CITY OF MERCED
Planning Commission
Resolution #4144
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission at its regular meeting of May 7, 2025, held a public hearing and considered General Plan Amendment #24-01 , and Northeast Yosemite Specific Plan Amendment #6 initiated by Stonefield Home, Inc., property owner . The General Plan Amendment would amend the Merced General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element by modifying the City of Merced Circulation Plan (Figure 4.1) and all associated maps and descriptions throughout the General Plan, to eliminate a portion of Destiny Drive (a collector road) from going through the subject site to Paulson Road (extension). The Northeast Yosemite Specific Plan Amendment would modify the design, layout, and circulation of the residential subdivision previously approved for this site. The subject site is generally located on the south side of E. Cardella Road, 1,900 feet east of G Street. The subject site is more particularly described as Remainder as shown on the map entitled “Parcel Map for Wathen” recorded in Book 121, Page 2, in Merced County Records; also known as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 231-010- 021; and,
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission concurs with Findings/Considerations A through H of Staff Report #2 5-338 ( Exhibit B of Planning Commission Resolution #4144); and,
NOW THEREFORE, after reviewing the City’s Initial Study and Draft Environmental Determination, and fully discussing all the issues, the Merced City Planning Commission does resolve to hereby recommend to City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration regarding Environmental Review #24-07, and recommend approval of General Plan Amendment #24-01, and Northeast Yosemite Specific Plan Amendment #6, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Upon motion by Commissioner Delgadillo, seconded by Commissioner Ochoa, and carried by the following vote:
A
YES: Commissioners Smith, Swiggart, Delgadillo, Thao, and Greggains NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairperson Gonzalez
ABSTAIN: None
ATTACHMENT 7
EXHIBIT A
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4144
Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Resolution # 4144
General Plan Amendment #24-01/Northeast Yosemite Specific Plan Amendment #6
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment shall be as shown on the Conceptual Revised Circulation Element (Figure 4.1) at Attachment G of Planning Commission Staff Report #25-338.
2. Approval of the General Plan Amendment, and Northeast Yosemite Specific Plan Amendment are subject to the applicant(s) entering into a written Legislative Action Agreement that they agree to all the conditions and shall pay all City and school district fees, taxes, and/or assessments, in effect on the date of any subsequent subdivision and/or permit approval, any increase in those fees, taxes, or assessments, and any new fees, taxes, or assessments, which are in effect at the time the building permits are issued, which may include public facilities impact fees, a regional traffic impact fee, Mello-Roos taxes— whether for infrastructure, services, or any other activity or project authorized by the Mello-Roos law, etc. Payment shall be made for each phase at the time of building permit issuance for such phase unless an Ordinance or other requirement of the City requires payment of such fees, taxes, and/or assessments at an earlier or subsequent time. Said agreement to be approved by the City Council prior to the adoption of the ordinance, resolution, or minute action.
3. The proposed project shall comply with all standard Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act requirements as required by the City Engineering Department.
4. The Project shall comply with all applicable conditions set forth in the resolutions for Annexation No. 173 ( Yosemite Annexation #3) previously approved for this site, unless modified by these conditions.
5. All other applicable codes, ordinances, policies, etc., adopted by the City of Merced shall apply.
6. The developer/owner is required to finance the annual operating costs for police and fire services as well as storm drainage, public landscaping, street trees, streetlights, parks and open space, which may include a financing mechanism such as a Community Facilities District (CFD) or, assessment
EXHIBIT A
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4144
district. Procedures for financing these services and on- going maintenance shall be initiated before final map approval or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building, whichever comes first. Developer/Owner shall submit a request agreeing to such a procedure, waiving right to protest and post deposit as determined by the City Engineer to be sufficient to cover procedure costs and maintenance costs expected prior to first assessments being received.
7. The developer/owner is required to finance the annual operating costs for police and fire services as well as storm drainage, public landscaping, street trees, streetlights, parks and open space, which may include a financing mechanism such as a Community Facilities District (CFD) or, assessment district. Procedures for financing these services and on- going maintenance shall be initiated before final map approval or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building, whichever comes first. Developer/Ow ner shall submit a request agreeing to such a procedure, waiving right to protest and post deposit as determined by the City Engineer to be sufficient to cover procedure costs and maintenance costs expected prior to first assessments being received.
8. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by the City), and hold harmless the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and any officers, officials, employees, or agents thereof, from any and all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, or judgments against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, and any officers, officials, employees, or agents thereof to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof , advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body, including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the project and the approvals granted herein.
