Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Welcome to the September 3rd, 2026, Stanislaus County Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to start off with a few reminders. Please silence your cell phones. During the public hearing, we're happy to accept any comments on the projects, but we ask that you avoid repetition. During a long hearing, it's okay to say that you agree with the previous speaker rather than just to repeat what's already been said. May we please have a roll call?

Commissioner Burketto? Here. Commissioner Kellis? Here. Commissioner Campo? Here. Commissioner Chima?

Here.

Commissioner Heinrich?

Here.

Commissioner Huff?

Here.

Commissioner Willard?

Here.

Commissioner Zipzer?

Here.

Thank you. Would you please stand and join me in the pledge? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The 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's not on tonight's agenda? Seeing none, we'll move forward to minutes. If you had an opportunity to review the minutes, I will entertain a motion for approval.

I'll move to approve.

We have a motion. Is there a second?

I will second the motion.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Correspondents, do we have any correspondents this evening?

We have none.

Thank you. Any conflicts of interest that any of the commissioners would like to declare this evening on any items on the agenda? Hearing none, thank you. We'll move on to item seven, which is public hearings. We have no consent items this evening, so we'll move on to item A, which is a condition of approval, amendment, and time extension for use permit number PLN 2023-0134, Lucky Star Logistics. May we have a staff report?

