Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I would like to welcome everyone to the regular meeting of the Patterson Planning Commission of 12/18/2025, and ask you to stand with me to pledge the flag.

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.

Okay. Secretary, let's call the roll here. See who's here.

Okay. Commissioner Alexander? Here. Commissioner Sidhu?

Here.

Commissioner Applin? Here. Vice Chairperson Bendix? Here. And Chairperson West?

Here.

Let the record show all five members are present.

Okay. At this time, we will take input from the public on anything that is not on the agenda. So if it's on the agenda, wait a little while. If there's something you have to come before this body that is not on the agenda, now would be the perfect time. And we're open for public personal comments here and Zoomers. So Zoomers, if you're out there, now would be your time as well. Anyone on anything good of the public?

As a reminder, if you're joining us by Zoom, you can use the raised hand function if you'd like to speak. So far, we have no one asking to speak.

Okay. I do have something to read into the record. We did receive an email. They weren't able to be here, so let me read this into the record. Hi there.

I'm unable to attend the meeting due to work and was hoping you could read my comments under public comment time. My name is Yolanda Magana, resident of Patterson, California. I wanted to bring up that I hope Planning Commissioners are abstaining from voting when it comes to decisions that would be financially beneficial to them, such as if a commissioner is a realtor, broker, developer, contractor, landowner, architect, engineer, land use consultant, attorney specializing in land use or property law or other professions or other areas of personal interest that they could have a financial benefit that could foreseeably be impacted by their voting decision. With Patterson growing as it is, I want to make sure our public leaders aren't having any conflicts of interest with voting on any new developments. Thank you for your time.

Okay. All right. Let's note that for the record. Okay. That leads us immediately to the next item, interestingly, and that is a statement of conflict by commissioners, which we always have to make.

Who has any conflicts tonight on any items, commissioners? None. None. I do have one. My house is about five or six houses away from the property that's on our fourth public hearing tonight. So I will be turning the gavel over to our Vice Chairman Bendix here when time comes up, and he will conduct that meeting. So I'm declaring a conflict on Public Hearing No. Four. Okay. Right to appeal.

If anyone is dissatisfied with any decision or recommendation that we make, you can appeal that to the City Council. But you need to do it within ten business days. So remember the time. We have no correspondence. Well, we do. We have some very important correspondence. And I don't want to just blow right by this, Brian. The correspondence we've received is a comment letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the city of Paterson's sixth cycle 2023 to 2031 housing element. Now I know that's a big mouthful. And most of you are saying, what in the world is the man talking about?

The state exercises great control over us, how we do our business. Is that right, Brian? Yes. Anyway, and we have the housing element that we work very hard on and they take a look at it with a magnifying glass. There's something in there they don't like, they jump on our poor staff and beat them into submission. I would like a quick review from one of you guys, Brian or Joel. What is this about and what is this? It looked positive to me when I read it. It looked like we're doing okay, but tell us everybody what's going on here briefly and what it means, what this letter means.

I'll take a quick crack at it, Joel, feel free to provide any additional information. The city received a letter from the state community housing and community development acknowledging that the city's draft housing element, which is a part of our city's general plan as it relates to housing matters, it's in the first level of compliance with the state requirements. It's sort of a conditional letter in that we need to now move forward with the rezoning of property from current land uses to high density as required by the state. So they're saying essentially that our housing element as it's drafted is in compliance, but you need to complete the rezoning efforts required by state law in order for your housing element to ultimately be acknowledged and approved by the State of California. So the first part of next year, we will be initiating proceedings to rezone the properties that the state has received from us as candidates for rezoning.

And ultimately, probably in the middle of next year, we should be through the entire housing element process with an adopted housing element approved by the State of California, which is important for the city if we are to be eligible for a grant funding, that's a major requirement. And it also just intrinsically serves as a guiding document to lead the city as it relates to housing matters citywide. And so with that, I don't know if there's anything else you'd like to add Joel.

Just to add that in combination with the rezonings and development standards that we'll be working on basically starting at the beginning of next year, We also have an environmental impact report that we're working on. And so potentially the Planning Commission would see all of that in around April or May.

Good. Thank you guys. As you can see, that goes up to the year 2031. So they make you plan very far ahead and declare all these things and make all these things work. So that's basically what's going on and it looks like we're on course.

Most people don't realize it, but the densities that the state is requiring us now to put on some of these properties are to me getting a little bit onerous, but they don't care what I think. In the old days, we kind of cities kind of set their own densities, but the housing crisis has got the state in a position where they're just saying to cities, here's how many people you need to take care of in the next so many years, show us how you're going to do it. And these guys have to show them, we can fit so many here and so many here and so many here. And they do the math and say, Oh, you're five people short, rezone something. Is that what happens, Joel? That's my interpretation. That They is different in your

provide us a number and we have to work toward that number.

Okay. Anyway, so we don't get to make a lot of decisions that it would be nice if we could. All right. Anything else? Thoughts, commissioners, on that? We all got the letter? Anyway, it's public as well. We have no consent agenda, no minutes. We do have four agenda items, three of which we are probably likely here to continue or to adjourn to a later meeting. And the fourth one, I have a conflict on. So my time is going to be short here tonight.

