a long list that we maintain and continue to refer projects that are related to truck parking to them.

Got it. Perfect. On the illegal ADU, is there a permit cost, building permit cost that will be charged for the client going forward on this?

Yes. Yes. All our fees will be charged.

And that number is what, roughly?

We don't have an estimate on the number. Our building permits division would do that for him when he comes in to get the permit if approved.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff? The 80-20 mix of ag, non-ag, is that a requirement?

Usually when we evaluate truck parking facilities or ag service establishments, we ask for the mix to see if they're more, if they're associated with agriculture, if they're associated purely with general freight. I think it's just something that we've done since it's in our zoning ordinance for ag service establishments that they be primarily ag serving and within the local area. In this case with truck parking, we don't necessarily have that codified that they have to be ag-related. We just like to share the information.

Okay.

Can I see an aerial again of the property showing the ag? Okay. Do we know when the last time there was agriculture planted on that site?

I do not, unfortunately.

Okay. It looks like south of that is Ammons or something like that.

There are orchards of some kind.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

Any other questions? Comments? Okay. With that, we'll open up the public hearing. At the Chair's discretion, since staff is recommending a denial, I'm going to ask, is anyone from the public wanting to speak in favor of the project this evening?

Please state your name for the commission. My name is Jimmy Areola. I'm the owner of the property. Is there any questions maybe that you guys want to ask me? Everything looked pretty straightforward on the planning.

When you purchased the property, was the property planted with crops at that time? No.

I did some research. I checked out Google Earth and I went year by year. I think it was up to like 1980 something. Hasn't had any trees, no agriculture that I see on the Who Earth. So when I showed up, it was all flat and just parked the trucks there, you know.

And in regards to the ADU, you're not aware you needed to get a permit in order to do that?

No, the realtor, when I bought the property, they said, oh, house ADU, it's all permitted, it's all good. I didn't know any better. It's my first property that I've ever bought. So, you know, I'm on you to this stuff, so.

Can you tell me a little bit more detail about what exactly you're moving as far as product, where it's coming from, where it's going?

Yeah. So we haul for, um, rolling hills, nut company, France nursery, uh, grow direct Alpine up Pacific, uh, keys, grow, uh, keys, holding and chilling, uh, dear or farms management. That's like a bulk agriculture, which is in the, opposite side of the 99, so we travel up service anyway through Gear Road and those areas. And wherever they send us, either pick up down in Madera or Fresno, Bakersfield, bring them back to their facilities, whether it be hoppers, dry van, flatbed, you know, we do it all.

If this project is denied, where will you move your trucks?

That's why I do not have a plan for that. It's tough to get parking spots right now, and it's really expensive. It's like $200 a spot, and it'll hurt.

So the issues relating to your neighbors and urinating and the use of the property and idling the vehicles too long, are you aware of all that? Are you willing to fix all that?

Have you got a plan for all that? I was hoping I would talk with the neighbors personally, but I'm willing to do whatever it takes. I want to do things right. Like I said, it's my first property. It was a learning curve for me. I'm willing to right my wrongs. The urinating on the property, I did not know drivers sometimes show up and just go. I have a porta potty there for them, which is there for a reason for them. The dust stuff, that can be fixed with the gravel. The ADU, I'm willing to pay for the permits and all that stuff. I'm not saying I have money, but the money is not an issue to go and make it right.

So, you know, the obvious concern for your neighbors here today is that you're doing this in an agricultural area which is designed for growing product that we as a county sell outside. Which I understand. You come in here and you're changing the direction of that by bringing your trucks, you're creating the dust and the dirt and maintenance, which is not allowed. And that's obviously concerns of your neighbors and citizens and also concern for the county here as well as the Planning Commission.

