Yosemite-Parsons housing, mini-storage project back to Planning Commission
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Merced City Council remands housing, storage plan near UC Merced for review.
- Residents cite traffic, aesthetics, and job loss in opposing current proposal.
- Developer pledges revisions; Planning Commission to revisit in 2025 session.
With a crowd of roughly 40 people looking on, the Merced City Council sent a proposed housing and self-storage development near Yosemite and Parsons avenues back to the Planning Commission, asking for further review as some residents say the project threatens the look and economic future of a key gateway corridor to UC Merced.
Many residents who showed up to the meeting last week argued the project’s mini-storage facility would provide few jobs while adding traffic and altering the character of one of the city’s major routes toward the university. Some worried about two-story homes overlooking neighbors’ yards, the removal of mature redwood trees, and the loss of opportunities to attract businesses that could generate more tax revenue and employment.
“This is the gateway out to UC Merced. It’s been a long-established road, and it needs to be aesthetically pleasing and business oriented to further promote UC Merced,” said Tom Clendenin, a resident who opposed the project.
The eight-acre site, currently zoned for commercial office use, sits along a busy stretch of East Yosemite Avenue, which connects Merced’s core to the university’s campus. Some residents see the area as a key growth corridor for businesses and are wary of approving projects they believe would undercut that vision.
The project, proposed by Yosemite 1380 LLC, would convert the lot at 1380 E. Yosemite Ave. and 3595 Parsons Ave. into a 500-unit self-storage facility and 41 residential lots. The city’s Planning Commission had unanimously denied the application in May, citing the limited employment benefits of storage facilities and the incompatibility of changing the zoning to allow housing in that location.
Representing the developer, Todd Bender told the council the project team was willing to work with neighbors. He noted changes already proposed to address concerns, including reducing the planned residential density from 9.1 to 7.8 units per acre, limiting self-storage hours to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and making homes adjacent to the Oakmont community single-story.
“We don’t see the public as adversaries at all. We appreciate that they come out and share their comments. That’s what a good community does,” Bender said.
Councilmember Shane Smith, who made the motion to remand the proposal, urged both sides to continue discussions before the project comes back to the Planning Commission.
“I would encourage the developer and the community to keep talking,” Smith said. “Just like in litigation, we’ll make a decision, but I would prefer you guys to come to a decision that you all can live with.”
Smith was also critical of the Planning Commission’s unanimous decision to deny the project at their May 7 meeting.
“Last night I stayed up late, I watched the tape of the April 9 Planning Commission meeting. You all were out, you were very effective presenters, but then I watched the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and I was a little bit disappointed,” Smith said.
The council voted 4-2 in favor of sending the project back for further review, with Councilmembers Fue Xiong and Ronnie Deanda voting against and Councilmember Darin Dupont recusing himself.