Furthermore, developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, against any and all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, or judgments against any governmental entity in which developer/applicant’s project is subject to that other governmental entity’s approval and a condition of such approval is that the City indemnify and defend (with counsel selected by the City) such governmental entity. City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, suits, or proceeding. Developer/applicant shall be responsible to immediately prefund the litigation cost of the City including, but not limited to, City’s attorney’s fees and costs. If any claim, action, suits, or proceeding
EXHIBIT A
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4144
is filed challenging this approval, the developer/applicant shall be required to execute a separate and formal defense, indemnification, and deposit agreement that meets the approval of the City.
9. The developer/applicant shall construct and operate the project in strict compliance with the approvals granted herein, City standards, laws, and ordinances, and in compliance with all State and Federal laws, regulations, and standards. In the event of a conflict between City laws and standards and a State or Federal law, regulation, or standard, the stricter or higher standard shall control.
EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4144
Findings and Considerations
Planning Commission Resolution #4144
Northeast Yosemite Specific Plan #6/General Plan Amendment #24-01
FINDINGS/CONSIDERATIONS:
General Plan Compliance and Policies Related to This Application A) The General Plan Amendment portion of this application would amend the General Plan’s Circulation Element (Figure 4.1) to eliminate Destiny Drive (a collector road) from the project site as this road would not be able to extend through the site eastward to Paulson Road due to wetland constraints within the subject site (see Finding C). The General Plan Amendment portion of this application would not amend any of the General Plan land use designations within the project site.
The proposed subdivision (Paulson Ranch) would create 1 04 residential lots on 39.12 acres (Attachment D of Planning Commission Staff Report 25-338).
This subdivision complies with the General Plan designations of Low Density Residential (LD) and High to Medium Density Residential (HMD) for this site. The maximum number of units allowed for this site would be approximately 655; the proposed 104 units is below the maximum allowed for this site.
The proposed project, with conditions of approval, will help achieve the following General Plan land use policies:
L-1.2 Encourage a diversity of building types, ownership, prices, designs, and site plans for residential areas throughout the City.
L-1.3 Encourage a diversity of lot sizes in residential subdivisions.
L-1.8 Create livable and identifiable residential neighborhoods.
Mandatory Findings
B) Chapter 20.80 (Zoning Ordinance Amendments) and 20.82 (General Plan Amendments) outlines procedures for considering General Plan Amendments, but does not require any specific findings to be made for approval. In addition to amend specific plans, such as the Northeast Yosemite Specific Plan, there are no specific findings that need to be made.
However, good Planning practice would be to provide objective reasons
EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4144
for approval or denial. These findings can take whatever form deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and City Council. Based on State law and case law, the following findings are recommended:
1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest.
Due to wetland concerns described under Finding C, the circulation for this site is being redesigned. This includes the request for a General Plan Amendment to eliminate Destiny Drive (collector road) from going through the subject site. Doing so allows the developer to re-design the subject site so that it is developable for a residential subdivision while avoiding wetland areas. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest because it will provide needed housing for the community.
2. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.
The proposed General Plan Amendment would modify the City’s Circulation Element to eliminate a collector road (Destiny Drive) from going through the subject site, however the General Plan land use designations throughout the subject site would remain the same and consistent with the rest of the General Plan.
In addition, Finding A shows that the proposal meets some of the General Plan Goals and Policies such as allowing the development of residential housing that encourages a diversity of housing stock, encourages a diversity of lot sizes, and continue to pursue quality single -family homes.
3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.
The proposed project does not include any uses that would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the City.
Implementation of the conditions of approval and adherence to all applicable Building Codes, Fire Codes, and City Standards woul d prevent the project from having any detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the City as a whole.
EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4144
4. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment has been processed in accordance with all applicable California Government Code sections. In addition, Planning staff has conducted an environmental review (#24-07) of the project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and a Negative Declaration ( see Attachment K of Planning Commission Staff Report #25-338) has been recommended.
Wetlands
C) Gallaway Enterprises conducted a field survey and identified areas where historical flooding from adjacent waterways created wetlands. The map at Attachment I identifies the wetland areas. The proposed subdivision (Paulson Ranch) is designed to avoid these areas, which requires amending the circulation in this area by eliminati ng the portion of Destiny Drive planned to go through this site, and modifying the circulation previously and housing type approved through the Northeast Yosemite Specific Plan (Attachment J).
