Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I would like to call the regular meeting of the Patterson Planning Commission of 02/12/2026 to order and ask you to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance with me.

Pledge allegiance Flag to of The United States and of to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Sue?

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. And let's call the roll and see who is here.

Commissioner Alexander? Here. Commissioner Sidhu? Here. Commissioner Applin? Here. Vice Chairperson Bendix? I'm here. And Chairperson West?

Present. We have a full commission present tonight. Okay, full commission. Does anyone have any conflicts of interest on the two items on the agenda tonight? Any conflicts?

No. None here.

None here. No conflicts tonight. Okay, correspondence. We have none apparently.

Do We have something new that came in. What do we have?

We did receive a notice. Were you gonna read it into the record at the

proper time?

I'd say we'll just reference it now. We did receive public comments on the agenda items, and so we'll address those.

We'll do that at the time. We'll do that at the time. Okay. Let's go to our minutes. We have two sets of minutes, folks, way back in November, my goodness, and December 1. So we have not been getting together very frequently as you can see. Did you guys have a chance to review those minutes? And do you have any questions, thoughts, anything you want to change on that 11/20/2025 set of minutes? Anything? I would entertain a motion. Approval. Okay, motion to approve. Second. Motion and a second. Let's call the roll.

Okay, there's a motion and a second to approve Planning Commission meeting minutes of 11/20/2025. Commissioner Alexander? Aye. Commissioner Soudhoo? Aye. Commissioner Applin?

Aye.

Vice Chair Bendix? Aye. Chairperson West? Aye. Motion passes five-zero.

Okay, we come to December 1. I did have one quick question. Did anyone have anything on there that December 1 that they wanted to discuss or change?

Are we ever going to discuss these things?

Discuss? No, no. Mean, are

we ever going to work on these things?

Yes, good question. I did have a quick question on that. I don't know what page number it was. Anyway, it was under the public comment part of that meeting. And at the top of the page, it says Joe Hollowell, Larry Beaner, right below that it says Marco. Anyway, here's what the minutes say and I just left the question unanswered. Marco apparently asked, Why aren't we able to move forward with the DAs? And there really wasn't an answer. I know there was an answer given. I know there was an answer, but I think the minutes should reflect the fact that somebody said this is a complicated thing or something. So the question just hung in the air there, that's all.

The development team, the development group rather, and the city had not yet reached agreement. Okay.

I think that was the answer I remember, but I just wanted to make sure that we didn't leave somebody's question floating. Sure. So does everybody understand that that was the answer? Is that the answer you guys remember?

Yes.

Okay.

Move approval.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Let's call the roll.

Okay, there's a motion and a second to approve Planning Commission meeting minutes of 12/01/2025. Commissioner Alexander? Aye. Commissioner Sidhu? Aye. Commissioner Ablan?

Aye.

Vice Chair Bendix?

Aye.

Chairperson West? Aye. Motion passes five zero.

Okay. That brings us to our public hearings. And we will enter some information that we got as we at the appropriate moment. Okay. The first public hearing is on tentative parcel map number 2601, Eagle Valley Investments. It's on South Rogers Road. And staff, take it away here.

Thank you, Chairman. This first item, we have a PowerPoint presentation that we can put up on the screen correct. There we go. A tentative parcel map, 2601. And the next slide, please. It subdivides an area in an existing commercial District that's totaling currently 16.43 acres. When you're ready for the next slide. Oh, I'll do it. Never mind. I got the controller right here.

Is it not on? There we go. Okay. Better you than me. They're getting it plugged in now.

So like I said, it's a 16.43 acre subdivision area that would create 11 new commercial lots, which would range from one to two acres. And the property is currently zoned as General Commercial District. Site obviously is located at the Southeast area off of Interstate 5 and Sperry Avenue. The project site is more specifically illustrated within the green area of the aerial photo that I just had up there. And I went too far, I'm going too fast. Is somebody else controlling it?

Should it be.

Okay, because this is a really hyper fast. There we go. So you can see the teal green colored area there. The subdivision actually straddles both sides of South Rogers Road. Most of the subdivided area is on the east and there's one existing parcel on the west side of South Rogers Road.

And it will also be further subdivided as a part of this tentative parcel map. Here's a more here's the actual tentative parcel map illustrating, going back to that last parcel I was referring to, the portion of the property, let's see, I got the little laser pointer. The parcel that's on the western portion of South Rogers Road is currently this one large lot proposed to be split down the middle. And the remainder of the subdivision area is this area here to the south and east of Grocery Outlet and Dutch Bros, and that's the area that would create the one acre and the two acre lots. There's currently one parcel located that fronts along Sperry Avenue, and as part of this tenant parcel map, they would actually create two parcels that would have frontage on Sperry Avenue.

There's an existing access point right here, which shoppers and visitors to Grocery Outlet and Dutch Bros utilize, as well as the access off of South Rogers Road. And then to serve the easterly most proposed parcel, access would come off of the eastern end of that parcel where there's an existing driveway between the parcel and the California Aqueduct, I'm sorry, Delta Mendota Canal. Most of you I'm sure have been out there, Rogers Road is largely complete. Roadway culminates in a cul de sac at the southern end of the subdivision commercial area. Of course, we have Oak Harbor Freight located out here.