Good evening, Commissioners, Chair, members of the public. Marcus Ruddix, Assistant Planner, here to present the Conditional Approval Amendment and Time Extension Request for the Lucky Star Logistics Use Permit. This project is a two-part request which involves, one, a request to amend the time limit specified by conditions of approval numbers 10, 11, 14, and 16, and an overall one-year time extension to extend life of the subject use permit from October 3rd, 2026 to October 3rd, 2027. Project site is located at 1005 East Greenway Avenue, south of Highway 99 and between Lander Avenue, State Route 165 and Golf Road in the Turlock area. The subject use permit was approved by the Planning Commission on April 3rd, 2025 and allows for the development of a tractor trailer parking facility for up to 12 tractor trailer combinations on a 1.5 acre portion of a 10.3 acre parcel in the General Agriculture A210 zoning district. The applicant's initial application for use permit was submitted as a result of code enforcement action following complaints received for unpermitted truck parking being established on the parcel without the necessary land use entitlements having been obtained. And the stricter time limits applied to the subject conditions of approval were intended to ensure the business, which was already operating without entitlements, would be brought into compliance with the applicable codes and ordinances. The subject request for a time extension and condition of approval modification was received by staff on July 1st, 2026. Subsequent to the Planning Commission's approval of this use permit, on November 18th, 2025, the County Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the county's ordinances related to truck parking in the A2 zoning district, which included the establishment of a definition for a concentration of truck parking facilities for areas within a one mile distance from the edge of a right of way of a designated interstate or state route, such as Highway 99 or State Route 165. Concentration is considered to exist in any situation where there are more than two truck parking facilities or a portion thereof within a one mile radius of any property. Currently the maximum concentration allowable exists in the area surrounding the project site as can be seen on the map here because two truck parking facilities have been approved along Greenway Avenue. The subject project, Lucky Star Logistics, marked this site on the map and then the green highlighted approved truck parking facility use permit number PLN 2016-0029 Gray Wall Truck Parking. If the subject use permit or subject request is denied and the use permit expires, a concentration of truck parking facilities along Greenway Avenue would no longer exist. And the planning department, as also seen on the map, is currently processing four other applications for truck parking facilities in the South Turlock area that could presumably be approved if the subject request is denied and a concentration no longer exists in the area. Additionally, the new truck parking ordinance established a maximum parcel size of 10 acres for parcels seeking to obtain a use permit for truck parking. The project site is over 10 acres in size and would no longer qualify for a truck parking use permit if they were to reapply if the subject request is denied and the use permit expires. So condition of approval number 10 from Lucky Star Logistics use permit required the installation of fencing around the perimeter of the truck parking area, as well as landscaping along the Highway 99 frontage within three months of project approval. As visible from the public right of way along Highway 99 and East Greenway Avenue at the time the memo for the project was written, some fencing appears to have been installed around the perimeter of the parking area, but landscaping had not been installed along the Highway 99 frontage. Additionally, if the planning commission decides to approve the amendment in addition to approval number 10, staff has recommended additional amendments requiring review and approval of a fencing and landscaping plan prior to installation and an inspection of the installed fencing and landscaping prior to final of a grading permit. Condition of approval number 11 in turn required that a valid business license be obtained for the mobile truck repair business that was operating on site and that all onsite advertising signage be removed within three months of project approval. To date, planning staff has not received a business license application for the onsite mobile truck repair business, but per the applicant, the mobile truck repair business is not currently being operated on the site and the associated signage has been removed and then removal of the signage has been confirmed at the time of this public hearing. So the next slide just offers a quick look from a code enforcement site visit to the site, showing the commercial driveway accessing the truck parking facility on the left hand side. And then another view, kind of the same tree line you can see there from the Greenway right of way, just showing where there was previously signage for the mobile truck repair business, but it's no longer there. And the next slide, this was submitted by the applicant last month just to show a bit of the parking area. So this would be the western edge along the screened fence right there, chain link fence that was installed. And then you can kind of see in the background, there is fencing along the Highway 99 frontage, but the landscaping has not been installed. Conditions of approval number 14 then required an encroachment permit to be obtained within three months of project approval and finaled within six for the driveway approaches on site for the residential and commercial driveways. And condition approval number 16 required a grading permit be obtained within three months of project approval and then finaled within 12 for the truck parking area overall. The applicant has stated that additional time is needed to prepare calculations and study required to be submitted alongside these permit applications. And he has hired an engineer to complete these requirements as of February 2026. As of the time of this public hearing, an application has not been submitted for the encroachment permit or the grading permit, but the applicant had stated he anticipates being able to submit them within the next three months if the extensions are approved and modification. So again, as stated previously, this is a two-part request. And if just the conditions of approval are amended and the requested one-year time extension is not granted, the operator would only have one additional month to meet all of their conditions of approval as the use permit would then expire on October 3rd, 2026, because not all conditions have been met within the specified timeframes. And again, the request is to remove the stricter time limits outlined on the past couple slides. Given the same deadline, to me that is the overall subject use permit's life, which would be 18 months, and then with the extension, an additional 12. And the second part of the request is to extend the life of the overall use permit by a year, again, to October 3, 2027. And granting only this request would essentially cause the use permit to be null and void. because the conditions were not met within the specified timeframes, the three months, six months, 12 months. And the subject request is additionally complicated by the fact that the use in question was established and is continuing to operate out of compliance with the county zoning ordinance. So this timeline specified as previously stated in conditions number 10, 11, 14, 16 were incorporated as a means to ensure timely action was being taken to bring the use into compliance. Granting both requests in this case for the one year time extension, in addition to the elimination of the timelines on those conditions, will essentially have provided the applicant with two years and six months, or 30 months total of non-compliant operational time as a truck parking facility since the use permit was approved. And during this time, the project will also be contributing to the concentration of truck parking facilities that might otherwise allow for a compliant operation to be established if another one of the previous four outlined in the surrounding area were to be approved. During processing of this request, one response expressing opposition to the extension was received by Christine Gemperly, an interest party generally opposed to truck parking operations in Stanislaus County, which is included as an attachment to the memo. Her response cited harm to nearby residents and agriculture operations, as well as the applicant's delay in applying for the permits required by conditions of approval number 10, 11, 14, and 16 as reasons to deny the subject request. Staff also received a phone call from a neighboring property owner located to the south of the project site expressing opposition to the project due to the proliferation of truck parking facilities in the area, both permitted ones and not, and their negative impacts to property values in the vicinity. The Planning Commission adopted a CEQA negative declaration for the project on April 3rd, 2025. And since the project was previously approved with a negative declaration to trigger additional environmental review, a new significant environmental effect not previously evaluated must be identified In this case, the approval of a time extension and amending the conditions of approval as requested, which again would just be limiting those time, stricter timeframes, would not alter the project in such a way that would create any new significant environmental effects and therefore triggering additional environmental review. So additional review would not be required for approval of this amendment request. Notice of exemption has been proposed to be filed to the Planning Commission to approve the condition of approval amendment. To conclude, staff is recommending denial of the subject request because evidence in this case that unforeseen circumstances have prevented the implementation of the required conditional approval has not been provided. The Planning Commission agrees the following actions should be taken. These include denying the proposed amendments to conditions 10, 11, 14, and 16, denying the applicant's request for a one-year time extension for the use permit, and finding that the use permitted under the subject use permit has failed to comply with the conditions approval and as such is null and void and subject to continued code enforcement action. If the Planning Commission decides to approve this request, then the following action should be taken. They should find that no new significant impacts have been identified for the project, and then approve the proposed amendments to subject conditions of approval, granting a one-year time extension to meet all the conditions of approval for the project, and then finally order the filing of a notice of exemption. and recording of an amended Notice of Administrative Conditions and Restrictions reflecting the proposed amendments, having that be recorded with the Clerk Recorder's Office. That concludes my presentation. Staff's available to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mark. Any questions from staff?

