Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Meeting of 04/23/2026 to order and ask all of you to stand for the pledge with me. 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. Thank you. Thank you for being here and thank you folks who are joining us over the air. Let's have a roll call and see who's here tonight.

Commissioner Alexander? Here. Commissioner Sidhu? Here. And Commissioner Applin? Here. Chairperson West?

Here.

Let the record show we have four members present.

Okay, we do have a quorum. Okay, items from the public. This would be the time for any items that are not on the agenda. And since I assume that all of you folks in the room are on the agenda items, anyone on Zoom who would like to speak to us on any item not on the agenda, but related to our function?

Just as a reminder, if you're joining us through Zoom, you can press the raise hand function if you'd like to speak. At this time, we have no one requesting to speak.

Okay, thank you. All right. Statement of conflict by commissioners. Commissioners, anyone have any conflict with tonight's items, two items?

No. No?

I don't either. So let's let the record show there are none. Right to appeal. Any person who is dissatisfied with a decision may appeal to city council within ten business days. No correspondence. Let's deal with some March twelve minutes and get those done. I presume you all received them. We were all present. We need a full commission. And I would entertain any discussion, changes. Chairman,

I'd like to say we did receive correspondence that's associated with agenda item for the housing element. Yes, I just wanted to acknowledge that in fact we did receive correspondence pertaining to the housing element agenda item. There are three different pieces of correspondence that were provided to members of the Planning Commission. The Secretary has a copy as well.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Sorry. Okay. We did receive some correspondence. It clear what everybody received?

They were all received today?

Yes. I forgot we're counting those as today's. Okay, so we did receive it at Yes. Investment

And let the record show that one Yes, was

from the healthcare district, one was from EMV Law, and one was from the Law Offices of Rutan and Tucker.

Okay. Good. Let the record show we received those and they should be available to everyone. Okay. Now we can move on. Thank you

for

slowing me down here. March twelve minutes, we were here, all of us and heard what we heard. Is that what we heard?

Move approval.

Motion? Moving a motion on the move. Is there a second on the move? You don't have to stand up or anything. You can just make a second. Anybody? Where's my second? Second. Second, good. Call

the roll.

We have a motion and a second to approve Planning Commission meeting minutes of 03/12/2026. Commissioner Alexander? Aye. Commissioner Soudhoo? Aye. Commissioner Applin?

Aye.

Vice Chair Bendix?

Aye.

And Chairperson West?

Aye. Motion passes five zero.

I have to say that gives a motion a new meaning. I like that. We're going have to do that every week.

Like that. You need coming late?

Well, just the motion. We have somebody in motion. That's all I like. All right. We have two items that are related tonight. And I'm going to let staff tell you all about them. We're obviously talking about the sixth cycle housing element from covering the years 2023 to 2031. You all got 500 pages of correspondence and we're all up on it. So staff, where are we?

Yes. Tonight represents the near culmination of our housing element update and public review process. And we've been at it for well over a year and a half, almost two years now, going through a process of engaging the public to solicit input and comments for ways that our housing element ought to address various potential housing programs. We've engaged the Planning Commission and City Council several months ago. We have submitted a draft copy of the housing element for preliminary state housing and community development department review, which they determined that the housing element as drafted thus far is in substantial it meets the statutory requirements of state housing law pending rezoning efforts.

The city has also begun and that are also prepared for the commission's consideration alongside the housing element this evening. We have a Staff City Senior Planner, Joel Andrews here to present the staff report. We also have our housing element consultant representative on should be online, Kylie Pope and between the two of them and myself, we will be presenting the staff report, the housing element and address questions and comments that the commission and or the public may have. And so I'll turn it over to Joel at this time.

Thank you. Good evening Chair and members of the commission. So the housing element is one section of the general plan, which is the city's guiding document. It's treated a little differently than, other sections of the general plan because of some state requirements that the housing element's looked at every eight years. There are triggers that are provided, through other agencies that are handed down to this various cities to respond to.

And so we work through that process. And as Brian has stated, we've arrived at a point where the Department of Housing and Community Development for the state has given their initial blessing of this. And at this point, I'd like to introduce Kylie Pope from EMC who's going to present the rest of the housing element for you.

Thanks, Joel. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Again, I'm Kylie Pope, a senior planner with EMC Planning Group. I'm happy to be here before you and to give this presentation from the sixth cycle housing element update. So this presentation provides an overview of the sixth cycle housing element update.

This effort represents about a year and a half's year, a year and a half's worth of work involving city staff, coordination with the California Department of Housing and Community Development, known as HCD, public engagement and technical analysis to prepare a housing element that complies with state law while also reflecting Patterson's local priorities. So tonight, we'll walk through this agenda here. First, I'll provide an overview of what the housing element is and why it's required. I'll then discuss Patterson's Rina allocation and how the city, has identified adequate capacity to meet those housing needs. And from there, I'll highlight key implementation programs, community engagement efforts to date, collaboration with HCD, the environmental review, and next steps.

Next slide. So as Joel said, the housing element's one of many state mandated elements of the general plan, and it serves as the city's plan for accommodating existing and projected housing needs across all income levels. So the housing element must be updated every eight years, and it's reviewed by HCD for compliance with state housing law. And it's important to emphasize that the city does not build the housing directly. Rather, the housing element simply establishes the policies, programs, and a site inventory to facilitate, identify, and accommodate housing development by the private market.

The housing element identifies where housing can be developed. It removes regulatory barriers where needed and establishes implementation programs to support that housing production. So in essence, this is both a compliance document required by the state, of course, and also an implementation strategy. So let's talk penalties. In recent years, the consequences for not having a compliant housing element have increased substantially.

Noncompliance can expose jurisdictions to referral to the attorney general, court action, significant fines, and even reduced local control over land use decisions. One risk a lot of jurisdictions are worried about and fear is builder's remedy, which can limit a jurisdiction's ability to deny or reduce the density of qualifying housing projects. Now conversely, maintaining compliance preserves local control and positions the city to remain eligible and competitive for important funding opportunities. So it's a key reason why adoption of a compliant housing element's important to the city. Next slide.

So this update is occurring in the context of California's broader housing crisis. The state, has identified a need for approximately two and a half million homes, statewide. Through the RINA process, which Joel touched on, the state has allocated a housing need to each region, and the Stanislaus Council of Governments, or STANCOG, has assigned Patterson a six cycle arena of 3,716 units. Now that allocation is the planning target that the city must accommodate through this housing element over the twenty twenty three, twenty thirty one planning period. Now it doesn't mean the city's required to build that 3,716 units, but it does mean the city must demonstrate adequate compass capacity and also programs to facilitate development of such units.

Next slide. So the city's RINA is divided into four income categories. In in this table to the right on the slide, you'll see very low, low, and then in blue, moderate, and above moderate. Now state law requires the city to plan for housing opportunities across each of these income levels, not just market rate housing, which would be above moderate income category. This is important because the housing element is required to affirmatively address housing needs for lower income households, including adequate sites at appropriate densities to support affordability.

And according to the state for Patterson, what is an appropriate density to support lower income housing development is a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. Now this allocation forms the foundation for the site inventory and also the implementation programs included in the housing element. Next slide. So in addition to the city's six cycle arena of 3,716 units, Patterson is in a unique position because it carries forward an unaccommodated lower income need of a 196 units from the prior planning cycle. So for background, during the fifth cycle, the city was assigned 1,044 lower income units but didn't have sufficient capacity to accommodate all of those units, resulting in a shortfall of 496 lower income units.