So I would

recommend that we take each of the first three, one at a time.

Yep. We will take so we're going to go through the first three and then I will be out of here. Okay. First public hearing is a development agreement for Zacharias Project with developers Zacharias Ranch, TPF Development and Lakeside Hills for development for residential parcels. I'm going to open the public hearing on that, and I'm going to get a staff report.

Anything I need to add besides that we're being

So the report is merely that we the legal staff, city staff recommends that the Planning Commission adjourn this matter to the regular Planning Commission meeting on 01/22/2026.

And we

have an open public hearing. We encourage and welcome any public comment, whether it's in the audience or online at this time.

So to be clear, there will be a public hearing on January 22 on this. But if anyone came prepared to speak about that tonight, Zoom or in person, you still have a moment to add any thoughts on this item. Anybody? Zoomers?

As a reminder, if you're joining us on Zoom, you can use the raised hand function if you'd like to speak. We have no hands raised.

No hands. I will close the public hearing. No. Yes. Let me close that before we vote. Okay. I'm going to take a motion, and let's take some action here, guys.

Recommend that the agenda item be adjourned to regular Planning Commission meeting January 2026.

Do I have a second? Second. Second. Let's call the roll.

Okay. There's a motion and a second to continue the development agreement for Zacharias Residential to January 22. Commissioner Alexander, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Sidhu?

Aye.

Commissioner Appland? Aye. Vice Chairperson Bendix?

Aye.

Chairperson West?

Aye.

Motion passes five-zero.

Thank you. Our second public hearing is a development agreement for Zacharias Commercial and Industrial Project with developers Zacharias Ranch in Lakeside Hills. I will open the public hearing. And do we have anything else different to add staff besides our legal

Staff recommends the same action and the same procedure on this public hearing item.

I will entertain a motion.

Closing the session first.

Thank you. Thank you. I'll close the public hearing. Now we can take some action. Go ahead.

Recommend that we adjourn this item to regular Planning Commission meeting on 01/22/2026.

Before the commission takes action, I'd like to give the public in the audience on Zoom an opportunity to possibly comment if anybody I don't feel there was enough time for them to respond.

Let's go back. Yeah. You wanna reopen that? Reopen, please. Let's reopen. I'm gonna reopen this. I'm sorry. We're moving too quickly here. Is there anybody that wants to to speak to this one tonight? Agenda item. Yeah. Sorry. Thank you for I'm sort of thinking we're okay. And then Let me reclose the hearing.

On Zoom?

We have no Zoomers at the moment.

No Zoomers. Okay. I'm sorry. I will I will now close the public hearing again. Okay. And now we can take it to second. We have a motion.

Right. This agenda item to adjourn to regular planning commission meeting

of

01/22/2026.

Second. Second. Let's call the rule.

Okay. There's a motion and a second to continue the development agreement for Zacharias Commercial Industrial to January 22 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Alexander, how do you go? Aye. Commissioner Sidhu? Aye. Commissioner Applin? Aye. Vice Chairperson Bendix? Aye. And Chairperson West?

Aye.

Motion passes, five zero.

Okay. One more. Our third public hearing is the development agreement for Baldwin Ranch South project with developer Baldwin Ranch South. And I'll open the public hearing. And I assume we have the same situation. Anything different, staff?

Nothing different. Staff recommends the same action and procedures that we've taken on agenda items one and two. I'd be curious to know if there are any individuals on Zoom that are desiring to speak on this We'll

take any thoughts here. Anyone want to speak to this? Okay. Any Zoomers? Again, if

you're joining us by Zoom, you can use the raised hand function to speak. We have no hands raised.

No Zoomers. Okay. Well, thank you. Then we will close the public hearing. Let's go ahead

and Recommend this agenda item be adjourned to the Regular Planning Commission meeting of 01/22/2026. Second.

Okay. There's a motion and second to continue the development agreement for Baldwin Ranch South to the Planning Commission meeting of January 22. Commissioner Alexander? Aye. Commissioner Sidhu? Aye. Commissioner Applin? Aye. Vice Chairperson Bendix? Aye. Chairperson West? Aye. Motion passes five zero.

You can't wait to get out of here.

Thank you. All right. Now, since I have a conflict on the next item, am turning over the gavel and the rest of this meeting to Vice Chairman Bendix. And there's nothing further on the agenda, so I'm probably will not be back. So I wish everyone a very, very, very wonderful holiday and thank you all for coming out. Thank you for participating.

See you next year.

Okay.

The next item on the agenda is a review for a conditional use permit and architectural site plan 2506 and 2509. Staff report?

Thank you. Vice Chairman, City Planner Joel Andrews will present the staff report.

Thank you and good evening. So this is for the June fourplex project. There are two applications that are a part of this project, an architectural and site plan review and a conditional use permit. Project is located on approximately 0.42 acres on North 4th Street. This is located in the downtown residential zone and the lot is surrounded by single family housing development.

