Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Call the regular meeting of the Patterson Planning Commission of June 25th, 2026 to order. So ordered. And I would like to ask you to stand with me for the pledge. Will you run that, Mr. Vice Chairman, please?

I will. Thank you. 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.

Without taking a breath. Perfect. Good job.

Okay.

Thank you all for joining us. We have four of our commissioners here. Let's call the roll. See if we've got a quorum.

Commissioner Alexander? Here. Commissioner Applin? Here. Vice Chairperson Bendix? Here. And Chairperson West? Here. I have the record show there are four members present. Commissioner Sidhu is excused.

Okay.

Okay. is now time for any items from the public that are not on the agenda so if anyone has any items here or in zoom world that is not on tonight's agenda you would like to discuss with the planning commission now is the best opportunity you'll have all day anybody no takers no items from the public okay we have one Item on the agenda tonight, commissioners. Does anyone have any conflict?

None here. No conflict.

I have no conflict, so let the record show there is none. Okay. Right to appeal. Anyone who is not satisfied with our decision can appeal it to the City Council. And a recommendation can be appealed. Can you add it, Joel? It's a recommendation. Are we making a... Help me out here, guys. You guys who are smart.

I don't think there would be any reason to.

It doesn't really apply, does it?

Yeah, it's not a city project.

Forget I ever mentioned it. You can't appeal it. If you don't like what we say, talk to the county. All right.

No correspondence.

We do have minutes of two. different planning commission meetings. Did the commissioners all receive those, have a chance to review those? Do you have any changes, additions, corrections you would like to make to May 28th minutes?

Commissioners, anyone have any thoughts? None here. None. Move approval.

Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Oh, good. Second. Let's call the roll.

Okay, there's a motion and a second to approve planning meeting minutes of May 28th, 2026. Commissioner Alexander?

Aye.

And Commissioner Applin?

Aye.

Vice Chair Bendix? Aye. Chair Person West? Aye. Motion passes 4-0.

All right, same for June 11th minutes. Did everyone receive them, anything? I noticed there was a section crossed out there at the bottom on that first public hearing meeting. I wondered about that. Take a look at that and help me remember what that was. Where it's on that first page of the minutes, under public hearing, right there on the front page, there's a section that was lined out. Help me understand that.

No idea. Move approval. Wait a minute.

There wasn't an addendum included for that second go-around for Project Zach, so that's why I crossed that out.

Okay. So are we okay with that? That's unusual is the reason I'm thinking. We don't usually.

So the strikethrough on that last sentence is, in fact, correct.

So it's supposed to be struck through or not supposed to be so it's reflecting that The original description of the project was incorrect and we noted that during the meeting Okay, environmental report though, so we should approve it with the strikethroughs.

That's right Okay, everybody okay with it motion Second all right motion a second. Let's roll. Oh

Okay, there's a motion and a second to approve Planning Commission meeting minutes of June 11, 2026. Commissioner Alexander? Aye. Commissioner Applin? Aye. Vice Chair Bendix? Aye. Chairperson West? Aye. Motion passes 4-0.

Okay. We do have one public hearing. And I'll turn that over to our staff. We've got it. You got it, Joel? Yes.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair and members of the Commission. So from time to time, the county submits projects to the city that are located outside of the city limits but are within the city's general plan area. And for comment review, and typically staff can review those and make some recommendation to the county whether they're consistent with the general plan or for denial if they're inconsistent along with any potential concerns that we have and potential remedies that could be included as conditions of approval for the project. Occasionally, such as in this instance, there are projects that are submitted that don't comply with what we have as the future general plan designation for that area, but they still merit consideration. And so since staff can't recommend approval of a project like that that would be counter to the general plan, it's submitted to the Planning Commission for review and comment. And the project site that we're talking about tonight is located on almost eight acres at 261 Orange Avenue. Orange Avenue runs here. This is South First Street. And the site is bordered by the city limits on three sides. And so you can see the yellow line. That's the city limits flow down here. And then it jogs out and continues down.

So it wraps around the borders of this site.