So the city did take steps to address that shortfall through an implementation program, which included rezoning 13 acres at Weber Avenue and 1st Street to high density residential back in 2020. So that accommodated approximately 300 units or roughly 60% of the needed capacity, but it did not eliminate that shortfall. It left a remaining unaccommodated need of a 196 lower income units. So state law classifies these as an unaccommodated housing need and requires the city's current RINA planning period to carry for forward these shortfall of sites, resulting in this adjusted RINA of 3,912 units. So that adjusted RINA is the true benchmark that this housing element must address.

And it's also the basis for how the site inventory has been developed and rezoning actions that are associated with program one dot 11, which we'll get into later this evening. Next slide. So the city has identified a total of 16 sites to meet the RENA. And in those 16 sites, a total of 5,264 units can be accommodated, which exceeds the adjusted arena of 3,912 units. This includes development opportunities in the Zacharias Development area and Baldwin Ranch South development area, as well as several vacant and underutilized infill sites, projected ADUs, and also credited pipeline projects.

Now pipeline projects include the projects that were approved and permitted on or after 06/30/2023. So after accounting for pipeline projects, the city maintains a 47% RENA buffer because we essentially just credit those pipelines right out. And I point out the buffer because it's important for compliance with the no net loss law, which helps to account for uncertainty in whether all sites develop exactly as projected. Now, the no net loss law requires that a jurisdiction's housing element ensure sufficient capacity of adequate housing development sites throughout the planning period to meet the jurisdictions unmet RENA needs for each income category. So each CD generally recommends jurisdictions maintain surplus capacity known as a buffer here, particularly for lower income housing because these are the harder targets to hit.

So I just wanted to emphasize and demonstrate that the city is not relying on a bare minimum approach and has a 47% buffer. Next slide. So in addition to identifying sites, state law requires the housing element include programs to implement the plan. Now, programs are particularly important. These are not all of the programs that are included in the housing element, but just a few I wanted to highlight.

And I'll briefly touch on program one point one one and one point one two to kind of set the stage for the second agenda item that we'll get more into this evening. So program 1.11, it includes land use and zoning amendments specifically designed to address state law requirements related to that fifth cycle unaccommodated need or shortfall of sites that I've previously discussed. So the city or I'm sorry. The state law requires the city to take additional actions to make sure that sufficient sites are available at appropriate densities and also with appropriate development standards to support lower income housing development on those sites, and program 1.11 implements such requirements consistent with state law. Now program one dot 12 addresses state law requirements related to prior identified sites, which the city's site inventory includes two prior identified sites.

Under state housing element law, jurisdictions must adopt by right approval provisions for certain housing developments that are proposed on sites that were previously identified. And so program one one dot 12 establishes such provisions to ensure compliance with state law for those two sites. And we'll get into these two programs more later this evening. Another program I'd like to highlight is one dot 10, which removes barriers to multifamily development and includes modest amendments to density and height standards as well as parking standards to support housing feasibility. Other programs support implementation of objective design standards, facilitating development of emergency shelters, supportive housing, residential care facilities, all consistent with state requirements, as well as updating the city's density bonus ordinance and ADU ordinance to align with recent changes to state law.

So collectively, these programs move beyond compliance and establish the framework to facilitate housing production. Next slide. So public participation is a very important and also required component of this update process. The city did conduct a joint city council and planning commission meeting in November 2024 to introduce the housing element update, to show off the dedicated website, sorry, web page, and also discuss the public review draft. Housing element materials were also posted to the city's website, including stakeholder surveys and also property owner interest forms were distributed.

And these efforts helped inform the housing element and policies and programs within the element. Next slide. So the city has worked extensively with HCD throughout this update process. The initial draft was submitted in February 2025, followed by HCD comments, revisions, and resubmittal. On 12/02/2025, HCD issued a statutory compliance letter confirming the housing element satisfied statutory requirements of state housing law.

However, compliance is contingent upon required rezonings and implementation of by right provisions. More recently, the city received an HCD notice of violation letter in March 2026. Staff has reviewed that letter carefully. And importantly, the city must adopt the housing element and complete necessary rezonings and establish associated development provisions, which will be discussed again later this evening in order to comply with state housing law. So tonight, the commission's recommendation to or not adopt the housing element is really necessary step alongside implementing actions to address the issues raised by HCD and move the city into state of compliance.

Continued coordination with HCD will occur following adoption and resubmittal for housing element certification. Next slide. As for environmental review, the city evaluated the proposed housing element under CEQA, and staff determined adoption of the housing element is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the common sense exemption. Next slide. So for next steps, if the planning commission recommends city council adoption of the housing element, the housing element will move forward to the city council for consideration on May 19.

Assuming council adopts the housing element, city staff will submit the adopted housing element to HCD for formal certification. The staff will then work on implementing programs in the housing element, including identified zoning code updates. And as previously expressed, tonight is a milestone to ensure compliance with state housing law and is part of a broader implementation process. Next slide. So we made it.

So based on the analysis presented, city staff recommends the planning commission adopt resolution twenty twenty six dash o two recommending the city council adopt a general plan amendment to adopt the twenty twenty three twenty thirty one six cycle housing element of the general plan in compliance with state housing law. Also, make a finding that the housing element is exempt from CEQA and authorize city staff to file a notice of exemption with the Stanislaus County Clerk and State Clearing House. Next slide. So that concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Any questions? Commissioners? Any questions? Not now. Okay. All right. Thank you, Kylie. What else we got here, Joel? Anything else that you've got? Do you want to add to that?

No. At this point, our recommendation is to open it up for a public hearing and staff's recommendation is to recommend adoption to the City Council.

Okay. Now before we even open this up for discussion, Just as an overview then, we've basically reacted to state required changes. Is that what's happening? They want our densities increased, they want our parking decreased. We want all this stuff happening, right? Is all of that absolutely required? If we picked some of those we didn't want to do, would they what would they do to us?

So the development standards that are in there are a reaction in some way or another to the state's requirements. Some of them are specifically required by state law. Other items are kind of a, the city has so many levers that we can pull to get reach the, RENA number that has been provided to us. And so, some of it is related to that, that, different responses.

So some are if we didn't do every one of those exactly the way this is written, we could still get through here okay? Maybe some of them. Okay, I'm concerned about parking. Let me tell you about parking. Density is fine. When we start tacking a whole lot more people into the same piece of land and reducing the amount of parking, I guarantee we're planning in a problem. We're developing a problem purposely. I'm trying to figure out a way to avoid that, putting in more people without making the problem twice as bad. Is there some way we can deal with besides them taking or doubling all your densities and having your parking stuff? I know they're doing that to everybody, I guess, but do we just have to take it and say, okay, fine?

Yes, that's a response to HCD's requirements. And so related to that specific information, there's not a whole lot that we've been able to come up with that we can work our way around that.

So what do we need a zoning ordinance for if the state's going to write our zoning ordinance? Yep. What's what's going on?

It's a matter of the state mandating more and more components of our zoning code. No. It's it's that simple.

All the main all the important ones. They're just basically dictating what we do, is that right? So we take it or leave it. We do we dock everything wholesale or nothing, is that where we are?

Virtually, yes. And it's not just a matter of mandate, it's under the threat of penalties, significant penalties by

the state. Always. Okay. Well, it's a sad day for planning. I'll tell you that. Sad day when somebody who's not a planner in Sacramento is rewriting our zoning ordinance for us. All right. Comments from commissioner before we open? Anybody as annoyed with this as I am?