There is an access easement that is provided along the project southern boundary and the applicant has represented that they have access rights to the front portion of that easement. The applicant proposes a nearly 6,300 square foot building divided into four housing units. The building would be oriented to face North 4th Street with a large open space to the rear that would be accessible for all four units. There would be two shared driveways, which would be provided off of North 4th Street with narrow landscape strips splitting each of those driveways to define, the driveway that's allocated for each unit. Trellises would be provided on the north and south sides of the building as partial shelters for, the trash toters and each unit would be provided with a patio area at the rear of the building.

I'll note here that the Planning Commission has received a petition from a number of neighbors regarding the concerns about the project's potential impacts surrounding parking, traffic, infrastructure and consistency with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. And in the petition the signees requested that the Planning Commission deny the project. I'll be touching on a few of those items in the presentation. The project site is located within the downtown residential zone and this zone allows a density range, from about three units per acre to 10 units per acre. So at 0.42 acres the site would be allowed up to four units.

I'll note that we just had our conversation about the housing element and rezoning to high density residential. This all to be clear this is not one of the sites that's under consideration for rezoning. This is just the zoning as it is and not anticipated to change. The project is considered a multi family housing project which is allowed but is subject to the approval of conditional use permit, which is one of the actions being considered tonight. And the project meets all other development requirements as outlined in the municipal code and would not trigger any significant infrastructure issues that trigger additional review.

The project includes one garage parking space and one driveway parking space per unit and city staff anticipates that the street parking in front of the building will be highly desirable for tenants and visitors. At the same time for trash pickup days the project would generate up to 12 trash toters that would need to be brought in front of the property, that would compete for parking spaces. And so staff has included a condition of approval that signage, shall be provided limiting parking along the property's frontage south of the southern driveway and north of the northern driveway on trash pickup days. So, this area and this area. And doing this requirement would leave space for one vehicle, on street parking in front of the project during trash pickup days so that would be limited.

However, the project would meet municipal code requirements with one garage space and one driveway space per unit. The 1st Floor of each unit would include an entry half bath, great room and a garage large enough for one vehicle. And then on the 2nd Floor, each unit would have three bedrooms, two full bathrooms, and a laundry room. The building includes recessed covered entries along the front and four single vehicle garage doors. The building projects forward toward the street at the two garage areas with these walls extending up to, meet the roofline.

And those areas incorporate board and batten siding and a cross cable roof. The rest of the building incorporates stucco finishing and decorative elements include covered entries, wood knee braces, gooseneck lighting, trellises and window trim. The building would rise to a maximum height of 30 feet eight inches and the zoning code allows a maximum height up to 45 feet in this area. This is an elevation of the two sides of the project. There are a number of findings, that the Planning Commission would need to make for this project.

I'm going to walk through each of those. So, related to the California Environmental Quality Act, Staff recommends that the planning commission can find this project categorically exempt and the requirements related to infill development that exemption are that the project site is no more than 20 acres in size, that the project is in an urbanized area on a previously developed site or substantially surrounded by urban uses within city limits, that the project aligns with the general plan and zoning and that the project meets minimum density requirements and that the project site is not on sensitive lands such as wetlands, hazardous sites and or a conservation area. There's an architectural and site plan review that's being applied for so this is related to the layout of the site and the building the architecture. So the first is that the architectural and general appearance of the structures and ground shall have architectural unity and be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood as not to be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the city or to the desirability or investment occupation in the neighborhood. And the second is that the site plan is consistent with the municipal code and the adopted development standards and design guidelines and the general plan.

And finally related to the conditional use permit for multifamily housing there's two findings. One that the required conditional use permit is consistent with the city general plan and the municipal code. And second that the establishment maintenance or operation of the proposed use or structure will conform to the requirements and the intent of this title meaning the code and such proposed use or structure will not under the circumstances of the particular case or as conditioned be injurious or detrimental to the health safety or general welfare of persons or property in the vicinity of the proposed use or to the general welfare of the city. And that concludes my report. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

Is this property since we're looking at you about annexing into the city, is it in the county?

No. This is within city limits.

I saw something in the conditions of approval.

That would be related to annexing into a maintenance community facilities district, which is basically paying for, ongoing street infrastructure, those sorts of things.

Okay. Sorry, misinterpreted it. Anybody else have any comments about this?

I just had a question for the easement. That won't be used for trash pickup for Unit 3 And 4. It's all going to be in front of the driveways. Right?

So, under this they would be if they have that access easement they can use it to pull trash totors but there's the toters would need to be out on the street. It wouldn't be a garbage truck pulling onto the driveway and backing back out.

And then the residents, they won't be allowed to park in the easement area, right?

No. Okay. I don't believe that's considered under the easement. Okay.

Thank you.

It's not wide enough.

The plan showed the number of trash receptacles was two per unit, and in most cases, it's three for the city. So is that an understatement of the number of units that are going to be? So if there's going to be three times four, that's 12 onto the street.

Yes. Each unit would have three totors.

Do you have any comments? Not yet. Not yet. Is the developer here? Would you like to speak?

Give us your name and address, please.

Good evening, commission. My name is Carl Thompson. I'm the applicant. My address is 1919 Grand Canal Boulevard in Stockton, California. I've worked collaboratively with Mr. Andrews here on this project for about fifteen months. I think this is maybe our fifth iteration with it. And I'm grateful for the collaboration because we do have a much more attractive project than we originally started with. I think that the building that we have come to at this point is an attractive building and much of that is due to Mr. Andrew's suggestions.