Correct. Yeah. And then, like I said, I've talked to Emily and when there was like the truck wash was an issue at first and I didn't know about it, she reached out to me. Hey, stop it. Stopped all that. Stopped the maintenance. Like I said, it's just a learning curve for me. I'm willing to work with the county and the people around me. Did you purchase the property with the intentions to park the trucks? Correct, yeah. And then, like I said, I didn't know any better. The realtor comes in. I tell the realtor I'm looking for a property. I want to park my trucks. Realtor comes in and says, hey, you know what? I got the perfect property. You're good. Nobody's going to bother you. And I didn't know about the permits, all that stuff. And I'm real good friends with Lance Golders. And he was the one that told me, hey, there's meetings going on. Come with me. You got to go apply for your permit. And I did go early on to apply for my permit, but I got turned away because I think the new changes were already kind of starting to happen. So like, okay, I'll wait. And then I went to a few of the meetings, I kind of got to know the people. And I went again, I think on the third time, I was like, you know what, no, like, don't turn me away. Let me pay for my permit, please. And the first and second time, they're like, you know what, no, wait, wait. Like, just we don't recommend it. But like I said, I want to do things right. So I showed up. Like, just take the money and just let's see what happens, you know.

There's a, there's quite a bit of conditions of approval.

And if you look that list over and yeah, Emily sent me to, are you okay with all I'm I'm willing to do my best. Yeah. Have you had communications with your neighbors yet? Uh, only towards service. Um, I know I didn't make to pass the canal Some neighbors aren't happy with me, but I've tried to reach out to them, but they didn't seem too interested, so I let it be.

I would be concerned with your real estate agent that this person should maybe want to be involved in regards to what's going on here because obviously that person misled you, and this has been time and money for you and frustration to your neighbors, and I'm sure your neighbors have got a lot to say about their concern as well here today.

And I understand.

So when you... When you pull nuts from the haulers, are you using flatbeds?

It just depends. If they ask for a flatbed or for a dry vent, sometimes they're in super sacks, sometimes they're in wooden bins. And then we do a lot of the... the fuel hauling. So we haul from the fuel to the dehydrator and from the dehydrator to the processors. So kind of, we do it all.

Okay. Most haulers, I see them loading flatbeds. I didn't know you would do anything in dry vans.

Yeah, sometimes, I don't know, it's just companies ask for a dry van. Sometimes it's like hash, oil stock for the companies, bring it over to them. It just depends what the customer asks for. And then like during the winter time, if it's raining, they ask for a drive-in.

Would you be willing to drop the general freight portion of your business and concentrate only on agriculture as an additional condition of approval?

That'd be kind of hard because, I mean, we're kind of real slow on the agriculture side when it comes from December to March. So the other stuff kind of keeps us fed during the slow season, you know, but the agriculture is our big thing. So that'd be kind of hard to do. I try it, but it'll be a little bit difficult for finances.

One of your neighbors mentioned offloading equipment and putting it into vans. Could you clarify what's going on there?

Yeah, so when we first moved there, my uncle has a business where he ships stuff to Mexico. So people bring in boxes and they hand load it into a dry van and the dry van goes to Mexico. And that's his deal. But as soon as Emily reached out to me and said, hey, that's not allowed, I stopped it.

Any other questions, comments for Mr. Areola? Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public wishing to speak in favor of approving this project? In favor? Okay. Anyone, any members of the public wishing to speak in opposition of this project?

Because I'm the bad person.

Please state your name for the commission.

I'm Randy Garcia. I'm the one that started this from the beginning. Let me give you a little bit of information. Can you bring that picture right there that you're all looking at? Go back to the picture that shows the La Follette Trucking Company and the Torres Trucking Company, please. Can you have a picture of like actual houses and stuff instead of that? Yeah, Ariel. Ariel. Okay, if you, I don't have a pointer, but you see, I own the property due west. I have 52 acres in there, okay? Right, if you're going west on service, that first little house is mine. Across the street, which would be on the north side of the road, there was two trucking companies over there that you do not show on your paperwork.

We only show permitted trucking facilities in terms of concentration requirements.

Okay, well they have been there for five, six years? Three or four trucks?

They may not be permitted though. Or if they're home occupations, we don't consider those in truck parking concentration.

