Patterson's City Council and planning commission decided Monday to plan for homes surrounding the Keystone Pacific Business Park and commercial development along the east side of Interstate 5.
The decisions are part of the general plan revision process, which will ultimately produce a state-mandated document that guides city growth.
The council had hoped to have the plan complete by November 2008, but council members at Monday’s meeting decided that rushing to meet the deadline would not be wise.
Less industrial, more residential
By the end of the 3½-hour meeting, members of the commission and council decided on less industrial expansion and more housing around Keystone than planning consultants and city staff had proposed, but more industrial land than the city General Plan Advisory Commission recommended.
The council and commission’s direction was to expand the industrial land west to the canal, in line with the consultants’ suggestions, but only slightly to the north.
Consultants and staff had recommended expanding the industrial zoning about halfway to Zacharias Road.
The idea was to create jobs, consultants said. Their goal was to establish a one-to-one ratio of livable-wage jobs to housing, meaning there would be a job for every home in Patterson. Patterson’s ratio is now about .67 industrial site jobs for each home.
Planning consultant Dave Moran said that if the city doesn’t create more industrial space, the one-to-one ratio can never be achieved.
However, Moran’s calculations didn’t include jobs created by commercial development, and some on the commission and council felt those jobs should be counted.
Moran said a typical retail job would not allow someone to afford a house in Patterson, whereas a two-income family working industrial jobs should be able to buy a home in the city.
Mayor Becky Campo said she wanted to see more industrial land in the city, but not major expansions around Keystone. She endorsed a new business park at Zacharias Road and Highway 33. One of the property owners in that area, Larry Buehner, had suggested a business park there.
Buehner said a company is already interested in moving in that would eventually employ about 750 people. It would require two or three train trips each month that would not pass through town, he said. Instead, all the trains would enter from the north and depart to the north, he said.
Not everyone believed that claim, though. Commissioner Jim McCluskey said it was “absurd” to think trains would travel only to and from the north.
An additional industrial park at Zacharias Road and Highway 33 will be discussed at a future meeting.
City Manager Cleve Morris, on the other hand, suggested that all the land north of Sperry Avenue, south of Zacharias Road, east of the canal and west of the business park should be industrial.
That would be the most sensible place to put new industry, Morris said, because of an anticipated I-5 interchange close to Zacharias Road. In the meantime, traffic could take Rogers Road to the Sperry Avenue interchange. A business park at Highway 33 and Zacharias Road would force truck traffic to cross half the city to get to and from I-5, he said.
He also warned against letting the desires of a few large property owners guide the process.
 PI file photo
“The best thing to do is put our blinders on and take away all the property lines,” Morris said.
Shopping between waterways
The council agreed to mark the land between the canal and the aqueduct for commercial development, but debate arose about what type.
Staff and consultants recommended a designation of regional commercial. That could accommodate car dealerships and any other businesses that would attract people from surrounding areas, Moran said.
Most commissioners and council members felt uncomfortable about not having a more specific definition of the land designation, though. Moran said he would present detailed options at a later meeting.
The commission and council also opted to turn some business park land into commercial space. Property owner Kenny Buehner suggested that the land along the north side of Sperry Avenue between Baldwin Road and the Patterson airport be removed from the Keystone Pacific Business Park and designated commercial. Despite some dissension, the suggestion passed.
More comments, commentators
Monday’s meeting also marked the first time some people attended to comment on what the commission and council had decided so far.
Several residents of Del Puerto Canyon, west of town, said they worried about a decision to allow ranchette housing and commercial development west of I-5. Ranchettes are houses on land parcels between two homes per acre to one home on three acres.
Susan Conyers questioned where such development would get its infrastructure and whether it would require an environmental impact report. She did not receive an answer.
At an Oct. 4 joint meeting, the commission and council decided to designate land along Eucalyptus Avenue for residential development within 20 years. A man whose family owns property in that area suggested Monday that the 20-year mark be pushed north to Lemon Avenue.
The mayor told him it was likely too late in the process for that to happen.
“I don’t know if there is any possibility of even considering it at this point,” Campo said.
But, later in the meeting, she revisited a topic the council and commission had ruled on previously. She wanted the city to expand east to the San Joaquin River and designate much of the land agricultural or open space. At the Oct. 4 meeting, the council and commission were split on whether to incorporate that land. Campo wanted to ask the two members who had been absent at the past meeting what they wanted.
Uncertainty remains
While the commission and council pushed forward the revision process, confusion surrounded some of the proceedings.
At one point, someone recommended that the plan would not need to go back to the General Plan Advisory Committee, an 11-member body of city officials and community members that got the ball rolling on the revision process, before consultants started serious number crunching. In a vote, several council members and commissioners agreed. However, there was no consensus on whether they intended for the GPAC to be disbanded or just not given another crack at the plan before the consultants.
After the meeting, commissioner Pat Dooley said he thought the GPAC would still review the plans after the consultants got their hands on them, which was the original plan. Councilwoman Annette Smith, however, answered that the vote established that the GPAC’s role in the process was complete. Moran said he would seek clarification.
Community development director Rod Simpson said such uncertainties often accompany the general plan process. He hopes to iron out the wrinkles at the next joint meeting, which has yet to be scheduled.
Because the council backed off from its November 2008 deadline, Simpson said, there should be a better opportunity to ensure everyone is on the same page as the process moves forward.
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
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed