Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the August 20th, 2026 San Jose County Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to start off with a few reminders. Please silence your cell phones. During the public hearings, we're happy to accept any comments on the projects, but we ask that you avoid repetition. During a long hearing, it is okay to say that you agree with the previous speaker rather than to repeat what's already been said. May we please have a roll call?

Commissioner Brachetto? Here. Commissioner Huff? Here. Commissioner Callas? Here. Commissioner Heinrich? Here. Commissioner Chima? Here. Chair Campbell?

Thank you, here. Let the record reflect that Commissioner Weilerup is absent this evening. Would you please rise, those that can, and join me for the pledge? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

with liberty and justice for all.

Next is Citizens Forum. The Citizens Forum is a time for the public to speak on issues that are not on tonight's agenda. However, the commission cannot take action on these items. Is there anyone that would like to speak on any issue that is not on tonight's agenda?

Bless you.

Seeing none, we will move on to our minutes. Is there a motion to accept the minutes as presented this evening?

I will motion to accept the minutes.

We have a motion. Is there a second?

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. I abstain. Thank you.

If I may, I just want to clarify just to make sure from the roll call that also absent is Commissioner Zipzer.

Oh, I apologize. I let the record reflect that Commissioner Zipzer is also not present. Thank you. Any correspondence, Director Feites?

Yes, there are four items of correspondence that were placed before you too late for the agenda this evening. They all relate to non-consent item 7A, the use permit application for Masrock Farms. Those items before you are an email received August 18th from George Petrolakis, a letter received August 19th from Tom and Karen Wymer, An email received August 19th from Linda and Rose Menezes and a letter received August 20th from Tom Douglas and Deborah Whitmore.

Thank you. Okay, thank you for that. Item 6, conflicts of interest or declarations. Do any of the commissioners have any conflicts to declare on any of the items listed this evening?

I do. I have a conflict of interest with Mashrock Farms PLN 2019-0075 due to a business relationship with the owner of Drilling Wells.

Very good. So noted. Any others? Thank you. Under consent items, we have none. So we're going to move on to public hearing items. The first item would be the one in question would be use permit application number PLN 2019-0075 Mass Rock Farms. Can we have a staff report, please?

