Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I would like to call the regular meeting of the Patterson Planning Commission of May 28th, 2026 to order. And I would like to ask everyone in the room, all of us, to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. And our Vice Chairman Bendix will lead us.

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.

No breaks. I like that.

No comma there.

No comma. There's no comma. This is the no comma guy. Okay. I would like to...

Given an opportunity, they're going to take it out.

Yes, and you did fine.

No, no. They're going to take out.

Oh, yes. Yes. Please remove the extra commas.

No, no. They're talking about changing everything. Oh, foolishness.

Foolishness. Foolishness. Not here. Not here. Okay. We have had the pledge. I'm going to call the roll because our secretaries are all out at graduations tonight, and congratulations to their family members. Calling the roll is Commissioner Anderson.

Alexander, here.

Alexander. Where am I coming from? Commissioner Sidhu.

Here.

Commissioner Appland. Here. Vice Chairman Bendix.

Definitely here.

Yes, I noticed that. And Wes, I'm here as well. Let the record know that we have a full commission and a quorum. Okay. Yes. Okay. Okay. At this point, we have items from the public. Do we have any Zoomers? And we have no public in front of us, but do we have any public Zooming that would like to participate and add a comment on anything that is not on the agenda for tonight?

As a reminder, if you're joining us through Zoom, you can use the raised hand function if you'd like to speak. At this time, we have nobody asking to speak.

Let the record show there was no public input. Statement of conflict by commissioners. Do any of the commissioners have a conflict with the one item on our agenda tonight?

Yeah, but not really. Yes.

Okay. Anybody? No.

No conflicts. Same here.

Okay. Let's make sure there is no conflicts. Correspondents, we still have none.

Is that right? Correct.

Okay. We do have the minutes of April 23rd.

I move approval of the minutes of April 23rd.

Okay. Second. Okay. I will call the roll. Commissioner Alexander.

Aye.

Commissioner Sidhu.

Aye.

Commissioner Appland. Aye. Vice Chairman Ambendix.

Aye.

And I will also vote aye and let the record show that the motion was approved 5-0. Okay. We do have one public hearing. It is a continuation of what we considered at our last meeting, and that is these items from the state that deal with our housing element. So I will turn it over to our planning director.

Thank you, Chair, and today's Secretary of the Planning Commission. We have a PowerPoint presentation prepared, and our technical staff will be putting that up momentarily. This meeting and this public hearing item is coming on the heels of the recently adopted housing element that the Planning Commission reviewed most recently and was adopted formally by the City Council. during their last meeting. And so to piggyback off of that and to provide some additional background of where we're at now, back in December of 2025, the city received a letter indicating compliance as the State Department of Housing and Community Development determined. where our housing element was determined to be in compliance with the statutes and housing element law based on their review. And that was a tentative position by the state, which was pending the approval of rezoning components to rezone properties from various existing zoning classifications to either high density or downtown core in order to up the densities from a zoning map perspective.

When was that letter? When was that?