You already made the appropriate comments. We've lost some degree of autonomy with regards to our planning.

We sure have. Anyway, maybe they won't need us. Maybe soon they'll just tell us from Sacramento what to do. Any other thoughts before we open this thing?

Yeah. I just had a question. In terms of designing like the roadways, I know parking commissioner, I know that's a big issue, but having wide like wider streets because I know new developments, everything's really jam packed, that adds to the, you know, congestion. Does the city or the developers, can they work towards, we can build those units, but can we, you know, design it where we can reduce our congestion or traffic or, you know, have more space on our roadways or, you know, have enough adequate parking? Or is there any flexibility that the city and developers can work together on that issue?

We have more flexibility on the street front than we do on the density and on the parking. And there's two components in that realm. We have city standard street designs that apply to developments across the board in the city of Paterson, unless they're part of a master plan or a planned development where the Planning Commission and ultimately City Council reviews a proposed variation or alternative to the City Street standard. And so which is a good thing. It allows for us to obtain a more creative type of a development in exchange for some flexibility and either that flexibility that we may offer in the realm of streets or parking or other city standards, we would expect and typically would receive an exchange of a benefit, an added benefit from the developer that goes above and beyond the standard requirements.

And so we kind of weigh what we're trading and if the city commission and the council determine that the trade off is worth it to the city and the community, then we can approve that. But to answer your question, the streets are probably where we have more flexibility in this than anything else from a development standpoint.

So we can it would

reduce congestion to light

that we have Into the mic.

So the city can widen the streets if possible? Yes.

Okay. It's possible. There's a lot

of hoops.

Traffic Safety Commission. There's Streets and Roadways Safety Committee. Council ultimately adopts those. And so but voices can be heard and submitted to the council for those considerations for sure. Thank you.

I had one more question. Any more comments from commission? I had a question about master plans. And it somewhere said that master plans are not subject to these new numbers. Explain that, Joel.

So the way that master planning is used, as Brian was stating, was that it can be used as an exemption to certain criteria that are outlined in the zoning code. And that could be just about anything. But they come to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval.

So kind of a PD concept. Yes. But okay. And what is exactly is a master plan and which ones would we call them master plans right now?

So specific plan, master plan and plan development would all be included in that.

So VOP and Zacharias?

Yes.

Those are the predominant residential master plans?

Those are our master plans.

And then we have the Aaron Bell and other business park Okay. Master plan as

So there are several master plans right now that if they're built, wouldn't necessarily have to do those exact things, we'd have some flexibility like you talked about.

Well, those developments are expect they've agreed to and the city council approved the master plan. So those developments build out according to that master plan. And so along the vein of what what you're asking I'm

trying to get

Yeah, and they have their own unique standards.

Okay,

yes. That we approved the commission, the council approved.

Okay. Does that helps me? Yes. That helps me. Thank you.

But it still sounds like Sacramento is trying to

Well, are, but if we're already here with something, we we have some life left in us. Okay, any other thoughts? I'm going open it up just for some public input. Okay, I'm going open the public hearing. Who would like to speak to this?

Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, John Anderson, JB Anderson Land Use Planning here tonight representing the Del Pollo Healthcare District. As you may or may not be aware, the Healthcare District, we have officially filed a master plan on about 38 acres between Ward Avenue and then in 9th Street, North Of Sperry and also North and South of Las Palmas. We're very appreciative of all the staff input and whatnot on that master plan and we've been working on that thing for about a year, little more than a year, about a year and a half and it's a result of a lot of work. Ron and others on the commission welcome to state mandates.

My firm has been intimately involved in a couple of different housing elements. This cycle, it has not been a very enjoyable experience. The State of California has put their foot down and has done exactly what Mr. West has said, and that is that they're inserting themselves in the land planning business. And it's extremely frustrating in a number of different areas.

With the healthcare districts master plan, we've got ideas for the properties North Of Las Palmas, that's Site 10 within your housing element. We're appreciative of the city's consideration of that site going not to high density, but going to downtown core, which is consistent with what our master plan is suggesting. But the fairyland story behind the whole housing element is they're suggesting the density range unfortunately that is much higher than we can deliver or we plan to deliver on that site. So we're concerned that if Site Number 10 is approved, is part of this housing element that the housing units that projected simply will not be delivered, certainly are not being proposed to be delivered as part of our development. So that's a concern because we're assuming the state will mandate a replacement of the units that we're not delivering and that will become an obligation of us.

And now we're in non compliance with the housing element. So that's a big deal. We presented a letter to your commission. You have also the correspondence that we've had back and forth with city staff over this issue. And we plan to also present our concerns to the City Council.

So the letter that was written by the Executive Director, Karen Fries, does a very good job of explaining our concern and the issues. And it's all about long term commitments on this piece of property and compliance with your ultimately adopted housing element and how that might be viewed in the future when you're asked to consider the master plan and all the work that we've been doing on the property specifically. So I'm here to answer any questions that you might have in addition to what's been presented to you tonight. Sorry for the late delay in this information, but it's been something that we've been working on for quite some time. And I know you guys have a couple of 100 pages of documents that you were asked to look at.

So thank you very much. Are there any questions with me or of the healthcare district?

Commissioners, questions?

So

you're not looking to be able to accommodate for the housing that they're trying to implement here? Is that what's

going We

can accommodate a number of housing units within our property, no question, but not the two eighty three housing units that are suggested at a fairytale density of 35 units to the acre.

So in the grand scheme of things, would you what would happen here? Would you wind up having to buy another piece of property to offset this housing? Is that something that

you would have to look

The the issue would be that the city would somehow need to identify a similar site to replace the units that are being suggested. That's the bottom line. And their hands might be tied, at time of consideration of our master plan, where we may have we may not be in compliance with what was discussed in the housing, that's really the concern. When you start adding all these policy documents, when planning staff, when city council takes a look at these legally, there's all these steps that need to be followed. And one of the items is they have to find that our project is consistent with the general plan and the housing element as Joel has explained is an element of the general plan.

So that's the concern that we're definitely planning on doing housing in this area, but not to the density, not to the level that suggested in your housing element. Because again, what has been demanded of the city of Patterson is to deliver X number of units, which has been explained by your consultant in those income categories. And those sites have to either be designated downtown core or high density residential. So that's kind of the issue. It's a replacement issue and it's a big concern. It's certainly one we don't want to be saddled with. That's the issue.

How many units are you proposing? At this

point in the letter, it's described we're suggesting 20 townhouses of up to 92 units. And then we've got some mixed use apartments potentially commercial and residential along Las Palmas itself. So it's the 92 plus the 72, but certainly not the full density of the site at two eighty some odd units. It's still a good number. Still a good number, but not the same, not exactly achieving that fairy tale number of 35 units to the acre.

And I believe me, I understand why they're doing that. We're doing that in other jurisdictions. I'm fighting that same issue in the city of Mountain House where we're being told we need to use the maximum density of 40 units to the acre. And I know quite frankly that I've had a number of different developers working on projects in the Bay Area, and it's very difficult to get a project to exceed 28 units to the acre, let alone go as high as 40. So it's simply that replacement issue that we're most concerned with and we don't want to be saddled with that obligation. Understood? Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Joel, can we accommodate that request? I mean, how does this work?

So Citi has been working closely with the health care district regarding their project. They've applied for that just recently. We have given them some accommodation by the housing element shows there the lot that they're referring to as high density residential in concession to their project. What we're proposing tonight is that, that the downtown core, which is consistent with what they're asking for.

