Report Prepared by: Michael Hren, Principal Planner, Development Services Department
Title
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing to Consider the Introduction of an Ordinance Approving Site Utilization Plan (SUP) Revision #4 to Planned Development (P-D) #72 Initiated by Yosemite & G, LLC., Property Owner, and Approval of an Amendment to the Legislative Action Agreement for the Yosemite Crossing Development to Include a Car Wash, Additional Retail Buildings, and 52 Additional Multi-Family Units, as Well as Reconfiguring the Location of Various Buildings on the Site
REPORT IN BRIEF
This application is to modify the Site Utilization Plan (SUP) for the Yosemite Crossing Development at the northeast corner of Yosemite Avenue and G Street to allow inclusion of a car wash, additional retail buildings, realignment of the uses on-site, and an increase of 52 multi-family units from 44 (approved) to 96 (proposed).
RECOMMENDATION
City Council- Adopt a motion:
A. Approving Environmental Review #21-18 (CEQA Section 15162 Findings); and,
B. Introducing Ordinance 2534, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Merced, California, approving Site Utilization Plan Revision #4 to Planned Development (P-D) #72 to include a car wash, additional retail buildings and 52 additional multi-family units, as well as reconfiguring the location of various buildings on the site; and,
C. Approving the amendment to the Legislative Action Agreement; and,
D. Authorizing the City Manager or the Deputy City Manager to execute all related documents.
Body
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the SUP Revision, as recommended by Planning Commission and staff; or,
2. Approve the SUP Revision, subject to modifications by City Council (identify specific items to be amended in the motion); or,
3. Deny; or,
4. Refer to staff for reconsideration of specific items (to be addressed in the motion); or,
5. Continue to a future City Council meeting (date and time to be specified in the motion).
AUTHORITY
Merced Municipal Code Section 20.20.020 sets forth regulations for Planned Developments and amending Planned Developments.
DISCUSSION
Yosemite & G, LLC. are seeking to modify the Site Utilization Plan (SUP) for the Yosemite Crossing Development at the northeast corner of Yosemite Avenue and G Street.
Project Description
The applicant proposes revisions to some retail buildings, addition of a car wash, and an increase of 52 multi-family units from 44 (approved) to 96 (proposed) as shown at Attachment 2 of Administrative Report 21-734.
Background
The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended for approval General Plan Amendment #19-03 and Site Utilization Plan (SUP) Revision #3 to Planned Development (P-D) #72 for the Yosemite Crossing Development in December 2019, with the City Council approving the same in January 2020. The plan for the shopping center consisted of retail locations, restaurants of both sit-down and drive-through type, a gas station, office uses, a four-story hotel, and a multi-family housing element. The City of Merced Planning Commission also approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a master sign program for the site in May 2020 and a Tentative Subdivision Map to divide the project into seven parcels in September 2020. A final map has also been recorded.
Planning Commission Meeting
On August 18, 2021, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to approve SUP Revision #4 to P-D #72 and Environmental Review #21-18 with the addition of a Condition of Approval that reads: “For the Site Plan Review for the multi-family residential portion of the project, the City shall provide a public notice to the property owners on the adjacent cul-de-sacs across Sandpiper Avenue. At least two in-person or virtual meetings shall be held by the applicants with the neighbors to consider the design of the apartments.” Also at that meeting, an application for a CUP to allow the car wash project to move forward was given approval by the Planning Commission contingent on the City Council’s approval of the SUP Revision. At the meeting, eight speakers voiced concerns with or opposition to the project and one speaker (apart from the applicant) voiced support for the project. The Planning Commission Resolution is provided at Attachment 4 of Administrative Report 21-734.
Neighborhood Meeting
As of the writing of this report, the applicants have held one neighborhood meeting on September 16, 2021. The meeting was held at 6 PM at Cruickshank Middle School. Residents expressed concerns with a number of items related to the increase of apartments from the approved 44 to the proposed 96:
• Parking impacts:
o Because the application is primarily to determine if the additional residential units are permissible, the details for the residential facility are not fully defined in the application. The applicant wishes to have approval of the increased density through the SUP Revision prior to committing to the cost of drawing detailed plans. The approval for the implementation of this use would come through the required Site Plan Approval process, which also requires a public hearing component pursuant to the municipal code regulations.