So that statement was provided by the state in December of 2025, December 2nd, 2025, basically stating our housing element as drafted was was good pending the reason. And that allowed us to then continue with the public hearing process, gather any remaining public comments, et cetera, and then commence with the public hearings and take action, which the commission and the council did. And around that same time, about a month later, back following December and January of 2026, the city entered into a contract with EMC Planning in order to begin helping the city to implement specific and time-sensitive implementation measures that the housing element called for. And so that's what's bringing us to tonight. And as mentioned a moment ago, on May 19th, the city council actually adopted the 2023 to 2020-31 sixth cycle housing element. So that concludes the background portion. And so next slide. And then so going forth, let's see here. And then next slide. All right. So I just went through the background. And so then the next slide. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the recommendations to the city council regarding the municipal code amendments, which involve amendments to the general plan land use element, as well as an affordable housing water sewer priority policy, another one of the items the state expected us to provide as part of our implementation program. And so key objectives as a result are to remove barriers to housing development, align the municipal code with state housing law, facilitate affordable housing production, as well as to streamline permitting processes. Next slide. And then, so, more specifically, proposed amendments implement the following housing element programs. They're numbered here in this slide regarding development standards. The proposed amendments to development standards are addressing Program 1.10 of the housing element. And then further, there are programs, additional programs that are listed that are taking care of housing types and fair housing components called for in the housing element. And then finally, infrastructure and service-related housing element programs are dealt with in Program 4.13 at the bottom of this slide, particularly dealing with the affordable housing water and sewer priority policy, which we'll get into that briefly in a moment. And then additionally, next slide. So the first item that our staff report deals with is the housing element program 1.0. Again, let me back up. Let me just kind of go off key here a bit. One of the key things, I hope everybody on the commission understands, the housing element is a A DOCUMENT THAT PROVIDES A BUNCH OF DATA, A BUNCH OF STATISTICS, HOUSING NEEDS, HOUSING OBJECTIVES, HOUSING, YOU KNOW, THE CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT APPLY TO HOUSING IN PATTERSON. SO THAT'S THE BULK OF THE DOCUMENT. THAT'S WHAT TAKES A LOT OF TIME TO GATHER, TO ASSIMILATE, TO DIGEST, TO QUANTIFY, PUT INTO AN EASY TO READ FORMAT. Unfortunately, we get a lot of use out of that housing element document. It can be referenced for a lot of other statistical information that we use from time to time. But the key component of the housing element is the housing element programs. Basically, the to-do list, the marching orders that the housing element basically says, okay, city and city staff, go forward with these programs. And so when you hear the term program, it's a pretty important term. So I'm just trying to help build the context for everyone to understand it. It's not just a word here. It's a marching order. Look at it as a marching order for the city to tackle and take on And so back to this first one, housing element program 1.10. So let me further clarify, we're not dealing with all of them tonight in tonight's presentation. We're merely dealing with those housing element programs that warrant either a general plan amendment to the text of the general plan or zoning code amendments. So there are other programs that don't involve those. They don't involve public hearings. They involve reporting. They involve public outreach to different housing groups, to developers, to the public, training things, all kinds of different things. But the ones that involve the commission and that involve this public hearing are those that involve necessary changes to our general plan and our housing element. So back to this housing element program 1.0, 1.1.0, I'm sorry, I keep saying it wrong, 1.1.0, amendments to the residential development standards, and those include increasing the allowable residential densities and also to allow residential building height and stories, reduce setbacks and building separation requirements, reduce parking requirements for residential development, And the key takeaway of this particular program is to improve feasibility for multifamily and affordable housing development while aligning with state housing law. And building in a parking problem. And so much of this was discussed during the housing element public hearing we had last month. And now we're bringing to you the specific code changes, whether they be a part of the zoning code or the the general plan. So next slide. This one involves proposed density and height. This is the one that addresses zoning code amendments which involve maximum and minimum densities being increased as well as the maximum heights being increased in the case of the downtown core district and stories the number of stories are increasing for all three designations involving the high density residential district neighborhood commercial district and the downtown core district allowing uh three to four stories next slide and and brian i i don't want to interrupt you i just want to let you know that i am on the call if you need anything yeah assistance or yeah Glad you could be here. So you're hearing the voice of Kylie Pope representing EMC. She was our primary consulting staff that did the bulk of the preparation of the housing element. So thanks again, Kylie. You're welcome. So to address this next slide, it involves proposed setbacks and building separation, and it's a proposed zoning code amendment. that basically reduces setbacks by five feet for both the front and the rear setback areas. Additionally, building separation would be reduced by five feet