Search
Polls
Latest Forum Posts
| Taking a Knee unclebuck 15-11-08 13:51 |
| Re:Football unclebuck 07-10-08 15:24 |
| Re:Football unclebuck 02-10-08 12:59 |
Login Form
| New borders for Patterson on horizon |
|
|
| Written by John Saiz | Patterson Irrigator | |
| Friday, 13 June 2008 | |
|
The city General Plan Advisory Committee decided Tuesday that the first step in planning long-term city growth should be choosing what land will be developed. The decision went against advice from consultants and city staff, who recommended population as the starting point. The committee is expected to choose the next local area to be developed at its meeting July 8. “We should look at borders first,” committee member Willie Traina said. This is the second time the committee has taken a crack at revising Patterson’s general plan, a state-mandated document that guides long-term growth. In July, the committee recommended that the city grow to 58,107 people in 20 years and 158,000 in 40 years. The city’s population is now 21,229. But Patterson City Council disagreed with the committee’s population recommendation and told the committee to come up with a new one. “The council kicked it back down, because no one liked the 158,000,” said Councilwoman Annette Smith, who also sits on the committee. Some in the audience Tuesday were unhappy that the process has gone on close to a year already. “I’m sitting here in almost total frustration,” said planner Ron West, a Patterson resident. “Where is this whole thing going?”  BUILD IT AND THEY MIGHT COME: How many homes to build, and where to build them, are key questions facing the players in the city's general plan process. Pi File Photo Among commissioners, there was little disagreement about how to proceed. Most voted to begin by establishing boundaries. Their starting point will be the map they drafted during the previous round of meetings. That map expanded the city by thousands of acres over 40 years and could accommodate 154,000 people. It included large areas of ranchette housing — homes built on a few acres each — and commercial development west of Interstate 5. Other issues sparked controversy when the committee reviewed examples of population growth. The smallest projection was 46,000 people in 20 years, which would likely require another 918 acres of residential land to accommodate the new arrivals. Committee chairman John Ramos, a local developer, said those figures give only one or two developers a chance at building in Patterson for 20 years. “What’s left for the next guy?” Ramos asked. Elias Funez, an alternate on the planning commission, interjected that “The purpose of the general plan is not to please developers.” Smith responded that alternates are not supposed to comment. In the past, alternates, who vote when certain committee members are absent, have participated in conversations and asked questions. This week, Smith said she had told Funez not to speak because he had an accusatory tone regarding Ramos’ motives. “He’s got a problem with anyone who wants to develop,” Smith said. Funez has tended to suggest smaller population figures when compared with other committee members. It is yet to be seen whether choosing to pick borders first, as opposed to population, will significantly change the plan. Throughout the meeting, city staff said population figures would fluctuate as the plan became more detailed. At the commission’s next meeting, July 8, consultants will supply mapping software that can calculate population based on proposed boundaries. To reach John Saiz at the Irrigator, call 892-6187 or e-mail him at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Comments
(1)
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Both Ramos and Ron West should be thrown off the general plan committee. Both have worked with and represented developers and both stand to gain financially the more land that is designated as residential.