Can I see the map again with a sphere of influence showing the current trucking locations in the area, the color one you had? Yeah. So we currently already are maxed out in that one-mile buffer. Is that correct?

Yes, because the project site highlighted in red was approved, and then Graywall Truck Parking along Greenway there. Let me do that.

And a sphere of influence determines future building for either residential or commercial, right? How does that work with a sphere of influence?

So the sphere of influence is adopted by the local agency formation commission. It's considered to be the probable area of growth for the city of Turlock.

Okay.

And the concentration would be two on either side of Highway 39, is that correct? Because it's within one mile of the Highway 99 buffer, and that acts as a physical barrier between the two.

There's language within the ordinance that says that you can look at Highway 99 and consider it to be kind of a dividing line if the trucks aren't going to be traveling the same roads. So if you use that logic and that argument, then yes, you could have two on one side of 99 and two on the other side of 99. If they were all using the same interchange, that might get a little bit more complicated.

Okay. And then for the two that are identified in yellow that are south of the, yes, those two, which, how would you order them? So obviously there will be a concentration if we deny this one and one other applies and then it's approved. How do you decide which order they're going to be in? Is that the order that they were submitted?

It's the order in which they move through the process. So one may have come in before the other three, but if it has been placed on hold because they're lacking information that needs to get them to the next step, then somebody else could come in advance.

Question. Out of all these conditions, out of all the conditions that were approved in the first go-around, Has he met any conditions on those? You can see that landscaping wasn't there. Fencing, did he meet that?

Some of the perimeter fencing has been installed around the parking area. There did appear, just from a quick look from the Greenway right-of-way, It might have been around the entirety of the parking area. Let me double check I have the conditions here. Because not all of the conditions would have been required immediately. It would have just been during the potential construction phases of the project. But as for the ones currently being looked at, a portion of the fencing has been installed for condition of approval number 10. And then for condition of approval number 11, the mobile truck repair business onsite is no longer operating. So that one may not apply in that case.

Yeah, a lot of the conditions are standard conditions that would come in once the building permits are going or just kind of operational conditions. So the ones that he is asking for the time extension or the modification, the amendment to change the due date, those are really the critical ones. With the exception of the one dealing with the mobile truck repair that wasn't even really part of the onsite activity, none of the conditions have been met. He may have started work on them, may have started implementation, but they have not been met.

Has there been any contact from the county of information coming through or anything like that? Or has it just been kind of slow until July 1st when it was submitted for the amendment?

There have been previous conversations with the applicant because they had, sorry, because he had submitted the signed use permit after the use permit was originally approved. That's one of the requirements. And then at that point I had reminded the applicant that some of the timeframes are rather strict because that was in June 2025, which is coming right up on the three months for a few of them. And then the fencing has been installed, a portion of fencing at least, but like I stated previously, the applicant has been working on the encroachment and grading permits, but he'd said that there were a couple additional things they were still working on prior to applying. So there has been discussion previously, but no concrete applications for some of those permits, if that answers your question.

Thank you. What about original condition of approval 2021 which was 19-2021 for Department of Environmental Resources on-site wastewater treatment system.

So You said 19 and 20?