for the main buildings and reduced by 15 feet for walls of main buildings containing living windows. And so that's sort of a unique area. And then the standards are produced in the table to the right And so you've got the middle column showing the existing standards with the proposed standards to the right. Currently, for the high-density residential district, the front setback is 25 feet. As a result of the proposed amendments that we understand the state to expect of the city, the front setbacks now need to go, in the case of a high-density residential district, to 15 feet. With the rear setback, historically, it's been 20 feet. As a result of these changes, the new rear setback will be 15 feet. And then the distance between main buildings goes from 25 feet to 15 feet. However, where there is a a wall of a main building containing a living room window and any other wall of a main building, there would be 20 feet instead of the 15 feet. That's down from 35 feet originally. I do want to say here, and this would go with any of these standards, that these are the requirements that I guess we would call them the new minimums. It doesn't mean that a developer has to follow these, but if a developer is struggling to get the number of units that they they need or that they want within the allowable densities, these reduced setback provisions help them get there. And so this is more likely in the case of an affordable housing proposal versus a market rate housing proposal. I couldn't imagine in this market, in our market, a market rate housing proposal PURSUING SUCH AGGRESSIVE SETBACK MINIMUMS. DON'T QUOTE ME, BUT IT WOULD SURPRISE ME, CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVE WORKED IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. I WELCOME YOUR COMMENT AT WHATEVER POINT ON THAT PERSPECTIVE. I'M JUST TRYING TO DISTINGUISH THAT JUST BECAUSE THESE ARE THE STANDARDS DOESN'T MEAN ANY NEW MULTIFAMILY OR APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT WOULD FOLLOW THESE EXACT STANDARDS. So anyway, for what it's worth, I know that's not exactly the best answer, but the key takeaway here is that these amendments reduce barriers to multifamily housing development if they feel that they face the barriers. Okay, next slide. Let's talk about parking standards. We discussed this briefly during the Housing Element Update hearing with the Planning Commission yesterday. And essentially, the existing standards are provided in the middle column on a land use by land use basis, starting with a single family and multifamily residential, then the apartments, and then the senior housing. And so they have been somewhat reduced. And so the new standards for single family and multifamily residential would be that for two bedrooms, the development would need to average approximately... 1.5 spaces per two-bedroom or two covered spaces per three or more bedroom units. And then the rate for apartments in general would be reduced from 1.5 to one covered space in the case of a one-bedroom unit. And then for a two-bedroom unit, instead of one covered space and one uncovered space being required as currently, that would go down to 1.5 for a two-bedroom unit of uncovered spaces. And then finally, in the case of three-plus bedrooms, three or more bedrooms, the new standard would be two covered spaces per unit. No change for the senior housing component. And then the next slide. This slide addresses the general plan and land use element amendments dealing, again, with housing element program 1.10. It's intended that we align the density ranges with the zoning standards that were addressed earlier. And the proposed amendments to the general plan in this case involve increasing the allowable density from what the middle column in the small table on the slide provides with high density residential going from a maximum of 20 units per acre to a maximum of 35 units per acre. And as we discussed during the housing element update process, the minimum density for high density residential land would be 20.1 units per acre. In the case of neighborhood commercial, which we don't really have anything zoned that way in the city, and it's not likely in the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, it's part of our zoning and general plan text, so we addressed it here as well. That density increases from 3.1 to 10 units per acre up to 12.0 to 20 units per acre. Again, we don't have any actual land designated that way as far as I can see. It's all pretty much general or highway commercial and then in the case of the downtown core, currently 12.1 to 20 units per acre. This would also go up to mimic the high-density residential of 20 to 35 units per acre. The key takeaway of these amendments ensure consistency between the general plan land use element and the city zoning code. Next slide, Lane. Okay, so... Housing element programs 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.9, 4.10, and 4.11 are in place to expand permitted housing types consistent with state law. The proposed amendments specifically permit residential care facilities in all residential zones. They permit emergency shelters by right in downtown core zoning. They remove subjective development standards, revise parking standards to comply with state law, And they also permit low barrier navigation centers by right in mixed use and qualifying non-residential zones. They permit supportive housing by right where multifamily uses are allowed. They define single-room occupancy units and permit by right, permit those by right in mixed-use zoning districts. And finally, the update employee housing modifications, I'm sorry, employee housing definitions to align with state law and permit accordingly. And the key takeaway here is that state law requires many of these housing types to be permitted similarly to other residential uses. So these proposed amendments are, again, intended to satisfy state law requirements. Next slide, Lane. In the realm of reasonable accommodations, we are proposing amendments to – we are – in order to implement Housing Element Program 4.1, we are improving consistency with fair housing laws and reasonable accommodation requirements. And the proposed amendments limit appeals to the applicant – and or personal beneficiary only.

