Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This meeting of the Planning Commission for 09/17/2025. I now ask for a moment of silence. Commissioner Smith, will you please lead us in the pledge of allegiance?

Pledge of allegiance. To the

flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Leah, roll call.

Commissioner Tao? Absent. Commissioner Griggins?

Present.

Commissioner Swigert? Present. Commissioner Smith?

Present.

Commissioner Vu? Present. Commissioner Ochoa?

Present.

And Commissioner Gonzalez? Present. Thank you.

We have a quorum. Leah, will you read the information on how the public may participate in the meeting?

Yes. Members of the audience who wish to address the Planning Commission are requested to complete a speaker card available at the podium at the back of the council chambers. Please submit the completed card to the clerk before the item is called, preferably before the meeting begins. I would like to briefly go over the process of submitting comments to the planning commission. Please submit your public comment to the planning commission electronically no later than 1PM on the day of the meeting.

Comments received before the deadline will be sent to the planning commission and will be the heart of the record and mentioned as part of the public comment portion of the agenda. Material may be emailed to planningweb@cityofMerced.gov and should be limited to 300 words or less. Please specify which portion of the agenda you are commenting on. For example, oral communications or item number. Your comments will be presented to the planning commission at the appropriate time.

Any correspondence received after 1PM will be distributed to the planning commission and retained for the official record. To view video or listen to the planning commission meeting live, go to the city's website at www.cityofmerced.gov, Facebook Live, or Comcast public access channel 96.

Members of the public who wish to speak on any matter not listed on the agenda may speak during this portion of the meeting and will be allotted three minutes. State law prohibits the Planning Commission from acting at this meeting on any matter raised during the public comment period. Members of the public who wish to speak on on a matter that is listed on the agenda will be called upon to speak during the discussion of that item. Leah, do we have any requests to speak?

Sorry. Not for public comments.

And that brings us to consent calendar. Would the commission like to remove any items for separate consideration? Not seeing anyone. Do we have any request to speak for any items on the consent calendar? Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

I'll motion to approve the consent calendar.

Is there a second? I'll second. We have a motion by commissioner Ochoa and a second by commissioner Vu. All those in favor no. Excuse me. Commissioners, cast your votes. Record the vote. Passes unanimously. First item?

Alright. I'm getting the hang of it here. Okay. Public hearing item e 125Dash654. Subject, vesting tentative subdivision map number 25 Dash 0003 initiated by Parmit Singh and Jaswinder Carr, property owners.

This applicant application involves a request to subdivide approximately 3.38 acres of land at 2500 East Childs Avenue into 17 residential lots, generally ranging in size between 6,200 square feet and 14,579 square feet. This subject site is generally located South of East Childs Avenue, approximately 500 feet east of Bremer Road with a general plan designation of low low density residential and a zoning classification of low density residential r one dash five. This is a public hearing.

Commission, we're having some technical difficulties, so it'll just be a few minutes while we load up the presentation, okay? Okay.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Matt Livingston. I am the assistant planner. This first project is vesting tentative subdivision map number 25 Dash 0003. So here is a location map. This site is located at 2500 East Childs Avenue. So it's in between Childs Avenue and Rye Street down to the south. And then across Childs is actually Merced County territory. So, here is the proposed tentative map. The site itself is 3.3 acres.

There is 17 total lots. 15 of the lots are 6,200 square feet. One of them is 8,391 square feet, and then one of the lots is 14579 square feet. And that's the the larger one up to the top right. So here is the nearby subdivision that's beneath it.

The map the taller map on the right is from the tentative map that was approved back when the Ry Street subdivision was built out. As you can see on there, it's called out for a temporary right of way. Then on the left is the final map, which also shows that the cul de sac was a temporary right of way. So as far as zoning and general plan compliance, the the site is zoned low density residential, so it's r one five. Single family residential is a permitted use in this area, and this proposal complies with all applicable standards under this zone.

As far as the general plan goes, this site is the general plan is low density residential, and the proposed project complies with the density standards of that general plan designation. So some of the significant conditions. Condition number 13 at the final map and improvement plan stage, all lots shall comply with the Merced zoning ordinance in regards to development standards for single family residential zoning. The developer shall use proper dust control procedures during site development, which is set by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Traffic control signs, street markings, and striping shall be done as directed by the city engineer, and the developer shall provide all utility services to each lot, including sewer, water, electric power, gas, telephone, and cable television, and that'll be required to all be underground.

Some other conditions. Grading and construction activity shall be limited to daylight hours, so seven a. To seven p. M. And then the developer shall adhere to any relevant agreements or guidelines that are required by the Merced Irrigation District.

So, some of the various reasons for denying a tentative map from our municipal code 18Dot 18 dot zero three zero consistency, no land shall be subdivided or developed under a vesting tentative map for any purpose that is inconsistent with the general plan. And as far as the Subdivision Map Act, they do allow for denial if the proposed subdivision design or improvements are detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, including concerns regarding inadequate infrastructure or unsafe conditions. Like I said earlier, this project is consistent with the general plan and the zoning classification, and it was reviewed by various departments, including police, fire, and water, and none of those departments expressed any concerns regarding this development. So after the public hearing, the Planning Commission action, they may approve, disapprove, or modify environmental review number 25Dash0022, which is a categorical exemption, and tentative subdivision map number 25 Dash 0003, subject to the 47 conditions of approval. So, I'm here for questions.

I believe our city engineer is also here for questions if you guys have any and the applicant is also here.

Commissioners, do you have any questions for the project planner?

Commissioner Ochilla? Hello. On East Childs Avenue, that right turn lane and then the left turn lane, is that gonna be protected, or is it just gonna have just stop in the middle of traffic and then turn in?

I'm not exactly sure at this point. I think that would be worked out with the engineering department during the final plan the final map portion. But as of right now, I'm not entirely sure.

Are there any other questions for the project planner? Hearing none from the commission, this is a public hearing. At this time, I will open the public hearing for public comment. I invite the applicant to speak. The applicant will have a total of fifteen minutes including rebuttal time. If you you wish to reserve the time for rebuttal, please conclude your remarks to give yourself time.

We have three requests to speak.

And we have the applicant.

And the applicant. The applicant is Cesar Perez.

Go ahead, sir.

Good evening. My name is Cesar Perez. I'm here on behalf of Golden Valley Engineering representing our client. So I'm pretty much up here

Sir, could you hold

on for one second? Leah, could you change the clock to fifteen minutes, please? Just want to make sure you get your time that you're allotted. Thank you. Go ahead, sir.

Okay, thank you. So it's just a simple parcel. Our client just wants us split it to 17 lots.

Sorry, sir. Can you hold on one second, Leah? Can you start the clock? Okay, sir. Thank you. We're good.

Like as I was saying, our client has a single parcel, which is playing it, 17 lots for single family dwelling homes. And as you can see, we'll be connecting to the existing rate cul de sac, so it'll be connecting straight through to Charles Avenue. And I'm just pretty much up here to see if you guys have any questions for us or our client that I could relay the information to.

Layla, can we stop the clock? I believe he's done with his presentation. Yes. Now we can reserve it for rebuttal. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Ochoa.

Hello. So again, to my original question on East Childs Avenue, is there going be a stop sign there or is it just going to be a turn in lane with traffic going through no stops or anything like that?

So, regarding that, at this point, we really don't have anything to determine what's going to be established there based on the stop sign or the turning lanes coming into the street. I'm pretty sure at that stage of time, the roads department might get involved in, at that point, establish a little bit more based on what exactly it's going to require for traffic wise. But I'm pretty sure, at the end of that road coming into Tahoe, this should be probably a stop sign, I guess.