South of the site, you have Orange Avenue. Directly east of the site, there's an irrigation lateral directly west. To the north for bordering uses, you have a mobile home park. To the west are industrial uses. And to the south are a single-family residence along with agricultural uses that are within the city limits and designated for industrial use. And then to the east, a single-family residence. There's a city well, and then there's vacant agricultural land. The site itself is designated in the city's general plan for residential uses, and the proposed use is more of an industrial use for how the city would designate it, and we'll discuss that a little more in a bit. The site plan shows parking for RV and boat storage. The plan includes paved driveways throughout the site with 197 gravel spaces for vehicle storage. Access would be from two driveways along Orange Avenue and An office would be provided off-site with no employees reporting daily to the site. And so if a customer wanted to store their vehicle, they'd make arrangements at that office site, receive access information. There would be an access gate that is electronically controlled.

They'd be able to get in through there with the code and... Raise up your mic.

Okay. Okay. Use the code to get into the property and leave their boat or RV or whatever at that point.

Okay, Joe, there wouldn't be parking out front. They'd be stopping and buzzing their way in?

Yes.

Okay, okay.

And then there's an existing house and accessory dwelling unit that are located near the front of the property. Those would continue as residences. They'd be leased to a third party, and they wouldn't be necessarily part of the use. The project site, so we're highlighted here in green. Again, we have the city limits wrapped around the property. The city's general plan designates this site for future residential growth, which could include all densities of residential, parks, schools, neighborhoods serving commercial, the things that go in with a neighborhood site. The proposed boat and RV storage project would not be consistent with that residential designation, but because the project is adjacent to light and heavy industrial areas and uses, which are more consistent with what's being proposed for the project, we brought that to the Planning Commission for consideration. A potential argument against this move is that the irrigation lateral that borders the property on the west side serves as a nice boundary between uses. So you have, it's narrow, so it's not that big of a buffer, but it is a buffer between uses. If the commission wishes to provide a positive recommendation to the county, staff would recommend that the county approve the project, including the three conditions of approval that are listed in the staff report. And those conditions are included to mitigate potential impacts to neighbors for light and noise, particularly to the north where the mobile home park is located. And also that the applicant enter into an agreement with the city to provide for future connection and infrastructure that the city would typically require as part of development for sidewalks and connections to water and those sort of things that it would be a deferred improvement agreement. So it doesn't need to happen at this time, but sets parameters for that. And in addition, if the commission wishes to positively recommend the project, staff recommends that a note be added to the city's file recommending consideration, redesignating this property to be more consistent so the general plan and zoning code are more consistent with the proposed use. And so if the commission wishes to recommend approval of the project, staff recommends that the planning commission recommend that the county planning commission's approval include the conditions of approval that we've listed in the staff report and that the site be considered for redesignation on the city's general plan and zoning maps at a later date. The commission may also revise the recommended, excuse me, the commission may also revise the conditions of approval along with any changes or additions or the commission could determine that the project is inconsistent with the general plan and recommend denial to the county's planning commission. And we have representatives of the project here with us tonight and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

Okay. Questions for Joel?

I have a question. Currently, the site has an unpermitted ADU there. Did I read that correctly?

So, yeah, that's in the county's report. It's not under city jurisdiction, so the applicant would need to work with the county to work through that process. Okay.

Questions the other issue there's a there's a issue in the back about penetrating the land and it potentially creating Artifacts in the area so as long as the land is not disturbed. There's not going to be any penetration of the land As you understand it as I understand it all the work is above ground yeah, okay, so

Okay, and Joel, if we go ahead and recommend approval and the planning commission at the county does approve this, that use really stays forever even if we bring them in. That's an existing non-conforming use if we bring them in, right? Essentially, yeah. This isn't a temporary thing. This is a for real thing. forever and ever until they change it.

Yeah, it could change in the future. If it was included and there was no change in the city's general plan, it would be an existing non-conforming use. And so it could remain as it is. But if there's a change, then it would need to comply with the current general plan requirements at the time, which if it stays the same, would be residential. So it would need to comply with those standards.

Okay, I've got another question later, but I want to get the public hearing going. Other questions from commissioners? Okay, let's open the public hearing. Let's hear from whomever would like to speak to this. Our applicant, we've got our applicant present here, representative. Is it on there, guys? Is it on? Is it on?

Oh, there we go. Cool. That's better. All right. Heron Singara, GDR Engineering. I'm here representing the applicants. Fortunately, they could not attend on this fine Thursday evening. I heard child care is hard to find sometimes. But I'm here to answer any questions that I'm able to answer. They kind of debrief me on most things. So, you know, I'm available. And thanks, Joel, for the thorough presentation. I think you kind of covered all the big points.