19, 20, and 21. Basically, he needed to submit paperwork to DER.

So confirmation on those conditions would have come once the building permit grade, which the grading permit would have triggered the building permit. We've not received those, so DER has not addressed these. Whether or not the applicant has been doing any work behind the scenes to be prepared to address those once they submit, I don't know that we know that.

Okay. Thank you.

Any fines that are outstanding?

Not from planning staff. I'm not sure if code enforcement has anything.

I believe this is a situation that once the use permit was granted, there was no further code enforcement action that was taken, and I'm not aware that they have any fines.

How would condition of Greenway Avenue, roadwise?

could be looking at adding more trucks in that area and i'm sure i'm assuming they're using greenway to get to the freeway right commissioners chair members of the public christopher with sandsville scanning public works um to answer your question i'm sorry uh are you asking about the condition of uh greenway how it's been just one point structure on it

The PCI currently is 67. Thank you. Any further questions for staff?

Just to clarify, Angela, so within the radius, within the area, should the applicants in yellow be approved, and should the applicant for this evening's item meet all of his requirements, then with the already approved truck stop, at least on the south side of 99, there's a possibility to have four permitted truck stops or truck parking facilities?

No. So let me clarify. So the max that you could have, if you consider that Highway 99 creates a divide between the east and the west side, then you would only be able to have a concentration of two within a one-mile radius. So right now you have the one on Greenway that's in green, which is approved, and you have this one that is approved. So we are at concentration. Got it. If this one goes away, then there would be the opportunity for one more.

Either one or the other two. Got it.

Okay, great.

Thank you. Thank you for that clarification.

Any other questions before I open it to the public?

Okay, at this time, I'm going to go ahead and open it to the public. Anyone in opposition of this item, please step forward. State your name for the record. Okay, seeing none, anybody in favor of the project, please step forward and state your name for the record.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Reginder Buller. I'm the applicant of the subject. I'm in favor for this application.

Can you tell us a little bit about your business? What are you hauling?

What are you moving in your trucks?

Yes, sir. We're hauling dry freight, generally, furniture, mostly, and beverages. That's pretty much all. No refrigeration, no refrigerated products.

And that's going, staying in the county or going all over the place, or you're doing short haul, long haul? What are you doing?

This is mostly regional, I would say, so within 1,000 mile radius. Okay. It's not local. Local, so it's more regional, so yeah. And how many trucks do you have on property right now? We have less than 10 trucks. Yeah.

And regarding the timeliness of this, it seemed like we approved this, they're recommended for approval.

April 3rd, sorry.

Yeah, a year and change ago. And it took you nine months to even get started on engineering.

So originally, as per the requirements, we had three months to apply for item 10 for minimum six foot tall uniform wood chain link fencing around the parking, which was installed all around the parking. And we do also have, there's no updated picture because the pictures are submitted within three months time frame. But the whole fence is installed and it has the coverings as far as like there's no see-through to be as far as to be in compliance of the item 10. So that was done and completed. If you go to item 11, as far as three months of project approval for a valid business license, that had also been applied within three months. But the application was rejected due to incomplete items that were not submitted. And we had submitted those items again. And when we submitted those items, one particular item was article incorporation that was required. And to my understanding, I submitted with Mr. Marcus at the time. He said we do not need the article incorporation attached since they already have it in the file. So one of the main reasons the business license took that long because it had required a stormwater permit in the application. However, the site did not require the stormwater permit to be applied, and that took several months for us to figure out with the Sacramento Department from the water permit. And once we overcome that, we were able to submit it. The article incorporation was the item that was not submitted in the application. However, it was in the original application. But several months down, we have received the business license for the site, and I received that in October 2025. Mr. Marcus can explain that, what happened there, because we received the rejected application back. However, we also received the business license.

A business license was applied for and obtained for the truck parking operation under the name Lucky Star Logistics, as outlined in the memo. It was issued back in June 2025 as a home occupation business license for the truck parking. But an application for the mobile truck repair business, which is what was required in Condition Approval Number 11, that has not been received to date. Just to clarify, there was a license issued for Lucky Star Logistics for the truck parking, but not for the mobile truck repair.