My name is Kristin Anaya senior planner here to present use permit application number PLN 2019 0 0 7 5 Maserat forms. I This is a request to legalize the expansion of an existing almond holing operation currently located on a 4.6 acre parcel to allow for the outdoor stockpiling of holes and shells on an adjacent 32 acre parcel in the general agriculture A240 zoning district. The request also includes adding shelling activities, the permitting of a 2,500 square foot office and break room, and conversion of an existing 5,400 square foot agricultural storage building. The project was originally scheduled to be heard at the August 6, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, but was continued to tonight's meeting due to lack of a quorum. The project site is located at 616 and 610 North Hopper Road on the southeast corner of North Hopper Road and Creekside Lane in the Modesto area. The site and surrounding area have a general plan designation of agriculture and a zoning designation of general agriculture or A240. The project site is surrounded by rural ranchettes, residential and agricultural accessory structures, an irrigated orchard in all directions, a horse boarding facility and dry creek to the north, and State Route 132 or Yosemite Boulevard and the MID main canal to the south. The existing almond hauling operation was initially established in the 1960s as a permitted use on the 4.6 acre parcel at 616 North Hopper Road. Staff approvals were subsequently issued for equipment and almond bin storage within the L-shaped structure on site and for the solar panels on the adjacent 23 acre parcel to offset the facility's energy usage. The facility has further expanded over the years in terms of increases in throughput, seasonal hours and months of operation, and physical expansion in structures and outdoor storage areas, and accompanying vehicle trips without the required land use permits over the years. Due to the facility having physically and operationally expanded by more than 25% of the legal non-conforming use, a new use permit is required to now legalize the changes that have since taken place and propose a few new changes. The western parcel comprising the project site is presently approved with a 900 square foot single family dwelling, a 500 square foot detached garage, a 5400 square foot personal storage structure, a 2150 square foot barn, a 2500 square foot office and break room, a 2100 square foot agricultural storage structure, a 5400 square foot holding building, and two equipment sheds that are permitted for equipment storage in conjunction with the holding operation. A 10,000-square-gallon water tank for fire suppression, two bag houses are also located on the parcel. The eastern project parcel is improved with a six-acre dirt area where stockpiles of almond holes and shells occur. There is also a stormwater retention basin, a ground-mounted photovoltaic solar system, and 24 acres of almond orchard, which is irrigated with water from MID. An auger, which transports holes from the holing building to the outdoor storage piles, also crosses the project parcels. Access to the facility occurs via a paved driveway onto North Hopper Road. So this use permit application is a request for a Tier 1 use permit to legalize the expansion of a legal non-conforming facility by permitting the following features which have already been incorporated into the facility operation without permits. The addition of shelling equipment and activities within the existing holding building, The on-site fumigation of almonds, which is considered accessory to the permitted holing but is incorporated for clarity. The conversion of a 5,400 square foot personal storage structure to bobtail truck and related equipment storage. Construction of a 2,500 square foot office and break room. installation of an auger line, and the expansion of the facility onto the adjacent parcel by utilizing a six-acre footprint of the 32-acre parcel for outside stockpiles of shells and holes, bobtail trailer storage, and stormwater retention basin. The project includes the expansion of the existing auger line and removal of approximately two additional acres of orchard for additional hole and shell storage at a future date. No expansion beyond this is included in the request. The request includes legalizing the facility's current peak and off-peak seasonal operation as well. During peak season, the facility operates with seven employees 24 hours a day daily from mid-August to the end of November. However, equipment may run into the off-season until February to complete that season's crop. Off-peak operation occurs from December to mid-August, Monday through Saturday from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. with two full-time employees. The precise start and end time of peak seasonal operation is typically dictated by almond harvest season. which varies annually depending on factors such as weather and disease. The facility currently processes between 5 to 7 million meat pounds annually and is not proposed to exceed this as part of the project. Since the application was received in 2019, eight individuals, including, sorry, rather, I believe 10 individuals, including one realtor and residents and landowners of surrounding properties have contacted county staff both by phone and letters expressing concerns about the proposed project with regards to the unpermitted expansion, noise, incompatibility of the character of the use with the surrounding neighborhood, increased truck traffic and speeding concerns, health risk from dust and fumigants, and use of the Modesto Irrigation District Canal right-of-way. Additionally, the project has been continued several times since it was originally scheduled for public hearing on March 20th, 2026. I'll discuss each of these issues briefly in order. And so as mentioned in the staff report, this is a legal non-conforming facility that was established legally on the 4.6 acre parcel in the 60s when use permits were not required to establish the use. The property zoning change in 1973 subsequently requiring land use entitlements for any further changes. Over the years, the facility has further expanded without obtaining the required permits, including the portions that are proposed to be legalized, as I previously outlined. And then following a code enforcement violation on the property in 2018, the use permit was submitted to correct and legalize that expansion that has since occurred. The image on screen shows the approximate extent of the LNC facility outlined in orange, and the red represents the footprint and improvements as part of the proposed expansion. Other concerns have been expressed with the potential for the facility to expand beyond the existing physical scale of the project. And so with the exception of the future auger line and the additional two acres of bare ground for almond hole and equipment storage, no additional physical expansion or construction is proposed. This request is predominantly to legalize the unpermitted expansion that has already occurred. Any further expansion or growth on the project site beyond that, which is described in the project description, would require additional land use entitlements. A second issue identified during project processing was regarding noise. Initial complaints leading to the project's code enforcement violation and subsequent submittal of the use permit to legalize the facility's expansion included complaints regarding the facility's noise characterized by screeching from the auger lines, banging on truck trailers to loosen almond materials, and banging from trucks backing up on the project site, or beeps from trucks backing up on the project site, among other sources. Initial noise studies conducted to evaluate the facility's noise indicated the project exceeded the county's noise standards at offsite residences, requiring mitigation to bring the project to a less than significant impact. Over the course of project processing, the applicant has implemented various processes and equipment to reduce sound, including routine maintenance, replacement of equipment, and incorporating sound barriers. Additionally, mitigation measures addressing the ability to implement additional sound control measures including a prohibition on nighttime operation in the event that a verified noise exceedance occurs at the cost of the applicant has also been applied. A final noise study was prepared and dated October 2024, indicating that the project is in compliance with the county's noise ordinance and mitigation has been incorporated. During the course of the project processing and also addressed in several pieces of correspondence presented in both the March 20, 2025 Planning Commission staff report and those submitted too late for the inclusion into the agenda, nearby residents in opposition of the project have characterized the use as industrial in nature and more appropriate for an industrial area rather than an area they consider more residential. And so while parcel maps and subdivisions in the 1960s and 70s have resulted in parcelization patterns in the surrounding area that include ranchette parcels now considered undersized for the A240 zoning of the area, the area is zoned in designated agriculture. The county zoning ordinance and general plan land use element address appropriate land uses within the agriculture general plan designation and general agriculture zoning designation and have characterized those land uses in tiers based on their adjacency to agriculture. Tier 1 uses, such as holers and shellers, as they're explicitly characterized, are closely related to agriculture and are necessary for a healthy agricultural economy, and thus appropriate for the A2 zoning district, provided the findings required to approve them can be met. But here you can see the parcelization patterns of the surrounding area, including the acreages associated with surrounding parcels. And so several concerns of residents have also been raised related to truck traffic, including the increased quantity of truck traffic as a result of the historic expansion of the facility, speeding concerns of trucks, and complaints over truck traffic turning onto North Hopper Road from Highway 132, and the narrowness of the MID Canal Bridge resulting in residents driving along North Hopper Road having to slow or give birth to trucks traveling to and from the holder. The project and these concerns referred to Public Works and Caltrans during the course of project review, and no significant concerns were raised with respect to the project. Deborah Whitmore and Tom Douglas, residents and owners at 548 North Hopper Road, located two parcels south of the project site, have requested that staff enforce a 25 mile per hour speed limit on North Hopper Road to address their concerns. Local rural roadway standards set the speed limit, which is typically 55 miles per hour, and they're enforced due to safety concerns. So due to safety concerns, there are considerations and warrants that must be met in order for any consideration of reducing the speed limit to occur. Public Works has reviewed the available data and have not identified that the minimum required criteria is met in order to consider the request. Another concern that has been raised by several residents is concern over PM10 dust and air emissions. So during project review, these concerns were brought to the attention of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, who subsequently requested that a health risk assessment be conducted in order to assess the health risk the project poses to nearby sensitive receptors. The project health risk assessment or HRA evaluated the project site including chronic and acute and carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risk to nearby residents based on the air quality emissions and determined that the project will have a less than significant impact with respect to health risk from air quality. Subsequent issues were raised from residents questioning the validity of the study and whether it captured air impacts from the exposed hole and almond storage piles, including the ungraveled dirt dry vials and project area. Their consultant confirmed that the modeling captured the entirety of the project area footprint, including those features, and the analysis remains unchanged and less than significant. Additionally, concerns have been raised from residents with respect to the applicant using the MID canal, which abuts the project site to the south. Concerns that the project truck traffic have either driven along the canal within the right-of-way and also illegally discharged wastewater into the canal have been raised. And so