So you're proposing that change in what we're We're doing

proposing that tonight. Okay. Okay.

And does that change the density?

Yes. No. So

what does that do?

So it changes what they can do with that property, for one. To respond to the question that you're asking, so the city's position is that the city, not the health care district will be responsible for any shortfall in housing capacity as their site develops. And we look at the housing element along with the rest of the general plan as a living document and that changes are going to need to be made that the city would be responsible for finding another site to accommodate that need. But based on the position that the state has taken and the deadlines that they have provided regarding the city's house annulment staff's recommendation is that the commission continue with approval as it is and we'll work through those items with the healthcare district and internally as the city itself, which are related to that.

So we're approving the downtown designation or the high density? Which one would we be approving?

So specific to tonight, the next item includes several redesignations of zoning. Within that is a is changing that location to downtown core. We are changing.

And what does that afford them?

So it closer lines up with what they can do. The downtown core also includes some housing allowances, which they're including in their project.

As well as medical.

It's a

useful So thing for the density, they could still put more units if they want to, right? I mean, they could build out that density if they really wanted to.

If they wanted to. Or if

they sold the residential component to the developer, the developer would have the ability to still So meet

they're not asking you to put a real limit, low limit on the residential. They're just trying to fit in what they can. John, come on up and help clarify this if you would please.

I want to make sure again, Anderson representing the Healthcare District. As Joel has explained, we're appreciative of the next item, which is suggesting to go to Downtown Corp. We agree with that. The issue really is compliance with adopted policy documents. And what I heard Joel say today is what's been said, but we don't have anything in writing that the city if we don't build out to that density, the city takes it upon themselves to identify a replacement property for that density.

Now I've got to tell you that identifying replacement properties infill or even greenfield, it becomes extremely difficult. You may have a property owner that agrees to it, but then as part of that notification process, adjacent property owners get the opportunity to participate. And I can tell you, based on the experience we're dealing with the City of Waterford and City of Riverbank, that those adjacent property owners are very vocal. And they're not exactly happy about that replacement site that's been identified by the local agency. So what I'm trying to get at here is we don't want to get caught in the crossfires, the crosshairs between these policy documents.

We know it's an issue, we're that issue tonight, We'll explain the same issue to the City Council. We just don't want it to become an issue or a hindrance for your commission or the City Council that would not allow you to take appropriate action for our project. That's what I'm trying to get at.

So identifying additional properties, is that at the city's expense?

Well, it sounds like the city is willing to do that when the time comes and it might actually be an issue bigger issue as part of the seventh cycle, the next cycle yet to come, because there's going to be a performance obligation, I believe, by the State of California to show exactly how you've achieved those densities that you stated you were going to achieve, right? So it gets they get their hands, State of California is getting more and more involved in local land use policies, and this is a big part of that whole discussion.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, John. Okay, I want make sure we understand that.

I'd like to just touch on different approaches that the city has available to us to advocate and steer private development towards providing the needed housing for the city of Paterson. I'm a fan of being creative of looking for different ways, even if that means re designated industrial areas, re designating in certain industrial areas that make some sense to go to residential. And then where there aren't a lot of existing neighborhoods, not all industrial areas, where there may be a two or three or four acre site at the edge or where it doesn't necessarily impact an existing single family neighborhood. I'm a fan of actually creating a program where we would solicit and potentially incentivize industrial developments to provide some workforce housing on a preplanned site, either on their property or nearby. Because in my mind, it doesn't make a lot of sense where we've got thousands and thousands of workers coming to a major quadrant of town, and we're not saying, Hey, we've got a housing problem.

In fact, we've an affordable housing problem. What are going do to help contribute? You're bringing the jobs, you're placing additional demand on the city, So why not make it easier for some of your employees when you go to interview an employee, you can say, oh, and oh, by the way, as a part of working for our organization, we've got 10 or 20 or 50 units over here that you can walk to work for if you want to. You don't have to. But it's stuff like that. I feel like there's a lot of different ways to be creative. That's just some. I could spend ten, fifteen minutes talking about different ways that we could do that.

And there are many.

They don't necessarily involve the city using any money also.

And the demographics I noticed in this were interesting because we had, there was a lot, a huge increase in single, like single, need for single units. And I thought, okay, some of these subdivision houses have this beautiful little casita out front that you could almost make a separate unit. And in a subdivision of 300, you could put 150 of those things in and add 150 needed units and never change one in that neighborhood.

And they look better than a lot the

And they look beautiful. And then and so there are creative ways. So developers get out there and help us fit this stuff in. We don't have to stand it up 40 units an acre to to make it work. Okay. What else from the public? Who else from the public would like to address this? Anybody who would like to? It's all yours. Give us your name and the record. My

name is Donald Hess, and I live on Sunflower Drive. And my backyard is adjoining the 440 Sperry Avenue unit. I'm not sure how you are how many acres that is, but that unit back there for the last thirty five years has been a pain in my neck because a lot of people live in these trailers that live there, and they're transient workers, and they're just you know, they have a they didn't have they have a right to live, but I I don't need to listen to their music and all that stuff. Many, many times have called the police on, activities back there from, trailers rocking at night to methamphetamine being cooked back there. So I'm glad to see something done to that property, but I'm not sure what high density unit means for that unit.

I'm not sure if it's two acres or 40 acres, and I can't couldn't find out didn't have time to go to the to the county to find out how many acres that 048043002 is. If everybody can let me know, it'd be it'd be nice to know. But I understand there's, like, maybe a lot of high density units being built around the neighborhood I live on Sperry, on Poppy, and on 33. And all of those areas are two lane roads, highly trafficked with semi trucks hours a day, backed up, accidents all the time, and the city has yet to address traffic in this town. Ward Avenue was dumped on a bunch of a bunch of schools there, and Spurry is dumped on as the main East West Corridor from I 5 to I 9 to, you know, Highway 99.

So that's being said. That's beyond our scope right now. But this unit behind us, who's gonna own it? Who's gonna run it? And is it gonna be like the units being built out at Walnut Avenue, two story? Is it four story, six story? How big is this place gonna be? You're talking about 40 units per acre? If there was, like, two acres there, that's 80 families there. And each family's got two cars, a minimum of two cars.

You can have a 160 cars running around in this five acre parcel. So, you know, I understand the need for housing. I understand the need for the city to build in infrastructure of lost acres in town. There's whole bunch of acres downtown, vacant property across the street where the old Pacific tomato plant is vacant. A lot of vacant property in this town.

I'm not sure what's going on, and I understand the need for high density units, but it appear to me that I already see a portion of it. All my neighbors down the street, all behind their houses are high density units. So I'm not sure how many more high density units are being planned and how and and what's the time frame of all this? So I'm just kinda curious, a lot of questions be answered. Thank you.

Yes. And we we have no idea on any time frames because no one is proposing development at that site right now. Okay. So this is simply the state telling us we need to account for a whole bunch of units. Yes, understand.

Is your

empty gunman? And

how many units can you say?

Not every acre can have 40 units on it.

We don't have 40, that number came up. Ours aren't that high. All right. And we won't. But we'll have to allow what the state's going to let us allow. It sounds like we don't have any choice. You got something to add to that Joel?

So that site's a two acre site. Yes.

And where is it exactly?

So it's on Sperry Avenue. Southside? Southside of That's Sperry where

trail park is.

Across from the Old Tomato plant? Yeah. And Joel, range the proposed range would be 20 to 30.

