Patterson Council makes controversial decision on rezoning. Why it could cost the city $20M
The Patterson City Council on Tuesday redistricted industrial land for residential and commercial use, going against requests from Stanislaus County, the school district and every resident who gave public comments.
By also moving forward with a development agreement for the Baldwin Ranch North Project, the council prepared to violate a 16-year-old deal with the county designed to promote industrial growth.
The proposed Baldwin Ranch North Project lies between Sperry Avenue, Baldwin Road and the Delta Mendota Canal and covers 131 of the 814 acres that the city and county designated for the West Patterson Business Park Master Development Plan. In 2004, Patterson signed an agreement saying it would owe the county about $20 million if the city approved development inconsistent with the plan, which laid out usages such as warehousing and distribution and low-intensity manufacturing.
Voting unanimously Tuesday, the council rezoned 32.9 acres for general commercial purposes and 98.5 acres for medium density housing, where the project developer has proposed building 448 residential lots. The council also passed the first reading of an ordinance approving a development agreement for the Baldwin Ranch North Project 5-0, but the soonest it could vote on the second reading is at the next regular meeting on Dec. 1, Patterson City Attorney Nubia Goldstein said. It would take 30 days for the ordinance to go into effect after the second vote, Goldstein added.
Both Stanislaus County and Patterson Unified School district officials asked the council to delay voting by 30 days for more time to discuss and assess the issues, but project applicant Joseph Hollowell told the council he has a short time window. During the nearly three-hour-long discussion, Goldstein repeatedly referenced how Section 5.8 of the development agreement requires the developer to pay the county all fees and reimbursements for violating the 2004 deal.
“I understand there’s agreement, but cities do have the legal latitude to govern within their own boundaries,” Council Member Dominic Farinha said. “It’s certainly understandable that over time, things do change and with new information, circumstances and needs a city has, they have to make changes from time to time.”
Stanislaus County, Patterson school districts raise concerns
County Supervisor Jim DeMartini, whose district includes Patterson, criticized the speed at which the city processed the development application. In public comments, DeMartini said the city gave the county insufficient time to respond, including when the Planning Commission held a special meeting on Nov. 5 and approved rezoning the land. The county believes that the proposed project site near I-5 is the city’s best industrial land, DeMartini said, and housing can be built elsewhere.
“We don’t want to have this kind of conflict and wind up in court over this,” DeMartini said. “I just really wish you would postpone this and take a little better look at this, at least on the residential part of this.”
Instead of adding an addendum to the 2001 environmental impact report for West Patterson Projects, DeMartini said the city should have required a new report. But Grant Gruber of First Carbon Solutions, the environmental consultant for the Baldwin Ranch North Project, said researchers concluded the land use change would either reduce or have the same impacts on factors such as traffic, air quality and water.
When it comes to educational consequences, the proposed project could increase Patterson Unified School District’s student population by 50%, Assistant Superintendent Jeff Menge said. He likewise said the school district had insufficient time to review the project information. In response to questions from the council, Hollowell said the developer has already identified two possible school sites and will pay school district fees as required by law.
About four Patterson residents also raised concerns about approving the project and rezoning in public comments. No participants in the virtual meeting spoke in support of the project other than Hollowell, city staff and the council. Resident Sean Hansen called attention to the fact that two new city council members will be sworn in after election results are certified; Council Member Dennis McCord is poised to rise to mayor.
“I feel that we should delay the approval for these new council members to come in and get up to speed,” Hansen said. “It doesn’t look good that it appears we’re rushing it.”
What’s next for the Baldwin Ranch North Project
The council did make two amendments to the development agreement: adding $500 per unit for an additional affordable housing fee and providing alternatives to a proposed basin green space. The amendments were requested by Farinha and McCord, respectively.
In the 2004 agreement with Stanislaus County, Goldstein said there is no provision requiring Patterson directly pay the fees versus a third party like the Baldwin Ranch North Project covering the payments. The city agreed to reimburse the county about $10 million plus interest for construction costs for Baldwin and Sperry Roads as well as pay a $10 million fine for violating the agreement, according to a letter the county wrote the city. After approving development inconsistent with the plan, the county wrote that the city has 30 days to make the payments.
Patterson and county officials on Tuesday said they are still discussing the agreement, but depending on how the they define the approval date, the payment may be due at the end of this year.
