Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Euseite Mixed Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves subdivision and site plans for Euseite Avenue project but forwards general‑plan change to city council after split vote
Summary
After extensive public opposition to a planned 500‑unit self‑storage facility and 28 new homes, the planning commission approved environmental review, the tentative map, site plan review and a minor use permit (3–2), but a required four‑vote margin for a general‑plan amendment was not reached, so the amendment will go to the City Council for final action.
The Merced City Planning Commission took a split decision on Sept. 17 on a multi‑part project that would reclassify roughly 8.05 acres near East Euseite Avenue and Parsons from commercial office to business park and residential, allow a roughly 500‑unit self‑storage facility and create 28 residential lots.
Staff said the project returned to the commission after a prior denial and a city‑council appeal. Acting planning manager Johnny Lan said the applicant reduced density from 41 to 28 homes, increased minimum lot sizes, and required single‑story homes on lots abutting the existing southern neighborhood. The site plan for the storage component includes a 12–14‑foot block (CMU) wall, shielded lighting requirements, and a perimeter fence; staff also noted site‑specific setbacks (10‑ft front, 4‑ft side interior, 15‑ft rear) and a traffic estimate of roughly 373 daily trips, below the 500‑trip threshold used for additional VMT analysis.
Todd Bender, the applicant, described major concessions: a roughly 30% reduction in residential density, a nearly doubling of minimum lot sizes on the homes side, removal of alley‑loaded product types, minimum lot widths of 50 feet, and a shorter storage‑facility operating window (proposed 7 a.m.–7 p.m.).
Neighbors and organized opposition leaders pressed several themes: that the property is already designated commercial office and should remain part of the gateway corridor serving the new medical/academic growth nearby; that the storage facility produces large expanses of impervious surface, limited perimeter landscaping, a tall block wall and visual and stormwater impacts; and that bundling the storage use with new housing undermines transparency and precedent.
After deliberation, the commission voted to approve the environmental review, the vesting tentative subdivision map (1332), the site plan review permit (551) and the minor use permit (24‑13). The motion passed by a 3–2 vote. Commissioners then took a separate action on the general plan amendment and site utilization plan revision; the motion to deny the general plan amendment failed to obtain the four votes required under the municipal code and is therefore deemed denied at the commission level and automatically forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