I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Much of what was addressed is the bulk of the information. It's three bedroom, two bath units designed for families. We have a large open space in the rear. Just kind of a family centric project that we intend to develop.

I do know that there is a petition that was circulated. I became aware of it on Monday. And I would have liked to have had a little more time to maybe address the concerns with the petitioners to see if any of their concerns with the project could have been mitigated. Perhaps we can do that this evening. But as I understand it, the concern is that they'd like to have a single family home in the neighborhood, which I completely understand.

I live in a neighborhood with multifamily homes as well. And if I had my preference, they would all be single family homes. But there's a lot of competing interests that we have here in California and Patterson and that you're tasked with weighing those interests. I think that a hot button a hot topic now is housing affordability, the housing crisis. It sounds I wasn't previously aware of it, but it sounds as though you may have some issues with your housing element.

This project helps contribute a solution towards those issues. I think that I can't change the nature of it being a multifamily project. I mean, of course, we could if you don't approve it, but we certainly can address other concerns. I think that we have addressed concerns with regards to second storey windows and tried to mitigate things of that nature as far as looking into neighboring yards and the like. So I'm happy to address anything of that nature that anybody is concerned with.

I will note, because at first I saw the petition, I was like, wow, there's a lot of members in opposition to it. And I just want to add a little bit of context. I did kind of go through that and it appears as though there's 25 signatures on the petition. However, many of them were from the same household and some of them were two to three miles away from the project. But nonetheless, there are, I think, a dozen or so legitimate parties in opposition. And I'm happy to address their concerns as best we can and answer any questions.

Do we have any questions for the developer?

I had a quick question. Do you plan on building any ADUs or fourplexes in that open space in the future?

Well, I'm not really sure what is permissible. I'm not sure what is permissible in that regard. That's something that we could discuss with, I suppose, staff at a later time. The we originally had the original concept did include ADUs in the project, and then we determined that it was we had a hard time getting things to lay out in a manner that was economically viable. And so this is the most affordable housing that I can provide, meaning that it is two storeys, it's less expensive to construct a two storey home, and it's right up on the street, which is also less expensive as well.

And that's we're not trying to build cheap housing, but we are trying to build affordable housing.

Thank you.

Have a question for him?

Not yet. Not yet. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Stand by. We'll see if there's any other issues that will come up. I could open up the public hearing and listen for comments from the public.

Good evening, members of the Planning Commission staff and members of the audience. Dominic Frena, as you know, longtime member of the City Council and longtime resident of Patterson. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I want to be clear at the beginning that I am not opposed to housing in general or unreasonable residential development in the community. My comments focus instead on how the project is designed and whether its impacts are adequately addressed, described and mitigated.

I appreciate the commission's role in reviewing projects for consistency with adopted standards and for minimizing impacts to existing neighborhoods. My comments tonight are offered in that spirit. First, I am concerned about parking and traffic impacts. These are large rental units, each around fifteen sixty square feet. Units of this size typically generate multiple vehicles per household, which increases daily traffic, driveway movements and on street parking demand.

Staff have already noted that street parking will be competitive for tenants and visitors and that trash collection will further compete for curb space. In an established residential area, these impacts matter. This leads directly also to child and pedestrian safety. The surrounding neighborhood includes families and children who walk, bike and play near the street. Even incremental creases in vehicle traffic and parking turnover can reduce visibility, especially in a foggy time period and safety on a street that has historically functioned as a lower volume residential roadway.

Second, I want to address intensity of use. While the unit count complies with zoning, intensity is driven not just by density, but also by unit size, household size, vehicle ownership and activity levels. Four very large rental units on a former single family parcel may function more like a high density residential use than is typical or expected in a neighborhood of surrounding single family homes. This is exactly why a conditional use permit is required. A CUP allows the commission to evaluate whether use as designed is compatible with its surroundings and to impose conditions to mitigate impacts.

I also ask the commission to consider architectural compatibility and cumulative precedent impacts. Approval of a large four unit complex on the former single family lot may set a precedent for similar projects throughout the downtown residential area. While housing is permitted, the commission has the authority and responsibility to require the projects at a high quality design precedent that supports long term neighborhood stability. In closing, I respectfully encourage the commission to consider conditions such as smaller unit sizes, additional setbacks, limits on the number of vehicles, better building articulation and increased landscape buffering. These refinements can meaningfully reduce impacts while still allowing the project to move forward.

Thank you for your time, your thoughtful consideration and good night.

Thank you, Dominic.

Good evening, everybody. My first time at a Planning Commission, meeting. Welcome. I've lived here thirty years almost, and City Council Mr. Andrews knows who I am.

Anyway Your name and the

Oh, Monica Della Maggiore. I live on, 431 North 4th Street, so 4th And L, two blocks from this, project. And I have a couple of questions and comments. Only knew about this project because I read it in the Patterson Irrigator in the postings just the other day. How far does that letter and that diameter go out of the maps and the letters of proposed projects to people that already live in the area? Because I did not get one, and I'm only two blocks down. It's 300 feet. 300 feet?