They opened up for business last winter. And of course, we have the McDonald's that the Planning Commission approved that is nearing beginning of their construction again, which is directly to the west on the bottom side of South Rogers Road here. There'll be more discussion on the next agenda item about the proposed freeway oriented sign, which would be further to the west on here. And of course, we'll come back to that. The map illustrates the standard city roadway design to continue with I'm not sure what happened there.

Spaceport.

There we go.

Alright. Okay. Okay,

so let's go back to the notes here. Just a little bit of a background on the subdivision. The Planning Commission and City Council originally when they considered development in this area, the city was anticipating a lot of highway commercial development, a lot of visitor serving commercial development, restaurants, lodging facilities, other related type visitor serving commercial uses. As we all know, the site has been building out somewhat in that vein, but we've received primarily the Loves Travel Center, Oak Harbor Freight, we've received and seen constructed the grocery outlet in Dutch Bros. So it's a mixture of different types of development.

There were larger parcels that were in place to accommodate larger potential businesses. And it's been the applicant's recent experience that there's a higher demand for the smaller lots. So the city is processing this map in reaction to that. We've discussed the city's concerns about really giving up large lots and going deep into a lot of small lots because the original subdivision wasn't anticipated to build out that way. So what we have before us this evening is sort of a compromise between the original proposal for the property and the current subdivision, which helps the applicant better market the property and meet the market demands to those buyers that want smaller lots.

Ultimately, all know if a developer wants to have a larger parcel, they could end up buying multiple parcels. So that doesn't go away, but it does create a propensity for the smaller lots to become somewhat more predominant. And the other concern city staff dealt with was the issue of the additional driveways on South Rogers Road. And so this would represent a more than doubling of driveways from future commercial businesses onto South Rogers Road, which in and of itself isn't that big of a deal, except that in this case, the roadway wasn't designed for that. So there's no median kind of allowing vehicles to stack up and accommodate them and enable them to turn off.

So we were concerned that there would be stacking within the actual travel lanes. And then we've got multiple trucking businesses. And then if we've got a stack of truck vehicles stacking up, were concerned that there would be potential for longer than desired delays for personal vehicles visiting the vet or other commercial businesses there. So the city staff is primarily trying to be concerned and attentive to the proper circulation and life safety concerns that we're charged to be aware of and protective of. So staff sat down and discussed a potential condition of approval that addresses this, and our idea for that is one of the conditions of approval, which would require that the applicant provide a driveway access plan that would be reviewed and approved by the planning department and the city engineer, where essentially many of the smaller lot driveways would be shared.

So each one does not have to have their driveway. It's very common often in newer developments especially, it's the norm to share driveways on a public street, and to minimize the different vehicles coming and going in and out of their individual driveway. So that's an essential element of this subdivision, and that's what was necessary in order for staff to be able to support the proposed subdivision as opposed to remaining concerned about those potential land use I'm sorry, traffic safety conflicts.

Brian, that's condition number four that was added.

Let's see here. Don't have the condition page open. You're probably right. Yes, sir. Yep.

Driveway access plan that utilizes the necessary number of shared city commercial standard driveways to mitigate potential impacts to South Rogers Road that could occur otherwise because of the proposed increased number of lots. There's not an exact number. That's something that we will look closer when that time comes. It's a dynamic process for the landowner, the applicant, to accommodate the various different proposals for purchases of those properties. And so timing of that is spelled out in here prior to final map submittal.

So there's time. I mean, if if and I know they wanna move quickly on the final map, so we will all need to jump at that at the staff level, the city engineer and the applicant to make sure that that doesn't delay their intentions for the final map. So that's the main component of the access that we wanted to address. And the lots would range from approximately 108 or nine feet to two twenty five feet in width. The project staff considers this project to be exempt from review by the California Environmental Quality Act.

There's a number of required findings the Planning Commission is expected to make in order to approve the parcel map. Staff has reviewed these findings and does not have any conflict with these findings. There's a list of alternative actions that's provided within the staff report, And so staff would recommend that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, consider the various issues of this project, and then ultimately a motion to approve the tentative parcel map subject to the findings and conditions of approval, should that be the commission's desire after the public hearing. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Commissioners, questions for Brian? No. Brian, I've got no. This is a new format for findings. That's a different format than we have. Can you kind of give us where did those findings actually come from? And explain number 11 to me.

Okay. Yeah. So when we have a tentative parcel map, we have a higher level of findings that are required under the California Subdivision Map Act. So you're used to seeing findings for conditional use permits, maybe a variance or what have you. And so these are Map Act required.

These are Map Act generated. That's

correct. That's why you're

seeing Including number 11?

So number 11 reads, in reaching a decision on the tentative map, the decision making body, which in this case is the Planning Commission. Let's see here, where did I go? Okay. The decision making body shall consider the effect of that decision on the housing needs of the region and balance these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal environmental resources. So in essence, that finding is really geared for residential subdivisions, but it's standard.

And so they're wanting the commission to place an emphasis on the importance and the value of creating a new subdivision as it may benefit a residential project and not conflict with the surrounding community. And then there's also the language in that same finding that addresses public service needs of its residents. And this is not a public service facility. This is not a school, government facility or anything like that. So that makes the consideration very simple.

It does accept it. And the other ones make perfectly good sense. It has to be consistent with the general plan, consistent with subdivision map pack, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. But I just want to make sure if we're the decision making body and we shall consider the effect of that decision on housing needs, then maybe we better consider that this decision on housing needs, guys, that's what it says we did. Does anyone have anything to add to that? I mean, I've caught that and wondered what obviously, it's a state generated wording that gets plugged on to everything. Does anyone here believe that we are doing something and Brian you can answer. Are we taking land that should be used for housing for this project in

No, any

sir. Okay.