Let me ask you this question. Go ahead, guys. Anybody have any questions here? First, I do have a question. If this does come in and we end up bringing it in as residential, which is what we would have to bring it in as, I'm wondering if we can give some thought to how that project could be adapted. And when I saw the mobile home park right next to it, I mean, if you're storing them empty now, you can store them full of people later maybe. is what I'm thinking. You won't get as many, and you engineers are going to have to make sure the drainage works if they don't get as many spaces as they have storage spaces. But I would like somebody to give some thought to how that would convert one day to something that looks more like what we expected. And would you guys be willing to look into that before you go to the county? And maybe when you go to the county, look into something and say, we've looked into something that might convert rather than just We're parking boats in these guys' residential neighborhood for the next 100 years. Would you guys be willing to talk to your client and say, hey, give some thoughts to how this might convert one day?

We've already had a discussion about long-term development of the site after, you know, if it gets annexed or whatever happens in the future. That's the reason the use is kind of set up to be, I wouldn't say temporary or throwaway, but it's improvements that aren't, you know, putting in... highly costly improvements, you know, this use is kind of lower impact for them financially to try to get some positive equity in the land. And then long-term, let's say it came in and it still needs to be residential, yeah, we could definitely explore converting it into whether a mobile home park or maybe something that conforms with the low-density general plan even.

Okay.

So you've had those discussions already. Good. Thank you. I just want somebody looking ahead. That's what planning is all about, what they told me. Okay. Who else? Well, we got our applicants are up here. Anybody? Thank you, sir.

No problem.

All right. Who else? I know we got some neighbors here. Come on. It's okay. It's just us. It's just us.

We don't bite.

This one does. I bite. The rest of them don't.

I do bite.

Okay. There you go. You met your match, bud.

My name is Judy Agundas, and I live right next door to this RV facility. trailer, boat, park, how is this going to affect me? I have the easement road that I gave to the city so they can access the water well there. Is that easement road is mine?

Going back to the well?

Correct. Is the RV, are they going to be using my road to get to the RV park?

Good question, and I can't answer that, but I think I know some people here who might be able to. No. Guys, what are they proposing?

So all access would be from driveways off of Orange Avenue. This is all within the current existing property boundaries.

Show us where she is.

So over here is where the city well is. Yeah.

So they will not be using your road, apparently?

What kind of lighting will it have? Because I already have issues with lights from the cleaners to the residential right next to me right now that they put lights right in my bedroom window. And I can't even have my bedroom window open, the shade, because the light comes through my window. It bounces off my mirror and right into my face. I did bring a picture of that, of how it affects me. And so I'm really concerned about the light pollution with that RV park or storage yard.

Their plan, any plan that they've come forward with, you'll get a chance to see before it happens. And you should look carefully at that. It should show lighting. We're not approving any project tonight, so that you know. We're simply recommending that the county go ahead and have their hearing. And we wouldn't mind if they did that based on what we heard is what we would have to tell them or not. So you will get a second chance to ask all these questions, and you should. Okay. at the county where they can actually approve it or not. So our recommendation tonight is not an approval or a denial.

Correct.

So thank you, but raise your issues tonight and raise them again. And tell me again about that light. Now, is that a different thing than we're dealing with, the light current light problem?

Well, it's the same property. Okay.

It's the same property?

It's the same property where the residential is now. The lights shine into my bedroom window.

Maybe they can help deal with that right now.

Maybe we can talk that part out. They can lower the light down to the ground or some instead of light.

Well, okay.

One of the conditions that we're recommending is that any lighting be shielded or directed downward onto the site so it's not creating glare for neighbors.

Good, good. Okay. All right. Good question.

Okay.

What else do you have? Anything else?

No.

Good. Thank you. Thank you. Who else would like to address this? Anybody else?

Joel, are you aware, Joel, of any public hearings scheduled yet for this at the county level as premature?

I'm not sure.

Okay.

Okay.

all right who else how about zoomers any zoomers just as a reminder if you're joining us by zoom and you'd like to speak you can do so by using the raise hand function at this time we have nobody on zoom asking to speak okay all right anything else from the public if not i will close the public hearing okay um it appears that we have the project it's right now isn't going to hurt anybody

If it's developed, the neighbors are going to have to work with them on conditions, and it looks like we're addressing the one that came up. What do you guys think? It's an interesting one. We don't usually have the county asking us for something.

It's encouraging we're getting county cooperation here. The issue is if we make the change, should we at this point make changes to the general plan?