the applicant has clarified that the facility is a dry use resulting in no wastewater, but that in periods of heavy rainfall, the well overflows and past practice has been to discharge this overflow water into the canal. Staff confirmed that while this is not an uncommon practice, use of the canal for discharging of well water or use of the right-of-way by vehicles requires a licensing agreement. from MID. And so this information has been provided to the applicant and condition of approval number 25 has been added to require the applicant to require all approvals from MID prior to further water discharge or use of the canal right of way. And so last here is a map of the property owners and residents of various properties that have either opposed or expressed concerns with the proposed project and those that have provided their address. And so the project was originally scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on March 20, 2025. However, the applicant requested a continuance to allow time for the applicant and Debbie Whitmore and Tom Douglas, who are neighbors and property owners at 548 North Hopper Road, located two parcels to the south, to identify measures that may address outstanding concerns related to traffic, noise, and limiting the scope of future potential expansion that the residents and the surrounding area have. The last year and a half has been spent with the project on hold to allow time for the applicant and the neighbor to identify additional terms to address the neighborhood concerns, both via a private settlement agreement and through conditions of approval that the applicant and neighbor have requested that the planning department staff to consider applying or recommending for application onto the project. And so several subsequent continuances have occurred to allow additional times for both parties to reach an agreement. And the project was then scheduled to be heard on August 6, 2026, but was continued again due to lack of a quorum. But that August 6 planning commission memo, which is included in tonight's memo as attachment one, addresses several of the requests from the applicant and the neighbor that was requested to be added as a conditions to the use permit by the planning commission during the aforementioned negotiations between the two parties. And so these requested conditions include requiring the project to, or requiring that any future unpermitted activities to adhere to county noise limits, prohibiting future expansion or alteration of the use, even minor alterations that would not typically be subject to Planning Commission consideration without a public hearing. reducing the North Hopper Road posted speed limit to 25 miles an hour, requiring the applicant to employ driver education via written handouts to truck drivers, requiring use permit revocation procedures to be initiated by the planning director following more than three or more noise violations per year, and clarifying that offsite byproducts shall not be imported to the project site for processing. And so several of these recommendations are in the opinion of staff infeasible or not recommended due to the requests conflicting with county ordinances, standard procedures, or state law. And so to quickly address staff's concerns with the listed requested conditions, it is not standard or considered really appropriate to apply conditions of approval to uses or activities that are otherwise unpermitted and not proposed. And so these uses would normally be addressed through standard code enforcement practices. Number two speaks to requiring a public hearing even for staff approval permit applications, which would allow minor alterations to the use. And so, however, this poses cost recovery issues with requiring a public hearing and related project processing through applications whose fees do not account for public hearings. Issues with reduction in speed limits was discussed in a previous slide. And additionally, it was requested that staff apply a condition requiring staff to initiate revocation procedures in the event that more than three noise violations are received in a single year, although the Planning Commission memo did incorrectly identify that as three or more violations in a month. So noise mitigations are even applied to the project reducing noise impacts and revocation Proceedings are already governed under chapter 21 104 of the county codes staff feels as though these concerns are adequately addressed The memo recommends that two new conditions however be that related to these requests be added and that includes that the applicant provide information to drivers relating to the concerns of residents and courteous driving practices And that a restriction be added to emphasize that no byproducts such as hash, shells, or holes be imported to the site from offsite for processing. So this was not part of the project request but has been added for emphasis. These items have been recommended as conditions of approval number 32 and 33 with the exact recommended language contained in attachment one of the memo. Additionally, a modification to condition of approval number three is also proposed by staff to capture revised fish and wildlife fees that have since resulted from the March 20th, 2025 date. And so finally, four pieces of correspondence have been placed before you this evening. One is clarification from the consultant who prepared the health risk assessment forwarded by the applicant's representative, George Petrolakis, which was discussed in the previous slide. One letter of correspondence from the MENESES has been received opposing the project over concerns of air pollution, the industrial nature of the use, and echoed requests from another neighbor who requested limits on the operating hours, truck routing, trips, and outside storage. So if approved, the project will be limited to the scope identified in the project description, and deviations from the scale, footprint, et cetera, will require additional review and entitlement as applicable. Additionally, fumigation permits are a regulatory requirement and have been added as a condition of approval. And as stated, the use is dry and does not produce wastewater. A second letter dated August 20th but received August 19th from neighbors Tom and Karen Weimer expressed concerns over the project due to the stated industrial nature of the use and requested a landscaping plan to be added as a condition of approval along Creekside Lane to buffer the facility from the adjacent residences. The letter states that the proposed throughput of 7 million meat pounds and 7.5 acre footprint for outside storage is acceptable but expressed concerns over further increases and question what will occur with the remaining 26 acres of the 32 acre project parcel. And so to clarify, no additional land for stockpiling and storage of equipment is permitted beyond the eight acre portion of the 32 acre parcel as requested and proposed in the project description. Six acres of the stockpile area is already existing and is proposed to be legalized as part of this request. Two acres has not been developed yet. Any further expansion of either throughput or footprint would need to be evaluated and then subject to applicable land use entitlements prior to being permitted. And so finally, the last piece of correspondence before you this evening is a letter dated August 20th, 2026 from Deborah Whitmore and Thomas Douglas. And again, they're located two parcels south of the project site. In their letter, they contest the analysis and interpretation of the noise study, but agree that the facility has, as of today, operated in compliance with the county's noise standards. They indicate that efforts to reach and finalize a settlement agreement between them and the applicant have failed and that they have signed the draft agreement but the applicant has declined. In their letter, they are instead asking for the Planning Commission to address their concerns by adding conditions of approval as follows. And so these are paraphrased, but the full language requested by Mrs. Whitmore and Mr. Douglas are available in attachment one of their letter, which is correspondence. Public works staff is here and can speak to the recommended changes to number 32, but I'll go ahead and read the paraphrased requested conditions of approval. So they're requesting that the staff recommended condition of approval number 32, which was included in the August 6th, 2026 planning commission memo be amended further to include language requiring the provision of required driver education to members of the public, not just County staff as requested. and specifies that the written information provided to drivers should include queuing and turning instructions and directions to reduce speed on North Hopper Lane to 25 miles per hour. They agreed with the staff recommended condition of approval number 33, also in the August 6th Planning Commission memo, and they're requesting to add two new conditions of approval. One is condition of approval number 34 in their letter Requiring noise standard procedures to apply to all activities on the project site with the exception of those covered under right to farm But also even applicable to those that are not regulated It would be applicable to those activities that are not regulated under a use permit and they're also further Asking to require the county planning director to initiate use permit revocation hearing procedures following exceedance of noise standards three or more times in any 12-month period. And then the last one is a new condition of approval that would require any expansion, change, or modification to the use to be subject to a public hearing. including through a staff approval permit. And so again, Public Works can speak to some of the proposed or requested changes to number 32, but as mentioned, staff has concerns with the attempt to bypass standard procedures for amending the speed limit. Additionally, the portion of the requested condition of approval number 34 is questionable as our ability to apply conditions to uses or activities that are neither part of the project nor are even proposed are limited. And so last, I spoke to the content and condition of approval number 35 that's requested earlier, but staff does not recommend requiring staff approval permit applications to be subject to a public hearing. There are processes in place to allow people to appeal staff approvals to the Planning Commission, or it can be up to the discretion of the Planning Commission to require any modifications of the facility to be subject to a use permit, which requires Planning Commission consideration and approval. and would achieve their request for a public hearing if the Planning Commission wishes to add this. And so general plan consistency was evaluated when processing this discretionary request and included evaluation of the land use and agricultural elements and the agricultural buffer standard. The agricultural element encourages vertical integration of agriculture by organizing uses requiring use permits into three tiers. Tier one uses include agricultural related commercial uses such as net holing and shelling. And as a tier one use, the project would not be subject to agricultural buffers unless the planning commission decided it was a people intensive use. The general agriculture or A2 zoning ordinance also allows tier one uses with a use permit. And staff's evaluation of the project found it to be in conformance with both the general plan and zoning ordinance. Pursuant to CEQA, an initial study was circulated to interested parties and responsible agency for review and comment, and no significant impacts were identified. A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for approval, and conditions of approval reflecting responses have been placed on the project. To conclude, staff recommends that the required findings can be met as listed in the August 6, 2026 Planning Commission memo and recommends that the Planning Commission approve use permit application number PLN 2019-0075, Masrock Farms, subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit C of the March 20, 2026 staff report, plus conditions of approval number 32 and 33 and the modified condition of approval number 3. as listed in the August 6th memo. And that concludes my presentation and staff is available for questions.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff related to this item? At this point, should I open the public hearing? Have the commissioners had an opportunity to review the correspondence that was presented before us? Do we need any more additional time to review any of it, or is everybody comfortable with that?