No, sir.

That's not how it was originally zoned.

That's correct.

And so we're not doing anything in this effect that would affect housing directly in that space.

Correct. If it was zoned residential, then that would be an entirely different and more involved discussion.

Okay. Now this might maybe more people would come and have a business here and want to live here. It may mean that we need more housing. In which case, our general plan says we want more jobs and businesses. So that's consistent Okay. In my mind with what we're I just want to make sure we don't jump over stuff.

That's appreciated.

Because I know they give us stuff. The states loves to send us stuff. I want to know what it is before we agree to it. All right, what else guys? Otherwise, I'm going open the public hearing. All right, public hearing is open. Who wants to come talk to us? Anybody? You can come and talk at the mic or you can talk over the outer space voice here. This guy looks familiar. Does, he does.

Evening, Commissioners. Larry Beaner here. We're actually redoing this map. Brian did a good job explaining everything that's going on there. We actually had a tentative map on this and we peeled off like the grocery outlet and for the lots. Back during the pandemic time and we like to update or tell you it expired. Anyway.

Expired? Your map expired. Right.

So during that time, so we're going back and then we have tweaked that map some. We have a couple of different lots up front there. But we put in utilities for most of these and like Brian said, we'll figure if they were all to stay that size, we'll figure out less driveways. We won't be putting a driveway on every lot. Any questions?

Commissioners, we got Mr. Beaner present, anything?

None here. Nope.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, sir. Who else would like to address this? Anyone else want to address the issue? Zoomers, do we have Zoomers?

As a reminder, if anyone on Zoom would like to speak, you can use the raise hand function. We have no interested parties at this time.

No Zoomers. Okay, you're always welcome. Okay. If there are no further questions, we understand the conditions. I guess you guys have heard all you need to hear. I'm going to close the public hearing. Last call. Okay. I will entertain questions or a motion.

Okay, motion to approve the tentative map with 11 findings and 18 recommendations.

Second.

Thank you.

We got a motion and a second.

Okay, there's a motion and a second to approve tender parcel map 20 Six-one. Commissioner Alexander? Aye. Commissioner Sidhu? Aye. Commissioner Applin? Aye. Vice Chairperson Bendix?

Aye.

Chairperson West?

Aye.

Motion passes five zero.

Okay. Well, we're in the neighborhood, we will have a second hearing right nearby. Okay. This one is Conditional Use Permit two thousand six hundred one Gold Coast Sales Incorporated, pylon signs on Rogers Road. Brian, what do

you have?

Okay. That is definitely correct. We're right staying right in the same neighborhood. We're saving the applicant a trip down to City Hall, getting both of these considered the same night. So it's all good. Okay. This is the Did you get We're calling it the McDonald's freeway oriented sign.

One sec. There was a question. Did you get your documentation on that? You got it

I got it mailed.

You got it second. You got it in two chunks, right? Did you get your second staff report part with the pictures?

Yes. That's right.

Let's make sure people got everything that

Thank you. You said you were going to supply No, I didn't want to print it.

All right. Are we ready? Okay. Let's make sure everybody's got their paper here. Yes, because this one has all the photos.

Okay. So I'll continue.

Go ahead.

Great. So this is the proposed McDonald's freeway oriented sign, and it's conditional use permit 2601. So a little background. Last year, the Planning Commission approved the new McDonald's facility, which is located at the Southwest Corner Of Rotterio. Don't know what happened there, Lane.

If you can give me the full screen. I don't know why it backed out. Okay. So the McDonald's business was approved for this Southwest Corner Of Sperry And South Rogers Road. A lot of work has been done on that facility and on that site even.

And they're anxious to resume work here this spring. Now that their building plans have been approved, the site work has been started and permitted. Everybody, the applicant McDonald's have moved on now to accommodate signage for not just the McDonald's, but for additional businesses that would benefit from a freeway oriented sign. Of course, the project site is located within this green area, it would be the southernmost portion of this green parcel, which is 1.9 acres McDonald's is 1.74 acres to the east. The site for the proposed sign would remain undeveloped other than just a sign.

There's no plans currently for a commercial business that we've been offered for preliminary review. But the sign itself would be proposed for just the bottom fraction of the property. The specific area for that will be further defined, not a big area, 20 by 30 or something like that. Access would be available to it based on the existing access easement that's available for the property that comes from it comes off of South Rogers Road through the McDonald's property, and it provides that westerly parcel, the subject parcel legal access. This is a rendering of the proposed signage that would comprise the 90 foot high, three way oriented sign.

Staff worked very closely with the applicant to achieve a signage plan that is consistent with the Loves sign, given they're on the same side of Sperry Avenue, immediately east of the the California Aqueduct in Interstate 5. It's it's very it was important to city staff to have the uniformity and a relatively consistent architectural style and theming consistent with the Love signage. This was partially driven by McDonald's desire to have their logo at the top of the the sign. In fact, originally, wanted to have an individual sign with just McDonald's on top of a single pole, and we explained that those are prohibited in our ordinance for that height. And that in order to have really a serious consideration of having the McDonald's being at the top of the sign by itself.