Say that again.

Yeah, so in the case of an appeal of a project, in the case of a reasonable accommodation development, appeals are limited. They are afforded to only the applicant and or personal beneficiary. So neighbors would not be able to... Pardon me? Developer? Who's the applicant? Beneficiary or the applicant.

Who is that?

In the case of a future developer of a reasonable accommodation-type project.

Okay, if I'm a developer, I come in and say, I want to do this. What's my title in that? Am I the applicant? You'd be on the applicant team. Yes.

So the public couldn't object to it? The public, the neighbors. Nobody can object? Correct. Okay. Only those that are benefiting for the applicant.

You want to add anything to that, Kylie?

Yeah, so my understanding is that the applicant is really any person that has a disability or their representative, so the personal beneficiary, so not a developer in this case.

So not a developer.

Not a developer, yeah.

So nobody can appeal.

Yeah, so ultimately, you know, this is to protect the applicants to make sure that, you know, really like the neighbors who might oppose, you know, with the resulting design feature of the requested accommodation can't impose, you know, their opinions or any subjective, you know, discretion in the decision making process. Because we're talking about, you know, requests for, you know, you know, design features to be implemented to assist those that have some type of disability, if that makes sense.

Yeah, this is not for just any development. This is for reasonable accommodations. Do you want to elaborate on that, Kylie, for the commission?

Yeah. So, and in this case, and it's in your ordinance, it's applying to persons with a disability, physical or mental impairment that limits, you know, day-to-day activities. So, it could be something like adding Um, the term's not coming to me, but, uh, in a situation where you have like multiple steps leading up to your home, maybe you have like a ramp that's added, um, just things that make it, uh, the space much more accessible to those with a disability. And believe it or not, there have been cases, this happens in a lot of more urban areas, but where neighbors, they think it's an eyesore. It's going outside of design requirements and things of that nature. So it's really just to make sure this proposed amendment is just really to make sure that those subjective opinions and discretions aren't imposed on things that are considered to be required for day-to-day activity of these individuals in their homes.

So a good example would be like a wheelchair ramp.

Yes.

So nobody who is not involved specifically cannot, in essence, appeal?

Correct.

Interesting.

So HOAs are going to have to Adjust all their requirements, aren't they?

And they already do in the case of ADUs. They effectively have no standing.

They basically took the power of the HOAs as well as far as the cities and everybody. In certain cases, yes. In fact, everybody's power. Interesting.

Next slide.

Interesting.

This one deals with replacing housing requirements and specifically housing element program 1.2. which requires that the city ensure a replacement of existing affordable or occupied housing units when redevelopment occurs. So essentially they don't want a net loss. They want that, especially if it's the affordable housing, they want that replaced in some form or fashion. Proposed amendments specifically would be the addition of Municipal Code Chapter 18.85 to include provisions for a replacement of Requirements consistent with the government code and the key takeaway is that if exist is is if existing affordable units are to be demolished for Redevelopment replacement housing units may apply so question is I've got a 50 foot 50 Foot wide lot and the code now says that it has to be 60.

I can't rebuild my house.

I Don't I don't think that's the case I don't see why that would be the case.

We haven't made any lots bigger.

Well, no. If, in fact, there were smaller lots, there are lots of places that have small lots.

Little tiny ones.

Yeah, and the house burns down, and now you can't rebuild your house because the minimum standards are 60, not 50.

This says the higher standards would apply, doesn't it?

The examples that are being brought up right now have nothing to do with affordable housing.

No, no, no. We're talking about an existing house burns down, and it is on a substandard lot. You can't rebuild it.

You can. You can. You would just do it under the existing nonconforming provisions of our current code.

Yeah, so a good example of what this ordinance would do is, for instance, if you had, you know, like a duplex or some kind of multifamily and took it down, you couldn't just build a single family on the lot and not make up those loss of units, right? If you had four units on a lot, you took it down. You can't just rebuild one lot. You have to make up those units elsewhere, right? Does that make sense? The state's working within a housing crisis setting, right? So they don't want any loss of units. The goal is to increase unit development.

And then further, the SB 9 provisions of state law now allow you to even do that without anything burning down. you could take your single-family lot and split it into two.

But if you split it in two, now you can't split it back to one.

Well, I would split it back to one. This is an option.

Yes, you could merge them.

If you have an existing lot, I'm just talking about somebody that has an existing lot, a low-density single-family lot can be split into two. I understand. Yeah.

Yeah, and this ordinance doesn't apply in the event of an accident or a natural hazard or something like that. This is specifically for redevelopment, right? So if the goal is to redevelop a lot that has an existing unit on it, then this kicks in and it applies.

Yeah, so like a classic case would be that there is an existing low-income housing unit or let's say a duplex, and let's say that's on a more heritage lot, half acre, one acre. The proposal is to scrape those to make room for a multifamily development of 20 units, let's say, and have market rate. Those one or two existing dwellings that are affordable need to be made up in some way, either on that site or elsewhere within the provisions of state law. The goal is to protect those existing affordable housing developments, not to tie anybody's hands that those lots can't be scraped, but that the affordability of those one or two lots, or if it's fourplex and they're all affordable, those would need to be made up as part of the development on-site or off-site in some capacity. So the affordability of whatever number of units is lost is not lost. State law. Okay, so.

Yeah, I got a half acre. I can build a subdivision. Just what I needed.

Just out of curiosity, one thing. And where's your wife moving?

Yeah. She won't tell me, I'm sure. Looks like we have a question, sir. Not to Belize, right?

You're just curious on one thing. So you have a single-family house. We'll go back to the scenario of Burns Down. Or no, let's go to you have a fourplex. And so it burns down. You want to go back to a single-family home. So that fourplex needs to be placed somewhere. Where does the placement go? Within the state of California, the city, the county, Oklahoma?