Yes, I was more referring to the encroachment permit. So item number 14 that was in the write-up that got started in February of this year.

Originally, the item 14 was applied, was being acquired by me personally before February of this year. It was originally simultaneously at the time of the original two two conditions, which is within three months. I have also inquired with the public works what applications I need, what permits, what guidelines I need in order to apply. And once I inquired that with the public works, While I was trying to submit the application, it required an additional engineer to complete the application, not just solely by the applicant, due to multiple studies and conditions that need to be handled by a third-party professional who can complete the application submitted for us.

So you found out about this engineering requirement around February?

So, yeah, basically, early this year, we were basically told that this will not be possible without having a third-party engineering department in order to apply for the encroachment permit and the grading permit.

Who's the owner of the property at that location? Myself. Thank you.

And can you speak to the landscaping requirement from number 10?

Yes, number 10, like I mentioned earlier, we have installed the fence within three months of timeframe. And one of the items that was part of the number 10 was having a cover, a black cover, something that's not see-through, which was installed entirely as well.

There was a landscape component as well. Did it just escape your notice?

As far as the landscaping, I didn't get a specific guidelines of what needs to be applied on the landscaping side. I was generally told that we just need a chain link fence that has a cover.

Okay.

Any further questions for the applicant?

Why do you think you need another full year to complete all the tasks that are left? It sounds to me like you're saying you're pretty far along on all of this. Why do you need another full year?

We just, the full year is just for the, to have enough time. But now we know exactly what we need in order to be compliance. It's just for the grading permit and as far as encroachment permits are two main critical requirement that needs to be fulfilled. And that is already been, we are already on it. We have a third party company called Inco Engineering Service hired and they are, in our area predominantly and they are basically have been assigned and they can get this done within three months time frame that I mentioned earlier in the comments.

So why do you need a year if it's only three months?

We generally, I was, by the planning department, asked me how much time do we need just to be on the safe side, and I just asked, you know what, we can simply, can request one minimum year, and I think that will completely fulfill all the requirements that we need to be in compliance.

Thank you. Oops, sorry.

Sir, originally the Planning Commission, the staff had recommended denial of your request. I don't think I was in attendance at that meeting to be able to, I must have been absent because I don't recall. There must have been some compelling reasons that maybe you made at the time that convinced the Planning Commission to go on and approve your project at the time. and that was back 2025. I feel that you would have had enough time to be able to meet the requirements. You were aware of the requirements at the time, of the conditions of approval. If you would have had an issue with either one of them, you should have mentioned it at that meeting that maybe you might not have been able to meet them. I hate to put a business out of business, but then you have to understand that everybody has to follow the rules and you need it to be permitted and you need it to apply for the license. I mean, I don't want to lecture you, but it makes it kind of difficult for us to To approve your extension it seems to me if you kind of sat on this for a while You probably didn't put too much priority on it if it was a money issue or something Maybe you know stuff could have been a little understanding. I just wish that maybe you would have you know Handled it a little sooner. I'm not really comfortable giving you that that much of an extension because it means that you're going to continue to operate out of compliance and And I just don't think it's fair to the other business that went through the same process as you're going through right now and basically give you some more free time to continue to operate. If the commissioners, if there's an opportunity or a chance that we approve your request, I don't think a year is gonna, I wouldn't be in favor of a year, just because I really wanna put a little pressure under you that you need to get this done. Otherwise, you may be out of business. So that's just my two cents on that.

Thank you.

Hey Angela, question for county. If he does get the permits to you before this October 3rd deadline, as far as completing this, Is an extension needed if he gets the permits to you within that timeframe, or does it still put him out of compliance?

He would have to submit everything and have obtained the permit, and with one month left and we haven't even gotten the application, that is unlikely that that would happen.

And some of the timelines already passed, too. The encroachment permit was... Let me double check. Within six months. Yes. Yeah, obtained in three and then finaled in six, which has already passed as well, just an additional.

Angela, a question. So if the commission were to deny the applicant's request as outlined in the staff memo and find that the use is no longer in compliance with the use permit, would that permit the planning department to continue processing the other applications that are located in the sphere?