Okay, great.

So if there aren't any concerns or questions regarding that, at this point, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Any member of the audience wishing to address the commission on this item that are in opposition, please step forward and state your name, please.

Good evening, chairs and commissioners. My name is Heather Sturdivant, and I represent Tim Douglas and Deborah Whitmore, who are the neighbors to the project applicant. So the reason we're here tonight is because the project applicant wasn't abiding by the noise ordinance. And that's really the crux of what my client's complaint is. Now my clients have spent the last year trying to reach a resolution. Unfortunately, as you've heard, to no avail. They went as far as signing the agreement that was drafted by the project applicant, only to have it withdrawn within less than 24 hours before the hearing. So now we bring our complaints to you good people. So we appreciate you listening to us. So in brief summary, what we're asking for or what the agreement would have covered would be two additional conditions. They would function as 34 and 35. I get they're quite lengthy paragraphs, so I'll give you a brief summary of what they would be. So the first is a mandatory revocation hearing if the facility documents three or more noise exceedances in a 12-month period. And the second would be a public hearing with notice to neighboring property owners before any future expansion of use. Now, the purpose of this really comes down to opening the doors for communication. That has been an issue for a while and, quite frankly, why we are here today. Existing procedures are discretionary and reactive. The county may act on a complaint, but six years history shows this discretion doesn't reliably translate into action. The hearing conditions don't necessarily lock the commission into any decision, but they open the door and guarantee communication. Debbie, who will address noise, brings more than three decades of professional planning experience to these concerns, including serving as a senior planner and as planning director for the city of Turlock, where she personally conducted noise enforcement under the municipal noise ordinance. And then Tim, who will speak after her, who has 17 years of experience in transportation planning, will address traffic concerns. We also have a CEQA concern here under the CEQA's fair argument standard and EIR we believe is required because there is a genuine dispute between two experts. So the applicant's own noise consultant did a study showing that at nighttime, showing that noise was 47 dBA, which is above the 45 requirement, but they accounted it to noises of bugs and traffic. And our expert, on the other hand, says that there is a genuine dispute here. This is actually from the facility. And so we would be requesting that a proper EIR be done under CEQA. So to keep this brief for you all, really our request is first that the Commission adopt the two recommended conditions that we have been working this whole year to get as an agreement before you or in the alternative that you do not adopt the mitigated negative declaration and instead direct staff to prepare an environmental impact report. And I will now turn over to Debbie to discuss the noise issue. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Deborah Wimmer. I live at five 48 North hopper road. My husband and I have lived by a holler for the entire 28 years. We have owned our home for 19 of those years. We were perfectly comfortable living next to Mr. Modine's family holler. It was only after Masrock Farms took over the operation and erected a massive conveyance structure, done without permits, by the way, that we experienced excessive noise problems. We also have concerns about increased traffic, speeding trucks, and the scope of future expansions of the operation. We have been dealing with this issue for a very long time, almost 10 years. It has been a trying and exhausting road for us. Only in the past three years, after being threatened by the county with a restriction of their operation to daytime hours, Did the hauler finally get their noise in check, reducing their noise violations to twice in 2023, once in 2024 and once in 2025. According to county staff, the noise violations were largely due to outdated equipment or poor maintenance practices. In the early years, the noise emanating from the facility lasted the entire season, nonstop lasting 24 hours a day, seven days a week for three or four months. We could not sleep and noise literally vibrated our home. We had absolutely no escape from it and the Huller did absolutely nothing about it. More recently, the violations have been short-lived but can last anywhere from 24 hours to a week. While we understand why staff would want to make it easier for Masrock Farms to address these types of noises quickly, rather than resorting to a noise study each time, multiple and unlimited noise disturbances have just as much negative impact on our quality of life as continuous noises occurring over the entire three to six month season that is currently being requested by Masrock Farms. It is unfortunate that after spending more than a year and $12,000 in legal fees, we have to stand before you today without coming to closure on an agreement with Masrock Farms and the county staff. on conditions that would address our concerns. We have signed a settlement agreement with Masrock Farms and our legal representative has signed a joint letter we had hoped to present to you alongside Masrock Farms tonight. Unfortunately, Masrock Farms chose not to enter the agreement and pulled out late yesterday. The agreement was largely negotiated last year from March 2025 to the middle of June. We never quite finished the negotiation until we were contacted by Masrock Farms representative and presented with a settlement agreement on July 26th. only a few days before the item was scheduled to be initially heard by the Commission on August 6th. Masaryk Farms proposed some minor changes to the conditions we had negotiated back in June, but we were agreeable to those changes. We were actually feeling pretty good about our progress. Masaryk Farms has reduced their noise disturbances to only a couple of times a season. That is significant progress and progress that we greatly appreciate. Sadly, we do not have an agreement, but nothing we are asking for today is any different from the agreement that we were ready to sign and in fact have signed until yesterday afternoon. The additions and modifications we are going to talk to you about have not changed from the draft settlement agreement. They are exactly as worded in that agreement and that we signed. These proposals are listed in the attachment to the letter that I have submitted to you so I would like to direct you to the last two pages of our Very long letter, I'm sorry to say. And I think you'd be able to walk through what I'm going to talk about in a minute. With regard to item 32, condition 32 that we were requesting, my husband will talk more about this in his presentation. This item addresses a common concern of the neighborhood, traffic safety. Staff has recommended a scaled down version of our request. Had the settlement agreement been executed, the additions that I show in bold in number 32 would have been addressed through that agreement. It would not have been necessary to add them to the conditions of approval. The additions address excessive speeds and unsafe turning movements we and our neighbors have witnessed, particularly about the large truck trailer combinations. This is a very residential neighborhood full of grandchildren and pets. People like to stroll and bike down the streets. It is not an industrial area. This measure is intended to keep our streets safe for the residents while accommodating large trucks traveling to and from the facility. Condition number 33, this condition is recommended by staff and really intended to underscore that the huller is not to be transformed into a hash processing facility. Staff has assured us this is the case. This condition simply puts an exclamation point on it. I'm going to jump over 34 because I'm going to talk about that in more detail. to condition 35 because my husband is going to go into much more detail about that. As an overview, 35 is requested to ensure that we and the neighbors are notified of all future expansion plans and have the opportunity to reasonably participate in the process. Just as you are doing today, we are asking the Planning Commission to make the decision about any expansion plans so that we can participate in a public hearing on the matter. And finally, let's go back to condition number 34 about noise. This is really the reason why you are here today. Had noise been controlled properly by the facility, it is doubtful we would be talking about this permit at all. Had Masrock Farms responded to our complaint calls back in 2017 and 2018, we would never have researched the permit to determine that they had expanded illegally and the county would not have known about the illegal structures they had built. The additions in 34, which were actually amendments to condition 31, which is the noise mitigation measure, are intended to ensure that all noises are held to the noise standards required by the county and to ensure that periodic short-term noises due to aging, malfunctioning, or improperly maintained equipment are kept to a minimum, specifically three times per year. Condition 31 was modified by staff in such a way that it opened a door to continued violations of the noise ordinance by allowing the heller to violate the noise ordinance for as many as three to five days if they fixed the problem within 48 hours of notification. It would take us two or three days for us to be able to collect the data necessary to submit to the county to identify a noise violation. And then it's likely then to take a day for it to get to the, to, to Masrock farms, to let them know that they're, they're having a problem. And then the, the exception that they've incorporated allows another two days for them to actually correct the problem. If the problem is not fixed, it places the burden of re-measurement on us, the neighbors, that we basically, if we don't complain again, then they're kind of free to go and they can move on. But it doesn't really place a limit on how often this exception can be used. To us, this is not noise mitigation, it is noise accommodation. Most of the really serious noise violations are caused by the lack of proper equipment maintenance or aging equipment. Our initial complaints related to improperly greased wood bearings for the auger that needed to be replaced. Initial readings from 2017, 2018, and 2019 were in the 65 decibel range. That is four times louder to the human ear than the county's noise ordinance allows at 45 decibels. The sound was so terrible that it vibrated through our house and we had absolutely no escape from it. Now this wasn't periodic noise either. These noises lasted all season long, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Initially, Masrock Farms would take our complaint calls, but after only a few phone calls, they switched their number over to a fax machine. The huller never fixed the problem, and it was only after years of noise studies and finally a threat by the county that they finally got serious and controlled the noise. Not a very neighborly gesture, I would argue. During the past eight years we have been subjected to long periods and frequent occurrences of these kinds of noises Which disturb our sleep and ruin our quality of life? Even though the county has received reports that show that the noise ordinance is being violated The facility was allowed to continue operating during nighttime hours disturbing our sleep resulting in a great deal of unneeded stress and anxiety The county has performed several noise studies during this eight year process, the first in April 2020, show the facility to be in compliance with the noise ordinance. but that's not what we were hearing. To prove our point, the county wanted us to conduct a noise study by a licensed noise consultant. So we spent over $8,000 to have a noise analysis conducted by a licensed noise consultant and to install noise monitoring equipment at our home to do continuous noise monitoring. Our noise study, which contradicted the findings of the county's report, was submitted to the county in November of 2020. Then it took another year for the County to confirm our findings. By that time, the holler had operated another four months without abatement, both the July and the October, 2020 County reports showed the facility was exceeding the County standards and a recommended Maslow farms operated only during daytime hours, but that never happened. It wasn't until October, 2024, three years later that a new sound report showed the facility to be in compliance with the noise ordinance. allowing this application to move forward. During this entire period, the facility was allowed to continue nighttime operations creating noise impacts to us and our neighbors. The change we proposed to the noise measure is intended to stop the perpetual cycle of noise violations in studies that last for months and don't address the immediate problems caused by short-term noise. Our changes simply ask staff to bring this issue back to the Planning Commission, you as the official decision makers, to hold a public hearing on what Masrock Farms will do to address these types of noises after repeated occurrences. As much as the hauler needs to avoid doing unnecessary noise studies, we need some assurance that the noise violations will not only stop, but longer term curative measures identified and if necessary included in the permit to prevent repeated occurrences. We also need some protection against having to relive this awful process with a future owner. This permit may eventually transfer to a new operator through its sale or lease. A new operator who will not have had the benefit of having learned how important it is to control noise. We simply do not want to have to relive these past years. Inclusion of our condition in this permit is critical to maintaining what has finally come to be acceptable conditions that allow us to carry on our lives just as we did for 19 years when Mr. Modine operated the facility. Sorry. Our condition asks staff to bring the issue back before you after three documented noise violations in any one year. Over the past three years, Masrock Farms has not met this requirement in a single season. In 2023, presumably the year they were getting the noise under control, for the noise study that they performed in October 2024, the huller violated the county's standard twice. For the last two seasons, they have only violated the noise standard once in a season. So we think three times is actually pretty reasonable. I don't think they're gonna exceed it again, and I don't think they're gonna be back here. At least that's my hope. Okay, in conclusion, to approve this project today, you must find the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The use is required to prevent adverse effects on their neighbors, not just now, but in the future. It is not our responsibility as neighbors to make adjustments in how we have lived for the past 28 years to make it easier for the hauler to operate. We believe the four changes that we have proposed will go a long way to ensuring that compatibility We urge you to adopt them into the use permit. Thank you for your time, and I'd like to have my husband address our proposed changes to conditions 32 and 35. CHAIRPERSON WONG. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WONG. Good evening.

