Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parcel Map Extension topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission grants one-year extension for Vineyard Square parcel map; owner cites Tesla talks
Summary
The commission unanimously approved a one-year extension to file a final parcel map for Vineyard Square Shopping Center, subject to conditions including maintenance agreements; the applicant said negotiations over a Tesla charging station delayed the final map.
The Esplanade Planning Commission on Tuesday approved a one-year time extension for the final parcel map covering Vineyard Square Shopping Center at 1900 McHenry Avenue, allowing the property owner additional time to complete conditions and submit the final map for recording with the county.
Staff said the 2023 tentative parcel map subdivides the shopping center into five parcels plus a shared parking and landscape area and that no new construction is proposed; the approved extension gives the applicant more time to satisfy conditions and record the map with the San Joaquin County Recorder's Office.
During the public comment period, Brian, identified as the son of the property owner, said common-area maintenance responsibilities will remain tied to the main grocery-store building (referred to in the record as Mar Veil/Marbelle), and that covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) will formalize maintenance obligations. Brian told commissioners that negotiations with Tesla over a proposed EV charging station had delayed the mapping work, but the company withdrew and the owners now intend to proceed with the previously approved map.
Commissioners asked whether maintenance agreements or common-area maintenance (CAM) fee arrangements would survive individual sales of parcels. Staff said access, shared parking, and maintenance obligations will be recorded and that standard conditions require litter control, landscaping upkeep and other maintenance; the final map must include maintenance and lighting agreements before recording.
A planning commissioner also asked whether separate parcel owners could be required to abide by existing tenant-use prohibitions. The applicant responded that parcel-level restrictions would carry existing use prohibitions forward (the parcel restrictions disclosed in the hearing included prohibitions on duplicating certain existing uses such as pizza, gym and grocery store), meaning future owners would be bound by those restrictions.
No one in the chamber objected. The commission voted to grant the one-year extension with the standard conditions of approval.
Staff noted that if the applicant still needs more time after the extension, the code allows further requests (up to three additional years in some circumstances) through the same approval process.