Are there any other questions from the commission? No? Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any members of the public who wish to speak in person or have sent sent emails or letters prior to the meeting?

I believe there was one email left at your workstations, and then I would call Robert Ruebe and Deborah Campbell.

Good evening. My name is Debbie, and I have lived out in that area since I was 10. And the traffic on Childs Avenue is like being on a freeway. And our concern as citizens of the county is the traffic. With opening up Bryce Street, that's going to allow the homes from that other side a thoroughfare through to Childs Avenue.

And we are very concerned. There's constant racks. That road is a freeway. And the police department, the highway patrol, the sheriff's office, the ambulances, they use it when they're going from Merced to Planata. And it's dangerous. I lived directly across the street from where this property is for thirty six years. I no longer do. I'm down two doors down. But we we

took

had out had five mailboxes taken out in one year. We had a wreck where one of the ladies who taught at Weaver School went up onto the canal right at the very same time that the kids would have been walking to school. And my daughter was in a wreck pulling into our driveway with cars passing around her. And I really have a very strong opinion about this because of the traffic. You know, you guys don't live there, I'm sure.

But for us, we do. And it is a concern for us. And I just wanted to make that part known where we're coming from, how we feel about it. And I'm done.

Thank you. You're welcome. Lee, I forgot to ask. Is there any leader of opposition to this item? Okay. Thank you.

No, no leader.

So I don't like public speaking, but I'm here because it matters. And several of the neighbors on Rye Street are here as well. We're all busy. We have work and stuff, but we took the time to be here. Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Robert Ruby, and I represent the families, or I'm attempting to, of Rice Street. We're not opposed to new homes being built, but we are firmly opposed to sacrificing our safe, established cul de sac to provide access. For at least seventeen years, Rye Street has been a quiet family centered street where children play safely. Turning it into a through street would funnel over a 160 car trips a day from your own report. That's one car every five to six minutes through our neighborhood.

That destroys safety, lowers property values, and directly violates the city's own general plan policy to protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible development. I know some may point to recent changes exempting many infill projects from CEQA, but this project represents unusual circumstances dismantling a long established cul de sac and fundamentally altering the safety and character of an existing neighborhood. The California Supreme Court in Berkeley Hillside Preservation versus City of Berkeley ruled that such unusual circumstances require full environmental review even when exemptions might otherwise apply. And even under the new law, any exemption still depends on meeting all legal criteria, including consistency with the general plan and zoning. A plan that destabilize destabilizes a safe cul de sac violates policy l one dot five and threatens neighborhood integrity cannot lawfully be considered consistent.

CEQA shortcuts cannot be used to bypass clear conflicts with city policy and residential safety. More importantly, the developer has frontage on Childs Avenue. Your own conditions of approval already require canal undergrounding power pole relocation and utility crossings there. That proves Childs Avenue access is feasible, Burdening Rye Street is a choice of convenience, not necessity. We respectfully ask you to protect our neighborhood, uphold your own policies, and require access from Childs Avenue, leaving Rye Street as a cul de sac for nearly twenty years and let it continue because a lot of people bought their houses for that very reason.

And I don't know what they were planning twenty years ago when the Great Recession before the Great Recession hit, but it's an established cul de sac neighborhood now. Thank you.

Thank you.

That's it.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak on this item? If you could come up to the podium, And you'll be getting a speaker request card as well. And if anybody else would like to speak on this item, if you can head that direction as well please.

Hi. My name is Jeff Denno, and I live at 421 Weaver Avenue, just about a block from the proposed Rice Street access to Childs Avenue. And I basically have some questions about whether the there are some things in the plans that I am unaware of. The traffic is going to be considerably enhanced by the making Rye a through street, plus the traffic that will be coming from the Parkway to Coffee developments will add significantly to the traffic on Childs. I'm concerned about that.

And I also wonder if there's any plans for continuing the widening of Childs Avenue beyond this development to accommodate more traffic and whether there's a plan in the works for a fire station at our end of the community. So I know I'm in the county, but I still have a lot of concern about what happens in the city. And those are my concerns. Okay?

Thank you, sir. Next speaker.

Call Amy Valencia.

Hello, this is my first time speaking, but I'm a resident at 148 Rye, and I've been there for fifteen years.

Excuse me, ma'am. One second. Can you reset the clock? Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. We just try to make sure everybody gets the time.

-Okay. So again, I'm a resident for fifteen years. I bought my house when there was, like, 10 houses on the block. One of the reasons was because it was in a cul de sac. My son wasn't even born. He's 15 now. He runs that cul de sac every day. I don't see the purpose in it. And I think the traffic is terrible. We hear sirens on child so often, and it's really scary for me and my kids. So that's I just wanted to express my opinion that I am against it.

That's all. Thank you.

And I have one more. Patricia Gonzalez.

Hello. I'm also a resident on Rye Street. We moved into the house about four years ago, mainly because it was on a cul de sac, opening that up. Oh, you know, we have kids. There's neighborhood kids playing there all the time, opening it up through a street, you know, with the kids playing there. So I pose the idea.

Thank you. Leah, that was our last request to speak? Correct. Anybody else in the public who would like to speak on this item? At this time, the applicant does have time left for rebuttal. Would you like to say anything in regards to the public comment? No, not at this time. So at this time, we close the public comment and bring it back to the commission for discussion. Commissioners, do you have any questions or comments? Commissioner Ochoa. Yeah.

I do have two things. This may be for Matt. So are they gonna be connecting to utilities on Ryce Street or East Childs Avenue?

I think maybe Daryl could speak to that as well. But from my understanding, it would be from Childs Avenue.

Okay. And for what was said in for what was said earlier, this has a CEQA exemption. Is it the case where it would need a CEQA review if from what was said earlier? I'm only asking to prevent a lawsuit later down the road.

No. I would not need one.

It does look like Daryl wants to speak.

Good evening, commissioners. Daryl Jordan, your city engineer. Just a response for the utilities, the utilities will connect through Rye and also on Childs Avenue as well. We'll have a loop to water system through there.

Could add to your second question about the CEQUA. The sections that we used are 15,332, which is infill development of a site under five acres, then also 15,183, which is an exemption for general planned consistency.

Commissioners, any other questions while we have Matt there? No? I do have a couple questions. Just to listening after some public comment regarding the traffic concern and I'm not sure who who would be able to answer that but has yeah, Darryl may be the one to answer this and maybe the the plans for, Childs. Is there anything in the mix or have we how we looked at the traffic concerns and a traffic study, or is there gonna be widening to the Childs Avenue project? Daryl, that might be Commissioner?

Yeah. Commissioners, there's no plans at this time for any widening of the Childs Avenue. The width that you see on these plans is what the width is projected throughout Childs. And one of the reasons for that, if you do widen Childs Avenue, you invite additional volumes of traffic down Childs. Keeping it at this width will maintain the current traffic flows, but not provide more traffic for both this potential project and others down the corridor.

Thank you. And this doesn't really speak to this particular project, but it's just it's a fair question because I know we've been doing a lot of approvals for housing in that area, in that general area and the question was brought up on fire station. Do we know if there's any fire station plans in the future anywhere? For coverage? I think assistant city manager.

Commissioners, if I may, there's a 1.53 acre site that's designated at Girard Avenue and Plime Drive which is part of the Gateway Marketplace development. The land's been dedicated. It's earmarked for a fire station. As for queuing, there are two stations that we're looking at. And at this time, I wouldn't be able to say which one would be built first, but there is a site there officially designated for a fire station.

Okay. Thank you for that information. Any other questions?

I would say, is there any feasibility to not make this a thoroughfare? I think it would look a little funky, but I think just because of the connecting utilities that they have to make it a thoroughfare there. But I would love to see at least a speed bump in the middle of it or or something along the lines of that.