Within the city.

Within the city. Okay. Being that it's a state project, I was just wondering where you would place it in the city. I don't know if it makes sense. It doesn't make sense, but that's decisive.

This whole thing doesn't make sense.

Okay, so we talked about replacement housing requirements. Next slide, Elaine. The next one deals with the affordable housing water and sewer priority policy, and it addresses Housing Element Program 4.13. It establishes written procedures prioritizing water and sewer service allocations for development that include affordable housing units. So when water, if and when water becomes tight, the last ones to... The first ones to be guaranteed to get it would be the affordable housing developments.

And so who would get it last, industrial, commercial?

Probably depends on the amount of water and existing development agreements. So different development agreements exist. We have about seven or eight of them in town. And so whatever hierarchy that may exist within existing development agreements would come into play. And if projects do not have a development agreement, they're at the whim of how much water is maybe at risk. So that's one of the benefits of having a development agreement.

Yes, yes, yes.

Okay. So the purpose of this policy is to prioritize affordable housing during periods of limited water sewer capacity. I don't want to undermine that. We talked about limited water, but that goes for the sewer plant as well. There are times where the sewer plant may run low on its capacity. Maybe there's the next phase of upgrades to the plant may be a ways out, not complete, or whatever reason. the sewer plant may be limited in its capacity. And under the same vein of prioritization, this policy would reserve sewer capacity for the affordable housing developments, consistent with the actual policy, which is drafted and is an attachment within the staff report as well. And then this would ensure compliance with Senate Bill 1087 and the government code. Last slide. or second to last slide. Next steps involve the, after tonight's meeting, the next step would be taking this item to the city council for the June 16th meeting, where they would read the ordinance. And then in July, they would conduct a second reading and formally adopt these amendments. And then finally, the ordinance effective date would become effective 30 days after that adoption at the July Council, following the July Council meeting. Next slide. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 26-04, recommending that the City Council conduct the two following actions. to adopt a resolution approving the proposed amendments to the general plan land use element and the proposed affordable housing, water, and sewer priority policy to implement the city's adopted housing element and comply with state housing element law. And the second item, adopt an ordinance approving the proposed amendments to the Patterson Municipal Code. And then do you have any questions of me at this time?

Let's open up to the general public at this point.

Well, let's see if we got some staff. Yeah, we'll see if we have questions from our commissioners. Okay, well, we all know what's behind all this, and we don't have much choice to debate. Okay, I would like to open the public hearing and hear from anyone out in Zoom world or anyone who wants to wander into our room from the art show. Do you make any comments they would like to make concerning this?

Anybody?

Hello, gentlemen. I was listening next door.

We thought we were going to go without an audience.

No, I was listening next door. I just wanted to say thank you for being flexible today and letting us partition this off so that we could continue with our festivities for Fiesta this weekend. But great job. I overheard the conversation, and well done.

Thank you. Thank you. I like your art show. Okay, anyone else from the public? So you want a motion? Public hearing. Yes. Well, no, not yet. I would like to make a couple of comments.

We may want to make sure we ask Zoom as well. I did.

Okay. Zoomers, did we find any Zoomers that want to come in?

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

Okay, then I won't reopen the hearing. Okay. Thank you, staff, and I think we'll kind of see. I've got a couple of questions. At first, I was just annoyed at this whole thing. I thought, you know, State, why are you telling us what to do? But as I looked at it, I realized that we had some opportunities given to us here, and master plans are going to be the way of the future. We've taken these little infill parcels and said, you can stuff 30 units on this little parcel. And the guy next door, a block next door, he can stuff 22. We need to stress master plans. We need to stress multiple properties working together. We need to stress PD zones. We need to stress mixed uses. You put some commercial and you put the residential above. They want us to build higher, build higher, but put something else below it. So we have some opportunities. Staff, please get people to combine, mix, master plan, do this to make these into usable projects rather than a bunch of little chunks that really don't work. Because I can see some bad projects coming if they're too small. The other question I had was this. um attached granny flats count as a unit right now how do we know how many there are and can we encourage builders can we reward them and say you put in an attached granny flat and you don't have to pay the fee for it can we because the simplest way we're going to get more density easily without overcrowding is those kind of things and then the single occupancy thing that came up where somebody's renting a room Anybody in town can do that. But how do we know who's doing it, and do we get any credit? What if there's 500 people in town doing that right now, and the state's punishing us because we're not providing enough housing, and we are. We've got 500 people sleeping tonight safe, and they don't know about it.