My name is Tom Douglas, and I live at 548 North Hopper Road. And I've lived there long enough to know how Mr. Modine ran his factory, his holler, and as a local family operation. He would have us over for a barbecue every time his operation quit. He was that well tied into what the neighborhood would affect by his operation. I would like to review two issues that have been brought up that were not done in detail that deal with traffic safety. Now, we're not requiring that there be a speed limit change. All we're asking is that the applicant put in his education material to drivers that they consider two important factors. More detail on condition 32 that the staff approved. This really suggests more education by their drivers. First, we'd like the applicant to address truckers turning from 132 to Hopper Road. I and other neighbors have seen trucks cross across the outgoing lane when making that turn. I had a significant adrenaline rush once when a truck making the turn was within two feet of my car, and the only reason I was able to avoid a collision was to put my car in reverse and stamp on it, go back 20 feet. I've had other people detail similar circumstances in our neighborhood. It's an unsafe turn. There was an accident on Roscoe last year. which was very similar to what we're talking about today, where a truck hit a car, hit a telephone pole, because it made a wide turning base. We would like the applicant to advise the truckers to advise turning from 132 to Hopper, and other people have seen that whole thing. There's been no accident to date, but there's been a lot of circumstances that have been very close. have been detailed to me by other neighbors. We would like to include it in the conditional language to assure that it is considered. Mainly just they educate their drivers to be careful at 132, make a safe turn, and not to try to do it really quickly. I'd also like to include a second element in the training. The hopper Hopper addressed truck traffic on North Hopper. There are 17 houses on North Hopper. This is a residential neighborhood that those trucks are going through. This is not an industrial road. There are grandkids, bicyclists, and people walking their dogs on the road every day. Our concern with the braking was brought to my attention and ironic that October 23rd is the beginning of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's Brake Safety Week. You do research, you find other things happening. But this is something that the whole industry is concerned about. North Hopper Road is not posted, so vehicles can go up to 55 miles an hour legally. And people do. I mean, there have been traffic studies where people are going 75 miles on that road. We'd just like our applicant to advise their drivers to go 25 miles an hour on North Hopper. It doesn't have to be posted. It's just part of their education system for them to say, keep it under 25. Vehicles going at 40 miles an hour take 164 feet to stop. If you're going 25 miles an hour, you're only having to stop in 85 feet. That's a big distance, and given our neighborhood and the people that use the road, that's something to be considered. I was also surprised to find that an empty truck has a longer stopping distance than this full truck. You learn stuff. We had the draft settlement agreement with Maserat Farms that addressed these two issues. They agreed that they would, you know, consider them as part of our discussion. We signed the agreement on Tuesday. We were ready to go forward. We had been working on this for two years. And the applicant backed out, okay, yesterday afternoon. What can we say? Sometimes negotiations work and sometimes they don't. I would just like to have that more detailed so that the causes that we see an accident happening on North Opera, we addressed it. Condition 35 is about the future expansion. The County Code allows Maslow Crum to apply for a staff approval permit for the expansion up to 25% of their approved use. Exactly how that is applied is determined by staff and the permit issued is at a staff level. No public notice is required and anybody appealing to the Commission has to pay a fee. Okay, which is a substantial fee if you consider it of Given the level of expansion that's occurred without permit, we and other neighbors are very concerned about how, when, and what kind of expansion is authorized by the staff level. We feel the county staff has discounted our comments and has placed what we consider are unreasonable cost burdens on us, such as hiring a noise consultant. We've already spent $8,000 with a voice consultant already. Our initial version of the condition would require the county to provide notice of the staff approval application to the surrounding neighborhoods and to allow any neighborhood to request a public hearing before the Planning Commission. We ask for the right to participate in any decision to further expand the site and have the opportunity to speak for the Planning Commission if we have concerns. Well, we'd like to also avoid the $2,500 appeal fee also, to allow us to appeal this to the Commission without having to pay that amount. I will tell you that as a planning, my wife's, as a Planning Director of the City of Turlock, had no problem elevating staff level permits when she worked there. It's something they handled. If there was a noise, they handled it. If requested by a member of the public, as we're talking about the whole planning process, and to make sure it's consistent with not only the new lease ordinance of the county, but it makes the idea that this area is compatible to where we are at. Due process is right in this county that we take very seriously. It's our opinion that the neighborhood needs some assurance to their comments will be given consideration in any proposal to expand the operation. It's the past experience of the applicant operating for eight years without a permit with the illegal expansion that makes us concerned that the last three years when they were in good condition with us could return again and have problems both with noise and other elements that we've covered. It would also be a problem if they sell the property because the use permit goes back, goes with the property sale. they, the potential owners, may have a very different philosophy than we're dealing right now. So all we're trying to do is to deal with future assurances that this remain a neighborhood, okay, with 17 houses on it, that is consistent with what it was when we purchased our property. I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and we urge adoption of our considerations going forward. Thank you.

Anyone else wanting to address the commission on this item that opposes this item in opposition?

My name is Tom Weimer. I live at 9161 Creekside Lane. I'm right across the street from the hauler. I've been living out there for 30 years and as Was said earlier. It was quiet out there nice neighborhood and Along comes a new property owner that has a different idea and I don't have any problem with those guys. They're decent people. I've talked to him My only problem is with the project itself I Can't believe the amount of time that was spent on Doing noise studies and dust studies and other that that report you guys have is 348 pages long My letters are way at the end of it My home is across the street from the holler Anyway, I meant to say here that the sequence study that was done Says that this project will have less than a significant impact.

I Think that's an understatement

We don't agree with that and I still maintain that this is an industrial use in a quiet residential area. The hauler is there and it's gonna stay there, I get that. I think that there should be a landscaping, if they're gonna develop this whole 20 some acres, I think where they are now is about seven acres. And this permit lets them take in the whole, I think it's 39 acres all together, big piece. It's 32.2 acres. Right now it's about seven and a half, and they open up this 32.2 acres. If they put hauling equipment and tractors and junk all over that whole thing, it's gonna be a blight. on the landscape, right now I'm looking at an almond orchard, which is fine. And if those almond trees could stay there, it would cover up all that holler and all that equipment and piles of almonds out there, which I think could easily be done. A good example of what could be done is the Salida Hulling operation out on Dakota Road. They have trees and bushes and fences along there. The other thing, I want to know a limit to how much tonnage is going to go through there. You can see in this report that you did, the staff report, there's an example of a hauler that does like almost 20 million pounds. I mean, it's terrible, the amount of stuff that's going through there. Now, Modine did around, we think around three million pounds. In some of the correspondence that they have given you, it says they do five and a half, five, five and a half million pounds. I can live with that. And then it said a maximum seven million, which is double the size of what was there, but I wouldn't want to see a lot more than that. And the way this thing is written, it looks to me like they could put 20 million pounds through there and they could cover the whole 30, I don't know how many... 32 plus seven, almost 40 acres, covered with buildings and stuff running and furthermore, some of these haulers will bring almonds in and stockpile them and they'll run clear up into February. It's crazy. I said in one of my letters, I couldn't think of a worse place to put a hauler. He talks about 17 homes coming down Harper Road past the holler, but there's a total of 27 homes there in the area. So I don't see, you know, in the report that you do, it talks about the throughput tonnage, but it doesn't come right out and say it. nor does the comment out and say what they're gonna do with the whole 40 acres. It's kind of, I read through it a few times, I don't quite get it. So would it be possible to clear that up? Now the reason I think that Mr. Petrolakis and These folks didn't get a deal going. Was it because it was really basically because of me? I came along and said, well, I'm concerned about the throughput and landscape. And it was just at the last minute. And they didn't want to garbage that and do it. So they thought, well, wait. So I think if we could get the landscape and the amount of tonnage going through there into the agreement they're working on, we probably could do something. This is my first time speaking before a planning commission. I'm not experienced with that. I have Dennis Wilson with me here tonight. He's got a lot of experience with it. He may have a few comments that he'd like to add. Thanks.

Thank you. Mr. Wilson, you're on the spot.