I think that's a question for the developer. Maybe the developer can answer that question if he's willing to or to look at the map and because a lot of the concerns were denied as making it a further versus leaving it as a culture sack.

Right.

Do you if the developer would like to comment on that.

Jim with the Golden Valley Engineering. So, the right away is set up a collector street. So, actually it's a fire safety. It's open it up whole subdivision. And that we do not have any traffic coming or any measure. I'm sure when we submit a plan to the city at that time and the city have a comment, we can mitigate it. But not this point.

Okay. Any other questions for the developer? Commissioner Swigert?

A quick question. You said that it's a fire and safety concern?

Yeah, because if you look at the Google Map, whole subdivision here is basically a big dead end.

There's a couple. There's one on Rye, one on Luverno. But you a street coming in on Bremer and Watertown, right? No, Bremer actually dead ends.

Yeah, they're both dead ends.

Watertown does come through, and so does Manzanita. So that does get into the subdivision. Could they open up Brimmer and keep Rye We

opened whatever city wanted, so but the subdivision is a setup, go through it.

Yeah. No, no. I understand. But on the Brimmer, it dead ends into like a fence. Right. So I was just curious why they wouldn't just open up there and keep right a subdivision in that subdivision as a cul de sac since that could be opened up on Brimmer.

I think that would be questioned for the city engineer. Okay.

Guess it's a question for city engineering because there is there is a gate right there on Brimmer.

Because the sorry, Daryl. Just to not to but I think we should keep the discussion for the developer to the tentative map that's in front of us, you know. But I was just

wondering that when he mentioned that being being a fire and safety, they do have they do have entrances into the subdivision.

Yeah. And I think Daryl can, the city engineer can weigh in on that and possibly the utilities that commissioner, Ochoa brought up. Daryl?

Yes, sir. This project is it's it's difficult to try to condition a different area of town for this project. It's not included in this application. It's something that the city could look at at a later date. However, for this application, we couldn't condition an existing street without going through a lot of outreach and discussion before we could even entertain that.

Mister Quintero could even discuss that further. However, this street here, I believe, was actually approved when I was here as the previous city engineer, and Frank was here as well. It was designed as a flow through. As you recall, the existing cul de sac is clearly labeled back then as a temporary measure until this street was opened up. It doesn't mean that the commission has to vote that direction.

There are traffic calming options that you have already brought up here at the commission tonight. You can bring those conditions forth. For for example, you mentioned a a speed table or something to slow down traffic. That's something we can entertain if the commission wants us to do so. But this was intended as a a safety issue to bring fire and safety through this community at the time it was designed.

Thank you, Daryl.

You're welcome.

Commissioners? You who's back in?

Mister Ochoa? Yeah. So with that being said about fire safety and whatnot, with the gate on Bremer, how do fire get in

now off

of Manzanita?

Okay.

Okay. You got your answer? Okay. Commissioner Swigg Commissioner Swigg

Sorry. I just want to make sure. So Rye was intended for every intentional purposes in the future to go through to Gerard. Okay. Just making sure. Thank you.

Any other questions for the developer while he's still there? No? Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Oh, wait. Before you go, I do have one question. It just came to it just popped into my head. I'm so sorry. Just so sorry. So currently, we're looking at, you know, opening up that that culter sack. If it was the commission's discretion to ask for another tentative map to leave that culter sack in place, what would how would that affect you and your not your business, but your plan and design? You know, would it stop it? Would it what what would we look at if we if we went the other Yeah.

We have to revise the tentative map and access from the trial. So leave the existing code sack.

Is that something that you may be interested in looking at? Or is that just not in the business business model plan?

I think we I need to talk to the developers. So yeah. Okay. That's quite a bit different. We may affect a lot layout. Okay. Yeah.

And the developers here, correct?

That's correct.

Would you like to speak on that for me? You can come up to the podium. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. You know, actually, he said, okay, but we need to revise the tentative map.

Yes, of course. That change what we do to here to Right. Change the tentative Okay. I was just curious if it was option.

If that's option, city engineer want it, because that's going to be not going to go through it. Okay. Yeah, we're open to that.

And I appreciate you being open to that. And I guess now my question would go to the city engineer. How would that affect Daryl, the city's plan if we did go that direction of leave the cul de sac in place instead of opening up that to a thoroughfare?

What most likely would happen, chairman, is that, the developer would have to develop an additional cul de sac which would back up to the existing cul de sac. So they'd be back to back cul de sacs to allow for turnarounds on the new development. We could still push through the utilities through an easement that's existing as you see on the map. That will not inhibit any of our utilities from pushing through. We could maintain all the utilities that you see us on there tonight. The lots number I think they're number nine and number 10. Those would be affected as well as maybe eight and eleven with the new cul de sac design on those four lots, almost mimicking what you see on the existing site. They would just be back to back.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. Daryl, I do have one other question. Could you speak to the public safety effect just for to get that on record and how that may change that?

Public safety would I'm assuming without doing any background calculations is the the the time for first for police and fire to reach the cul de sac in the Rye will be a little bit longer. So the reaction time will be longer for them to receive emergency facilities rather than having a straight shot down Rye Road. So there would be a trade off there from keeping your cul de sac as a short and quiet street versus being able to get emergency vehicles there quicker. That's the only thing that I would see as a a difference from the two designs. We still have a great response time in the city, but it would just be a little bit longer to get there convenience wise for the vehicles to respond to anything in that existing pull sack.

So

And that would be addressed if we do go to a different tentative matter, if we request a tentative map to to be redesigned. Correct?

That's correct. And we would mister Contera and I would probably be talking to to fire and and police safety on what's the best route for them to get there if this does not happen. It would be their current route as they have now, but, they would just need to be aware.

Okay. Thank you. Mhmm. At that time, we'll bring it back to the commissioners. Commissioner Ochoa.

Back to it. Rye's been a cul de sac for twenty years. If it's something the city the city engineer says it's not something that absolutely has to be done, I would like to say see it stay cul de sac. It's been that way for twenty years. If it's not pertinent to safety, then I think we should keep it that way. I think this should be pushed till next meeting until the new tentative map is is done.

I think we would have I think I'd go to the city attorney on this for for clarification on what that would look like as a motion. I think that's where we're going.

So there's several options for the commission. I mean, if the applicant wants to proceed with a vote to move forward with the project as it's presented before you tonight, the commission would then proceed with either a motion to approve or deny. If the applicant wished to pull its project from consideration, that's certainly within their right for the developer to revise their project and come back to the commission. That's certainly within their control. So there are several different options.

We can proceed if the commission approves or denies. It'll follow the municipal code process. As far as approvals, there'll be an appeal period in which either side for or against can approve appeal the project. Alternatively, you know, I'll take a step back. If you were to proceed with an approval or denial of the project, you wouldn't be able to address some of the concerns that you've mentioned here today. So the map would be considered as it's presented before you for consideration, and that decision would proceed forward. Alternatively, the developer always has the option to pull back their project from consideration and present a revised map for consideration to this commission.

Okay. Just to make sure I understood that in, like, layman's terms. Alright. So our option is to approve the the prove or deny the map that we have in front of us. And once we do that, the approval or denial is locked in, and we move forward with whatever options are available to

us. Correct.

And then the other option is to inquire to the developer if he's willing to pull back his current tentative map.

Correct. And present a revised project for consideration.

Okay. And that's outside of us doing a continuance?

Correct.

Is continuance an option to the commission? Or is it just a pullback option?