So how do we get credit for that? So we are tracking all new granny flats, ADUs, whether they're attached or detached, and they are exempt from fees impact fees, which are substantial, so long as they're under 750 square feet. At some point, they're big enough to, you know, kind of negate the need or the claim that they need to be exempt from fees as they get into a second bedroom or many of these ADUs can be bigger than a standard house. You can have a standard house that's 800, 900 feet, and ADUs are allowed up to be 1,200 square feet, right, before they're no longer considered an ADU. So those that are up to the 750 square feet, whether they're attached or detached, or just a conversion within an existing house. You can have an existing home. Say it's a four-bedroom home. You can take part of that home and kind of not isolate it, but remodel it slightly to make an independent unit. and that triggers basic staff review, but no impact fees. So there's a lot of existing state law provisions that exempt those developments, those smaller ones, from both impact fees and connection fees.

How about the single-room rentals? How do we get credit for those? How do we track them? Through the building permit process.

And so they're tracked in multiple formats for the State Department of Finance as well as HCD. Every year we're required to prepare a housing action plan where we provide the results of all the housing, all the annexation acreages, if there's an annexation. whether they're then it's a table are they multifamily are they single-family how many units and When were they permitted and when were they finaled so there's quite a bit of data for each category of housing and And so the very fact that they go through the permit process provides a solid record of their existence, and those stats get submitted annually to help demonstrate to the state the ways and the areas that we're complying with the RENA numbers, the numbers of units the state tells us that we need to develop.

So we're going to get credit for this. Someone rents a room.

There are requirements for... What are the requirements for that?

A simple room rental, the city doesn't track. That's my problem. And there's a lot of single room rentals out there, and we're not going to get credit for any of them.

Well, those aren't...

They're allowed.

We're not required to even report on those. They exist.

We would want to report on them because they're going to turn up in seven years and say, you're 219 units short, and we're not. We've been providing those units all the time. We just didn't report them. But a room rental won't satisfy the RENA numbers that state passed down to us.

Because they're not considered a unit.

They made us add something that says you can put those anywhere.

They're counting them, but they're not counting them? If it qualifies as a junior ADU, if it meets the criteria to be an independent unit, yes. If it's just a room rental, we don't have the resources to micromanage everybody.

They require everybody to allow that. They're allowed anywhere. Anybody can do that anywhere, and it will take people in the house. We just don't get any credit for it. Not for just a room rental? No.

Well, if there was development of, you know, a single room occupancy development that came in, then the city could count it toward their arena and you would get credit. But in the case of, you know, them already just existing and people are just renting out rooms in their homes, the tracking on that, yes, would be really difficult.

And that's not a requirement of the state currently. Right. And I don't see that being a requirement.

They're counting everyone against us. I just want to make sure we count the ones we can for us.

The one thing we're talking about is increasing the height of the building. Okay? But we're not increasing the number of stories, but not the height of the building.

That's a different topic altogether.

I know. So are the rooms becoming smaller in their... Okay. It's only a four-foot high ceiling. Five-foot high ceiling.

Yeah, right. No, that wouldn't meet a building code. New minimum. We're not there yet.

Okay. So now we're open to a resolution. If you're ready.

As far as the hearing, do we have any more questions, comments?

I've got a lot of concerns and questions.

Everybody has concerns about this.

I figured it would be worth having a record for the city to consider. Let's put it on the record. Two concerns regarding impact of reduction of parking requirements. Walker Ranch is a great example. There's cars littered all over. They're in use or they're not in use. How do we How do we stop that with if we're going to get 3 story 4 story buildings? There's going to be people there's going to be more people living in these units. So we need to figure out a way to keep our streets clean and clear. And also will this housing element will the city have. Any. JURISDICTION OR ANY CONTROL OVER THE WIDENING OF OUR STREETS BECAUSE WE'RE LIKE CRAMMED LIKE SARDINAS RIGHT NOW. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE REDUCTION OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