Joel, can you answer that?

Denise just did this.

300. Denise, didn't answer it? She did.

It will impact where I live also because North Meade School is right down the street. Sacred Heart School is on M Street, as you all know. And I just want to give my thumbs up to Mr. Farina. I agree with everything that he said.

And I was pretty surprised that a project like this, this size, would be right there on 4th Street, right towards the sidewalk. And I am here really for the people who live closer to the project because I have a lot of empathy for them, because we bought our house, which was originally owned. We bought it from the original owner. They built the house in 1950 and had five twenty five lots across. At some point, 1980s, early 1990s, the owner sold off the two lots next to us.

So we're on the corner. A house was approved. I don't even know if it's code. Half of it's two story and half is it's like a multilevel house. And that tall side of that house is right next to my house, our patio, looking windows, six foot fence, so we have no privacy.

In fact, I planted bamboo this last year to make a higher fence to get some more privacy in the backyard. So I just don't think it's fair to these people who live there already to have that height. They will notice that. They will lose sun. They will lose sun on parts of their property. They will notice noise, a lot of noise, because you could have possibly six to eight people in one of those units. And I have another question, are they going to be for sale like condos or are they going to be rentals?

These are proposed as rental units.

Rentals. So the car situation is going to be unbothable because my gut feeling is there's going be more than two people per unit that are going to have a vehicle in there. I'm just judging by what's down at the corner in some smaller old units of single family residences. Let's see what else did I jot down here. Forgot to write my notes before I came, sorry.

Anyway, I just wanted to like I said, first of all, like I said, I was surprised that I didn't know about this and didn't get a notice for something so large, because you are not going to have that six foot fence on the north and south sides of the property are not going to give privacy to the homes that are already there. I live it, I live it. And I wanted my house and I bought it knowing that, that house was right next door to me. And I love my house, but I wish I still had the five lots across down the street there because it would have been much nicer to your problems. So anyway, if any of you live near this?

Yes. Okay. You have my empathy. You have my empathy, and I would fight. Either they change the unit to be long ways on the lot or something because you're going to feel like you live in New York City with a high rise next to

you. Yeah.

Sorry, that's just the way I feel. Anyway, that's all I have to say. You. And have a good holiday.

Okay. Sorry. I'm really bad at public speaking, so bear with me here. Good evening. My name is Cassandra Powers, and my family and I live directly next door to the vacant lot at 630 North 4th Street.

I'm here to respectfully oppose the proposed fourplex. North 4th Street is made of older, long established single family homes, including some of the original homes in Paterson. Many families have lived here for decades. This neighborhood has a strong sense of community, our kids still play together in the street, neighbors look out for one another, and the character of this block reflects the history of our city. When we purchased our home, the property next door was a single family home occupied by a quiet, private couple.

Tragically, that couple lost their lives in the fire. We chose this home with the understanding that we were moving into density single family neighborhood that valued privacy and peace. This project now jeopardizes the privacy and stability we believed we were buying into. A two story multiunit building would introduce multiple windows and ongoing activity directly facing our home, permanently changing how we experience our living space. We are also concerned about safety and traffic.

Our street already does experience some traffic from people coming and going from Highway 33, and we are next to the school, which brings congestion and children walking throughout the day. Adding the traffic and activity of a fourplex increases safety risks, especially for the kids who still play outside on our block. Additionally, there is a driveway that provides access to the neighbors behind us, and placing a fourplex on this lot would create challenges for them in accessing their property, increasing congestion and safety concerns for surrounding homes. There is also a very real concern about property value. If we were ever to sell our home, having a dense two story fourplex directly next door would significantly affect buyer interest and what our home could reasonably sell for.

Most families looking to buy in this area are seeking the same things we did, a quiet single family neighborhood with privacy. This project would make our home less desirable through no fault of our own. Most importantly, the proposal for a fourplex prioritizes maximizing units rather than respecting the existing single family neighborhood. This level of density does not fit what is already established on North 4th Street. This is a historic, low density residential area, and introducing a project of this scale permanently alters the character of the neighborhood, our neighborhood.

We are not against development, but we believe growth should be thoughtful, balanced, and respected of the people and the history and community that's already there. For these reasons, we respectfully ask the commission to deny this project as proposed. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Is there any other speakers?

Good evening. I'm Sand Kellerborba. I'm a forty seven year resident of North 4th Street. Johnny, think I've been there longer? My parents are original owners of a house built in 1959.

It was originally country when I was a child, and that lot, as well as the lots surrounding it, were just empty lots. Then we were incorporated into the city limit. At that time, it was zoned single family. That was the intent of the city. The architectural unity that we have in our neighborhood is very vital to our property values and keeping with the character of the neighborhood that we love, that we live in, that we thrive in.

I urge you to really consider this and not to issue a conditional use permit and change the integrity of this very valuable neighborhood, valuable to us and our lifestyle. As somebody that's lived there a very long time, I really urge you because I own two homes in that neighborhood, I am four doors and three doors away from this lot, and I would hate to see this tragedy that occurred on that lot turned into another tragedy. I urge you to reconsider a conditional use permit that still has half of a lot ready to be developed. Also, that easement is somebody's driveway. Their home is back there.