Okay, if they're home-occupated, they don't consider that then? Okay, because they've been there for quite a while. One gentleman only has one truck, so I don't know if that was considered another trucking company or not.

There is across East Service Road to the northeast.

Torres.

Torres is permitted.

But Torres has another issue that I've also got a hold in code enforcement, and that is he's supposed to have his own trucks there. And there's multiple other companies' trucks that he parks there. Okay. Also, going back to the initial thing, Mr. that he has his own trucks, that is true. But there is also other trucks on his property. I don't know who they belong to. The company is NGL. And as far as the agricultural part of it, he has bottom dumps, almond holes. He hauls almond holes during almond harvest time. There's a few over there right now I noticed, because I go up and down the road. I live on the other side of the canal. Last week, a couple neighbors called me and said, hey, this has got to stop. Instead of going the route that they're telling you they're going down, they're going down Tegner all the way to Redwood to Pioneer, going down Tegner all the way to Grayson Road to Pioneer. They cannot make the corner from Grayson onto Pioneer because of the canal. People have had to stop, block traffic, two or three cars while they make their turns onto that project, onto that road. And yeah, I'm the one also that notified with the neighbors as far as them unloading stuff. That happened for about two weeks. In the middle of the night, dark, they'd be out there just with lights just loading this stuff up. I don't know what it was, don't care at this point. So I'm totally against this. I have other people here with me that are against it. Moore couldn't make it tonight. I've lived here for, I've lived on that ranch, I don't live there now, but I've been in the area for 50 years. And I do not want this at all. Also, if you notice, there's some pictures. The last big storm we had, that whole Tegner Road in front of their area had two inches of mud that we had to try to drive through with our cars. Thank you.

Mr. Garcia, can I ask a question? Oh, sure. Did you know it was planted on the property prior to the current owner? Pardon me, I'm sorry. Was it planted before, as you know, as living in the area?

Let me go back. Okay. Years ago, because I've been there a long time. Years ago, the people that owned it had pasture, okay? But prior to them purchasing it, the last lady, she... was organic. She wanted to go and get a permit to put in a venue for weddings. She didn't have the funds and I don't think it got approved either. So she kind of let the place go down. But I have to admit, before they moved in, she had put some nice little redwood fences up along the driveway parallel to Tegner had two little openings, like maybe 20-foot openings, because I used to mow that grass for her constantly. Every six months, I'd keep it mowed down for her. The day that they closed the final and got approval, they came in with tractors and just ripped all that stuff out of there. Just tore everything up. It was nice and neat. Now what do we have? A 300-foot area there, just total dirt and weeds. If you look now at their house, they pruned their trees, laid them up against the fence for a fire hazard. All around their house has got dead grass. Code enforcement, I also notified them because I believe there's somebody living in a travel trailer there. I've been by there at 2 o'clock in the morning because I've irrigated all night, 10 o'clock at night. Lights are all on the travel trailer. Questions?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to speak in opposition of this project? Come forward. Please state your name for the Commission.

My name is Deidre Borges, and I live on Tegner Road south of the canal. Since I've been there, the trucks are going up and down Tegner constantly. Tegner and Redwood has two blind corners. It has the northwest and the southwest corners have trees. There's no stop sign, no yield sign, no nothing. If you miss it, you run into our place. So the trucks come down and roll into the turn that if someone is approaching is not going to see them coming until they both meet. Also Redwood and Tegner have no shoulders on them. So when their trucks go down the road, they're not going to yield for you and you go into the dirt. Um, it's just a mess. The place is a mess. The amount of crap on the property is a mess. It's just, it's in an ag area, which is where we all moved to, to farm. And now we have just so many trucking companies all around in that concentration, which a lot of them apparently you guys don't know about, but they're there. So it just, yeah, no, I oppose. Any questions?

Thank you, Ms. Borges.

Thank you.