Good evening. Dennis Wilson, Horizon Consulting, representing the Weimer family. I'm well acquainted with this area because back when I started in the civil engineering business in 1956, the civil engineer that I worked for did some of the subdivisions that are out there today. Creekside Estates, Creekside Lane, and I realized that it was an A1 zone when all of this stuff took place. It's still a quiet residential area. I think at a minimum, and I think Mr. Wymer spoke about it, there ought to be a professional traffic engineering study done. And I agree with Mr. Douglas, that intersection at 132 and Hopper is very dangerous. There's no pull-off spot. You can't go around a vehicle. and there'll be some trucks and trailers heading north on Hopper, that because that intersection isn't developed for this kind of traffic, there's likely to be a fatality at that intersection or a serious injury. So I think at a minimum, there ought to be a traffic study performed during, and it's a good time to do it now, because they're in harvest and I think that for the safety of not only the neighbors but also for traffic going east and west on State 132. It could be a very serious incident happen at that intersection. And as Mr. Weimer said, this operation is going to double or maybe triple the size of the old Modine holler, which was a low key and quiet operation and the neighbors did not object. But this is a big step forward in having this particular application move forward. So I ask that you consider the issue of a traffic study, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. If there are none, thank you very much.

Not at this time, but we might in the future. Thank you.

I'm sorry?

Not at this time, but we may have some questions for you in the future.

I'm sorry. I'm a little hard of hearing.

I'm just saying that we may have questions for you later on in the discussion. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Commission on this item that opposes this item? Okay, hearing none, any member of the audience wishing to address the Commission in favor of this item?

Bear with me.

I'm David Swald. I'm the manager of Mass Rock Farms. They told me to address everything everybody said. I'll start with exaggeration. The noise thing has been exaggerated to where it's not even close to what it is out there. The hole has been there since the 60s. We've come to compliance with our noise. We've tried real hard. We've spent a lot of money. And it's never lasted a whole season making noise. Augers do make noise periodically. We're on it as fast as we can. We put in grease certs on all the bearings. I have guys risking life and limb at night crawling 30 foot in the air. And then when she talks about violations, she's not a noise specialist. That's just a neighbor saying it's too loud. That's a deeper conversation that we had a noise specialist come to calibrate her machinery But she loaned it to a neighbor or a friend the day that our meeting was the county was there also So we never so we found out that her noise equipment her personal noise equipment wasn't right and Then to, that's all, I'm getting excited. To Tom, truck drivers are permitted through the DMV. They're licensed drivers. They're on the public road. I get it that it's a tight road there, but it's a public road and it's farming. There are farm trucks coming in and out. So I think that's overblown in a little bit too. And he says there's 17 houses on Hopper Road. Seven of those houses are my customers. So I do tell every truck driver on Hopper Road to slow down. And I want everybody to be happy as much as they want to be happy. But all the talk about their deals with Duane and their deals and their friendships, that's not true at all. That's so untrue. It's unreal. I've learned in the public forum you can say whatever you want if it's true or not. The expansion part of there's no plans for expansion or six million pound hole or five to seven million pounds on a big year That's all we are. That's all we ever be the footprint of the holders the same the bag houses for dust collection or Modernization and the auger lines are modernization. The plant is quieter that's ever been and more dust free than it's ever been Then to Tom Tom doesn't live across the street from the holler. He lives up on Hopper where it's going to the east across from an almond orchard. About where the end of the whole piles are, he's up about, right where it says Creekside is probably his house. So he's not across the street viewing it. And he knew what he got when he bought it. The holler was there when he moved in 30 years ago. Like I said, there's no plans for expansion. We are what we are. We're a small mom and pop holler, six million pounds.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Commission on this item that is in favor of this item?

My name is Rick Arnold and I'm a neighbor. If you stand in my driveway, I have one neighbor next to me and then I can see the whole world. Prevailing wind always blows to the north.

Can you speak closer to the mic, sir, please?

Yeah, the prevailing wind generally always blows to the southeast. And from where he's located, I get no dust. As far as sound, once in a while I'll get a beeper when somebody's backing up. Other than that, don't really have an issue with it. As far as traffic, like when we were coming here today, the truck driver actually stopped on the other side of the bridge, let us go across the canal, and then they proceeded through. I haven't really had a problem. I haven't had a problem with truck drivers driving too fast, mainly my neighbors. But I know he has a business. It was there whenever I bought my place six years ago, or we did. never had an issue with it one time at all. And I feel for the man because he does run a business and he's trying to make a living and he wants to make it better and I totally understand. So thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Commission in favor of the project?

Can you hear me?

You can pull the mic down. Thank you. Is that better?

Yes. Okay. I'm Joni Gambini. I live at 686 North Hopper. I'm directly north of the holler. And I've been there about 14, 16 years. And the conditions have improved there. The noise is much, much less than what it used to be. The truck drivers that come in and out are nice. And I don't see them going real fast or anything like some of the delivery drivers we have. I think things are doing fine out there. It's a great farming community. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Any other person wanting to address the commission in favor of this project?

Chair Campo and Commissioners, my name is George Petrolakis. I'm Land Use Counsel for the applicant, Masrock Farms, Inc. It's always a pleasure to be here. I'd like to thank the Planning Commission for its time and consideration of the matter. I'd like to thank the planning staff for the large amount of work it took to bring this forward. After quite some time. I also want to thank the neighbors for their input It's you know, it's been it's been a long we've spent a long time trying to resolve issues that were issues I'm not going to I'm not going to talk to the When I first got involved in it a number of years ago with the application, I mean, we'd had difficulty meeting the noise requirements. We had to go at it a number of times. We finally did it. We were happy we were able to do it at great cost to my client, change in operations, a lot of things to address those issues. So I think part of what we're hearing tonight is a lot of frustration because of how much time has passed. But I think you've seen acknowledgement in the record and by the testimony that things have gotten better in recent years and that's what we're trying to work with the staff with the conditions to make sure that going forward the relationship works, people communicate to address any future concerns that come up. It is true that we talked a long time about a settlement agreement and that did not come to pass. But it's gotten a little confused tonight. I mean, the county, we sent a list of conditions to your staff saying, here's what we have talked about, the applicant and the neighbors. let us know if you can add these as conditions. The staff looked at them. They added the conditions they felt comfortable with. They rejected other conditions. What the settlement agreement was basically to do was to come to you saying, okay, we got it from your staff, but we'd like these conditions added. At the end of the day, when my client looked at it, he thought it was a little presumptuous for us to come to the commission asking for things that your staff had rejected. In addition, we thought maybe there was going to be, and you heard a little bit about that tonight, we thought another party was going to be involved in the settlement agreement. That didn't happen, so at the end of the day, my client said, you know, it doesn't make any sense to have this just go have the hearing with the Commission and whatever the Commission do does we're fine with so that those discussions did Take a long time and I appreciate all the time everybody spent because at the end of the day I think we do have a better project on some of the particular issues For example, on the traffic, what you heard in terms of what the education will consist of, I mean, we have agreed to most of that. Your staff has said that they can ask us for what the driver education is and review it. We're happy to talk to the staff. Most of the recommendations you heard tonight are what we will put in the driver education, the emails and the flyers and things like that. that kind of thing is fine. If the Commission desires to add the two main conditions on any change, us losing our right to a staff permit level, we'd like to have more discussion about that if the Commission wants to do that one or do the other one on sort of the summary enforcement of the noise. Those are ones your staff looked at and rejected and so we're saying You know, we don't think they're warranted at this point, but if the commission wants to discuss them, the commission is free to discuss them. On the larger traffic issues, we really relied on your staff and Public Works to tell us we can't put a speed limit on it. That was the original request. We don't, you know, county, you know, that... that that's a higher authority you know that there are a different process for setting speed limits we are happy and the driver education to suggest you know courteous driving and you know watch your speed and that turn thing you heard about you know all of that will be addressed in the driver education And so that we sort of relied on the Public Works Department for the project. Things are a lot better out there. The issues have been largely addressed. There's some confusion about the expansion. I thought your staff made it really clear what the footprint is. So really for any expansion, I mean, what you saw is it. That's it. So any expansion is going to, you know... come back for some sort of use permit change but we don't anticipate that. Most of the acreage is staying in farming and so there isn't that threat of it, you know, spreading from sea to shining sea with hullers isn't part of the application tonight nor is it anything we would apply for. I'm happy to answer any questions. Some of our team members are here and so but that really concludes my presentation unless you have any questions.