So 20 to 35 units per acre is what's proposed. As you said, there's no development plan right now. We're basically just saying here are potential places where this could go. So hopefully that would be a cleanup of that particular

It's got to be on our list, right? The numbers we ran the numbers. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?

I'm Jose Valdecano, and I also neighbor Donald has right next to him.

Good evening.

And good evening. How are you all? And I've come here to kinda lessen the proposal that got dropped into our front door paperwork, and we wanted to know what are we facing with. We've been in the properties since they build it. So we are thirty eight year old land original owners.

And now they're proposing the buildings right behind our backyards. And as we said, that was lessening as a high density apartment complex they're to build in Patterson by the state, the California regulations. So one thing that I was wondering, I mean, when they started building all those homes over by the freeway and getting close to Aqueduct, what they didn't thought about doing there then instead of going to simple single family homes, start building the apartments there. Now then they need more homes, they're to probably put it right behind our backyards. And as my neighbor explained, the noise and the traffic is already tremendous increasingly.

There's no the city hasn't provided any secondary action for like they promised when the Amazon and all the big warehouses, they said they was going to provide with a back route to those. It hasn't been happening. Every trucker, everybody is going for the same route, sparing. And the traffic is already tremendous. The traffic is already huge. And now we're already putting up with a lot of that stuff. And now with all those people, if you did get to build right behind our property, what's going to happen? Is it going to be a one story, two story, three stories? What's going to happen? That's one of the concerns that is why we're here.

I thought we was going to have more people worry about, but it looks like it's only a few of us that affect us right in our backyard. So I hope then they decide. It's good to develop there, but not a high density unions. Maybe maybe do it somewhere else because, you know, we are a single family owner, and that's all I had to say.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for your thoughts. And again, we're being given numbers from the state and I'm not sure how much we can modify them.

One thing I would like to touch on just real quickly is that in these cases, wherever these future developments go, because again, there's nothing proposed specifically development wise right now. But when they do come in, we're going to do our best as a city staff and commission and council to review those future developments for the perimeters and how they interface with the existing land uses. And so where we can buffer, where we can match lower intensity components of a future development against existing lower intensity surrounding land uses, we would be a fan of that if the site allows. And so we try to be very mindful of those existing developments within our realm, within our ability. And so we are not advocating that we would just plunk down a certain layout.

We would first try to make that layout blend as a good neighbor as best possible within the constraints that were offered.

As is always done. That's a good point. Every project has to come forward and you guys will have a chance to see it. There's nothing proposed on that site right now. Nobody can answer anything about what's going on there because all we're given is some state numbers for densities. Well

And just as another note, So as she's walking one of the frustrations the staff has had through this process is one of the requirements that HCD wants to see is that, sites be spread out throughout the city. And so we could really accommodate a lot of this in new growth areas. But because of HCD's requirements on the map, they're spread out a lot, and that's why.

Okay. And we've got our own general plan to deal with anyway, okay, and zoning ordinance if they don't take it away from us. Go ahead. Thank you. Good evening.

Hi, good evening. My name is Patricia Vilacagna. I'm Jose Vilacagna's wife. And like he said, we bought in the city of Paterson thirty eight years ago, and we've been dealing with a lot of things in our backyard. The first thing was that we were told that the trailers were storage units, and we got thirty eight years of help.

I did because he was at work. But we've had noise pollution ever since, and I just think that having something that many people packed into such a small space would create so much chaos. I mean, we moved to this city because we like the city, we like the quiet, we liked the change. When we came here, we came because it was a great little town. There was a lot of community, a lot of atmosphere.

We're losing that. And I understand that you don't have much control over what's going on with the state trying to implement their laws and kind of jam it down our throats. But I just think maybe, I understand also that people need to live. But we came from Stockton today, and we were on our way there to come to here, but the traffic on five is so dangerous. The line of people backed up to get off the freeway is incredible.

There's a stop sign up there. These people are putting their lives at risk just to get off on Sperry. And so I just think that we have a problem with our infrastructure. And I did write a letter because I'm not a fan of the dam that's coming this way, and I'm pretty sure you got my letter. I'm very vocal about what I don't like.

And but that is a real concern that you get off there and they've got a stop sign at the bottom of the freeway exit. That should be a free flow. And we were promised a bypass, I think, fifteen, twenty years ago, or something like that, maybe. That don't worry about it, it's not going to become a freeway. Well, it has.

And we got trucks just rattling our windows every time they go down the road. And we were promised that, oh, all this good things going up by the freeway was going to have their own special route and all this. I haven't seen any of that. So we're losing our small town. And it's kind of sad. It's kind of really sad because I really love my home and I don't want to have to move. So I just hope that everyone here loves Patterson as much as I do and that we all do what's best for it. Thank you very much.

Good. Have a Thank good you. And I

think everyone shares your comments. The world's gotten a little bit too big and too fast for all of us. I think we'd like to all slow it down a little. If you figure out a way, you let me know.

I will be thinking really Thank

you. Thank you. Who else? There's a guy.

We've seen this guy before.

I think we have. Suspicious looking character.

Good evening, commissioners and staff. I Larry Wiener see what crazy state has done and what the cities need to do. I know this was talked about a little bit, but I thought we were just going to have a stakeholders meeting on some of this big changes like this. Anyway, I'm not against it, but we're I'm down there across from Play And J in a bigger open area, so we can handle parking and stuff better. We've got two lots down there.

And I think the city has came up with three. And if we're going to it'll be mixed use. So I don't want to put the how does that write out on Sperry, we're across from Flying J. But if we were going to do this three, we would also like to do right across Street 2 in the same deal. If we're going to have mixed use, ought to keep it consistent.

And this would be across from Flying J and across from the hotel, the Hampton Inn. And then also, I'd like to talk about a piece right here in town on 3rd Street, 3rd And V. I think it's roughly about 490 address, South 3rd, and that would work for

this as well. And what's it zone now?

Pardon me? What's it now? It's commercial. Okay, it's commercial.

Downtown commercial.

And we have pardon me?

Downtown commercial? Joel, do you know what he's talking about?

He said 3rd and where? But there are three beside it. There is houses to the north side of it, and we do have car shop to the south side.

Do prefer it's a vacant lot right now?

Vacant lot, yes.

How big is it, Larry? So the

backside, so Thompson Chevrolet across the street, have the additional part area. Behind that, there's a vacant lot. That's what he's talking about, I believe.

You're saying that could be added to residential, Larry?

Yes.

You have a what do you think? I mean, that something you would

So it's not something that we can talk about tonight, but we can talk about it for sure.

Well, it's on the table. He's saying we're looking for more spots because we may not get a maximum density on everything.

So I

would say the city is definitely open to the properties that Larry and the members of the community has. We obviously can't take action on them tonight because they're not part of the subsequent item on the agenda that's got the specific listed parcels. So it's fine if we can add it to that list to You can

go on record as saying there's some two additional. So including the one out on the Westside, right? Correct. Yes, we've had You want to add too, Larry? Yes. Okay.

Yes. And I think in the address, it's roughly about 490 South there. Actually, at one time, the railroad went through there. We took the tracks out and that's why it's commercial, but we do have houses to the north of it right now.

It

would be a fit for something like this.

And these are again, these are some of the other solutions available to the city to entertain that aren't we couldn't put them in here because the state doesn't count them as a solution, but they are a solution. They just aren't guaranteed. The city over the state doesn't accept them, but they will accept them if we approve it ultimately. Sure, sure.

At the time, they get credit, get credit. We get credit right. For Okay, that's the important part.

You know how to maybe fix some of these problems with the state in November, get a new group up there at Sacramento.

