Developers got the go-ahead with a 4-1 vote from the Patterson Planning Commission on Thursday to build a 54.3-acre industrial park close to the corner of Highway 33 and Poppy Avenue.

At the same time, the commission approved annexing 290 acres of noncontiguous, city-owned land that is now part of the county. All of those parcels are used for water and sewer service.

However, not all on the commission were enthused by the industrial park proposal.

David Applegate, in one of his first actions since being appointed to the commission in early March, broke with staff’s recommendations and cast the lone “no” vote. The awkward intersection at First Street and Sperry Avenue wouldn’t be able to handle additional traffic, he said.

Behind Applegate’s traffic objection is a proposed zigzagging intersection at Sperry Avenue and First Street. The intersection is a little south of the Sperry-Highway 33 intersection, and at both locations, Sperry is at a 45-degree angle to the other road.

With a railroad crossing also in the area and difficult visibility, Applegate predicted a disaster.

“We’re building a trap,” he said.

Rod Simpson, the community development director, said the intersection is a unique challenge, but the additional traffic the project could create would not overload the intersection. Also, by law, he said, the city can’t require a new project to pay to fix an existing deficiency.

Developers also weren’t 100 percent behind every recommendation put forward by city staff. Engineer Max Garcia said he had an issue with the costly requirements designed to preserve agricultural land. At one point, he said regulation is “not the American way.”

A majority of the commission agreed with Garcia, and Commissioner Ron West led the charge.

“We need to start getting big buildings,” he said, because industry typically uses less water than agriculture.

Garcia wanted to change the requirement that forces the developers to protect an acre of agricultural land for perpetuity for every acre of agricultural land they intend to pave over. It requires people that take ag land out of production to buy an equivalent amount of land, usually from the U.S. Department of Conservation, that cannot be used for anything except farming.

When Garcia argued against the plan, he said neither of the past two major annexations had to follow the rule. When the city annexed 690 acres to the northeast in early 2007 for the 3,100-home Villages of Patterson development, the largest proposed in Patterson, developers got to ignore the ag mitigation rules because the Patterson City Council decided the need for affordable housing took precedence.

When the city annexed the land that includes the Keystone Pacific Business Park, the council decided no ag mitigation would be required because the need for jobs took precedence.

This time around, Garcia argued it would be unfair to make this project go through the ag mitigation when a competing — though much larger — business park didn’t have to.

“They should treat this like they did the last one,” Garcia said.

Simpson reaffirmed staff’s position that the ag mitigation should be included, and commissioners bantered about the point of having the rule if it keeps getting waived. Ultimately, at least four of the commissioners were fine with removing the requirement.

“I agree with Mr. Garcia,” West said.

The proposed industrial park would include 20 lots ranging in sizes from .52 to 6.2 aces. The area is designated for light industrial use.

The commission’s approval is just one of the bureaucratic hurdles the project must go through before it can become a reality. The five elected representatives on the City Council will have to weigh in, and because the project would require expanding the city limits, the countywide Local Agency Formation Commission will also have to green-light the project.

As the city is already going to LAFCo for an annexation approval, attempts to get several city-owned properties within city limits will be bundled with the proposal. All the city-owned properties are related to water and sewer service. By bringing them into the city, there would be no need for Patterson to pay property taxes on them, Simpson said.

Contact John Saiz at 892-6187 or john@pattersonirrigator.com.