YEAH. SO ON THE FIRST TOPIC, THE FIRST COMPONENT, CHAIRMAN WEST IS COMPLETELY RIGHT. imploring the importance of master plans in future developments. And fortunately, our largest land areas that are to be developed are either part of an existing master plan or will be, like in the case of the Del Puerto Health Care District master plan. In the case of the few smaller lots that are not part of any or don't have the potential to be a part of a master plan, that's where it's a bit trickier and our... Our best hope is to work out an arrangement with those developers to do a planned development type of an approach where we mutually agree on better standards, such as parking, where we are able to and where we don't violate the intent of the housing element. So the vast majority from a unit standpoint and parking standpoint is resting in the master plans of the vast land areas where probably 96% of all future residential units in Patterson's case will be brought to the city via a master plan, either existing or in the process currently. It's these remnant smaller lots that are part of the rezonings that you looked at at last month's meeting that are where our hands are a bit further tied with the current requirements that we're facing for parking. It doesn't mean that those developments are going to take advantage of the reduced parking parking requirement, because if I was a developer, I would want it to be attractive, I would want it to park well, and I would want to minimize parking conflicts, pedestrian conflicts, and you do that with a good parking plan. But where the reality, where the rubber hits the road, is if we have a certain development where they're trying to pack them in because the state says you can, and our hands are tied largely, we may see some of that. And that's where, okay, what other opportunities do we have at our disposal to get the best development that we can? And each one of those would be subject to it on a case-by-case basis. And it's hard to speculate on the different parcels that exist out there. The larger they are, the more options we have. The smaller they are, the fewer. It's just the way it is. The second point you brought up involving the street widths, the housing element does not have any authority or teeth in it of itself to regulate or establish a new street standard. But when we consider potential updates to our street sections, having the housing element standards and revised zoning code standards in place will help those that are considering the potentially new street width standards to take those reductions into consideration. In other words, hey, so to just cut to the chase, okay, it's time to do street updates, street standard updates. Where are we at? Here's what they are currently. Here's our 56-foot wide standard. Here's our 60-foot wide standard, 80, whatever. And we all know, okay, the zoning code changed everything. It's a new deal. So maybe some of our new street standards need to start building in parking, have alcoves, or something where people can safely back out into a bicycle lane or something like that. It forces some kind of more creative street designs going forward. When we know that in many cases, especially in the cases of these We'll call them unmaster-planned lots, where those are coming, and we can foresee how some of those will produce vehicles on the street. We all can see it coming in those cases. Fortunately, there's not a lot of those. There's more than we, I think, are all comfortable with. you know, eight to 10, you know, maybe, you know, in the next five, 10 years. But when we do street standards review, we may want to kind of highlight those streets that are on, that are fronting along a potential high density site and be like, okay, this might be typically a 60 foot wide street, but because we know there's this high density and we know that high density is is basically pawning off the park requirements via the state onto our streets. There we might say, this is a 60-foot wide street. Pick a number. I mean, I'm just being arbitrary right now. Historically, a 60-footer would have taken care of it, but maybe it needs to be a 70. Or it needs to be a 60 with alcoves at certain points near that site. So that's one solution. But to answer the question, the housing element doesn't drive that. It doesn't drive it directly. It drives it, though, indirectly. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah, definitely.

But we can amend our circulation element whenever we want. Yes and no.

Yeah, the city could also, if the concern is the infill sites and how they develop, if say around the downtown area, there's already a lack of parking and adding housing there is just going to stress that even more. The city could prepare a parking plan that goes ahead and looks throughout the city, identifies area where there's already a lack of parking, housing's going to further limit that so that way there's a plan in place and like everything that brian just you know spitballed really quickly here is thought through and you have something on deck for you know when that housing is built how the city can react um yeah is there a lot of cities are starting to do that is there a city ordinance about parking on the lawn

Um, it's not a zoning code requirement. No, no, I'm not. I'm not.

There should be.

I don't, I don't think that there is.

We need to look into that.

There are lots of streets you drive on. You see there's forest park on the grass or what used to be grass. Uh, they're not gravel anymore. Just dirt. Um, you know, it, That seems to be a problem or would be a problem if, in fact, we don't address that with the city ordinance one way or the other.

I'd like to look into it.

I've got one over in my neighborhood, and there are 11 cars parked on that lot.

11 cars, lawn, you know, driveway stacked up. I'm thinking, how many people live in this house?

That's happening everywhere. My street used to only have 10 vehicles on it at any given time. Now there's like 80. I mean, it's like Michael says. I mean, I see it everywhere when I'm...

I'm really noticing it now. Yeah, and Commissioner Sudu is correct. It's a problem. It's a problem, and it's not going to get any better by reducing the requirements. But we do need to squeeze these into master plans and try to get some control over that parking. Otherwise, somebody can come in, some outlaw, and say, I'm entitled to 900 units here and 12 stories and two-foot setbacks. You can't stop me. And then we're screwed.