Thank you. Thank you, George. Any questions? Actually, let me go ahead and ask. No, you're good. Are there any other members of the audience that wish to address the commission in favor of this project before I close the public hearing? Or should the public hearing be part of the questions that we may have? Okay. We'll ask the questions after. Anyone else that wishes to address the commission? Okay. Hearing none, I'll go ahead and Well, yeah, I'll close the public hearing, and then we'll... Madam Chair, I think it's open.

Leave it open? Yeah. Great.

We'll leave it open. Great. Thank you. All right. Any questions, either for staff or for any of the presenters?

Okay. My question is for Mr. Svalder and Mr. Petralakis. On the capacity issue of the hauler, can you describe that in a little more detail? Five to seven million pounds, is that the maximum throughput over a certain period of time?

Yeah, that's all our size allows. We want to work from... Go back up. Go back up.

You might want to sit closer so that in case we have you answer more questions.

The typical season is 90 to 120 days. Last year it rained. It went a little longer. I work 14 hours a day. I don't want to be there any longer than that. That's all the hauler capacity is. That's what the hauler is built for. Got it. Thank you. It's not going to be a 100 million pound hauler.

Understood. Thank you.

Any other questions?

for staff. Is there a maximum capacity on the permit?

So the use would be limited to what is described in the project description. The applicant proposed up to 7 million meat pounds, which mirrors the capacity of the facilities he just stated. Additionally, condition of approval number one specifies that the use shall be conducted as described in the application and supporting information. So he proposed 7 million. That's where we're going to hold him to.

Any other questions? I have one more. Okay.

For Mr. Douglas. My question to you is, so in the driver education provisions, which it sounds like have been agreed to, are in the staff these days? Got it, and so my question is are you you know if if a future owner of this huller Doesn't abide by that condition or the trucks are not going 25 miles an hour What what's your expectation of how that gets handled how it could be handled?

Well, my thought is okay We should have an avenue for the neighborhood, because this is a neighborhood with an industrial use in the middle of it, that they should be able to go to county staff and request something be done about it. Okay? And not to have the requirement of us having to come up with $29.55 to bring it forth into the commission. That's sort of a buzzkill when you talk about neighborhood participation. So that was really the main thing of what I was talking about, was that we should have an avenue for the neighborhood to participate in any expansion, whether it's 25% or another, in a meaningful way.

Thank you. I was actually, I'm zeroing in on the traffic issue. So truck goes down 60 miles an hour. Oh, we're talking about that? You call, yeah, that's my question.

I have, you know, our phones do have speedometers in it. I have tracked a truck going down there at 50 miles an hour. Okay. They start in the morning, you hear them clattering through. It's just a matter of time before somebody gets hit. I mean...

So... A question for you. If the truck is going 25 miles per hour, as you suggest, and your neighbors, as you suggest, go 75 regularly down this road, what do you think is going to happen? Well, I think that the neighbors are going to be happy about the trucks going 25. Or do you think they're going to make it unsafe when they were to try to pass this truck that's going below the post?

I don't I don't think you could pass a truck on on that road. That's my opinion. And one thing that came up before the bridge that goes over the canal, the trucks go over the middle of it. OK, so there's a concern I have. You can't see what's going to happen on the other side of that bridge. until you're on the bridge. That's just a visualization. Anybody here can drive through and feel that.

How long is this bridge?

Oh, it's a canal. It's actually the main canal of M.I.D. that goes through there. It goes like this, up and then down. okay so you can't see on this usually i don't have to talk to a microphone i have a voice that carries without it you can't see what's over here if you're coming up right but if a truck cab is elevated so perhaps they have a better viewpoint of what is on the other possible but the other car coming up can't see it either right i mean it's just that there should be some sort of a warning light on that bridge that would allow people to know there's something going on the other side. I didn't bring that up as a discussion point, but I don't think people would pass a truck if it's going 25 miles an hour. Because it just takes up, it's a very narrow road. I mean, it's the standard, but it's not a freeway in any way.

Right, okay.

Okay. Oh. I'm not sure if this should be addressed to you or not, but I think you're part of this letter that was sent to us.

Yes.

So I just have a question. I just want clarification. When talking about the revocation process, down below there it says, given their performance in the last three seasons, we believe it highly unlikely this condition would be triggered. And a little further down it says, for the last three years, Maserick Farm has been operated in a manner we can accommodate. Is that correct?

That is correct.

So you don't really have complaints that was talking about. And then there's one about the noise complaints under where you're talking about the noise complaints. As of today, the facility has been operating within the county's noise standards. We just want to keep it that way.

Yes. Three years ago, they worked. Right.

For the last several years, they have been... In your opinion? Yes. According to the letter, they have been. They have been. Okay.

I would prefer we had some sort of method that we had in our agreement of a way to settle this outside the issue by having some way for somebody to come in and say, I have a noise problem. Is there a problem with maintenance? And how long is it going to last?

It's always better if neighbors settle with neighbors. If it gets to this point.

Well, with neighbors... to a facility, we have not had any opportunity to do that. In fact, I've had staff yell at a noise consultant on the other side of a canal. They have, you know, the canal is right away on both sides. We had a case where somebody yelled at somebody walking their dog down the canal to get away from his property. I've also been in a situation where I've been yelled at on the other canal. Because the canal when you irrigate is right there. I mean, you see their property. You're not doing it adversely. You're just doing it. My concern is they've done well in the last three years. But the seven years before that, they did not. We hired a noise consultant that said they did not. And that's sort of the balance we're looking for. We're reasonable people. I was involved in a hauler business. I would go and buy hash. I know how much Modine made because I bought his hash all the time when he was there. And we don't want to give you an idea that we're being anti-business. We just want to maintain the neighborhood feel that we have and that everybody's talking to each other. That isn't included in the agreement, in the requirements that we're dealing with today. I would like to see that in the, excuse me, in this whole memo that we're putting together. Okay, thank you.

I have a question for David. So realistically, What could reduce the noise level in such operation? They're loud, they're noisy, they're gonna produce dust, et cetera. What realistically would mitigate the concerns of the surrounding neighbors?

More so than what we've already done? Yes. Build more walls, I guess, but... How high would the walls have to be for the noise to stay within your property? We're in the parameters of the noise now, and it's like they're saying, it's been three years since there's a complaint. Right.

And then regarding the landscaping that somebody brought up, would landscaping actually reduce some of the noise? It might absorb some of the dust.

There's trees along the hauler if you look back. I see that. The trees are from the road down to the first barn and I have boxes stacked on top of that. I built an enclosure for the truck stump. I built the wall and I stacked more boxes there. until the bitter end and to not get complained about. We've been fighting this for years. I've done all we can. We still try to do more. I changed a motor on the end of the auger land that made noise. Anything, I'm trying to help too. I've tried and tried and tried and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars doing this. Farming's not easy.

Oh, no, I know. Thank you. Any other questions either for any of the... or to what staff?

I have a question on the characterization of the noise.

It was 62 decibels and 45. Can staff give us some idea of what kind of noise level we're talking about there? Is 65 about what you're hearing right now, an amplified voice? Keep talking. Is that less? Is it more? I don't know, like... You're 57 right now. 57 right now. Okay, so it's a little bit louder than this. So 47, if everybody could be quiet here for a second.

42.

Okay, 42. That's pretty quiet. Okay, all right. Just curious. So...