David Shackleford, a resident also on the street south of the place. The word existing truck company. Okay. So again, I have nothing against trucking or a person wanting to make a living. But in your statements of saying existing trucking company, it started without permits. It started without approval. Again, he was misled, but again, it is up to a person to find out what is truth, not just follow somebody else's advice. Your question, saying there was one issue. There's another issue in the permits. You can't be more than three miles, or was it one mile? You're not supposed to be more than one mile from access to the freeway. They're three miles in any, three and a half miles in any direction. So that's also an issue that is against what your ordinance require.

Our ordinance doesn't require you to be located within...

It says within one and a half miles of a freeway.

Not for a use permit.

Yeah.

It's just for extra concentration, I believe.

Yeah. The distance from the freeway just dictates what the concentration is that's allowed. If you're closer to the freeway, there's an allowance for a heavier concentration. If you're further away from the freeway, then you've got the two per one mile concentration. Which he doesn't meet.

That's what we're saying, why we're recommending dial.

All right. Done without permits, started just doing. We all have pictures of them pressure washing their truck motors on site. Where's that water going? To the ground. Okay. I have been in the groundwater business my whole life, and I know that the water comes from the mountains. and flows to the ocean. So it's going towards my place. And I don't want that. No neighbor that's irrigating wants that runoff from rain. The issue of the roads. First off, our county roads, for all the gas tax I've paid my entire life, suck. Service Road is supposed to be a truck route. I can't stand to drive down it with my own pickup. It's in such shambles. Tegner Road is no better and it's certainly not going to get better with trucks driving up and down it. And again, the proposed truck route. My wife the other day was cut off at the corner of Redwood and Tegner with a truck rolling through. There is no stop sign, that's true. Awareness and again going the improper way and they are traveling up and down Tegner I've already complained to the county about coming out and putting chip seal which is a band-aid on a turd The roads suck to begin with again. So now you're adding all this more traffic more traffic so the safety concern the road conditions and Again, as mentioned, we live in the country, not in a trucking industrial complex. We want the country. I've been there 35 years. Again, I'm not opposed to trucking, but not in an area where it's not, shouldn't be. And all these places have just encroached in, encroached in, encroached in, and they're being allowed because they're existing. They're not supposed to exist in that area. There's places for it. And I feel sorry for them that they have purchased in hopes in building an area and a dream, but that's not the place. So I oppose it.

Thank you, Mr. Shackelford. Any questions? Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to speak in opposition of this project?

Can I make one more comment?

Come to the podium, please.

Doing the research that I did on this project, Jimmy, I believe, has a dad. I don't know his first name. But they also park trucks over on Azamar Road in Ceres. I believe that's where the business started from. So I don't know anything about that. I just know if you Google it, do a search, the dad has property over there. That's where he came from. So I don't know why they can't go back over to that location. Or if they want to grow their business bigger, that I don't know. So it's just a comment of what to do with the trucks. Maybe take them back.

Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Any other members of the public wishing to speak in opposition to this project this evening? All right, hearing none, we're going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission for a discussion and a motion.

Oh, go ahead. Truck parking has been an issue for the county. for at least the last 30 years. We've been dealing with it and it's been a real issue with them. And finally, an ad hoc committee got together and did some tremendous outreach, I thought.

I attended a lot of the public workshops and I thought it was well done.

A lot of great ideas came forward and I think once we approved it, And you know, I said, then this is not perfect. It's not, but everyone had a chance to come into this, uh, truck parking ordinance. And, uh, and, and I thought it was so really, really well done. And so we do have an ordinance and I would hate because that has only been in, in, in force for this last year. I would hate to see us to have to vary from that ordinance. Uh, and make exceptions. So I'm really, um, weighing that at, at this moment.

I'll just echo that. That's, that's my, my biggest concern is a lot of effort went into this ordinance. There was a lot of community frustration with the amount of truck parking, um, unpermitted and permitted and, and the feeling that it was just there, there was no guardrails. And so I agree with you. I think that the strength of the ordinance was based in. you know, the committee's work and outreach, and there's a lot of heavy lifting that happened to, to get that, to get that ordinance passed. And so I, I mean, I, I will be voting, um, to, to agree with staff's recommendation to deny, to deny this on, on those grounds myself, but, um, just wanted to agree with you there. Any, any other comments?