They have to access that to drive into their home. No trash cans can be out there, cars parked. That is their driveway. So I urge you to really consider the architectural unity of our neighborhood and keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi there again.

Hi there. I hope it's okay I have one more thought that I forgot to write down. And Sand reminded me of that. The character of our neighborhood, that's why I bought in this neighborhood. Wide streets are city streets, Modesto ash, I know they're a pain.

I had eight around my corner lot when we first moved in. Four are gone now. But the landscaping, this fourplex that's going in, it would take years if you're planting trees around it to kind of soften the edges of the building. It will feel nothing, nothing like the regular North 3rd, North 4th, North 5th, North 6th Street because of the landscaping and the trees. I mean, trees add value to properties, too.

So not only shade and cool your house down, but, again, sand is the one who made me think about I had thought about this. You're not going to have full grown trees landscaping around a house, and it's just going to feel sterile. That picture looks sterile to me. So thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Alisa Medina, I live at 700 North 3rd Street. We bought about six years ago for the reason of the architecture of the single story historic homes that have been there for years. We love the wide streets, you know, quiet. We basically live on the corner where there's like an end, you know, it's a dead end.

So I'd be looking at this huge two story, fourplex from my kitchen, because I'm kind of on the corner of North Meade and 3rd Street. So basically, I'd be looking at this huge building, you know, looking back at me, and not to mention four, 12 garbage totes on Wednesday into Thursday if they bring them in. My other concern was who would be monitoring the garbages if they get put in, taken out, the amount of cars. Most people nowadays don't even use their garage for parking, one car, you know, when,

like you said, they're going

to be rentals, they're not going to be sold units. So I'm kind of concerned of what who is going to be moving in and out. I walk through there daily. I own a business down on 100 North 4th Street for the last eighteen years. So my concern is who's moving in and this ugly two story building.

You know, for thirteen years, I lived on on Fond Lily, which was a newer building, homes, and development. We love the older side of Patterson. You know? I think there is a place for such a building, and I don't think it's on the North Side Of Patterson or the historic downtown. You know? So basically, I'm opposed for the conditional use permit, and I just wanted to make sure that there's probably more than 12 signatures here. I was on foot catching everybody's signatures myself Friday. So anyways.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You,

Good evening. My name is John Christopherson. I live on the corner of North Meade And Wade and and North 4th Street on the corner there. My kitchen windows, I've got two big kitchen windows, right on the corner I look out. So every day I'd have to look at this big giant building that should never be there. Single family means single family, not apartment buildings. It would wreck the whole neighborhood. All the people there, we live there because it's single. It's it's private. It's it's just it's very nice there.

And this would just wreck where would my concern also is where would people park? You know that how many of you guys park in your garage? That your garage is in a storage center. Half the people in this room don't park in their garages. They fill it up with junk, park on the street, park in the driveway. So that means there'll be parking all around the neighborhood with all these people living in there. It's just it's not a good fit for our for our neighborhood, and please reconsider to shutting the project down because single family, yeah, good, cool, but we don't need all this. Thank you.

Thank you, John.

Hi. I'm Adrian Goss. I were I live at 615 North 4th Street, so I'm basically diagonal from the vacant lot. I guess I have, like, three major concerns. I was the one that filed the petition, so a lot of what was said in the petition has already been said by the audience. I think a big concern of the neighborhood is the conformity. It doesn't look like anything else on the street. The plan doesn't look like anything else on our street. But I think three concerns that I didn't mention in the petition was, I'm a realtor. I think our neighborhood is one of the most sought after desirable neighborhoods in Patterson.

Obviously, that's slightly biased being that I live in it, but it is a valuable area that people want to live in. And I do think it will have a negative impact on values. The real estate market is already challenging. I heard the investors say that there's a housing crisis. There's three developments already here in Paterson and there's over 80 homes for sale on the market.

So there's plenty of inventory. Another concern of mine is in politics, sometimes when you're given an inch, you take a mile. I feel like if this plan gets approved, that back half of that lot is groomed for just another four plex, which is just going to add on to some of the concerns we've already stated. And then lastly, you weren't given enough time to address our petition. We got notice on this from on Tuesday of last week.

So we haven't had a whole lot of time to put together much of a thought on this either, but you've had fifteen months to work on a plan with zero collaboration from the neighborhood. I think if you want to work in good faith in a well established neighborhood in Patterson, you should at least have some type of collaboration with the neighborhood so that maybe both parties can win. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Andrew.

Candice Wyrock, Sadia Patterson. I am here representing myself as a mother. I'm not representing any organization. I just didn't have time to change, from a service project we were doing. But, I do not live in this neighborhood, but I have learned very quickly in Patterson that if you don't get involved when something doesn't affect you, it'll be too late when it does affect you.

So I'm here today to speak on behalf of the many people that I know in this room that I'm friends with, that live in that area, to say that if it was me, I'd be throwing a bigger fit than they are throwing currently. Hi. I'd be throwing a bigger fit. This is not what you do to someone who's poured their life savings into their neighborhood to be in the neighborhood that they're in. I live in the best cul de sac in Paterson, but I must agree with the previous speaker that that 4th Street neighborhood is probably besides Ambarina, if I had to pick a different place to live in Paterson, Ambarina would be 1st And 4th Street would be second.

