C
ITY OF MERCED
Planning Commission
Resolution #4152
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission at its regular meeting of May 7, 2025, held a public hearing and considered General Plan Amendment #2 4-02 and Site Utilization Plan Revision #3 to Planned Development #20, initiated by Eric Gonsalves, on behalf of Yosemite 1380 LLC , property owner for the property located at 1380 E Yosemite Avenue and 3595 Parsons Avenue . The General Plan Amendment proposed changing the General Plan land use designation from Commercial Office (CO) to Business Park (BP) for 2.72 acres and from Commercial Office (CO) to High Medium Density (HMD) residential for the remaining 4.48 acres. The Site Utilization Plan Revision proposed changing the land use designation within P-D #20 from Commercial Office to Self-Storage for 2.72 acres and to Residential for the remaining 4.48 acres. The approximate 8.05-acre subject site is generally located on the southwest corner of E. Yosemite Ave and Parsons Ave. The property being more particularly described as Lots “A” and “B”, as shown on that certain map entitled “Oakmount Village Unit No. 5,” recorded in Volume 46, Page 38 of Merced County Records; also known as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 006-050-068 and 006-050-072; and,
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this matter on March 19th 2025. At this meeting the commission voted to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 2025, to allow for additional time to review the project and documents. At their meeting on April 9, 2025, the Merced City Planning Commission adopted a motion of intent to recommend denial of General Plan Amendment #24-02 and Site Utilization Plan Revision #3 to Planned Development #20, and directed staff to prepare Findings for Denial; and,
WHER
EAS, the Merced City Planning Commission based its decision to recommend denial of General Plan Amendment #24-02 and Site Utilization Plan Revision #3 to Planned Development #20 on the following Findings:
General Plan Amendment – Findings
Chapter 20.82 (General Plan Amendments) outlines procedures for considering General Plan Amendments but does not require any specific findings to be made for approval.
However, Planning practice would be to provide objective reasons for approval or denial.
These findings can take whatever form deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and City Council.
1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest.
The Planning Commission fi
nds that the proposed amendment is not in the public
interest because public storage facilities provide limited employment and may attract ATTACHMENT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4152
May 7, 2025
blight to the area. Additionally, the Planning Commission found that the proposed change in land use designation from Commercial Office (C -O) to High Medium Density Residential was not in the public interest due to the incompatibility of the project to the surrounding uses (namely the single-family residential to the south) and the access of the project from Parsons Avenue.
2. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.
The Planning Commission f inds the proposed amendment inconsistent and incompatible with the General Plan and any implementation programs. The Planning Commission found the proposed General Plan Amendment land use designation change from Commercial Office (CO) to Business Park (BP) and the proposed change from Commercial Office (CO) to High Medium Density (HMD) to be inconsistent with the General Plan for the area.
NOW THEREFORE, after reviewing the project and fully discussing all the issues, the Merced City Planning Commission does resolve to hereby recommend that City Council deny General Plan Amendment #2 4-02 and Site Utilization Plan Revision #3 to Planned Development #20.
Upon motion by Commissioner Ochoa, seconded by Commissioner Swiggart, and carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ochoa, Smith, Swiggart, Delgadillo, Thao, and Greggains NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairperson Gonzalez
ABSTAIN: None
Attachment B
CITY OF MERCED
Planning Commission
Resolution #4153
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission at its regular meeting of May 7, 2025, held a public hearing and considered Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map #1332, Site Plan Review Permit #551 and Minor Use Permit #24-13 initiated by Eric Gonsalves, on behalf of Yosemite 1380 LLC, property owner for the property located at 1380 E Yosemite Avenue and 3595 Parsons Avenue . The Minor Use Permit was for interface review to allow commercial development adjacent to Low Density Residential (R-1-6) Zone. The Site Plan Review Permit was to allow the development of a self-storage facility with approximately 500 storage units. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map was to divide the self -storage from the residential lots and create 41, single-family, residential lots. The approximate 8.05- acre subject site is generally located on the southwest corner of E. Yosemite Ave and Parsons Ave. The property being more particularly described as Lots “A” and “B”, as shown on the certain map entitled “Oakmount Village Unit No. 5”, recorded in Volume 46, page 38 of Merced County Records; also known as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 006-050-068 and 006-050-072; and,
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this matter on March 19th 2025. At this meeting the commission voted to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 2025, to allow for additional time to review the project and documents. At their meeting on April 9, 2025, the Merced City Planning Commission adopted a motion of intent to deny Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map #1332, Site Plan Review Permit #551 and Minor Use Permit #24- 13, and directed staff to prepare Findings for Denial; and,
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission based its decision to den y Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map #1332, Site Plan Review Permit #551 and Minor Use Permit #24-13 on the following Findings:
Minor Use Permit Findings
1. The proposed use is consistent with the purpose and standards of zoning district, the general plan, and any adopted area or neighborhood plan, specific plan, or community plan.