All right. Anybody else? I also, I mean, this could, I don't think this is related with the, but I just wanted to also bring up to the city's attention if you haven't already think about, but data centers, I just want to make sure that we're aware, you know, I know we're trying to have companies and people come to Patterson. We want to have economic development. I just don't want us to be blindsided by, yeah, we'll bring a data center here and then all our water and electricity is just siphoned off. Because a lot of communities in Utah, Arizona, Texas, a lot of cities that have allowed these data centers in. I know we have warehouses, so I don't want someone coming in here and just be like, oh, yeah, we'll do a warehouse or we'll have some data centers here. And then they're just siphoning off our electricity without the city putting in provisions saying, you need to have your own renewable energy. You need to have your own backup energy storage systems. And you need to have your own water, you know, do reverse osmosis or something. Keep your water in-house. So that's just, I mean, I know that's not with residential, but I just want the city to be, you know, I'm sure you guys are aware, but just wanted to put that out there because that is a concern that could impact us down the line with artificial intelligence coming up to full blast and quantum coming in.

Yeah, the other thing is we have an ordinance about that empty warehouses being turned into ICE facilities.

Yeah. Let's protect ourselves from some.

No, I'm pretty sure when the ordinances were prepared.

Nobody ever thought of that nonsense. Okay. It's getting to be a scary world, guys. Thank you for that comment. That's a really good comment. We don't need some of this stuff coming in. It's other places.

We don't have any problems. They haven't come in.

They have to be self-sufficient. And we just heard that residential gets the water and sewer first, so they're not going to come take it away from there. So thank you for that comment. What else?

Okay. I make a motion to adopt Resolution 2026-04, and I won't read the whole thing. It's on page five. Amendment A, recommend that the city council adopt the resolution approving the proposed amendments to the general plan and land use element and proposed affordable housing, water, and sewer priority policies to implement the city adopted housing element and comply with state element laws and adopt an ordinance approving the proposed amendment to the city municipal code. I so move.

Motion. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Okay. A motion and a second. Let's call the roll. Okay. Commissioner Alexander.

Aye.

Commissioner Sidhu.

Aye.

Commissioner Apland. Aye. And Vice Chairman Bendix. Aye. And I will also vote aye. Let the record show it was approved unanimously.

Okay.

And that was... And was it Applin? Who was the second?

Me.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. That finishes our public hearing business. Items from staff. What do you have for us?

Nothing other than I think the vice chair stated he literally wasn't going to read the whole thing, but he did. He did, and I'm glad he did.

Yes, otherwise everybody would have had to read it.

And that's quite welcome, obviously.

Thank you.

So thank you for reading that. So this new warehouse is being done, or is that for the next agenda?

Which, hmm. Let's see here. The new warehouse, there's nothing.

There's one on a meeting on the 11th.

So that one is, that one I believe is going to be the revised Amazon development.

What are they revising?

Well, the commission approved them last year for 108 or so feet high. three point two or so million square feet and they are Proposing a smaller square footage larger building footprint instead of it being four or five stories I think it was it'd be two stories, but a broader footprint a million square feet smaller and so that's the difference and so

There's a chance that Rogers Road will get finished.

There's always a chance.

Looks like they're working on it to some extent.

They work when they can.

When they feel like it, actually.

I don't think anybody's enjoying their time off out there.

And the issue about changing the sign on Sperry to the 12th of Never is not really appropriate. I think they're reopening that next week. No, no, it's a June something.

Well, that's next week.

Oh, well, no. It was, yeah. No, I don't think they're ready to open it.

I was talking to the folks that are going to be reopening it today, and I think we're just a few days away.

And there doesn't seem to be any real reason why Sperry was closed, unless they expected the road.

You mean, it wasn't closed, it was throttled.

Well, yeah, but unless they expected the bridge to collapse while they were working underneath it. I mean, it wasn't affecting traffic.

They discovered it was not supportive like they understood it to be. It was a risk. Yeah, when they began digging, they found a lot of unpleasant surprises. And it would rain, and then that always caused a three-day stoppage, regardless of the amount of rain. So they were supposed to pour yesterday. It rained. Well, no, they were scheduled to pour today, I mean, and the rain showed up. So fortunately they couldn't pour tomorrow, it looks like. But I'm getting off agenda. I get nervous about that, but... That's it for me.

We won't talk about Save Mart either right now.

That's fine. We are waiting for their response.

Otherwise, if you give a letter to the editor, we're going to see how much shit can get stirred up that way. So to speak. That may work. Yeah, they need to get back to you.

What else?

Anything from commissioners? Have a good apricot fiesta.

Anybody? All right. With all that, thank you all for being here. The meeting is adjourned.