I don't think continuance is available here because if you continue it and there's a revised map, that's technically a different project because there's a substantial change to both the density, I'm assuming from what I've heard from the city engineer, as well as some different considerations that would need to be evaluated by staff. So in this specific circumstance, because it's such a significant change that may or may not be considered by the developer, a continuance, don't believe, would fall in line with a reconsideration because, in my view, would be a distinctly different

project. Thank you. With that, I bring it back to the commissioners.

I do want some clarification. So if a project is denied, are they able to come back with a new tentative subdivision map? Or if they appeal, do they have to bring that same map back?

If it's denied, it's certainly within the applicant's right to appeal the commission's decision to the city council. Also, if it's denied, the applicant can reapply with a different version of its project.

Commissioners? Discussion? Are we able to ask the developer if they'd like to

pull their application or would like us to proceed with the vote today?

I believe we can ask that question. Would you like to come up to the podium, please?

And as a part of the today's vote? We can lock everything. It will be the remain the same.

I I I don't think you can because it's a vesting tentative subdivision map. So you the commission would need to see what that actually looks like in the map as far as what the configuration is. And from at least what I've heard from the city engineer, there is going to be a different density based on the engineering of that cul de sac. So it's my legal opinion that I don't believe you can just condition an extra cul de sac and move forward with the project as it's currently presented.

And just for clarification, we would be able to condition something like a speed bump in if in this project?

Correct.

Okay.

I'm yes. Go ahead.

Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah.

I'm at I'm at that point right now where I'm I'm I really don't want to deny this project because, you know, in previous discussions or even approve it because there there was in the beginning of the conversations, there was a little bit of flexibility in in the design plan. And I think if we can get to a point where we can maybe see another tentative map, without having to approve or deny, it might be something to look at tonight if we could. So I'm gonna leave that with you guys.

Okay. We can do that. Yeah. We can do that.

So you would like to pull back your tentative map and resubmit a new Right. Okay. Appreciate that. To oh, it didn't come through the mic? Could you say that into the mic, please? Yes. We wanna pull back. Okay. Thank you. I didn't catch that. Thank you, Doctor Legal, is there motion? What do we do here?

There's nothing further for the commission to do and consider at this point if the applicant is choosing on its own to withdraw their application and resubmit based on some of the comments received tonight. So that that concludes this item.

That concludes the item. Alright. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Appreciate you working with

the commission and the public.

Alright.

Leah. Next item.

Item e two, conditional use permit number 25DashOO15 submitted my by Malik Mosley on behalf of Shanon Sham and Mino trustee property owners. This application involves a request for tobacco sales for off-site consumption for a new convenience market at 1277 V Street, Suite B. The subject site is generally located at the Southwest corner of V Street and McSwain Road, turns into 13th Street going east, with a general plan designation of thoroughfare commercial and a zoning classification of thoroughfare commercial. This is a public hearing.

Good evening, everyone, again. My name is Matt Livingston. I'm the assistant planner. This is CUP number twenty five dash zero zero one five for a convenience market with tobacco sales at 1277 V Street In Suite B. So typically convenience markets are principally permitted within the zoning classification of thoroughfare commercial per the Merced municipal code 20 dot four four dot 160.

A conditional use permit is required for tobacco sales within 600 feet of a youth oriented facility. Here is the citywide map. As you can see, this project's on B Street. Like I said, it's right by Highway 99. Here is the location map.

So as you can see, the project site like I said, this CUP is because there's a youth center within 600 feet. That youth center is Dennis Chavez Park. It's about 534 feet away. So, yeah, like I said, within 600 feet so the way it's measured is from parcel to parcel. So the corners of the parcels is within 600 feet, but if you go from the park to the actual entrance to the business itself, it's about 650 feet.

And it is across it's across West 12th Street and W Street. Here's the floor plan that was submitted. As you can see, they are gonna sell a few other things, snacks. They said they're gonna sell some clothing as well, But all of the tobacco and tobacco products are required to be stored behind the counter, so they're not accessible to the general public. So they'll be open daily from 8AM to 8PM.

They will not be selling any alcohol. If they do decide they want to sell alcohol in the future, they would need to get a CUP and possibly a finding of public convenience or necessity. And like I said, they're gonna sell tobacco and tobacco products as well as snacks, drinks, and various clothing items. So a little bit of background. MMC twenty point four four point one six zero prohibits tobacco sales near schools.

This was adopted in 2016 through the city's comprehensive zoning ordinance amendment. There was several businesses throughout the community that were already in operation prior to that ordinance being adopted. Due to community feedback, it became apparent that it was extremely difficult to open up any new business with tobacco sales as there's a lot of schools and youth oriented facilities throughout the city. So in 2022, the city council approved an amendment to the section of the code to allow tobacco sales within 600 feet of a youth oriented facility if they get CEP approval, But the sale of tobacco within a thousand feet of a school is still prohibited. So this was ran by the police department.

They didn't have any issues with the request. They didn't ask for any special conditions. So all the conditions on there are typical for this kind of business. A couple of those conditions that are notable, condition 11, they will have to get the proper permits from the health department. And then like I said, tobacco products and associated paraphernalia will need to be kept inaccessible from the general public, and they're going to be doing that by storing it behind a counter.

So after holding the public hearing, the Planning Commission may approve, disapprove, or modify environmental review number 25Dash0021, which is a categorical exemption and conditional use permit number 25Dash0015 subject to the 19 conditions in the staff report. And I'm here for questions as well as the applicant is also here.

Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the project planner? No questions? Thank you. This is a public hearing. At this time, I will open the hearing for public comment. I invite the applicant to speak. The applicant will have a total of fifteen minutes including rebuttal time. If you wish to reserve your time for rebuttal, please conclude your remarks to give yourself time. Leila, do we have do we know if the applicant would like to speak?

I don't have any request to speak.

No request to speak. I'll bring it back to the commissioners for discussion. Oh, wait. Before that, let me ask the public. Is there anybody in the public who would like to speak on this item?

Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commissioners. No questions? At this time, we'll close the public comment and bring it back to the commission for discussion. Commissioners. Commissioner Tula.

Not too much to say. I I believe the applicant will not sell tobacco products to the youth. So with that being said, I'd like to make a motion to approve environmental review number twenty five dash zero zero two one and conditional use permit number 25Dash0015 subject to the 19 conditions in the staff report.

I second.

Okay. We have a motion to approve and a second. Commissioners, cast your votes. And I want to just state for the record that Anthony Gonzalez is actually a Jeremiah Gragan's vote. So that's my vote. Anthony Gonzalez, the chair, is not here. I'm filling in for him. The motion passes unanimously. Leah, e three?

Hold on. There we go. Okay. Item e three. General plan amendment 24 dash o one, site utilization plan revision number three to plan development number 20, vesting tentative subdivision map number 1332, site plan review permit number 551, minor use permit number 24Dash13 initiated by Eric Gonzalez on behalf of Yosemite thirteen eighty LLC property owner.

The general plan amendment would change the general plan land use designation from commercial office to business park for three point o two acres and from commercial office to low medium density residential for the remaining 4.85 acres. The site utilization plan revision would change the land use designation within PD Number 20 from commercial office to self storage for three point o two acres and to residential for the remaining 4.85 acres. The minor use permit would be for the interface review to allow commercial development adjacent to or across from a low density residential r dash one dash six zone. The site plan review permit would allow the development a self storage facility, approximately 500 storage units. The vesting tentative subdivision map would divide the self storage from the residential lots and create the 28 residential lots.

This is a public hearing.

Johnny?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, members of the public. I'm Johnny Lan, acting planning manager. And just to note that we are working on those subject names, so they'll be shorter hopefully soon. So again, this is a project that you actually have seen before, not in the exact way.

