Merced council approves housing plan, delays final decision on adjacent 500-unit storage facility

The Merced City Council on Nov. 17 voted to approve a General Plan amendment and a site utilization plan revision that clears the way for a 28-lot single- and two-story residential subdivision near East Yosemite and Parsons avenues, while pausing final approval of a proposed 500-unit self-storage facility adjacent to the homes.

Councilmember Smith moved to grant the appeal for the residential components and to deny without prejudice the site plan review permit and the minor use permit for the storage facility ‘‘with a request to staff and the developer to reconsider some of the elements of the storage facility along the lines that we have discussed,’’ according to the motion the council adopted. The motion passed with Councilmember Jeong voting no and Councilmember DuPont recused from the relevant votes.

The decision follows months of hearings and a staff presentation that summarized project revisions made after neighborhood meetings. Staff said the developer reduced density from 41 to 28 lots (a roughly 30% reduction), increased average lot sizes and lot widths, and restricted lots 1 through 15 to single-story homes. The applicant also reduced proposed storage hours from 7 a.m.–10 p.m. to 7 a.m.–7 p.m. and lowered the height on a rear storage building, staff said.

Neighbors and community members told the council they remain concerned about the storage component. Opponents warned the storage facility could be built first and leave the housing stalled, create a large impervious-area heat island without long-term landscaping guarantees, and be incompatible with the corridor envisioned in the city's general plan. Architect and long-time resident Robert D'Annuzzo said the proposed self-storage use is more akin to an industrial or warehousing use than to the commercial-office designation the general plan currently envisions for the corridor.

Supporters including local builders and the applicant argued the revised housing component addresses many neighborhood concerns and that a modern, retail-style storage model serves local businesses and residents who increasingly rely on nearby storage. Keaton Bender, who identified himself as a fourth-generation local builder and supporter of the project, said the combined project would support local jobs and provide housing stock the city needs.

Council members acknowledged the competing public interests: several praised the developer for changes on the housing side but said the storage building's design and landscape treatment require further work. The council directed staff and the developer to return with a revised site plan and enhanced landscaping, lighting, and other measures to reduce heat and visual impacts.

As part of the council's action, the council introduced ordinance 25-85 (first reading) to change 3.19 acres from commercial office to self-storage and 4.86 acres to residential. The ordinance introduction passed with DuPont recused and Councilmember Zhang absent; the earlier motion to grant the appeal in part passed with Jeong voting no.

The council's action leaves the residential entitlement pathway active while the storage component must return to the council after the developer and staff address the design and compatibility concerns the council outlined. The municipal code allows the council to approve some discretionary approvals while denying others, and the city attorney confirmed the council had the authority to parse the approvals as it did.

The council paused for a short break following the vote; staff said the items would return after the developer submits revised materials and after environmental and technical checks are completed.