The applications, to my knowledge, aren't on hold just regarding the concentration issue. I don't know the specifics for all of them, but I am processing the one directly to south of the project site. It is currently on hold, but for another couple items. It's not specifically this one. But it would be, if this project were to be denied, then it would open up the concentration because there would only be one approved facility within the area. they would be able to be considered by the Planning Commission, potentially approved, and then meet that concentration finding. They'd be the second approved one, but it's not necessarily that this one's holding them up.

And so to just amplify my question, the applicant would be able to continue to attempt to obtain the necessary permanence and meet the conditions outlined while the other applications are also being processed.

If the extension's approved and the conditions are amended, yeah.

So if they're denied, then this is it? He doesn't get anything by the end of October that's capable, essentially, for this application? Yes.

So I just, one thing is whatever decision is made here this evening is appealable to the board. So there could be an appeal made there. And right now there's really no motivation for the other two that are out there to proceed with their applications when there's already a concentration.

Thank you. Any further questions for staff or the applicant? Any commissioner ready to entertain a motion either one way or the other? Oh, I'm sorry, yeah. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Any other thing that you would like to, you know, maybe plead your case to the commission?

Mr. Bulon? Yes, absolutely. This was a very first time for me personally applying for this particular permit as far as use permit or any other applications in the county. So this is all new to me. So I'm not a, I was not expert to the old conditions. But I was in communication with the county throughout the process, even after when the planning commission passed my permit. And I... Multiple times I made attempts to resolve all these items conditions. However, once we passed the time limit or the first condition of the business license, we were basically told to reapply and for the renew of the business license. apply for renewal and to my understanding was we cannot proceed forward once we have a renewal permitted in order to be satisfied with other conditions that needs to be met. So basically the MIA throughout the first the conditions which were not completed, but however, they were completed, but I was told that we were unable to move forward until we have a final CISO from your side in order to complete my project. So my project basically has been put on hold because I was not aware, neither I was told that I could still work on the conditions while I'm applying for the renewal. And that's all.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission on this item? Okay, seeing none, I will close the public hearing now and then bring it back to commission for further discussion or a motion.

Madam Chair, I just want to say I certainly heard and I think we've heard loud and clear from the community about this issue. both in general and in specific. I feel pretty strongly that we've got to hold the applicant's feet to the fire, not just this applicant, all the applicants. And from the point of view of there being other applicants in the pipeline potentially willing to go through the hurdles of what's required to do the work legally in the county. I'm prepared to make a motion to deny the applicant's request.

Any other comments before we entertain a motion? Hearing none, then go right along.

I move that we deny the proposed amendments of conditions of approval number 10, 11, 14, and 16 for use permit PLN 2023-0134, Lucky Star Logistics, as reflected in attachment B, proposed amended conditions of approval. And I would also, as part of that motion, move that we deny the applicant's request for a one-year time extension of the use permit. We find that the use permit under PLN 2023-0134 has failed to comply with the conditions of approval required for activation of the use permit and is such as null and void and subject to continue Code Enforcement Act.

We have a motion. Is there a second?

I will second that motion.

We have a motion and a second. A roll call, please. Commissioner Brachetto?

Aye.

Commissioner Kellogg?

Aye.

Commissioner Campo? Aye. Commissioner Chima?

Aye.

Commissioner Heinrich? Aye. Commissioner Huff?

Aye.

Commissioner Willer? Aye. Commissioner Zipzer? Aye. Eight, zero, deny.

Thank you. Okay, next on our agenda. Okay, item eight under other matters. Do we have any other matters at this time?

We have none.

Item 9, Report of the Planning Director, please.

Yes, as we last met, there have been no Planning Commission items that have gone before the Board of Supervisors on the horizon for the Planning Commission. We do not anticipate having a meeting on September 17th, so no items for September 17th. We do anticipate having two items on October 1st. One would be a condition of approval Amendment and time extension for use permit in the Keys area, and one is a general plan consistency finding for a public utility project.

Okay. Any other matters from any other commissioners? Hearing none, then we're going to go ahead and adjourn the meeting.

Yes, and we'll take about a five-minute break. We're going to disconnect from the Internet, and then we'll readjourn.