Why would we do that?

Well, if it's supposed to be residential, now it would be non-conforming. And so if it's non-conforming, do they need a conditional use permit?

I wouldn't think so. I don't know. I don't know what permits the county would require. That probably isn't critical.

If it's existing non-conforming, it would be able to continue as it is. The issue would be if there was a change to the property so that if it was annexed, then it could continue as a RV and boat storage location as long as there's not a six-month or longer break to that use or they want to change that. and we're not recommending consideration of a change to the general plan tonight. If anything, it would be a note that we look at this at some time in the future when we do amend the general plan.

And, Joel, if we did bring that in, we certainly would not bring in one little parcel of land. I'm hoping we would do some kind of a multi- parcel master plan, and that could all be worked out. I think when we do bring stuff in, we're not going to bring in a sliver at a time. That doesn't work. So We've learned that over the years. So master plans are going to be the way we talked about that when we did the housing element. And so this is a good example. If that comes in, it's not going to come in all by itself, I hope. So it will be part of a bigger picture, and everybody will have a chance to look at it then.

It's hard to see LAFCO supporting an annexation of just this parcel by itself at a minimum. They would want to see the property immediately to the west come in with it as well at a minimum And I agree we would advocate for a greater area to master plan and annex so and then additionally addressing the issue of the non-conformance If and when the time did come for the annexation that would be an appropriate time for the Commission and ultimately the City Council to to consider, okay, as a part of this annexation, should this be redesignated in the general plan to be a light industrial or other type of use that supports the potential continuation of the use, or there would probably be a discussion from this potential owner, this existing owner, and whatever other owners of property coming in for annexation at the time. There would be a discussion of what the consensus for the different land uses would be at that time. So it's premature for any discussion of redesignation right now. The real time to have that would be either at our next general plan update process and or the time of annexation of this property.

Okay. So for the moment, outside the city, it's really not going to affect us. It would only really impact us if we did bring it in, and we would bring it in Like you're saying, under some set of circumstances that we had thought out carefully, I hope. Okay. All right. Any other questions or thoughts on this from the Commission? All right. Interesting.

We don't usually get something quite like this, but I like it.

Do you imagine how many years before we're ever going to need to reach out that way?

A long time. We're not looking in that direction, right? We just annexed a lot of land, and so we need to see a substantial amount of that build up.

This doesn't affect us that much, really, but it does in the long run if and when we bring this in. Okay. All right. Well, I think we understand where we fit in this whole thing. Everybody cool with that? Yes. All right. An interesting idea, and I am Interested in either some comments or some kind of a motion I'll make a motion now.

There are three findings listed as a B and C Is that the extent of what we're proposing or approving?

Yeah We just need to make sure that we're not acting contrary to the general plan, you can make that decision.

So do we have to acknowledge the fact that it's not, it will be non-conforming usage in here, or we're just ignoring that at this point?

No, not at this point. It's a recommendation, and so at most we could even have consensus on this item. It doesn't require a. Okay, I make a motion.

Well, before you do that, I love your question. Finding C, it says the proposed action is in accordance with the community's objectives that's set forth in the general plan. And that's not necessarily, we can't necessarily make that finding, can we?

I'd say there's...

The general plan says that's not boat storage.

So...

When we say it's boat storage, it's okay. Okay.

So depending on how you read it, there are items related to services and economic activities outlined in the general plan. And so that's a decision for you.

Is there a little cleaner wording we can put in there that addresses what he's mentioning here? We understand that this isn't what our general plan says. Because if somebody read this, without hearing any of this, they would think this is what our general plan called for. Right? Do we need to reword something? Maybe C. Can we drop C? Do we need C? The first two, it's good land resources and it's public necessity. Somebody has boats they need to park.

But it's not in our city, so...

But maybe C. Do we need C to do this?

This is standard findings language for this process, correct, Joel? Yes. So we can't change the finding language.

Well, you guys decide what you're willing to say. Are we willing to make that finding? I'd dump it if we could and leave it with the first two. What do you guys think? I just feel belligerent, so I know you always do.

Moi?

I don't know, you guys. Findings are important. That's the key. Findings aren't just something you guys have to dig up and throw out. I know you have to find stuff, but is that a finding we're comfortable with? Joel, can we dump C and make two findings and send it to the county with two findings?

I'm thinking three. Three needed.

Or can we rework, see?