§ The parking needs will not be determined until the Site Plan Application is developed, as the number of bedrooms and bathrooms will be used to determine parking requirements. However, based on the number of units, if all units were two bedrooms or less, the required parking would be 152 spaces. The proposed plan provides 234 spaces. Even in the event that all 96 units are proposed with three bedrooms, the required parking would be 200 spaces, which the proposal still exceeds. Staff believes that the provided plans show that the project site has enough capacity for the final site plan to meet or exceed parking requirements. The City’s off-street parking requirements do not require additional parking for guests and visitors, those calculations are factored into the existing requirements.
o Reciprocal cross-access and parking agreements with the remainder of the Yosemite Crossing Development are already conditions of approval of the project, allowing for the use of the retail or office portions of the project to serve as overflow parking for the residential portion.
o Residents expressed specific concerns about additional noise and nuisance of residents of the apartment complex parking along Sandpiper Avenue, particularly on the side directly adjacent to their homes. If the City Council feels it is appropriate, it could add a Condition of Approval through its motion that restricts parking to the west side of Sandpiper Avenue, prohibits parking on Sandpiper Avenue entirely, or sets other restrictions on the duration or hours of parking. However, such parking restrictions would still be subject to approval of an Ordinance and would apply to everyone, meaning that existing residents would also be subject to the same restrictions.
• Additional foot traffic into the Mansionette neighborhood:
o Presently three of the cul-de-sacs, Bobolink Court, Nightingale Court, and Redwing Court, have openings in the block wall allowing pedestrians to pass from the area where Sandpiper Avenue will be constructed into the Mansionette neighborhood. Residents expressed interest in closing off the openings entirely, adding gates, or increasing the height of the existing walls.
§ In order to close off the openings entirely, the easement would need to be abandoned. Because of the public benefit of the access and because the easement is for public facilities including storm drains that run beneath the surface, as well as providing emergency access for public safety, Planning and Engineering staff do not recommend abandonment of the easement.
§ In order to add gates to the openings, the City Engineering Division has been consulted and provided the following guidance: the owners of the property on which the walls reside would need to enter into a Right of Way agreement with the City, provide a legal description of the property, provide proof of liability insurance in accordance with the right of way agreement, and apply for and receive an encroachment permit prior to implementation. The permit would require plans drawn by a licensed professional, and the proposed gates could latch, but would be required to have no locking mechanism or other feature that would prevent passage by pedestrians. Addition of custom-built gates for each opening would cost approximately $2,500 per gate.
§ In order to raise the height of the walls, the City Engineering Division has been consulted and provided the following guidance: a civil engineer licensed in the State of California would need to evaluate the current walls and design the addition to the walls, the proposed plans would need to be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Department and the Building Department, and apply for and receive an encroachment permit prior to implementation.
After additional review, City Engineering has provided approximate heights taken from the existing grade for each of the walls. Building up these walls to their current maximum heights would cost approximately $60 per lineal foot. This estimate does not include calculations for prevailing wage. Building the walls any higher than their current maximum is not recommended. To accomplish higher walls, entirely new walls would likely need to be constructed.
• Redwing
o At opening: 5’ 4”
o First step up: 6’ 8”
o Maximum height: 8’ 0”
• Nightingale
o At opening: 4’ 4”
o First step up: 5’ 8”
o Maximum height: 7’ 0”
• Bobolink
o At opening: 4’ 4”
o First step up: 5’ 8”
o Maximum height: 7’ 0”
• Maintenance and landscaping responsibilities
o An approximately five-foot wide portion of land that is west of the block wall is part of the residents’ property. At present, because the land abuts an empty field, this area is not well-maintained. In the future, this area will be adjacent to the landscaping provided by the developer as a part of the completion of Sandpiper Avenue. Residents expressed concerns over the maintenance and landscaping responsibilities of this five-foot portion of property, including leaves falling from the trees installed as a part of completing Sandpiper Avenue. This area is covered under the existing Mansionette Maintenance District and would be maintained by Public Works once Sandpiper Avenue and the associated improvements go in, subject to the availability of funding from the Maintenance District.