Yeah. Right. Okay.

Thank you.

Who else? Zoomers, where are you? Who wants to Zoom in and talk to us?

Just as a reminder, if you're joining us by Zoom and you'd like to speak, you can press the raised hand function. At this time, we have nobody requesting to speak.

I've still got a question. Okay, well, maybe we can close. Anybody else? Okay, let's close the public hearing. Thank you. Now, tell me about the automatic zoning. You've got parcels and we need to magically change them. How does that magic work? Do they just magically do we not see that?

Are you so the next item that we have on the agenda talks about making the rezone to those areas?

Yeah. That's the next

item on the agenda.

Okay. So we would be making those zoning changes right now? No. No. See that's

always confusing.

We would be making yeah, correct. We would only be approving the draft ordinance recommending approval of the housing element. The rezones would be the next agenda item tonight, following that action on

the housing. But we but tonight, we would actually rezone a number of properties.

We would recommend city council approval of those rezones.

Yeah. Our part of it. Okay. So that's everybody understand. We're actually making some changes in these these land uses or recommending them to the council. Correct. And that will change our okay. All right. Okay. Public hearing is closed, and we've got staff here still for questions.

Who else has any questions? Looks like we don't have a whole lot of choice, but we have some flexibility. That's what I'm hearing, is there's these magic numbers that John is saying or fantasy numbers, are there, they're real. But we have some flexibility to make this work in parcels that we can move. Plus we have a surplus of don't we have a 5,000 number and a 3,000 number?

Yes. Let's see what we

can tell

us about that Joel.

Kylie discussed that there's a buffer that's included. That's about almost 50% of the total units. Beyond that, there are more there's more housing capacity within the Zacharias Master Plan than what we're talking about here. And so there's room for that. That will also be room as we have future housing elements, but all

So those are in we're okay in the big picture as far as land supply. Is that what I'm Yes. Okay. Okay. Because I'm trying to get a handle on this whole thing. It gets too complicated for my little mind. Okay. Who else has anything to say about this? And otherwise, we're gonna have to do something and take some action. Commissioners, how are doing out in there? It's awfully quiet on that end over here. Are you guys still hanging on? Well, I've never heard this guy be so quiet either. Thank you.

The night's young.

All right. It was a good night to duck under the table. All right. What else? Otherwise, we've heard what we need to hear. We've asked what we can ask. Unless somebody else has questions, I will turn this over to somebody to make a motion. Who would like to take an action on this? And we're being now this is the first item. This is item, housing element, right? We're not we're only doing one of these. It's great. Okay. So with that first item on our agenda, I would

We're talking about the ordinance that you've given us as an addendum B?

Is that No, the

action would be approving Resolution 20 six-two that recommends approval, including the ordinance language to the council.

What was the resolution?

Twenty twenty six-two. Okay.

So that would be the approval we would recommend. Okay, would need.

Okay, you need a motion to We do. Approve I make a motion twenty twenty six-two, right?

Yes. You may want to read from the staff report recommended action.

I don't have it.

Oh, you don't? Okay.

Yes. Well, are we this is what we've got. There you go.

Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Recommendation to adopt Resolution twenty twenty six-two recommended the adoption of general plan amendment to adopt twenty-twenty three-two thousand and thirty one cycles six cycle housing element in general plan compliance with state mandates. Make the final make the final determination exempted exempted so we could do it altogether, exempted from CEQA?

Yeah.

Okay. And authorize the city to file the notice of the exemption with the Stanislaus County and the State Clearinghouse. I so move.

Alright. Is there a second?

Second.

Second. Let's Okay. Hold the

There's a motion and a second to adopt Resolution twenty twenty six-two as stated. Commissioner Alexander? Aye. Commissioner Sidhu?

Aye.

Commissioner Applin? Aye. Vice Chairperson Bendix?

Reluctantly, aye.

And Chairperson West?

Aye.

The motion passes, five-zero.

I'm with you. Okay, we do have one more public hearing and it's obviously related and this is the implementation portion of it. What does staff have to add to the discussion so far?

Anything else? Thank you. On this item, so there are a series of policies and programs that are outlined in the housing element. There are time frames related to each of those. But one of the main focuses of the housing element process is certification with HCD.

And so what that entails is adoption of the housing element and they're also requiring that any, rezoning that needs to take place that that needs to be to happen prior to certification. The other items can happen along their timeframe. And so there are a number of sites that we're going to walk through tonight, that are designated for redesignation. And I'll turn that over to Kylie Pope from EMC to present that.

Thanks, Joel. I'll try to keep this quick since we've touched on these programs a bit so far. But so as Joel was saying, the actions and the ordinance that you have in the packet are intended to implement commitments made in the housing element via programs one dot 11 and program one dot 12 to address state housing on the required requirements related to shortfall sites and prior identified sites. So I'll start with some background and state law requirements, and then I'll explain what the ordinance does, including the zoning amendments, development standards, and by right provisions. And then from there, we'll walk through the proposed amendments for the identified sites.

So next slide. So, again, these actions are implementing programs $1.11 and 12. I'd like to clarify two key terms used throughout this item and throughout the draft ordinance you have in the packet. So first, shortfall sites are sites required to be rezoned to address a shortfall in the inventory of sites available to accommodate housing, in this case, lower income housing. In other words, these are sites the city must amend to ensure that the city has adequate capacity to address the lower income housing obligations, which includes those fifth cycle unaccommodated need.

Secondly, prior identified sites are sites identified in a prior housing element for which the city must demonstrate continued suitability and availability. In this case, there are two prior identified sites included in the six cycle, housing element site inventory. And the basis for this is the state saying, okay. These sites were included in inventories for previous planning cycles, and they didn't develop. So we wanna facilitate that development by streamlining that permitting process, essentially.

So these two categories are treated differently under the ordinance, but both are addressed through these actions before you tonight. So as discussed earlier, the city has an adjusted RINA of 3,912 units, which includes the 196 unit lower income carryover obligation from the fifth cycle. HCD's 12/02/2025 determination that the city's housing element meets statutory requirements, as Joel said, is contingent upon completing these required rezonings and associated development provisions, which both program one dot 11 and program one dot 12 address. So these actions are necessary to come into compliance with state law. Next slide.

So again, these amendments are driven by state law. They're not an discretionary policy choices. So government code section six five five eight three and six five five eight three dot two require the city to ensure adequate sites are available at appropriate densities and where necessary, complete rezoning actions to address shortfall sites. And government code section six five five eight four dot zero nine also requires the city to address that fifth cycle and accommodated housing need. Next slide.

So what does this ordinance do? It does two things essentially. So first, it amends land use and zoning designations for eight shortfall sites. And then secondly, it establishes development provisions. Now those development provisions have two parts.

So here, I've separated them as action two a and two b. And action two a establishes development standards for certain shortfall sites that allow mixed uses, and we'll get into that a bit later. And then action two b establishes buy right provisions for qualifying housing projects, which apply to both shortfall sites and prior identified sites. So that structure is important because some sites receive only rezoning. Some of the sites receive rezoning plus specific development standards and by right provisions, and one site receives only by right provisions.

So next slide. Okay. So this slide provides the road map for the ordinance essentially. So the columns show which sites are proposed to undergo rezoning, which are subject to additional development standards and which are subject to buy right provisions. So you see I have them categorized as shortfall sites and prior identified sites.