We needed to look at a sign design that brought in additional signs and that did not conflict with the signage in the area. So the way that that was accomplished was to mimic what Loves did with the top of their sign, where Loves also has the logo of the Loves Travel Center straddled between the two columns of their own sign, which is what we're showing now for the McDonald's project. So rather than have the big large M golden arches at the very top and kind of standing out solely, we blended it with the actual sign structure and maintain consistency, which is that's what we're that's one of the things we're charged to do with, you know, to make sure that new structures have coherence and conformity and uniformity. So we commend the applicant. We commend McDonald's for their understanding, their willingness to partner with providing a sign structure product that complements the entire district, commercial district, South Of Sperry Avenue.

Of course, the main unique feature of this sign that differentiates itself from the other freeway oriented signs, is their proposal for the electronic message center, also known as a billboard. But billboard is simplistic, An electronic message center has a greater capacity than just to put up gas prices or static images. And it has so much ability that we actually need to throttle. Staff has a a number of conditions or a condition that limits the type of activity, the type of animation that can occur on the sign because at some point, it's too much. And we don't want drivers to be distracted by a short video or something like that.

We don't wanna have the city's name on any more liability than absolutely necessary in support of messaging. So this is a proposed 11 foot high by 24 foot wide EMC, Electronic Messaging Center. And this has been in the works, this has been in the discussions for several years. Actually, in one form or another, the city has gone through its own analysis and consideration of way finding signage that would serve the entire city. And this was considered, this electronic messaging center in some form was considered as a part of that discussion, albeit a later phase.

Well, here we are several years later, Larry has never forgotten about that. Mr. Beaner has never forgotten about that idea. He's been a willing partner to help make that come to fruition, and his applicant team has worked tirelessly with the right businesses to bring this together. And I'm really happy that with the way it's played out to this point tonight.

So moving down the sign, another important component of a sign of this nature is that it provide capacity for multiple different commercial businesses. An overarching concern that we've had, an objective that we've tried to implement is to limit a bunch of different lollipop signs, bunch of different individual business signs that are more randomly and haphazardly placed throughout the commercial district. Signage like this reflects a quality and positive planning atmosphere, commercial atmosphere, well planned, comprehensive, well thought out, forward thinking, and more attractive, safer, ultimately. So, there are four larger sign cabinets, six feet high by 24 feet wide. One difference I'll point out is that aside from the McDonald's logo, of course, being different than Love's, and the electronic message center being different than the Love's price billboard that they have for the price of gas.

The sign cabinets for this sign span to the just beyond the outer edges of each column, whereas the Loves sign has the cabinet signs limited to within the inside of these of their columns. So that's really the only difference. This assigned proposal actually matches the transitions of the different tapered columns with a four foot squared base column that goes up for the first 30 feet, four feet wide by four feet wide four feet wide by four feet deep rather. And then at the tapering, there's a a collar that provides architectural relief. And then the remainder of the signage is is a three by three, three foot by three foot dimension all the way up to the McDonald's sign area.

And then both columns are of course capped with a small cornice cap for additional decoration. Again, consistent with the Love's existing signage. So that's a bit of a discussion of the actual style. Aluminum fabricated cabinets and materials. There would be, obviously, there'd be a lot of electronics extended to the site for this.

They're there already. They've already got electrical there. There's an electrical pole already there. So moving on to the next slide. The objects on the right of this plan are the venting that would be necessary to control the temperature within the EMC.

So it would be on the side of the EMC there. That's what these objects are. Okay, so the next slide would be some simulations. The first simulation here is actually the subject of one of the comment letters that we received from Mr. Dominic Spino, who was concerned that the that his sign, Villages Del Lago, would be obscured by the proposed sign.

Well, technically, that's correct from this location, but it's a large site. The Love Site is a large site. And additionally, if there was a hotel or a taller build a taller structure that could be allowed behind the proposed sign, it too would block their sign. So, yeah, it's gonna be blocked. The hills block it. New development is going to block it. But the key is that the Villa De Lago sign is visible from I-five, from Sperry Avenue. And so Staff Head does not consider that to be a significant concern. We respect Mr. Spino's position.

We do not feel that it warrants any kind of denial, because their sign wouldn't be visible from this particular location. So the image on the right side is as if you were driving easterly on Sperry Avenue, looking south. There you can see the actual love sign in the distance. It's probably easier on your staff report to see the similarities now between the architectural structures. The architectural style of each structure are very consistent.

There is one other differences in that. The Love sign has a flagstone solid base that covers up the base of the columns. This sign is not proposing that. I believe the Planning Commission should consider that. I did not put that in as a condition of approval.

If the Planning Commission feels that it too should have a flagstone, six foot high foundational structure at the base of it. The applicants have been open to that, but I have not felt that it's imperative. I don't think it's that big of a deal, because there are two column structures instead of a single pole. But if the commission wants further uniformity, that is another way to achieve that. And the applicants have just requested that if that is a condition, that the timing of the construction of that component be closer to when development actually occurs, so that they match what's there.

Since we had those original conversations though, the sign has been placed in this location, and the existing architectural materials are now known. We know what the McDonald's materials will be, they'll have flagstone elements. There are flagstone elements on the Loves and Arby's facilities as well. So I'll let the commission to consider that as part of their deliberations and move on. Additional simulations are the first one on the left side are as though drivers that are driving north on Interstate 5 would see the sign on the left, which is enclosed within this yellow dash line.