It is a public storage facility, as well as a self storage facility, as well as a connected but separate residential. As you can see that it's located in sort of that northeast quadrant off of Yosemite, near the intersection of Yosemite and Parsons. Here's a location site map that shows you where it is. It's about eight point five eight point zero five acres. So project was first presented originally to you and then continued.

And then in April, Planning Commission directed staff to prepare resolutions of denial. Resolutions of denial were adopted in May. And then in May, the applicant appealed to to the city council. Then in July, city council heard the appeal, directed staff to help coordinate a meeting with the applicant and neighbors, And then the meeting of the applicant and neighbors took place July 22 per council's request. And at that meeting, based on the information that the applicant heard, they made changes to the project, which include but are not limited to a decrease in density from 41 to 28 units, some larger lots, and then the lots along the edge that are adjacent to the southern neighborhood, those who are required to remain single story.

Background is that the subject site, as mentioned, is 8.05 acres. It was annexed to the city in 1980 as part of the Southwest Yosemite Parsons Annexation. This annexation incorporated approximately 121 plus acres of land into the city limits. The subject site has a current land use designation of commercial office, which usually allows for office type uses, but it could also allow for multi family uses if under the right circumstances and entitlements. The subject site has remained vacant for many decades, though.

So in general, the recommendation to the City Council by you would be for the general plan amendment 20 four-two from commercial office to business park and low medium density residential. The business park is to allow that self storage unit. And of course, then the low medium density residential is for the residential portion of this project. The site utilization plan revision number three to plan development 20, because this is within a plan development, is to change the approved development standards. And the in this point, also, the way that the development looks.

Your final action, should you choose, is to approve the minor use permit 20Four-thirteen for an interface review to allow commercial development adjacent to a low density residential zone, the site plan review permit 538 to allow for the development of 500 storage units, and the vesting tentative subdivision map thirteen thirty two to divide the self storage from the residential and create the 28 residential lots. Here's a street view. Existing public improvements do not have street trees, but that's what it looks like from there. There are some there's sidewalk and whatnot. Street view then of Parsons, public improvements with landscaping, sidewalk, curb gutter.

Here's the proposed design of the self storage. I don't believe that has changed from when you saw it last, but it's very similar to what has been approved within the city. Here's a site plan of the building. There is no RV storage to this. It's only actual storage units.

500 of them. Zero lot line setbacks along east, south, and west property lines. And a perimeter fence with a gate access from East Yosemite. Here's some elevations frontage along East Yosemite, office space and storage units with stucco finish, stone veneer accents, a large storefront windows. Here's elevations for storage units along east, south, and west property lines, storage unit access through roll up garage doors, block wall 12 to 14 feet tall along the back of Buildings A And F.

The development standards for East Yosemite Avenue at Parsons Avenue self storage, so just the self storage specifically, you have a 10 foot exterior yard, front setbacks for all primary and secondary structures, and an interior yard and rear setbacks for all primary and secondary structures. That would be zero lot lines. So we have 10 feet for the front and then zero lot line for the exterior yard I mean, the adjacent property right on the property line for the rest. Here's how it relates to the actual subdivision to the south that's being proposed. Previously proposed was a 41 unit subdivision, high medium density general plan designation, mix of single and two story.

The new proposal shows 28 units with low medium density residential for the general plan designation, so they've, again, decreased the density. Single story lots for lots one through 15, that would be required so that interface between the existing neighborhood, which has single story residential units, would be compatible. Lots 16 through 28 would be a mix of single and two story. These standards would allow for front setbacks at 10 feet, interior yard setbacks at four feet. The rear yard setbacks would be 15 feet, which actually is larger than our R1 setbacks.

So they would have 15 feet from that rear neighborhood, where they, in the rear neighborhood, would allow for 10 feet. So they actually have a much stricter standard for the rear setbacks. And then fence height is six feet. And again, lots Oh, there we are. Lots one Through 15 will be all single story.

That will be required to remain single story. For the lots sixteen through twenty eight, so those original would be those lots along the single family residential to the south. These are for lots 16 Through 28, so the rest of the property internal to that subdivision. The front setbacks would be 10 feet, four foot side setbacks, and again, a 15 foot rear setback, and then a fence height of six feet. But they have a mixture of single and two story with a maximum height of 32 feet.

So with the neighborhood impact, there may be some vibration and noise during construction. The approximate 14 foot tall CMU block building wall between the self storage and the residential uses would reduce impacts regarding the noise and lighting. Also required lighting to be shielded and shield the storage buildings. Traffic study indicated no quantitative VMT analysis is required based on the MCAG guidelines MCAG being the Merced County Association of Governments. They're a regional government authority for related to transportation.

With 373 trips per day for the total project falling below the 500 daily trips per day requirement that triggers. Storage facilities next to residential that are currently existing in the city. We have a couple of them. Simply Space, West Yosemite and R Street, and Central Self Storage, which is up by the Santa Fe Tracks. So conditions to note are condition 22, parking lot lights and building lights shall be shielded to not spill over into adjacent parcels. Number condition number 24, self storage may operate daily between seven p. M. Seven p. M. And seven a.

M. Condition number 28, Lots 1 Through 5, as shown on the map at the attachment of f of staff report shall be single story. Again, something that we've talked about in this presentation. Condition number 41, all undeveloped areas shall be maintained free of weeds and debris. Condition 43, the developer shall establish an HOA governing this project.

The HOA shall be responsible for maintenance of all streets and landscaping within the development as well as sweeping and cleaning of all interior streets. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site and published in the Merced County Times three weeks prior to the hearing on August 29. Number one, the mailing the notice shall be mailed or delivered at least ten days or otherwise provided by CEQA before the scheduled hearing to the following recipients. Public and posting if notice is mailed or delivered as described in the subsection, the notice shall also be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, at least ten days before the scheduled public hearing. We actually with a general plan amendment, it's a twenty day requirement.

And this project public hearing was noticed at least twenty days prior to this public hearing. Here's a showing of the buffer zone of who we noticed based on law. So the recommendation to the city council is to approve, disapprove, or modify general plan amendment 20 four-two from commercial office CO to business park, BP, and high medium density residential, HMD. It's also to approve, disapprove, or modify the site utilization plan revision number three to plan development number 20 to change the approved development standards. So the city council would approve the general plan revision if you choose to recommend that approval to the city council.

Your action tonight, something that stops with you, would be to approve, disapprove, or modify the environmental review twenty four-twenty five, the negative declaration vesting tentative subdivision map number thirteen thirty two site plan review permit number 551 and minor use permit number 20Four-thirteen. And of course, the approvals of those former actions are contingent upon the city council approval of the general plan amendment and the site utilization plan revision to the PD. And I guess that would be it. I'm here for any questions. I believe the applicant is here for any questions.

And the city engineer also, should you have questions about any of that circulation.

Thank you. And I'll bring that back to the commission for questions for the project planner. I do have a lot of questions, but I'll defer to Commissioner Ochoa first.

Just a technical question. Do we need two separate votes for these two items? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Anybody else? Alright. Let me go ahead and dive into mine. And this is more for just clarification and getting things on record. And before I start my questions, I would like to just put on the record that I did meet with the developer and members of the community in between meetings. So I've listened to both sides, not only during the commission meetings, but also separately as well. But my first question is this has been going on for a while, so some of these questions may have already been answered, but I want to make sure we have the answers. But our general plan calls for commercial office on this site, right?

That's our current Currently, yes.

Yes. So what specific policies do we have that show that changing a business park and housing fits the city's long term plan?

So the long term plan, especially regarding housing, is really the state is requiring us to provide more housing. And so we're undergoing a housing element, six cycle housing element update, which really emphasizes housing of all types. And so our policy would defer to the state requirement for us to produce housing for people of all different backgrounds and financially.