Site six all the way down through site 14, just just above the prior identified sites row, these receive rezoning and buy write provisions because they are shortfall sites. Now sites ten, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen, these are shortfall sites, and they're going to be rezoned or they're proposed for rezoning rather. They're also subject to by right provisions. But because these four sites are proposed for designation that allow mixed uses, they also need specific development standards applied to them according to state law. And the reason for that is the state wants to make sure that while nonresidential uses can be developed on the sites, they want to ensure that it's not going to preclude residential development on the site.

And I'll get into what those development standards look like in a second here. I do wanna point out that for the two prior identified sites, the last two rows in this table, site 5 10 in the housing element site inventory, Site 5 here is the only site in this table that's not being proposed for a rezone or any, additional development standards. It's only receiving by right provisions because although it's a prior identified site, it's already zoned high density residential. And so in the eyes of the state, it's already, you know, at a a land use that allows high multifamily development. So nothing else is needed.

They just want to, again, facilitate development in this cycle by streamlining permit processing here. And then I want to point out lastly for this slide, Site 10 is both a shortfall site and a prior identified site. So it's proposed to receive all three treatments, if you will. Next slide. Okay. So action one. These are the zoning map amendments for shortfall sites. Excuse me. Four sites are proposed to be redesignated from general commercial to high density. That's sites six, seven, eight, and nine.

Then you have one site, Site 10, which is proposed to be redesignated from general commercial to downtown core. That's your the health care district site that was discussed earlier. And then three sites, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen, are proposed to receive a mixed use overlay to existing commercial zoning. So collectively, these amendments make the identified sites available with land use permissions necessary to support lower income housing consistent with the state's requirements. Next slide.

Okay. So the next few slides, you have these, these figures in your packet, I believe. We'll just walk through them quickly so there's a visual on the existing and proposed land use and zoning. So for Shortfall Site 6, you can see existing designation zoning is general commercial. What's being proposed is high density residential. Next slide. Same for Shortfall Site 7. It's existing as general commercial proposed as high density residential. Next slide. For Site 8, existing designation is general commercial proposed as high density residential.

Next slide. Site 9, existing is general commercial, proposed as high density residential. Next slide. And then this is the Health care district site. This is Site 10.

It's both shortfall and prior identified. So it gets the rezoning, the specific development standards, which I'll discuss in a couple slides, and then also the buy right provision, and it's existing general commercial proposed for downtown core. Next slide. So these next three sites, short call Site 1213, and 14, have existing commercial designations. For Site 12, it's a existing highway service commercial proposed to have a mixed use overlay.

Next slide. Again, Site 13, highway service commercial existing proposed mixed use overlay. Next slide. And for Site 14, it's existing general commercial proposed for that mixed use overlay. Next slide.

So getting into action two a, these are the specific development standards that I mentioned earlier. These, I wanna be very clear, they apply only to these four sites. And the ordinance makes that very clear. So in addition to rezoning, they're subject to these additional development standards established in the ordinance. Those standards allow residential uses on up to a 100% of the site.

And I I wanna clarify, does it mean that they're required to have residential? It just means if an applicant comes forward on one of these sites, they wanna develop a 100% residential on it even though it's technically allows mixed use, city has to permit it according to the ordinance and these requirements. In addition, the ordinance would require a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre for these four sites and that these standards both prevail over any conflicting or less permissive provisions of the underlying zoning designation or any mixed use overlay. And these are requirements of the state, again, because technically, the designations of these sites, being that it would twelve, thirteen, and 14 would have mixed use overlays. The base zoning would still allow commercial use.

And for the downtown core, it also allows nonresidential uses. So the state wants to make sure there are provisions in place for these four sites since they are intended to meet a shortfall for lowering lower income units that residential uses can develop on the site. Okay. Next slide. So action two b, this is the buy write provisions for shortfall sites and for prior identified sites.

So these provisions apply only to qualifying projects. And when I say qualifying projects, that's when at least 20% of the units are proposed to be affordable to lower income households and subject to an affordability agreement. So the terminology by right, I wanna be clear. It means the city permits it with no conditional use permit. No discretionary review is required or allowed.

Projects will remain subject to objective standards. And again, just a reminder, site 10 is both shortfall and prior identified, and that's why it shows up twice on this table in in the slide. And then, again, this is just a reminder. These are intended to satisfy state requirements applicable to prior identified sites and short fall sites. Next slide.

So for environmental review, the city evaluated these actions under CEQA, and staff determined the project is exempt under CEQA pursuant to the common sense exemption and further pursuant to public resources code section two one zero eight zero dot zero eight five. I also want to just note that future development proposals on these sites would be subject to project specific review, including review where applicable. Next slide. So should the planning commission recommend city council adoption of the ordinance, the item will proceed to city council for first reading on May 19. That's for the first reading.

Second reading should be determined. Following adoption, the city will submit the adopted actions, the resolutions, and ordinance to HCD. These actions, they represent a key step toward completing housing element implementation, but also, again, are required to be found in compliance and to be certified by the state. So it's it's kind of it's starting implementation, but upon the requirement of state finding the housing element in compliance. Next slide.

So based on the analysis presented, staff recommends the planning commission adopt resolution twenty twenty six dash zero three recommending the city council approve general plan land use amendments to redesignate specified sites consistent with housing element program one dot 11 and program one dot 12 outline as outlined in the proposed ordinance. Also, make a finding that the project is exempt from CEQA and authorize staff to file a notice of exemption with the clerk and state clearinghouse. Next slide. And then that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to take any questions.

Questions for Kylie? Anybody? Commissioner? Thank you, Kyle. Appreciate the info. All right, Steph, anything to add? We kind of covered this first time, but what specific to this hearing do we need to add? Anything?

Think Kyle did a fantastic job with the presentation. We're happy to answer any questions.

Commission, questions? Let's open the public hearing. Who wants to address this?

Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, John Anderson representing the Del Puerto Healthcare District tonight. What you're hearing right now is that the default density on these sites is as mandated by the state is 20 units to the acre. The master plan that we presented to the city and we've been working on has a density on this site 10 of let's say 16.2. If we're talking about just the area of residential development within Site 10 that we intend to develop, I think we can meet that density standard. But if we're talking about the entire 10 acre site, we're going to

have a problem.

Wonder at 16.2 versus the 20 is a minimum. So I'm not sure, Brian, how we magically make that work, but I'm just raising that as an issue and a concern as it relates to Site 10. Okay, thank you.

Good question. Thank you, John. And can he deal with only the area that's residential? Is his density makes it then probably, right?

I'd like to defer to Joel on that.

So one of the challenges with their site in particular is it's an existing site from the previous housing element. And so with that, the state basically says, you have to do this. It's not an option. Been talking Brian and I have been talking about this. We think with some of the proposals that they're making there's some mechanisms that could be in play for, how to make everything work out so that, they can proceed as they're proposing.

When Joel says is representing that the state is mandating we need to do this, what he's referring to is designated that way. The state's not saying you must build that number of units on there, but you must designate How to accommodate

the

city achieves compliance with the ultimate number that the state's asking for is up for us to depend on the private sector and work internally to incentivize or worst case scenario create our own housing.

John, are you okay with that? John? Is that clear enough or not?

Again, John Anderson representing the Healthcare District. What you're seeing is I'm talking about a real project and states talking about ferry land densities. So I understand that there's flexibility and believe me, staff is working with us collectively. That's not the issue The issue is when the master plan that we've been working so hard on is ultimately presented to you folks, we want to make sure that we're in 100% compliance with all the rules and regs. And that's the concern that I have regarding this statement establishing a minimum density on this particular site.

