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
| Advisors recommend 83K people in Patterson by 2048 |
|
|
| Written by John Saiz | Patterson Irrigator | |
| Friday, 10 October 2008 | |
|
View the GPAC map here. The members of the General Plan Advisory Committee on Monday completed drafting their vision of Patterson’s future.  THEY'VE MADE UP THEIR MINDS: General Plan Advisory Committee Members (from left) Claude Delphia, chairman John Ramos and Annette Smith listen to the other members discuss a proposed growth plan for Patterson during Monday's meeting. Photo by Elias Funez/Patterson Irrigator However, the committee was not united in its vision. The recommendation passed by a 6-4 vote. For committee member Pat Dooley, the rapid growth from now to 2028 followed by slow growth from 2028 to 2048 did not make sense. “It’s too front-loaded,” Dooley said. The recommendation has the city growing by 230 percent in 20 years, then 10 percent in the following 20 years. Committee members Naomi Jacobson and Annette Smith said the plan brought too many people to Patterson. “I have a more moderate population in mind,” Smith said. Smith recommended 45,000 to 60,000 people. Jacobson would like to see about 50,000 people in 40 years, she said. “We’re supposed to have vision; we’re supposed to have smart growth; we’re supposed to protect ag,” Jacobson said. “Once you screw up those hills (west of I-5), you can never get them back.” The other dissenting member, Elwood Schut, did not return phone calls this week. Proponents said the population figure is a maximum number and the actual growth would not be that large. “If we’re looking for a population that’s 50,000, we need to plan for 70,000,” committee member Willie Traina said. He also said if the plan was too small, there would not be enough competing developable land, and land would become expensive. The 6-4 vote ended a process that started more than a year ago, but there is still plenty to do before revisions to Patterson’s general plan are complete. The Patterson Planning Commission and, ultimately, Patterson City Council will get their hands on the plan and have to approve it before it becomes official. The planning commission is expected to decide when it will review the plan later this month. General plans are mandated under state law. They guide long-term city growth by setting guidelines for when, where and what type of development should occur. It has been six years since Patterson last revised its general plan. The plan now is capable of handling about 32,000 people. About a year ago, the city council decided to start the revision process to influence and possibly prevent a proposed 7.5-square-mile industrial center dubbed West Park from being built on and around the Crows Landing Air Facility. However, after hiring longtime city planning consultants Crawford Multari & Clark Associates to guide the revisions, consultant Dave Moran has said repeatedly that the genthe general plan can do little, if anything, to prevent development in the county. Still, council members are moving forward because the most recently approved Patterson housing development, the Villages of Patterson, would take the city to the general plan’s limit once it’s built out. To reach John Saiz at the Irrigator, call 892-6187 or e-mail him This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 522 Comments
(5)
For the GPAC Memebers that worked so hard(for Free) getting this done; THANKS.
Votes: -1
report abuse
vote down
vote up
I have to agree with majority. If we want to attract retailers there is a minimum population they want before they will consider building. Patterson along with Westley and Newman do not have the population base for many retailers. We will need to hit around 50,000 if we want a Target or movie theater in town, otherwise it is not commercially viable. I don't agree with moving into the hills as this will be an infrastructure nightmare crossing the canals and freeway. It would be better to move south and annex all of Crows Landing. That would also take care of Kilamos.
Votes: -1
report abuse
vote down
vote up
George,
Votes: +0
Many of us contribute to this city. However, we don't consider it work, we consider it our duty to make our community a better place to live. If you ever find yourself comparing a volunteer opportunity to work, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Any time you take money from developers or landowners to finance your growth plan, you will end up with a result similar to that of the GPAC. Lets see......Ramos has the village in the pipeline, but that wasn't enough, homeowners in this city should question why a city would want to induce a "rapid growth" plan while the value of their homes plummet. For those of us who actually grew up here learned this concept long ago in Mr. Strope's government cla*s. Supply and Demand. You see every time you build a house, you add to the already inflated inventory of houses in Patterson. The demand for my house decreases, causing the value of my home to sink even further. Ramos's "village" supported by a rapid growth plan is just more stupid public policy put forth by individuals who seek financial benefit. Too bad this won't come before the council before election day....I would love to see who from the council has the honesty to shoot down such a recommendation. report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