Okay, so we don't have any any actual policies names or numbers or anything like that? We're just going by the state direction?

Yeah, we lean on the state. But the other thing is we we our job is to process. And so when we look at a project like this, we just make we make sure that it meets the standards. And in this case, it does. We have an entitlement process that allows for people to make changes and historically we have allowed that. There there's precedent for it. So that is, you know, that but because this is housing, it is something that's been important to the state, but also we've heard from the city council.

Okay, thank you. Next question is, you know, Yosemite Avenue is a major thoroughfare through Merced, and eventually it will be an entrance coming off of the campus parkway. So how does this project meet the gateway corridor standards for an attractive active street frontage?

We are requiring for this project to have additional, well it's being approved with the additional veneer and the stucco and the treatments as well as the landscaping. Generally speaking, these projects could be less landscaped, but we've worked with them to try and get additional shielding and landscaping to minimize what could be some stark elevations.

Thank you. And the commission denied this project earlier this year. What changes have been made? Since then, does staff believe those concerns were addressed?

I'd like to defer to the applicant because I believe I don't have all the answers. I was not actually at the meeting. But I do know that some of the significant concerns of the neighborhood had to do with the second story next to them and the small lots. And so I believe that there were significant attempts made to address some of those concerns. But I would defer to the applicant to be able to explain the differences between the project you saw earlier this year and the project that is before you today.

And if we end up approving like a mini storage in this area, how would that influence future requests for similar projects in other key corridors in Merced?

I believe, if it's allowed, if the, you have the discretion, right? Because it is a general plan amendment. So you have the discretion to allow for the change to business park or not. We have had several of these come before you. And, they would not be coming before you if there was not a market for them. People are in need of this type of, service. And so, you do have the discretion, though, when it is a general plan amendment to decide that you don't want to have that there.

Thank you. And sorry for all the questions, but I I want to make sure

we hope

I answered keep answering them. Much information as possible since this has come back to us. And we've had some new members join us since then as well. So I'm just kind of getting things back on record. So with the site plan, does it meet every city requirement for setback, landscaping, shade, tree, screening for the storage facility?

So for the storage facility, to be quite honest, I wasn't the planner. So I wasn't the one that looked up everything. But I believe, you know, with the requirements of the standards that we have, it does meet everything that we require, whether it be parking lot trees or the setbacks. It is a plan development. So some of those setbacks and requirements can be shifted a bit because the plan development allows the creation of setbacks that aren't standard.

So there's that. But I believe that with the elevations that were submitted, you know, we were comfortable with what they submitted because they do show more than just, you know, blank walls and windows. They actually have a lot of relief. They have some trim, you know, and some veneer. And they do show some landscaping to soften. So we were comfortable with that as a staff. And again, the setbacks themselves were created because it is a plan development and that does allow for them to create their own setbacks and standards by our code.

Okay, thank you. That's all the questions that I have at this moment. I'm going to go back to the commission. Commissioner Ochello?

Yes. I also want to disclose that I met with the applicant. No one reached out from the community around or else definitely would have been open to it. I want to piggyback off Commissioner Gregon's first question, which was kind of the housing element aspect tied to this. We rezoned a whole bunch of land to for single family or not single family homes, but homes in general. Are we still behind on that?

Are we still behind on the units?

Well, the units, yes, but on the zoning.

The zoning has been completed. And those units that we were required to provide, we now have the capacity. But so you are aware, we actually went back, because a lot has happened in a year since our, we'll call our pipeline projects that we considered, were added, you know, we did a calculation. Turns out we actually have quite a few more than we originally thought, but we are actually over our units that the state is requiring of us. Awesome, great, thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions for the project planner? No? Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing and at this time I will open the public hearing for public comment. I invite the applicant to speak. The applicant will have a total of fifteen minutes including rebuttal time. If you wish to reserve time for rebuttal, please conclude your remarks to give yourself time. Is the applicant here? There he is.

Good evening, commissioners. I want to thank you for reconsidering this project tonight. My name is Hold Todd

on one second, Leah. We're having some clock issues. Go ahead and start over.

Todd Bender, I'm the applicant.

Hold on, hold on. Technical difficulties.

Third time's a charm. I'll let it start first.

We'll get there. It's okay. If the clock is the biggest problem we have, it's a great night.

We're going to call our technical IT person in here.

Feel like I need the music as she runs up to assist.

Hang on. Sorry. It's okay.

It's fifteen.

Fifteen. We love this clock. There we go. Okay, here we go.

All right, thank you.

Perfect, thank you.

Anyway, Todd Bender speaking for the applicant tonight. Thank you again for reconsidering this. We're happy to bring this project back to you. There's been considerable amount of adjustments and changes through the months since you've seen it. And I want to thank staff.

That was a very thorough review of it and pointed out many of the things we've been working on the last few months. But if I may, I'd like to just reflect on a few of those points, not to be repetitive, but and also highlight some some items here. Since we last brought the project before you, there's been quite a bit of dialogue with the neighbors, both in the public setting at the City Council, as some of you might have listened to or attended. And as mentioned, the neighborhood meeting we had, which we were very appreciative. About 20 neighbors roughly came out and we spent a couple of hours, a couple of solid hours, maybe more discussing the details, trying to understand better, which we had learned a lot at City Council already, but understanding their concerns, looking for ground that we could come together on, and adjustments we could make that might ease some of their concerns.

So we weren't able to agree on all the points, but we did find some areas that we made some, I think, very large concessions that came their way, and to try to make a show respect for their concerns, and make a community that would be more neighborly to them. It seemed that most of the concern, the largest part of the concerns, were around, as mentioned, the density of the community, one. The lot size was the second. And the two story visibility from the proposed project into the backyards of the existing neighbors. That's where we went to work on our changes.

And at the meeting so this would be the third plan. The first plan is what you which came before you before. We created a second one that was shown at the City Council as a result of a neighborhood meeting. We had provided some additional changes. That would be the second plan we presented.

So this is a third plan. Now, we presented this at the neighborhood meeting and had extensive discussions with the neighbors about the plan you have in front of you tonight. I think as a bullet point, again, just sort of rehearsing what staff shared, think to get our arms around the scope of the changes we've made, The proposed project went from 41 to 28 homesites, ranging from 4,454 square feet up to 9,300 is our largest. The reduction in density is right at 30%, 29.7 reduction in density of the project. The minimum lot size increased by 97%.

I'd I'd like to say it doubled, but we were just shy of that, 97%. The prior minimum lot size was twenty two thirty two square feet, and now it's forty four fifteen. The average lot size is now 5,421 square feet. And that's a 56% increase from the plan that was before you all in the past months here. We're now at the low end of low medium density, borderline on low density on the top end of it.

And all the lots now have a minimum width of 50 feet. And we've removed all of the alley loaded product type entirely from the plan that was previously seen here. And as mentioned, we to eliminate the concern of the two story view into the backyards of the existing neighbors, This is the reason we've changed home site one through 15 to be restricted to single story only. Also, I do have a slide. I'll finish my comments, but we also have some elevations.

Is it possible to show that? I want to speak to the elevations. There's elevation work that wasn't in front of you to show the intent of the quality we tend to deliver on this and the architecture. I think this slide will just be helpful. That wasn't here, and there were some, I think, misconceptions on the quality of the product we intend to deliver in this neighborhood. So why did they get that up? The street widths were increased to 41 feet as well. And we've Eric has been working extensively with fire and and public works on on this. And the traffic count dropped as well because of the the drop in density. So a lot here.

And I hope these modifications speak to our appreciation of the neighbors and our desire to understand, come their way. We, of course, couldn't beat on all the points. But I I will also mention the self storage, we changed the operating hours from instead of seven to 10PM, seven to 7AM to 7PM, to shorten that. The it it's just it's our objective to to be good neighbors. I think this will be a beautiful project.