That's how it would appear from the shoulder of northbound Interstate 5. Here's the Villa Del Lago sign. Here's the Loves Travel Center sign. This shows the relationship. This shows the additional visibility that's afforded to all of these signs, because they are, you know, 600 plus feet from the highway.

So because they're adjacent quite a distance from the side of the highway, there's a there's there's a unique view. And each sign isn't really ever blocking the other sign because you're never really you're just not in that alignment. This is looking southbound at Interstate 5. This is the southbound lane and the northbound lane is right in there, little bit lower topographic elevation. And then of course the subject sign is located within the rectangular dashed area.

Let's see if can put it back on there for a moment. So I've described the sign, the materials, the dimensions. The staff work goes into quite a bit of detail about, how this sign would comply with the very unique provisions of the city's zoning ordinance as it applies to freestanding signs. Essentially, proposed, this freestanding sign complies with section 18.7, I'm sorry, 18.82.07 of our city municipal code. This sign is anticipated, it's geared, it's designed for freeway traveling customers.

It's intended to get their attention, to pull them off the highway as best it can and to support a greater number of businesses. And that's an important consideration as part of our city municipal code. The staff report also provides its own unique findings that are unique because this is a freeway sign. Going to your point, Chairman, about the differences of different types of findings. So should the commission support this proposed sign, there's a total of four findings, two that are required under municipal code chapter 18.18.020 and then two others that are required under Chapter 18.82.07D.

Finally, the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review under section 15,332 considered infill development. And then staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, consider the related project issues and motion to approve resolution number twenty six zero one for conditional use permit twenty six zero one subject to the findings and conditions of approval, which are attached to the resolution twenty twenty six twenty six-one.

Again, there's a height discussion.

Yeah, right.

Yeah. The sign is the proposed 90 foot high sign. The staff board discusses that somewhat and part of the rationale for the city staff's recommended support of the sign is because the property that it's placed upon is well below the banks of the California Aqueduct. Additionally, all of these sites out here along Rogers Road on the North side and South Rogers Road, South of Sperry, they're a hefty distance off of Interstate 5. That's that's that makes the justification for these types of heights a lot easier.

This sign is not proposed to be any higher than those signs that are already in place. And so because of the distance from the highway, because of the topographic drop in elevation, and because of the the the signage and the businesses being somewhat out of view, because they're lower than the banks of the California Aqueduct, all of those were important considerations that we considered as we reviewed the proposed signage and the businesses that it's intended to support. And so any other questions on that?

And where in our findings would we be approving the higher poll? Well, the Where is it? What action here would do that?

Well, approval of this use permit in and of itself is what would provide the approval of

Without making up the finding that you just discussed.

So, those findings that deal mostly with the height issue are that the it's the second set of findings on the last page of the staff report that the site or the use or the site cannot be adequately identified by other signs permitted within the applicable zoning district. And that the majority of the projects anticipated customers shall be freeway travelers. There's a lot of specific language in the code that provides the specific criteria for allowing signs of this height. Staff reviewed those. This project is consistent with those criteria that's required, and that's where we're at.

Okay. Questions? Questions? I

was out there when they were evaluating the height of the sign. And one of the issues was that it is in a dipped area. And they had a proposed elevated sign there to see what it was. And the height of the sign was not sufficient to be seen from the highway. Am I correct with that, Mr. Beater?

Yes, that's correct.

We'll open up. Should we open a public hearing?

But you haven't opened it yet. No.

I recommend that at this point.

We better do that. Okay, questions here for staff before we open up? Let's open the hearing. Okay, who wants to add something? We had an answer from the audience here about the cyanide. Any other questions? Who else, anybody want to address this?

Before you start with the members of the public that are here or on Zoom, I'd like to read into the record Mr. Spino's comment. Mr. Spino stated, I am concerned about possible line of sight blockage as it relates to the Villa De Lago sign that has been in place since early 1990s. One exhibit in particular that raised my concern was Exhibit LOVE TC. It appears as though the proposed sign is directly blocking the line of sight for the Villa De Lago sign. This is my main concern that I would like to address before any approval is granted. I am not opposed to a sign generally as long as the line of sight in relation to the Villa De Lago sign is not infringed upon. Please enter this response into the record for commissioners to consider. Thank you. Dominic Spino, Manager of Villa de Lago Merchants Association.

Also, while we're on that note, I wanted to read into the record the email that we received from Caltrans, stated stating that pursuant to the California Outdoor Advertising Act under businesses and professions code 5,200, any proposed off premise outdoor advertising displays visible from state highway system must obtain an ODA permit from the Caltrans Outdoor Advertising Program prior to placement. For questions regarding permitting requirements or how to apply for an ODA permit, please email odadot. Ca dot gov. The phone number is provided, I can provide that if anybody who has questions about that. Our conditions of approval also tie in the requirement that they obtain necessary Caltrans permitting approval.

Where does it say that?

On additional approvals. Okay. So 567. Condition number is 56 7.

Okay. Is the Exhibit

A of

the registry. Anyone want to address this from the podium by chance? I did have a question for the applicant. So maybe I can get somebody up to the mic. Anybody here from the applicants? Larry? Larry, any of you guys want to come up? I got a question for you. I got a question for somebody. Thanks. Welcome, come on up, tell us who you are.

Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Frank Orosco. I'm the consultant for this project.

Great. I did have a question. I love the idea of this electronic board actually doing more than just advertising someone's business. We have a lot of festivities. We have an apricot Fiesta. We have a farmer's market. Is the intent to include those kind of notices in this on that board? Will this board attract people from the freeway to come into town as well?