The Planning Commission finds the proposed project to be inconsistent with the General Plan land use designations in the area.
2. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity of the subject property.
The Planning Commission finds that the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposal would not be compatible with existing and future land uses in the vicinity. Specifically, the Planning Commission finds the number of PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4153
May 7, 2025
single-family residential lots and the layout of the proposed residential portion of the project to be incompatible with the existing single-family residential development to the south.
3. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the city.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal would adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare of the City by allowing a Business Park (BP) land use in an area that has historically be designated for Commercial Office (CO).
4. The proposed use is properly located within the City and adequately served by existing or planned services and infrastructure.
The Planning Commission finds that although the project could be adequately served by existing services such as sewer connections, water connection, and other utilities, the proposed development is not properly located within the City as the area has been historically been designated for Commercial Office (CO).
Site Plan Review Findings
1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, and any adopted area or neighborhood plan, specific plan, or community plan.
The Planning Commission finds the proposed project inconsistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the Planning Commission found the proposed General Plan Amendment land use designation change from Commercial Office (CO) to Business Park (BP) and the proposed change from Commercial Office (CO) to High Medium Density (HMD) to be inconsistent with the Gene ral Plan for the area.
2. The proposed project complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project, namely the single-family portion not in compliance with the zoning ordinance as the project sought to create it’s own standards via a Planned Development zone.
3. The design and layout of the proposed project will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of existing and future neighboring properties and structures.
The Planning Commission finds that the design and layout of the proposed project, specifically the residential portion of the project, would The Planning Commission finds the the design and layout of the proposed project would interfere with the enjoyment of the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.
4. The proposed architectural design makes use of appropriate materials, texture, and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and appropriately maintained.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4153
May 7, 2025
The Planning Commission does not mention if the proposed architectural design makes use of appropriate material, texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and appropriately maintained.
5. Any proposed landscaping design, including color, location, size, texture, type, and coverage of plan materials, as well as provisions for irrigation, maintenance, and protection of landscaping elements, will complement structures and provide an attractive environment.
The Planning Commission did not address if the proposed landscaping design, including color, location, size, texture, type, and coverage of plan materials, as well as provisions for irrigation, maintenance , and protection of landscaping elements, will complement structures and provide an attractive environment.
6. The proposed design will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed project.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed self-storage facility and residential subdivision is not compatible with the surrounding residential uses in the vicinity or the City’s vision for that area. The medium-high density of the residential subdivision would not be compatible with the low density residential. The design of the subdivision would not be compatible with surrounding subdivisions. Additionally, the Planning Commission finds that the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the propos ed Self -storage would not be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would interfere with the enjoyment of the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.
NOW THEREFORE, after reviewing the City’s Initial Study and Draft Environmental Determination, the proposed project, and fully discussing all the issues, the Merced City Planning Commission does resolve to hereby not adopt a Negative Declaration (Environmental Review #24-25), disapproves Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map #1332, disapproves Site Plan Review Permit #551, and disapproves Minor Use Permit #24-13.
Upon motion by Commissioner Ochoa, seconded by Commissioner Swiggart, and carried by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Smith, Ochoa, Delgadillo, Swiggart, Thao, and Greggains NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairperson Gonzalez
ABSTAIN: None