I I assure you, this will be a nice, quiet, attractive addition to our community. And we respectfully ask for your support tonight on this. So thank you.

Thank you. Leila, do we have or Leah, do we have a I'm sorry. I'm used to Kayla. I know. Say. Do we have any leader of opposition?

We do. We have four requests to speak, and the leader of opposition is Tom Clendenin.

Okay. And we'll get that leader of opposition first, please.

Good evening,

Hold on, For leader of opposition gets fifteen minutes. Now if this doesn't show we're fair.

That's all we asked for.

It's running in the background. This is not intuitive. I'm so sorry. If you like, I can go ahead and just use my phone, if you don't mind. I think it's I don't think it's me.

Well, I would like to see a clock running. Sure.

That's fair if we can get that going. Is it possible to use the overhead to show a timer? There is There is

right there.

Oh, got there.

There it is.

Hang on. Let me do that.

I'll give you a couple seconds at the end.

Okay. Good evening, commissioners, city staff, and my fellow neighbors. My name's Tom Clendenen, and I live at 1377 Awani Court. I'm right adjacent to the entrance of this facility to the residential area. I wanna thank you for your support last April when you voted this denial of this project. You took a look at it, and you decided it didn't belong here. I feel sorry that for you that the city council didn't support your decisions that were brought to them. I didn't know if you were aware, but the applicant did provide a new plan to the city council that night. I asked several times whether it was a new plan. I was told there was.

I was told, no. There wasn't. But anyhow, they did bring a new plan to that city staff or city council meeting that night. Okay. And I was told there was a misunderstanding between me and the applicant that about this new plan. We still have a problem with this project. The applicant has only changed the residential area. No consideration other than the hours of operation have been done with the mini storage. And as one commissioner said last time at this meeting, this is a great project, the mini storage building, but it doesn't belong there. It doesn't belong there.

The owner knew full well when he bought that property. It was his own commercial office, which it currently is, and everybody bought property around the area knowing that that was gonna be a commercial office. If they didn't want it to be commercial office, maybe they should have put that in a contingency of when they purchased the property. So why did he buy the project property? I don't know.

But that's that's his decision. Just today, I saw a sign that's on the Yosemite Avenue right across the little street from the Panda Express, and it says that new office space single story coming anywhere from, I think it was 2,500 to 16,000 square feet of offices. Your pick. Our neighbors bought our property with this knowing it was gonna be commercial office. Now let's get to the elephant in the room, the real elephant.

That's the mini storage. Do you realize that doesn't follow any of our guidelines? It doesn't have the landscape buffer that it should be. City staff was saying they thought they had it, but no, it is not there. There's they've got some zero lot lines. There's gonna be no landscaping. There's nothing gonna be there. We still have that 14 12 to 14 foot high block wall. It's gonna be unsightly, graffiti possible. So that's the only thing that has changed on that mini storage at all is the hours of operation. From seven to ten p. M. Was their original proposal. It's seven a. M.

To seven p. M. Gee, it's really funny. It's the same office hours that they have at their other mini storage at Yosemite And R. So why wasn't that there on the original go around? So once this is built, it's only going to add seven jobs. That's a prime piece of property for seven whole jobs, maybe. Okay. Let's get to the information on the houses. They've had months now since April to get these plans right, and I don't see that yet.

I said, right now, according to section 18 dot 16 dot zero eight zero, they are supposed to show the existing uses and the ownership of the lots. Well, that doesn't show on that plan. Here's a really big missing one. There's an easement coming out of the surgery center for the two roadways that are there. Here is the map of the dedicated easements. These are on record. No mention of it. Okay? That's pretty important. Now let's get on to things that might look better if it was done.

So the report said that Lots 1 Through 15 are only gonna be single story. And we heard that last time, and then during the meeting, it changed. Lots 8 16 Through 28 are gonna be possibly two story. Well, things keep seeming to be changing the goalpost on this project. And they're one of the biggest concerns we had was all those nice big redwood trees on the southern end of this property. That didn't even get mentioned tonight. It got pushed aside. Nobody brought it up. Who's going to maintain those trees? How are they going to be watered?

How are they going to be who's going to take care of them? It's not been addressed. So they aren't working typically completely with our neighborhood. When we had our meeting, yes, we saw the third plan that showed up. It took me two weeks to get a copy of that plan in my hand. And we want to talk about deviations. They had deviations on this the first set of plans you saw. I'm not seeing those deviations now. So are we going to get some of those deviations where we were going to get four foot sidewalks instead of five foot? They did change the roads.

There's just a lot of stuff that's still up in the air. And this property needs to stay commercial office. When it's going to be commercial office, it's going to show that we are supporting new students graduating from the new medical school here at the UC that's coming under construction right now. We're gonna have offices for them to do their work, whether it be physical therapy, dialysis, you know, it just goes on and on and on. I have to hope you all agree that this project is ill conceived and not thought out to the end of this.

I got a suggestion for the owner. Why don't they put this mini storage on the Northeast Corner of Yosemite and Gardner where they're gonna do 400 apartments? That would be a perfect location to have this mini storage. It doesn't belong on Yosemite Avenue. It belongs off.

Now this applicant, this is, I don't know, this is I think they're gonna be their fourth mini storage if it gets approved. Do you realize right now in the city of Merced with what's existing, what's been approved, and what's under construction, we're gonna have 11, at least 11 mini storages, and that's gonna be more than Starbucks in Merced City. That's that's kind of funny to me. I hope you'll support the Oakmont neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods. Keep this as a commercial office and reject this proposed mini storage along with this residential development.

I get everybody in the audience that's against this to please stand up? We don't have the numbers we had last time, but the majority of the people here show you that we still care about our neighborhood. Thank you. We respectfully ask you to deny this again. If you deny it, it's gonna go back to the city council, but I think it really needs another denial from this planning commission. Thank you for your time, and I'll reclaim my existing time.

Thank you. And, Leah, I I get the clock at 07:15. If you could just make it 07:30 just for that extra time that you've lost.

Yes.

Alright. And do we have any other members of the public that would like to speak on this item?

Yes. We'll call Robert DiNuzo, Lee Bach, and Carol DiNuzo.

Good evening, commissioners. Thanks for letting me speak. I appreciate the efforts of the developer in making the changes to the residential neighborhood to in the subdivision. My problem is still with the mini storage and why these two are linked to in the zone change is does not make sense. Do we have to accept the mini storage if we accept the residential?

The mini storage facilities are being denied countrywide because there are bad land use. While planning staff may endorse this project, they say the project is in the best public interest. Well, there was a planning commission meeting held on April 9 and then as well as the city council meeting on July 22 where the overwhelming public interest was to deny this project. This will have an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Many storage facilities typically have a lot of excess exterior lighting to deter crime.

There is virtually no landscaping on this project inside the perimeter. There's a very narrow strip of landscaping on the perimeter but inside the project is all roofs and hardscape. That's a heat gain area for in the summer, just picks up heat and holds it. Storm events, that's all impervious material. There's no chance for groundwater recharge. It's all just going to overflow the storm drains. Storage facilities do not provide any job growth. If this was a commercial office complex, we would have lots of people working in offices. We'd have tenants coming in and out. There's also no prospect of any spin off projects for this.

A commercial office complex would generate offshoots like coffee shops and nearby places to eat. A mini storage is just a basically a dead piece of land. Most mini storages in other communities and throughout the country are located in light industrial areas. How this how many storages got classified to be in a business park zoning does not make sense. Every other community around is mini storage is classified as a light industrial or warehouse occupancy.