There are standard findings for this kind of decision. And so, like Brian was saying, it's not something that we can just disregard the... And three are required?

I mean, is there a number that's required? Is there something, some magic about findings? What's magic about findings?

In this case, these findings are pulled from the code. Yes. And so we're referencing the section of the city code that deals with these types of Planning Commission actions. In this case, it's a referral. And in that case, the required findings are A, B, and C. So if the Planning Commission struggles to make all three findings, there could be a report of the commission that they can make findings A or A and B, but not C. The commission might have a consensus that all three they can make. It kind of boils down to where the vote falls, where it lies. There's probably some value at least in finding consensus on those findings that there is consensus or support for. And maybe there is for all three. If there's not, there's not.

I think we're good with the way it is. Okay.

It's an objective, not necessarily a mandate.

Okay. As long as the discussion relates that the county knows that we understood it doesn't exactly fit our general plan, but we're cool at the moment with that. Okay. All right. Carry on. So moved.

Second? Second.

All right. Motion to second. And that's, give me that motion again. With all the findings and conditions, and do we have three? We didn't have any conditions, right? Just three findings. Just three findings.

Three findings. There are three conditions.

There are recommendations, but not three findings.

Okay. All right. We had a motion to second. Let's call the roll.

There's a motion and a second to recommend approval of the Gill RV Storage Facility to the county with three findings and three conditions of approval. Commissioner Alexander, how do you vote? Aye. And Commissioner Applin? Aye. Vice Chair Bendix? Aye. Chairperson West? Aye. Motion passes 4-0.

So ordered. Okay. Do we have any items from staff?

So one item is the lack of items that we'll have in the month of July. We've decided to give you guys a break, but please expect us to convene in August. There's likely to be some rezone items, some reclassification of land uses, where they're allowed, where they're not. Staff's currently going through different commercial and industrial land uses to determine what in this present day under present water supply conditions and challenges make the most sense to apply to the different land uses. So we're taking a close look. We'll bring a staff report back to the Planning Commission to have a comprehensive discussion about those land uses that are up for consideration or reevaluation for their existing land use districts that they're in or if they should be moved. And so there will be a number of proposed changes, most likely in August, probably the second meeting in August.

Is there a chance we've got Keystone coming back to the world? There's always a chance. I mean, that's a lot of housing. I mean, what's holding it up, the Keystone, basically? Okay.

We've been actively discussing development agreement provisions with not only Keystone, but with the other four developers that have property in the Zacharias master plan area. We had a meeting today. We'll have another meeting maybe as soon as July 9th. And so there's a lot going on in terms of major infrastructure planning. And we're collaborating with all those developers, including Keystone at this time. We have a pretty good level of momentum for cooperation. Solutions are beginning to appear. As you understand, the infrastructure challenges there are extensive, and they're extra critically challenging given a multitude of different owners, one of which we've been in litigation with. So it's complex on multiple levels. Despite that, we're making really good progress. To cut to the chase, it's possible that we'll see a flurry of those land use applications, those subdivisions, later this fall, winter time.

Good. Good. Is it possible to have the other developers and ignore Keystone at this point, or is it?

That's not a discussion I think is constructive to have, especially when we're in litigation.

okay thank you yeah the point i think can be made that we do not need to run out of housing and we don't need to stop our momentum so thank you staff for keeping that a priority we've been real good about keeping our housing supply going we don't need to ever stop that so whatever that would be the top top priority that i can imagine we need right now all this other stuff's important but let's not stop that we got our jobs pouring in here we're doing great let's not run out of housing Okay, what else? Thank you for that good question. Who else? Anybody? Commissioners, comments?

Thank you for opening up Sperry. Now, how about cleaning up the worksite adjacent to Sperry? Which part? On the trail. It's just a pile of crap stuff. I'm sorry.

On Sperry?

No, I'm not. On the trail. Mm-hmm.

On the trail along the American Eagle area?

Yeah. Yeah, it's a construction site.

There's nobody interested in keeping that out there longer than necessary. We're under the microscope, our crews and our staff. We're taking heat for the progress and the challenges that we've faced. And so that will be removed as soon as we possibly can.

At this point, it just remains an eyesore. No doubt. And there is some progress on Rogers. Good. I assume that sooner or later it's going to open up. Yes, sir. Very safe assumption.

I hope. What else, commissioners? All right.

Nothing else to complain about.

I have nothing, and so I am going to adjourn the meeting. Thank you all for coming.