Building Elevations
D) The developer has yet to submit building designs for the single-family homes (104 lots). The building design/elevations will be reviewed and approved by Planning Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The single-family homes shall be required to comply with the City’s minimum design standards for single-family homes as required under Merced Municipal Code Section
20.46.020 - Design Standards for Single -Family Dwellings and Mobile Homes (see Attachment E of Planning Commission Staff Report #25-338).
Traffic/Circulation
E) Traffic From Proposed Development
The project site consists of an undeveloped lot totaling approximately 39.12 acres. The project site fronts an arterial road (E. Cardella Road), with the nearest north -south road being Paulson Road (collector road) currently terminating south of the project site, but would be extended through the subject site up to Cardella Road and down to Yosemite Avenue with this development. Yosemite Avenue and Cardella Road are both designed to carry
EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4144
large volumes of traffic going through a large portion of the community. The subject site is half a mile east of G Street, which provides access to Highway 99 that connects Merced with other regional communities throughout the State.
The interior roads within the subdivision include two east/west roads, six cul- de-sacs, and two north/south roads. As shown at Attachment D of Planning Commission Staff Report #25-338, the Streets/Courts A through J (except for Street D) would be designed to Local Street standards with 59 feet of right- of-way, which includes street, curb, gutter, park strip, sidewalk, and a public utility easement. Street D would have 100 feet of right-of-way. Paulson Road and Cardella Road would respectively have 84 feet and 148 feet of right -of- way respectively, and include a masonry block wall.
The General Plan would allow a maximum of 655 units within the subject site.
The proposed 104 units would generate less vehicle traffic compared to the maximum density allowed. According to Trip Generation (ITE Report) , the average daily trips per unit is 6.59. The proposed project at 1 04 units would generate approximately 1 6% of the average daily trips compared to the maximum density allowed by the General Plan.
In addition, there are several walkable locations within a ¼ mile of the subject site, which include Davenport Park, Cruickshank Middle School, Dignity Health Hospital, Merced College, and the Yosemite & G Crossing Shopping Center (under construction in phases). The existing street network could adequately serve this proposal as it was designed to accommodate a much larger maximum number of units. In addition, the extension of Paulson Road to Cardella Road would provide direct access to existing residents in the neighborhood wanting to travel north, improving the street network in the area.
Neighborhood Impact
F) The subject site is surrounded by a variety of uses which includes to the west by Cruickshank Middle School/agricultural land, to the south by single-family homes, to the east by undeveloped land, and to the north (across from E.
Cardella Road) by agricultural land. The subject site’s current land use designation is residential and would allow a maximum of 655 residential units. The proposed Paulson Ranch subdivision is consistent with the current land use designation, and at 104 single-family homes would be below the maximum number of residential units allowed for this site . There are several existing residential subdivisions to the south. T his development is not
EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4144
expected to alter the character of the neighborhood or introduce uses that don’t already exist in the neighborhood.
Public hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. At the time that this report was prepared, the City had not received any comments regarding this project.
Affordability Requirements
G) In 202 3, the City Council updated the City’s Regi onal Housing Needs Allocation Unit Production Plan. A housing affordability requirement is triggered by two qualifiers that need to be met: entitlement type and number of units created. For single-family residential developments, the affordability requirement is triggered by a legislative action agreement (through annexations, general plan amendments, site utilization plan revisions, or zone changes) for projects with over 60 single-family homes (multi-family residential projects are exempt).
In this case, the developer is requesting an entitlement that triggers a legislative action agreement-- a general plan amendment. As shown under Finding A, General Plan Amendment #24-01 is to amend the City’s Circulation Element only (not a land use change request. The land use aspect of the project ( 104 units on approximately 39 acres) would comply with the Zoning classifications for this site.
Based on this request, the developer is not required to provide affordable housing units (or an in-lieu fee) because the general plan amendment is to amend the City’s Circulation Element (not land use).
Environmental Clearance
H) Most Infill projects over 5 acres or projects that don’t comply with Zoning/General Plan designations require an Initial Study, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this case, the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan land uses, and a General Plan Amendment is being requested to amend the Circulation Element by eliminating a collector road from going through the project site and amending the Northeast Yosemite Specific Plan – thus an Initial Study was required. An Initial Study includes a wide range of analysis required by the State covering an array of subjects including, but not limited to, impacts on vehicle miles traveled, air quality, bi ological resource, public services, cultural resources, and City utilities. Planning staff has conducted an environmental review of the project
EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4144
in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, and concluded that Environmental Review #24- 07 results in a Negative Declaration as the proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment and does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. A copy of the Initial Study with a Negative Declaration can be found at Attachment K of Planning Commission Staff Report #25-338.