Yeah, this one seems like it's too far from the freeway for my liking, and there's too many others that are using basically the same roads. You have the one that's just immediately Juan Torres, and then there was two more that were on Faith Home that would also feed service. So to me, it seems obvious that it's the concentration. And I appreciate that there's actually a standard for concentration now, and not just, I don't know.

Any other commissioners? No, I think it's important that we need to protect our ag. I'm in agreement with the rest of the commissioners. I feel for the client. But agriculture is the key to our economy out here and it has been for generations and we want to preserve that. And whether it's leaving a piece of property that's unused for anything in still an ag area is critical to what I think is part of the master plan of the community and the county.

If no other comments from commissioners, I'll entertain a motion.

I would move to recommend denial of this particular project PLN20250038, areola trucking.

Thank you, Commissioner Huff. Do I have a second?

I second.

Thank you, Commissioner. All right. May we have a roll call on the vote, please?

Kellis?

And just to be clear, the motion is to deny. So I am voting aye in favor of the motion.

Thank you. Schema?

Aye.

Henrik?

Aye.

Ha?

Aye.

Willerette?

Aye.

Zipser?

Aye.

Motion passes 6-0.

Thank you, Roxanne. All right. With that, we have two other matters to discuss that are not a public hearing. The first is the assignment of the nuisance abatement hearing board members. And Director Freitas?

Yes. We bring this assignment to the nuisance abatement hearing board every six months. And currently we have Commissioners Brachetto and Commissioner Kalas who are the seating members with Commissioner Willerup as an alternate. we do not have any proposal or suggestions as to who. We've just kind of been allowing the Commission to decide amongst themselves and then the Chair to make the appointment. Dr. Joe Sopcich.

Commissioners, I will say it's been a thrilling six-month ride on the nuisance abatement hearing board. It's actually really, I was telling Director Freitas earlier, actually it's a very interesting part of the process. I'm willing to serve again, but if any of you would like to take on that role, I'm happy to step back and let you do that.

I'm willing to remain an alternative as before. Okay.

I'm termed out, so I probably shouldn't. Okay. We're good? Sounds good. All right. So Director Freitas, I think, as Chair, will keep the existing appointments for another six months. And our second matter is filling a vacant seat to the General Plan Update Committee for the remainder of the 26-27 calendar year.

Yes. So with the resignation of Commissioner Morad, we now have a vacancy. The other sitting member is Commissioner Zipzer. We have one alternate, which is Commissioner Campo. We are looking to have either moved CAMPO from the alternate to the seating or have somebody come in and fill the seat position. We do have some items that the General Plan Update Committee is going to be working on. They're going to be working on safety element, the open space element, and environmental justice policies in the next six months. So there will be activity.

What date does that meet?

It can vary, but we try to schedule it for the first Thursday of the month at 3 p.m. so that it's right before the Planning Commission meeting, but we may need to have some special meetings. It kind of depends on when everything aligns.

May I suggest, since she's not here to defend herself, that we promote Commissioner Campo to... to the non sorry, what was the term? She's the alternate.

She's the alternate.

She would actually be the commissioner on that committee. And may I ask for a volunteer to be the alternate for that?

I would volunteer to be alternate.

Thank you, Commissioner Huff. Director Freitas, there you have it.

And Commissioner Zipzer will stay on. What's that? And Commissioner Zipzer is staying on.

Yeah. All right. Thank you for that. Director Freitas, your report.

Yes. Since you last met, the Board of Supervisors has not taken any action on any Planning Commission-related reports, so nothing there to report. On the horizon for the Planning Commission at this time, we have no anticipation of having a July 2nd meeting, so I'll take the opportunity to wish you all a happy 4th. And we will see you back here on July 16th for two use permit applications in the Turlock area. And that concludes my report.

Outstanding. And, Mr. Chair, I have no other matters at my discretion, so we are adjourned.