Absolutely. I've personally had a lot of discussion with Brian, Joel, Fernando and going over exactly not just the placement, the heights, I mean everything that was presented today was a collective effort by city staff. And that was one of the questions and absolutely want to promote City Of Patterson as well as businesses coming in, any festivals, anything that's happening within the city will absolutely be on that electronic side.

Excellent. Thank you. That's important. A lot of folks drive by us and very few of them know we're

here. Exactly.

We got our applicant up questions. Anybody? Here's your big moment. Ask now or? Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you for your time. Else want to address that? That was my only question. It looks like you're doing a good job of viewing one sign instead of five. I love that. So, all right, anybody else? Zooming?

As a reminder, if you're on Zoom and you'd like to speak, you can use the raise hand function. We currently have no interested parties.

Okay. Then I'm going go ahead and close the Larry, you want to?

As far as the 90 foot sign goes, the last 12 feet or so is actually the Golden Arches. But if you look at one of those sketches we had up there earlier, when you look at the height of that from the freeway, it's probably not as high as some of the low signs that we see on 33 because the freeway being elevation up there and the sign being in the low elevation. So from the freeway, it's not going to look like a tall sign. If you're sitting in Love's parking lot, it looks taller, yes. Is there any other questions?

Any questions? Okay.

We have the sign company here as well, if there's any.

All right. And we have one more comment. Looks like we have one more comment behind you.

So as far as the talking about the flagstone on the bottom of the lakes, originally where we proposed it was going to be away from basically between Oak Harbor and Loves. So when that flagstone came up, we said, well, we don't know what business is going to go in there or what their architectural design is gonna be and it was so far away from Loves. What we did is we said we can keep a condition to where whatever business comes in and whatever their architectural design is, we can go ahead and put whatever type of stonework that is on the bottom of those of those legs, but we still have to wait for them to come in. And or because of the location of it previously, it probably wasn't gonna be visible from anybody unless you actually had access to physically walk through the property to the back or got on the freeway and climbed down to the Delta Mendota and kind of peaked over there. Now that it has moved and now that we know that that, of course, the flagstone is is part of Love's design, part of McDonald's design, We are not opposed at all to putting that flagstone on the bottom of the lake.

So it doesn't have to be you can put it in as a condition, but we are not opposed to doing that because of the current location. And then also, I just wanted to reiterate, I think Brian brought it up as well. The only way that that sign will be blocking the Via Del Lago sign is if you're actually standing in the parking lot facing the Via De Lago sign and you have to be actually in the middle of that parking lot looking towards it. But if you're coming north south on I-five or east or west on Sperry, it's it doesn't block anything at all.

Good, excellent. And how would you word that stone at the bottom? You said you were okay with it. How would you word that if we put a condition? That a stonework would match the tenants or how did you word that? You said something about it. It would be appropriate for the tenants or something. Yeah. I'm interested in your wording and then I'll get our staff Oh, to I help

guess just that it would match the current decorum or decoration of whatever McDonald's is, which basically is that flagstone and what Loves is having on their design. And actually their sign actually has the exact same. So we would just match it.

And six feet high?

Yes, six feet up. And then the other thing that I want to make really clear is McDonald's hasn't closed escrow. McDonald's isn't going to close escrow if that sign doesn't go up. So part of doing this is to close escrow on this, move this forward. And I do have to say businesses are I mean, we all know what McDonald's brings in.

Everybody does. I mean, I do this all over Northern California and McDonald's is the biggest tax revenue producing QSR in the world, basically. Businesses are actually waiting for McDonald's to break ground before they actually start moving in and buying lots. Businesses have come in and they wanna purchase lots, but they wanna land bank them. And as a consultant to Larry, I told him that's something that you don't want to do.

Number one is it's going to stagnate economic development within the city of Paterson. As a developer, you don't want to do that. We want businesses that are to come in, break ground, build businesses and create economic development. Sitting there land banking, waiting to see what's going to happen, does the city no good, does developers no good, doesn't do the citizens of Patterson any good. It just stagnates everything.

So having them come in is going to create that economic development coming into. And I just want to say that I've worked very closely with city staff and a lot of our conversation was what this sign will do in bringing in McDonald's and not just McDonald's, that sign is also going to support Delta Marketplace. That's the first person that's going go up there. It's going be Delta Marketplace and any or all businesses that come in there. Dutch Bros.

Dutch Bros would be they'd be a fool not to go on there. Popeyes, I actually was the chief consultant with Popeyes coming in here, ironing out everything to come in. I talked to Popeyes, they can't wait for the sign to go up. So there's a lot of businesses. We haven't gone into discussions or contracts with them other than telling them what me telling them what we're going to do. Everybody's excited about it. I think the city is excited about it. It's something that would would definitely draw eyes, draw people here. And when I first came here a little over two years ago, you guys have doubled in size within the last, I don't know, five to seven years. Everything that I see as far as housing, as far as industrial development that's going on here, I mean, everybody knows where this is going.

This is the actually, the most affordable city now within this portion of Northern California. Everything else is priced out, so it's here. So to have something like that in what I keep hearing over and over and over for the last two years, which is this is the gateway to Patterson, I've heard specifically one developer saying that this is a cow town. Well, it's no longer a cow town. Things that you guys done down that corridor and I've actually was a consultant getting McDonald's through this planning commission and negotiating with the city and getting everybody to agree on what should be here and not just a square rectangle box.

