Former Merced City Council member says too many units planned in apartment project
Tonight, the City Council will consider an appeal of the neighbors protesting a proposal for 214 apartments at McKee Road and Yosemite Avenue. This proposal was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission on Jan. 22nd, in a process that disrespected the general plan, the zoning ordinance, the principles of safe-living environment and the concerns expressed by the neighbors at the public hearing.
The commissioners indicated that they needed to provide apartments to serve UC Merced students, to comply with new state law that they believe compelled them to approve it and to give the out-of-town developer what he wanted. They rejected a compromise proposal for apartments that all participants might have reluctantly agreed to.
The General Plan states that neighborhood shopping centers should be provided one mile apart from each other. In 2017, I voted along with other City Council members to change the zoning on this six-acre site from low-density residential to neighborhood commercial. The council and neighbors who supported the zone change anticipated development of convenience commercial cafes, 7-11 and salons. There was no discussion of apartments.
The General Plan allows for medium-density apartments (24 units per acre) near shopping centers for the convenience of tenants. The proposed development is for high-density apartments (36 units per acre). The Zoning Ordinance allows apartments in the neighborhood shopping center only with a conditional use permit (CUP). It is defined as “a discretionary permit ... to ensure that a proposed use is consistent with all General Plan goals and policies and will not create negative impacts to adjacent properties or the general public.” The city has discretion and freedom to use its judgment over how apartments are allowed.
In 2016, anticipating requests to build apartments to serve UC students and others, the City Council approved apartment design standards to promote safety, health and defensibility from intruders and crime. These standards require design that facilitates surveillance of doorways by neighboring apartments; creates courtyards visible to apartment residents and predominantly, for their use only and includes a balcony or patio of at least five feet by eight feet for every apartment. The proposed development design does not follow these standards.
At the Planning Commission public hearing, approximately, 15 people spoke against the proposal. They cited inadequate parking spaces and the traffic congestion that the 214 apartments plus 40,000 square feet of convenience commercial/offices will cause. The staff report indicated stop and go traffic congestion will occur due to the proposed project. The proposed project includes three-story buildings with a rooftop recreation area overlooking the surrounding neighborhood. Neighbors opposed this loss of privacy and peace and quiet.
Some commissioners stated that recent state law promoting housing construction eliminated their ability to condition or deny the project. These laws are aimed at cities that discourage apartments and housing. Merced is building 500 houses annually and has approved over 300 apartments in the last five years. These new state laws require long-term dedication of a portion of the project to affordable low-income housing and the paying of prevailing wages to contractors, as if it was a government construction project. If a proposed development follows all these requirements, then a conditional use permit is not required by state law. It seems this proposal does not meet all the requirements because it applied for a conditional use permit.
The compromise alternative proposal rejected by the Planning Commission is as follows: 1) Reduce the number of apartments from 214 to 144. This complies with the General Plan medium-density definition, reduces traffic congestion and reduces parking shortage; 2) Use all the ground floor development for businesses, not apartments. This fulfills the general plan designation of neighborhood commercial and the expectations of the neighbors who supported the zone change to allow convenience shopping; 3) Follow the city apartment design standards exactly to foster a safe, healthy environment that discourages crime and 4) Delete the third floor of any building.
It would be a serious mistake to approve this project as proposed, but it would also be a mistake to deny it completely. I urge the City Council to fulfill its role as guardian of the living environment of current and future residents of Merced and approve the compromise alternative proposal.
This story was originally published May 4, 2020 at 12:52 PM.