So to change the dynamic of the neighborhood and honestly, it's someone trying to profit off of a tragedy and turn it into a money making opportunity, and that makes me wanna vomit. I don't want people like that in our community, and I don't know who the person is if they're here, the one that's the investor that's trying to do that, but I'd love to speak with them off the record. So please come find me, Candace Wyrock, at things to do in Paterson. And I also want to address that the traffic in that area in the morning, I'd like to urge of the commissioners, if you guys are unsure of how you're gonna vote tonight and you guys get more time to investigate, please drive down M Street at 07:50

in the

morning and tell me if you think you should shove four more homes into a single lot. Just just curious because I can tell you, it's a nightmare, and I hate it. And I wish I was still homeschooling because it's the worst part of my day is trying to get through that 4th Street and M Street area. And I feel bad for the people that that live there, but you're gonna try and put more people there? That feels crazy. So I'm asking, as a mom, for my friends that are in the audience, and their kids who play in that neighborhood and run across the street to see their friends to please do not grant this conditional use permit. Thank you.

Thank you. Hey,

guys. Marco, city of Patterson, California. I don't live in this area. I actually did, believe it or not, down the street from this, ON 33, myself. Some of my, questions, though everybody's is 100% valid. My my concerns are are more so questions, that hopefully you guys would be able to answer for me. In addition, Candace came out to talk, so I had to come up and talk too. So thank you for motivating me, Candace. First one, if we could go back to the slide where it showed where the garbage cans would go. Yes.

Right here. So if I if I could approach the the screen, I wanna point out where I believe we're being told that where the garbage cans will go and then where the additional cars would be allowed to park. If I'm not mistaken, garbage cans would go here. Cars would be able to park here. It would say parallel park or whatnot if they can't go under their driveway. And then garbage cans here and zing, zing, if that's correct. Can somebody can staff confirm that?

So you'd have the these driveways. You wouldn't be able to park in front of each of those driveways. There's space for one vehicle here, one vehicle here, one vehicle here. But when the trash cans are pulled out, they'd be located here blocking out that parking spot, and they'd be pulled out over here blocking that parking spot.

Okay. So in reality in reality, sure, if the trash cans aren't there, cards would park in that open allotted spot, on days that that trash cans are there, people will be blocking their driveways. Somebody had mentioned before that, nobody uses their garage. My wife somehow fit our Telluride in our garage the other day and she almost hit my fridge back there. It's not the best practice anymore.

Right? So that is one of my concerns as well. I believe they said on Wednesdays is garbage pickup. That whole road is gonna that whole street is gonna be blocked blocked from anything, right, between cars and garbage cans. In addition, I'm just curious I don't know the answer, this is not a rhetorical question I ask staff or counsel has a post fire soil what's it called, check where we check the soil for contaminants from that fire. I'm sure that home was built in the eighties, older maybe, contaminants like asbestos. I don't know the cause of the fire. Has that soil been tested before we start moving dirt again?

It sounds like you'd be talking about a phase one soils assessment that typically would happen after this.

After this. Okay. Okay. So so we don't know if there's any contaminants in in it just yet. Okay. Also, on Patterson's website, there's a map that I believe shows that it's in a flood zone, that the street is in a flood zone. Can we confirm that? I don't think I need to justify the concern on that. It's a flood zone. We're, we're gonna have higher density housing if this were to get approved. God forbid, something happens on a Wednesday, and the whole front of the street is blocked off. So just things that I would want to consider. Like I said, these weren't rhetorical questions. I genuinely did not know, so thank you so much for answering them. I think it sheds more light and possibly more concern.

I will say and, guys, please, I recognize some faces from the comments section The plan, the building is nice, in my opinion. It is nice. And I am one that is for houses that are more affordable. I'm not a fan of rental properties. I'm not a fan of things like that. But I do. My home was a condo on 33 and because of that, I was able to then move into a single family home. So there's opportunity in that. Apartment complexes are not the answer. But thank you. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Marco.

Good evening again. Dominic Farina, I'll be brief. Since the rules do not allow me to ask questions directly to the developer, I just wanted to ask rhetorically a question to developer and I've always believed in being civil and respectful because I've been in that industry. Has any consideration been given for that parcel for a different type of product such as maybe a large single family home with an ADU or what they call a granny unit in the back, thereby allowing for additional housing opportunities, some small, some large, but without creating the massive scaling, which seems to be a common concern and theme that keeps on being brought up over and over and over and also that is rather incongruent with the style and characteristic of the neighborhood. I understand that the lot was purchased for profit and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

But I think there can be a happy medium that can be created that can be established, creating a nice appropriate home, incorporating the architectural standards, the aesthetics, colors and so forth, buffering with the right landscaping opportunities, but also allowing ingress and egress for an ADU or maybe one or two or more, but not creating this very uncharacteristic type of housing product. So good evening and I hope that can be considered, sir.

Thank you. Thank you, Dominic.