So we see the vision, we see where this is going, we see what you want. And like Brian has told me time and time again, we want this to look more like a Danville, like a Pleasanton, just more aesthetically pleasing for the people who do want to come here, who do want to live here, who do want to work here, who do want to start businesses here. So we hope that we kept this in line with what your expectations are, what your visions are, and what we're looking to do within the city of Paterson.

Who's going to control the messaging on the sign?

That will be the owner, the developer. So gateway. So if you have any questions for me that I can answer or

Questions? Well, just one comment. We still have cows here.

I'm sure you do, but you're running out of hands for

them because I was going up. Are the cows? Well, I have a cow museum.

They're everywhere. Where you been? On the other side of the freeway.

They're all over out here. Come on.

Okay, well thank you very much. I appreciate that. Any other comment, questions?

Thank you for your time.

Good, thank you. All right, anybody else? Come to the mic, please. Those who you are.

Hello, good evening. My name is Sarah Kumar and I sorry, my first time here. Good evening and hello. Thank you for your time. My name is Sarah Kumar and myself and my husband Frank Yaroga, we personally own the Patterson Grocery Outlet here in town, and we are very thrilled to be here. We live here, we do business here, and we are hoping to thrive here and make this our long term home for both business and us personally as well. I thank Brian for the opportunity to talk to him about signage and so forth. We've struggled this last two years while we've been here. We're kind of a stand alone business currently, and we struggle with signage, visibility off the freeway. A lot of people just don't know we're there.

When we had to address Grocery Outlet to make the investment to be here in our town of Patterson, that was a big push for us, was, Hey, guys, we're right off the freeway. We can pull people in, not only just our community and our commuters, but also people coming off I-five, which is a huge, huge heart of the valley, everybody going back and forth and so forth. But we have no visibility whatsoever. So we also would like to stand up and just say please approve the signage and in all hopes that we also will be put on for some economic growth here in our community. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Aldi. Any questions, Commissioners? Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Brian, do you have the wording for the

We got one now. Come on. Come on up. Anybody want to talk? Now is your chance.

Introduce yourself and tell us what's on your mind.

Hello, my name is Sarah Hernandez and I live here locally. And this is a Q and A, correct? Questions and answers? Yes. I can ask questions still? Okay. Exactly when are your proposed new signed images approved? Like is that before or after a lot is purchased? And when are lots sold?

Go ahead. What was the first question?

When are your proposed new sign images approved? Before or after a lot is purchased? When are lots sold?

The would be approved tonight without the new business names. Is that the question?

I think so. So and I think that

It's like a three part question. When are your proposed new sign images approved? Like, in what process does that lot of land get approved because they have a sign put up?

Are you asking generally speaking or for Generally speaking, for

any of the lots that you just talked about that have had businesses built or not built yet.

Yeah. So the signs can The proposal for a sign can come in at any time, but they typically come in around the same time as the building plans come in. And it's important that they kind of go together because the sign plans are typically based upon the frontage, the lineal feet of the building frontage, kind of dictates how much sign area they're allowed. So if there's no project for construction planned yet, we can't really calculate how much sign area is allowed. There's still allowed some, but without knowing the max, we just don't know what the maximum is.

So usually, by the time the sign is proposed, we know what the building frontage is. So hopefully that answers that part of the question. The next part of the question was what?

Okay. But just to go back on that, the sign of the frontage is always gonna be approved no matter how big the front of the building is. But if there's, like, lots adjacent or across the street, like, where McDonald's was and there was empty lots, like, grocery outlet only advertised on the front, they didn't get to advertise on the side. Is that because those buildings, those McDonald's ones weren't purchased and planned out yet, or were they purchased at the same time or before?

So it's my understanding that the Grocery Outlet business proposed and received approval for their maximum allowable sign area

The front.

Based on and in their case, they're on a corner, so they get two fronted, they get a Sperry and a South Rogers Road frontage and we use those together. And so corner lots get because they have more street frontage. They have two streets that they're fronting on.

Okay.

Let's see.

And then that's after the lot is purchased and the plans are sold out. So, okay. When are the buildings built when the lots are sold? Does that depend on the developer? Is that depending on city approval? Like, why does it take so long?

There's lots of different factors that come into play, and every development is different. So you have some developments that once the project is approved, some businesses are ready to go right away. Some begin or finalize their funding, they get financing, they have to go through a whole application process for funding, and there's different types of funding. So, each development is different. Sometimes there's a lot of prep work that has to be done.

Sometimes one development may have twice or three times the civil engineering that has to occur. There could be a lot of constraints, environmental issues, additional agencies. So for instance, a property that's along Highway 33, they need city approval and Caltrans approval. This sign needs Caltrans approval because they have jurisdiction for signs in this area. Some places have and they and this project also has to notify the feds because it's near

the the aqueduct.

And so there's a lot of differences. But generally speaking, buildings don't start until after they've been approved at the planning level, and there's different levels. There's a staff level, there's a commission level, and then there's a commission plus a city council level. So depending on the significance of the project, the actual approval process can be quick or can take years. It just depends.

So and then after it's got its planning approval, then the applicant knows it's safe to go through the building planning, which is when it gets really expensive for them because the level of plans have all the details, All of the different sheets, the plans can be that thick. And that can depending on how long their architect takes and how many revisions they have to make, how if the plans are quality, it's quick. If they're not quality, it takes forever. So there's just so many different factors. And then ultimately, they get their building permit, and they're given basically with that a green light to go develop.