Noise is very complicated. Yes. Simple readers on phones don't always tell you the full stories. There are highs and lows, and there are a lot of standards that go into it. We've brought in noise consultants in the past to give trainings just because it is a very complicated matter. So I just don't want to oversimplify by just taking a phone measurement that is an accurate representation of what we're looking at.

Fair enough.

And then also there was a mention to a similar operation that is somewhere in Salida. Has the planning department received any concerns with that operation? And is it located within a similar area as this?

So back in the early 2000s, the Salida hauling operation expanded out on Dakota Avenue and 132. It is across the street from a grouping of residential ranchettes, five acre parcels, four to five acre parcels. They did do an environmental impact report. There was threat of litigation from the neighbors across the street. There were extensive, there were noise studies that were done. There were landscaping plans that were adopted. They did install a berm, I think it's about three to five feet in height, that's landscaped, that was both for visual and for noise. Since the facility has been put there, since it's been in operation, I'm not aware of the county having received any complaints from that facility.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

With that, what is the desire of the commission as far as direction? Oh, okay. If there are any more, then I can go ahead. Anyone else wishing to address us either in opposition or in favor? Anything else? Okay, hearing none, then I'll go ahead and close the public hearing now and bring it back to the commission.

If I may. Yes, go ahead. You know, I'm... We farm in Fresno County, out in the middle of nowhere. Traffic on county roads is a problem. Speed's a problem. We have to deal with it. I am inclined to vote to approve the staff recommendation. And part of the reason I've heard a lot, I appreciate so much the community involvement in this and the attention to detail. What I have seen from my perspective here is a lot of back and forth resulting in an improved staff report and recommendation that I think makes a lot of sense. I've heard several references to due process. The applicant is also owed due process. And my concern with trying to create a shortcut approach to the Planning Commission with any potential complaint is that compromises the applicant's due process. There is a process in place to elevate complaints. I see additional mitigation for handling noise complaints. That makes sense to me. So I just wanted to put that out there.

Any other comments?

If I may, I'm also inclined to recommending an approval for this project. We're also small farmers. I understand that land use is tricky sometimes. I understand that property rights are important, and I understand that living in an area where there is farming around me, sometimes these things, you can't prevent them. And in order to protect a certain segment of that neighborhood, you're going to be putting a detriment on a small business that is trying to provide a service that obviously is essential to our Valley here. I believe that staff has done everything and incorporated all of the recommendations from both sides. And I'm happy to hear that although that settlement agreement wasn't really signed or agreed to, still some of those concerns were addressed in the new updated conditions. So I, I feel for the neighbors that have these concerns, but I also understand that I feel that there is no way to mitigate that noise. It sounds like the owner is already trying to do everything that he can to do it. And I feel like I'm gonna be voting in favor of this project.

If I can just amplify my comment about the noise, too. I mean, we have a packing shed off Neese Avenue in Firebaugh, and we have motors start to squeal and go bad, and there's not the ability in today's supply chain environment to purchase a replacement in 24 hours. It can take a week. I deal with that firsthand or longer. So that's why I appreciate the way staff has characterized the way to handle the noise complaints. There has to be a chance for the applicant to fix the problem. It may take a few days to do so.

Any other comments from any of the commissioners? Any commission ready to entertain a motion?

I'll make a motion. I'll move that the commission approve PLN 2019-0075, Masrock Farms, and the staff report and all the use conditions and findings attached in exhibit A.

If I can just clarify, and I'm going to check with Kristen, that that would be all of the findings, including 32, sorry, modifications to 3, 32, and 33 that were in the August 6, 2026 memo.

And including 32 and 33 included in the August 6th memo, yes. That's part of my motion.

And three, the amendments.

And the amendments, thank you.

It was condition 32 and 33 as in the August 6th memo and modified number three from the prior year's memo. And does it also include taking all the actions and making all the findings?

It takes all the actions and making all the findings included in the report.

Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Kalas. Aye. Commissioner Chima. Aye. Commissioner Heinrich.

Aye.

Commissioner Huff. Aye. Chair Campo.

Aye.

Motion passes 5-0.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, next item on our agenda. It is item eight. Thank you. Other matters? Not necessarily public hearings. This is a general plan consistency finding for Diablo Grande Fire Station transfer. Is there a staff report to this, please? MS.

Yes. Good evening again. Kristen Nanias, Senior Planner. And now I'd like to present a request for a general plan consistency finding for the transfer of a parcel to the West Stanislaus Fire Protection District. So this is a request to consider consistency with the Stanislaus County General Plan for the proposed transfer of an approximately one acre portion of real property to the West Stanislaus Fire Protection District located in the Diablo Grande specific plan area. Here is a picture of the fire station and approximately one acre portion of land it sits on proposed to be transferred. And here is an aerial of the site, which shows a 54-acre parcel outlined in red and the fire station footprint, which is proposed to be separated and transferred. And here's a plat map of the proposed parcel to be conveyed from the Diablo Grande Community Facilities District, which currently owns that 54-acre property from the CFD to the fire district. And so the 54-acre property owned by the Diablo Grande CFD has been declared as surplus land by the Western Hills Water District. The fire station was developed on the property by one of the original Diablo Grande developers, intended to serve the Diablo Grande community as an interim facility until a permanent fire station is established. At this time, the threshold for requiring a permanent fire station has not been met. And to support continued operation of the fire district services to the Diablo Grande community, the CFD is proposing to transfer that one acre portion of real property containing the fire station to the fire district. So the 54-acre property has a general plan designation and specific plan designation of a specific plan. The zoning designation is specific plan number one, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1999 to allow establishment and development of the Diablo Grounded Community. which included residential, commercial, open space, and resort-style uses, and included mitigation for the specific plan-related impacts associated with development of the community, such as a requirement for the development of fire protection services facilities. Typically, a tentative parcel map or subdivision map is required to subdivide a parcel. However, California government code section 66-428, and further reflected in the county subdivision ordinance, grants public agencies immunity from the Subdivision Map Act requirements. However, they are required to obtain a general plan consistency finding. And so the memo before you tonight outlines several goals, policies, and actions in the land use and safety elements of the Stanislaus County General Plan, as well as the Diablo Grande specific plan, which are considered to be consistent with this project, all have to do with ensuring adequate emergency services and maintaining level of service of public agencies. And with that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the property transfer be considered in conformance with the county's general plan. And that concludes my presentation.

Any questions? Any questions for staff? Okay, hearing none, would anyone like to entertain a motion for approval?

Madam Chair, the heading was probably an error due to council, specifically me, so I would recommend you... So it is a public hearing.

Very good, thank you. Okay, at this point, I'm gonna go ahead and open it to the public. Any member of the audience wishing to address the commission in opposition of this item, please step forward. Seeing none, anyone in favor, please step forward, thank you.

Chair Combo, commissioners, public, my name is Christina Bellardo. We represent West Stanislaus County Fire Protection District and we ask that the commission approve the general plan consistency as staff has written a very detailed memo and I'm here to answer any questions should you have them. Thank you.

Any questions? Thank you so much. Appreciate you being here. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commissioners for recommendations.

All right, I'll make a motion to approve. General plan consistency finding for the Diablo Grande fire station transfer.

Right. There's a motion. Is there a second? I will second that. We have a motion and a second. Does this require a roll call? Very good. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. All right, item nine, report of the Planning Director.

Yes, since the Planning Commission last met, the Board of Supervisors has not taken any action on any Planning Commission items. On the horizon for the Planning Commission, September 3rd, we have one condition of approval amendment and time extension of a use permit in the Turlock area. along with a joint meeting of the Nuisance Abatement Hearing Board and Planning Commission to receive a presentation on Appeals Board and associated codes. You might remember that we had to cancel that one due to some unforeseen circumstances, so we're bringing that back. September 17th, you have one condition of approval amendment and a time extension for use permit, this time in the Keys area, along with another general plan consistency finding for a public utility project that we're looking to bring to you. And that concludes my report.

Very good. Thank you. Any additional matters from any of the commissioners at this time? Very good. With that, we'll just go ahead and adjourn. Thank you very much.