My name is Hugo Gonzales. I'm new to the neighborhood, next door. I've been there for a year and a half, and, I never saw nobody out there cleaning or I had to clean, like, clean the trees, clean the sidewalk. When they removed the temporary fencing, big old gap, 10 feet into my yard. I had to go get buy a lumber, fix it. I I came here multiple times for a whole month. Hey. I need to get information of the owner. This tall grass. So they were not responsible this whole year and a half.

What's gonna happen when tenants we have issues with tenants? We bought the home. We can do a bunch of upgrades. It's half an acre, but we wanna keep it original. I've done a lot of work, all original. So I don't think it's a good idea because now I have windows on my kitchen, my backyard, everything. All my investment is gonna be gone. So I'm against this.

So thank you. Thank you, Joe.

Hi. My name is Chad Hubin. Can you bring up that previous picture of the front of the house? K. Can I approach? I live at 620 North 4th Street. I'm at the end of this evening. So if you're saying they can park garbage cans here. This is my easement. This is my next neighbor yard. That's where my garbage cans go. We bought this property because it was a single family home here. The only reason there is an easement is because we gave the guy the the previous owners an easement so he could just get into his backyard, not have multiple people coming up and down my driveway, bringing garbage cans, doing whatever they think they're gonna wanna do. So we definitely oppose this project. Thank you.

Thank you, Jed.

Hello. My name, my name is John Powers. My wife already came up here and gave a good speech that had everything that I would have said as well. But, a couple of things I I was thinking of was those trash cans, there's 12 of them out there, and they take up, like, a five foot, you know, spot of, curb space. And you're talking about, like, what, 60 feet of cans out in front of that house on Wednesdays.

And then to talk about cars, everybody's got two cars, you know, so two or three, you know, husband, wife or you got a roommate, three bedrooms. Now you're talking about 12 cars out there. They don't have room to park. They're gonna park as close as they can. That's right in front of my house.

Petitions, I know I signed two, two of the same one. I would have signed a 100 of them. So that's really all I have to say. I just wanted to add a little bit, but I'm strongly opposed to it, and, I hope you guys make the right decision. Thank you.

Thank you, John. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak to the issue? We could close the public hearing. And

comments. Well, we've heard a lot of good points. And, yeah, I kinda have to go along with the program there. I mean, it doesn't really get to the matter of zoning. That's that's not the issue here.

The issue is conformative, and I just can't see this project doing it. I mean, Brian, the city looking at just the the elevations and roofline to this, it just it does not fit. Okay? I just can't see it happening.

Anybody else have any comments?

Before we go too much further, can we just check if there's anybody on Zoom who wants to comment?

Is there anybody else on the Zoom?

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 no hands raised on Zoom.

Okay. Thank you, Joel. It's time to address a motion. So is there a motion to approve?

We may want to close the public hearing.

I did. Okay. Thank you. I personally have mixed emotions about it's in a historic what does that mean for Patterson? I understand the zoning gives you the opportunity to have one to four units in it based on the lot size. But what does historic mean for the definition? Joel, Brian?

It means different things to different people.

This is not a

historically designated site So per I mean, the next layer of historic is going to be personal to each person, but there's no official designation there.

Okay. Thank you. It's time to discuss a motion.

Well, you know, there again, we're looking at a massive building that just visibly within within the residential area, it just it just doesn't fit. Okay? And Dominic brought up a a very good point in the fact that a single family unit with a mother-in-law, grandma house behind it is a good plan. When you look at everything West Of 2nd Street, which is Highway 33, to 5th Street, north and south, that was the original Patterson. And those were large lots because it housed in the alley a carriage house.

Okay? And the horse that propelled the carriage along with the cow that fed the family with the tomatoes and the corn. Okay? That's why the lots are that size. So if we're facing the state trying to implement that we need to conform to more housing, smaller housing, then at that point, putting a tiny house behind an existing house is feasible.

You're not gonna see another roofline that's 20 feet, 40 feet in the air. So that that's a that's a compatible situation. But this particular project, it just it's it's not compatible. Not at all.

Is there a motion?

Yeah. I make a motion. In reference to architectural and site plan review labeled twenty five dash zero six along with the conditional use permit labeled 25Dash09. I motion for denial for 25Dash6 and 25Dash9 in their entirety as I feel does not achieve an architectural unity.

Thank you.

Thank you. You. Is there a second?

A second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Denise, want to call the roll?

Okay. We have a motion and a second to deny the architectural and site plan review and the conditional use permit for the 6th Street 4th Street project. Commissioner Alexander, how do you

vote? Aye.

Commissioner Sedu?

Aye.

And Commissioner Applin? Aye. Vice Chairperson Bendix?

Aye.

Motion passes, four zero.

Anything else for the good of the order? Brian?

I'm looking at the agenda. There's nothing really from staff at this point other than probably fair to announce to the public that City Hall will be closed beginning Monday and will reopen January 5. Just to put that out there. People can still leave messages, send emails, so forth. We'll be open tomorrow. And the next item on the agenda is if there are any items from the members of the Planning Commission that they'd like to share. Otherwise, we would adjourn.

Anybody else have anything for the good of the order? No. I won't complain about the letter going to the Save Mart.

Next time.

It's done?

No. Not yet.

Not yet. Okay. We'll bring that up again. Okay. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.