Okay. Yeah. It's just that the Grocery Outlet, I have a statement for as well. So Grocery Outlet reminds me of the word family because they're owned by a local family business. They're local fam small family here in town.

And although they didn't need a sign in order to open and to stay open, they've given back so much to this community in so many ways, and I know most of you know that. They're always in the irrigator, in local business posts. Like, they really do give back. But I do believe, in my opinion, that they need a sign, like, if they need any additional sign. Because when I drive north coming south from five, I don't see anything.

I don't know what that building is. If I if I it's my first few times, first time driving by. I think they need a little bit more help to be visible. Even though they're visible to us, they also need to be visible to other people off of 5. And I know the guy said for McDonald's sign, oh, yeah, we'll have a Dutch Bros on there. If they could have a grocery outlet on there too, vice versa. You have the community sign now where everybody works together on there. So if everybody could just work together, and that would be nice.

Sure.

Okay. Good. Thank you. Yes, good questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good. Thank you for asking questions. We'll come up with answers. Good. Okay. And like Brian says, each project has its own unique situation, but generally the process works as it should. Okay. What about the base guys? What about the stones on the base? What are we going to do? You want to add a condition?

Yep. Ryan's going come up with words for that?

We have

to close the public hearing.

I will and want to. Okay, good reminder. Anybody else? Okay, let's close it. Okay, all right. We're adding a condition, is that correct? Everybody on board with that?

Yes, I can leave that out loud then Denise will have it recorded and she can add that after the meeting. The wording of that condition and we appreciate the applicant's support of that. I recommend to the commission that this additional condition, it would be numbered within the appropriate category, but it creates a twenty first condition. It won't be numbered number 21, but the applicant shall include a six foot high flagstone base structure located at the base of the sign columns and consistent with designs of the surrounding commercial businesses, subject to review and approval by the city community development director. Additionally, a building permit will be required for such sign base structure if proposed outside of the original sign plans.

Okay. Wording okay, you guys? Sure. I do. And that will make it more even more consistent with the others.

That's correct.

I like that.

There's one other condition I'm recognizing.

Don't think I need to get

Can you get the images up real quick, Lane? The sheet that has the sign images. And this is just a cleanup thing, but I feel it's important. The sign so go to the sheet that shows the signage. So then let's see here. The next sheet, and the next sheet. Okay. You know what? Nope. It's not on the slides.

It's actually on the staff report. So the plans that are within the staff report, there's one image that shows the parcelization, and it shows a parcel numbering that's not correct. And I'm just asking that the final signed package have parcel information that's consistent with the actual parcels that exist. Okay.

Noted. Okay, our public hearing is closed. We're adding the condition. We've got the wording. Anybody have anything else to add or ask? Anybody? No? No. Then I will entertain a motion.

Go ahead. No. My job again.

We got a

motion. Okay, we've got a motion. Am I a second? I second.

I got a quick question.

Do you need me to open up? Okay, let me open the public hearing again for one second.

Okay, so at the last year when we talked about putting some stone in that six feet, we do have to do that at some point. But we had intended to see what the building that goes in there that we're going to match it to. In other words, there'll be another permit coming up for the building. So we're going to do it at a future time, right now with this sign.

We wanted to be consistent with whoever those tenants are going

be.

Yes, that

goes on the rest of that lot there.

Yeah. And so the way that the condition that we created tonight to require that base, it's it's worded so that it would require its own separate building permit whenever that is ready. Oh, the stone part? Yes. It would be separated off.

Yeah, so it won't hinder getting our first building permit final.

Correct, will not hinder at all.

All right. Okay, good. Thank you. Good clarification. Let me close the hearing. Okay, we have a motion. Do we get a second?

Yes, I second.

A motion and a second. Let's go ahead and call the roll.

Okay, there's a motion and a second to, I guess, adopt Resolution twenty twenty six-one, approving conditional use permit 2601 with the 21 conditions, a new condition as stated by Community Development Director, Sice. Commissioner Alexander, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Soudhoo? Aye. And Commissioner Applin? Aye. Vice Chairperson Bendix? Aye. Chairperson West? Aye. Motion passes five-zero.

So ordered. Okay, good. Well, you all for being here and for your participation. Do we have any items from staff?

Yes. You're very welcome. Happy to help.

You like to assist you with anything else

No, No, thank you.

Okay, staff, what do we have?

Stamp phones. Nothing specific, just lots of activity, lots of different projects we're reviewing currently. The development agreement for Zacharias, the Del Puerto Healthcare District Master Plan, we expect an application from them next month for their Master Plan. And so that's exciting. That's about it.

What's happening with Rogers Road? Are we going to ever get that fixed?

Eventually, yes.

Are we still waiting for PG and E or are we needing grading and things like that?

I am not that intimately involved with it. That's our public works and engineering department.

A pain when I try to get from thirty three

to Starbucks. I have to go all the

way around or to get gas. So the question is how many years it's going to be to get it finished?

I think less than one. Well, that's good.

How long is it going to take to get a letter to save more to get extra?

It's done.

Done. Yes, sir. Okay, good.

There we go. There you go. You're getting your answers. What else? Questions for staff? Comments from commission? None. None. No more. All for your time.

Yes, thank you.

And I am going to adjourn the meeting.