And quite frankly, the way the state looks at these types of things is that the default density, the minimum default density is 20 inches to the acre, otherwise it doesn't qualify. So that's and the state doesn't really specify whether it's net or gross. So there's ways that we can manipulate that density, if you listen to what I'm trying to say. And I think cooperatively, can do that over the entire master plan area and not just with Site 10. And a lot of that may have to do with identifying the substitute site, maybe what Larry Beeler has suggested and or other sites down the line.

Certainly not part of this action because they weren't noticed and that have to be part of another public hearing series. But I'm just raising that as an issue and concern, knowing what I know now and knowing what's being presented. And I don't want to get caught up in a situation where this has been adopted and there hasn't been any prior discussion on this topic specifically because I know it could be potentially an issue. That's why I'm raising it now. You.

Thank

you. And the city certainly respects the position Mr. Anderson and the district has raised. We're well aware of that. We have represented to them that we will work very collaboratively with them to ensure that the master plan proceeds in a manner that they have submitted.

It of course goes through the public review process, public noticing and all that. But we're well aware of this issue. And we are fully committed to working towards a mutually agreeable and mutually beneficial solution that doesn't leave them in a bind. And so we realize that some of these additional sites that are above and beyond perhaps the core sites of the district relying upon for the building and construction of their medical facilities. We know that these other sites are likely useful and necessary to help generate revenues to support the overall function of the medical campus.

And we want them to be able to realize the maximum potential in value to help fund that medical campus. Even before they bought the property, we were working with them to try to find ways to maximize the potential. We encouraged the district to even pursue the additional properties and to go on the North Side Of Las Palmas, so that they could one, increase their options two, they could control the master plan and create an efficiency in the streamlining. And thirdly, not that there's any priority here, increase the value of the surrounding properties that they're gonna be adding the value to themselves. So why shouldn't they be the ones that benefit then from the added value that gets created by their medical campus, their rezonings, the creation of the master plan, the CEQUA, environmental clearance and all that synergy that's created.

We want them to benefit financially from all these actions and being careful of the challenges that the housing element presents. But we view ourselves as partners with the healthcare district in supporting their beautifully prepared master plan. Everything's been top notch, professionally done. The community is deserving of what they have proposed, and we can't wait to bring it to you to see how it's played out.

We're looking forward to that. Okay, who else from the public would like to speak?

Larry Beaner again. Did I see it right, one of the proposals in the future was for maybe like eight more baseball fields? That was part of the screen. I didn't read the whole thing.

I don't know if there's anything related to what we're talking about that had baseball fields there?

I think it was in the Poppy Avenue area.

No, I don't think so. So there's additional I think one more baseball field spot within the sports complex and there's a soccer field proposed for the future villages of Patterson Park, but I don't think there's anything else that we're missing.

This is probably for another meeting, but all these things in the future, we ought to be thinking about being able to enlarge our sports park and our animal parks and those kind of things for the future. If we're going to have tournaments, we ought to try to further a big enough area and have it in one area. Someday, we ought to look at Manteca and Ripon both. Both of them have done a nice job with their soccer fields, baseball fields and all that. And anyway, look into well, first of all, how many acres all that would take for a future deal and kind of keep it together because you have a lot of people coming from out of town if you get these tournaments going.

And maybe like west of the sports park now, there's room out there. And I think there's enough utilities that way that would handle something. So I know there's probably another subject, but maybe put that on your calendar sometime, think about future more sports and animal parks and those kind of things and having room for it.

Thank you, Larry. More than just houses in town. We're Houses don't make a town. You're right. What do you got? Who else from the public? Anybody else want to address this? Denise, do you have the proposed

Commissioner commissioners, if you if you can hear me, this is Josh Varinsky from your city attorney office on Zoom.

Okay. We're we hear you.

I would I just would like to mention that mister Anderson's points are very well taken. Much has been said tonight about the Del Cuerta site and the maximum density. I would like to try to put it in as simple terms as possible that at some time before that project comes to hearings or at the same time or after, the city will likely have to find another site to just accommodate some additional density. And it is it is not an incredibly difficult barrier to overcome, and it's something that I think certainly staff is already looking into. And so that that is the practical effect of that project coming to hearing and what the city might have to do to another site.

So it is I I do not believe it is a significant obstacle to their master plan project.

Thank you for that, and let the record show that. Okay. Good. Thank you. What else? Any more Zooming? Any more Zoomers?

Ready for a motion?

Got to close the public hearing here. Okay. Would anyone else like to address this second item? Not, I will

be on Zoom.

I'll ask for Zoom.

We have no additional speakers on Zoom.

Nobody else. Okay. Then we are gonna close the public hearing. And unless there's any thoughts or comments, I'm ready for a motion.

A motion to approve resolution to twenty-twenty 20 six-three recommending the following approval of general plan use amendment to redesignate specific sites consistent with housing element 1.11, adoption of ordinance approving zoning map amendments for specific sites consistent with housing element 1.11. I thought we just did that. Okay. Makes the following recommendation that the zoning map adheres to the current zequa and common sense exemptions and authorize the city council, city staff to file notice of exemption with the city clerk and the state clearinghouse. So move.

Alright. Do we have a second?

Second.

All right.

Okay. There's a motion and a second to adopt Resolution twenty twenty six-three as stated. Commissioner Alexander? Aye. Commissioner Soudh? Aye. Commissioner Appland? Aye. And Vice Chairperson Vindex?

Aye.

And Chairperson West? Aye. Motion passes five-zero.

Okay. I want to thank everybody for their participation. I hope the discussion clarified as much as we could possibly clarify this stuff. So thank you all for being here and your input. Staff,

anything else?

Two things. One, in the same vein of the housing element, we will be bringing items back before you during the meeting of the Planning Commission on May 28 to begin pursuing implementing some of these housing element programs that were discussed earlier. Did we have anything in this first meeting of the commission, Joel?

I don't think we have anything.

Yeah, don't think we have anything on the fourteenth.

The twenty eighth is when it was.

The twenty eighth is yes. And then also, I'm very delighted to announce today we issued the building permit for the new 90 foot high three way oriented sign that the Planning Commission approved a few months ago. And so that's going to set forth a nice sequence of events out there at the McDonald's site and that will be going up hopefully in the next couple of months.

Okay. All right. I have a question for the there's a sign on Sperry that the road is going to be closed until I don't know, should we just change it to twelfth of never instead of what it is right now? Secondly, is there it looks like there was some motion on Rogers Road. I saw some action this afternoon with an earth mover. Is there something happening to potentially open up Rogers?

There's always something happening to potentially open it up. I can't elaborate though, I don't have the details about what that is.

Okay. Thank you.

But I'll be happy to find out and notify you.

We'll give you another opportunity to come forward with that. And have you had an opportunity to visit our friends at SafeMART?

We have not heard from them. Teresa, our associate planner is going to be reaching headquarters to talk to them.

Did I hear some kind of rumor that it's changing to Lucky's?

I have not heard that myself.

The only reason I asked that question is, normally we get a flyer from Save Mart on Tuesday or whatever. Today it came from Lucky's. So I'm and it looked very similar to their message. I'm not sure what's happening there.

Yeah. I don't know.

You just never know.

Well, thanks for all your insight.

I'm glad Hey. That's alright. You got the question. We got the question, man, here. Commissioners, thoughts, comments, questions?

Well, thank you all for your time as well. I know this stuff is a lot of homework and it's tough to understand, but we appreciate everybody being here. Okay. Well, with no further ado, I will thank everyone for their time and adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Good news.