• Unit affordability:
o One of the concerns that has arisen through the public process is whether the residential units will be affordable housing or market-rate units. Currently, the applicant’s intent is to provide market-rate units. Residents expressed concern that units would be sold in the future and become affordable housing units; however, the City has no authority to control or prevent these private transactions. Residents expressed concerns that if the development later was composed of affordable housing units, that a Density Bonus could be applied, increasing the allowable number of units even further. In the event that the developer chooses to provide affordable housing, a Density Bonus could be applied to the project site, whether or not the Site Utilization Plan Revision is approved. Any Density Bonus would require Council approval based on objective standards.
• School impacts:
o The City has invited representatives of the Merced City School District and the Merced Unified High School District to participate in development review meetings for this proposed project. The representatives did not request any modifications or conditions be added to the project based on the proposed impacts. The school districts have provided Student Generation Rates based on the type of development, with multi-family housing generating 0.188 Elementary (K-8) students per unit. The approved development would generate 8 students based on 44 units and the proposed development would generate 18 students based on 96 units, an increase of 10 Elementary students. Since Cruickshank only instructs 7th and 8th grade students, it would only receive a portion of the new student load. The Director of Facilities for the Merced City School District says that the students generated by the development could be absorbed into available spaces at Cruickshank Middle School and Peterson Elementary. The developer’s responsibility to mitigate these impacts is handled through payment of the established fees for those school districts.
• Additional motor vehicle traffic and the impact on bicyclists and pedestrians, especially children going to/from Cruickshank
o Due to the additional concern over traffic, the applicant has voluntarily contracted a traffic engineer to study the changes in traffic between the approved plan and the proposed revisions. The updated Trip Generation Analysis is attached as Attachment 6 of Staff Report 21-734. In brief, the analysis concludes that the proposed changes will increase daily trips by 2.13% (292 trips) and AM peak hour trips by 2.20% (24 trips), but decrease PM peak hour trips by 0.65% (7 trips); the previously recommended mitigation measures would remain unchanged as a result of the implementation of the proposed project.
o As part of the recommended actions, the City Council is asked to approve Environmental Review #21-18, which, due to the decreased intensity of the office and potential hotel uses, determines that the proposed project does not significantly differ in impacts from the approved project. If the City Council feels that additional analysis and review is required prior to approving Environmental Review #21-18, the City Council can continue this item and request additional review.
o Staff has consulted with the Police Department for collision statistics, provided at Attachment 7 of Administrative Report 21-734. In brief, for the period from 2016 to 2021, the area of Mercy Avenue from G Street to Paulson Road, Paulson Road from Mercy Avenue to Yosemite Avenue, and Mansionette Drive from Mercy Avenue to Yosemite Avenue has had:
§ 59 collisions
§ 19 injuries
§ 0 fatalities
§ 2 bicycle-involved collisions
§ 1 pedestrian-involved collision
If the City Council approves the Site Utilization Plan Revision with the recommendations of the Planning Commission, a second neighborhood meeting to consider the design of the multi-family element would need to be held by the applicant prior to the issuance of a Site Plan Permit.
The Environmental Review documentation that was reviewed by the Planning Commission erroneously stated that the change in multi-family housing was 48 units. It has been corrected to reflect the accurate number, 52 units.
This item was heard on the October 4, 2021, meeting of City Council. After unsuccessful motions to approve the item without the changes to the multifamily housing and to approve the item as submitted, the City Council approved a motion to continue the item to the October 18, 2021, meeting by a vote of 4-1.
IMPACT ON CITY RESOURCES
No appropriation of funds is needed.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Noise Study for Mister Car Wash
4. Planning Commission Resolution #4071 (SUP Revision #4 to Planned Development #72)
5. Flyer Circulated by Mr. Russell Lawrence, resident
6. Updated Trip Generation Analysis from JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
7. Collision Statistics
8. Environmental Review #21-18
9. Draft Ordinance
10. Amendment to Legislative Action Agreement with Yosemite & G, LLC.
11. Presentation