And the reason it's coming this is coming before you is it is it is a con it's a controversy. We don't need another mini storage. This is setting a precedent. How many more mini storages are gonna come before you on nice main thoroughfares that a developer wants to build on, you know, as a as a project to enhance his bottom line. Again, we'd like to deny this application. Thank you. Thank you.

I was hoping to have the aerial view of that. I don't know if we can bring that back up before I start. No. I think it was like page 11 or something. There we go. Yep. Perfect. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners and hello again. My name is Carol DiNuzo.

I live on Awani Drive, just one street over from this development. This proposed development site. This is now the second time I've stood before you to speak out against this project. One that already was unanimously unanimously rejected by this planning commission, and yet here we are again. I want to begin by acknowledging the developers willingness to make some changes, reducing the number of homes and increasing their lot sizes.

But let's be clear. Those changes do not address the fundamental you the fundamental issue, the heart of this proposal, the mini storage facility. And that is exactly what makes this project unsuitable for this location. This property is not just any piece of land. It is already zoned for commercial office use.

Zoning that reflects long term vision for how this area can grow in step with the future of Merced. That vision becomes more important now with the UC's medical education building underway. A facility designed for instruction, research, academic offices, and community programs. It's no longer a vision. It's happening.

That kind of investment demands complementary development: clinics, professional office, research facilities, and services that actually create jobs and support growth. That use does excuse me. Not a mini storage. That use does nothing to enhance this momentum, nothing to strengthen our local community, and nothing to improve the quality of life for people who actually live here. Even with fewer homes on larger lots, this plan still misses the mark.

The concessions are surface level changes that do not fix the core problem. This is a short sighted proposal for a site that does so much deserves so much better. They are trying to squeeze this project into a place where it simply doesn't fit, as you can see. It's like forcing a square peg into a round hole. No matter how much you reshape the edges, it's never gonna fit.

We walk this community daily. We know the patterns of traffic, the character of the community, and the opportunities this project this opera this property represents. And I can tell you, a mini storage facility and scattered housing do not belong. They are out of sync with the direction Merced is moving and out of step with the needs of this community. We are not opposed to growth. We are opposed to bad planning disguised as compromise. The truth is this plan, even when in its revised form, remains the wrong project for the wrong place. So tonight, I urge you once again protect the vision of the zoning that was meant to be upheld and think beyond short term concessions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Lee Bayzie. I'm here with my wife, Suzanne Bayzie. I'm a lifelong resident of Merced of sixty years. I'm speaking to formally register my opposition to the agenda item twenty five eight thirty five, which is now before you for the third time.

While I respect the role of the Planning Commission in evaluating development proposals, I strongly urge you to deny this application for the mini storage. The proposed mini storage does not belong in this location and should not be considered as part of this application. This type of development is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. To quote planning commissioner Jeremiah at our first hearing, this should really be two separate applications. I couldn't more agree with what he said.

Allowing the mini storage to move forward under the current proposal undermines both the transparency and community trust in the planning project. This is our third time before you, our second time or third time with a council. How many more times do we have to appear? The last time we were here, you voted seven o against this project moving forward. Seven o to have the city make us come back again.

I I just I I found the I find the process just it blows my mind. Residents and stakeholders deserve the opportunity to review such a significant and permanent structure like a mini storage. Once it's built on on its own merits, not bundled with an unrelated housing application. It's almost like a backdoor. They're basically using the houses to get the mini storage in. And now we find out tonight that the city of Merced is you've got more houses than you need. And we were told the first time, oh, no. We need more houses. We need more houses. That's news to me.

For these reasons, I respectfully request the commission deny agenda item twenty five eight thirty five in its current form and require that any mini storage be filed and reviewed as a separate application. I do want to acknowledge the developer for the outreach. They did listen. Their housing project appears like a good project. We even offered to get a group together to buy the property so we could do houses, but they're not interested in selling. And then this is a fun fact. There will now be more mini mini there will now be as many mini storages as car washes and dollar stores in the city of Merced. Is that something we really want to be known for in the Central Valley? Thank you.

Thank you. Leah, are there any other public comments?

No, that's it.

Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, will bring it back to the commission. Oh, can we actually bring the developer back? Because I forgot to ask the commission if they would like to ask the developer of any questions. Commission, do you have any questions for the developer?

I brought them all the way back up here, guys. Okay. Well, I guess I have a couple questions. Give me one second here. Let me find my notes again.

Sure. Well, I also have opportunity for Rebuttal time, yes. Okay.

All right. So just to go back, as has been said multiple times, we did deny this project earlier this year. Can you speak to the changes that were made once again and kinda address some of the concerns that we had then and versus what the changes were at the city council for me?

Can you say that again? I just wanna make sure I understand the question.

Yeah. Just when we denied that project last, you know, last time here at the Planning Commission Yeah. Can you address what changes you've made to this project that's significant compared to this the last time and this time?

Yes. The I think the most significant changes are around the density and the lot size, which is was from our learnings from the neighborhood meetings, a very important factor to them. I think there was a concern of the higher density might bring value issues and so forth. So we went to work on that, and I it made in my history of building here, unprecedented adjustments for the neighbors on this. I don't think we've ever changed the project by 30% reduction.

And again, we eliminated all of the risk of two story homes looking into their their backyards, which was very important to them. The the but I and I think that's and the lot size and the lot widths and the I'd like to make a correction also. I said the street width was 41. That's not correct. It's the right of way that's 41. Does that answer your question, Jeremiah?

Yeah. It does. Thank you. Yeah. At this time, let's go ahead and if you have rebuttal, let's reset the clock.

You had 09:33 remaining, I believe. 09:30.

Good. Okay. Yeah. We have a number of disagreements on this. But I I think to start with, there were a number of technical issues mentioned by the opposition. We we disagree, particularly around items like easements and things. Your staff has been very thorough. We've we've gone through these. We have planned for those easements. And they've been very thorough on on walking through with the lighting, as we mentioned and staff pointed out tonight, landscape, fencing, attractiveness, so forth.

And I think to this comment of the project doesn't belong, we just obviously disagree. I think there's a community that's missing here tonight, and that's our customers, the people that work with us. We have a facility, as you may know, on the corner of Yosemite And R. It's been there for twenty years. We've got along great with the neighbors. It's attractive still. We maintain it, manage it locally. We know we're full there. And we know where our clients are, we know the need. And there's great need out here.

So we just disagree that this is the wrong place for it. And I think there's many here, like I said, in the community that aren't speaking, that aren't represented, that need this. There's a new economy. We all know there's a new economy. And there's these are not only local jobs that will run this, but the self storage supports the new economy jobs.

These people that are have economy and jobs on the Internet, and they're selling materials, and this and that. This is all being supported out of So there's economy being supported out of this project and will continue to be. But that I think is important, and we need to recognize it. And it's in this location to cut down on vehicle miles traveled so these people can use the service and get to the location quickly and not be driving clear across town or burning fuel and everything else. There was comments about the goalpost moving and the changes in the project.

I'd just like to point out that every change we've made has been in an effort to come towards the neighbors. So, I don't think it's fair to characterize that we're changing the project on them. I think we're changing the project to try to accommodate them, is I think important to note. The Redwood trees were not mentioned because with the they were the primary focus at the City Council as a block to the two story homes. Without the two story homes, there won't be a need to I don't see a need. I think those trees will it'll be like any other neighbor in town. They can decide if they want a tree in their backyard or not, if they own a home. The office space. We have vacant office space now at Promenade. It's very difficult to fill.

I can't speak for the business plan of the man down the street, or the company down the street that was mentioned, but I know we have it and it's very difficult to fill. It's just a new economy. And that space is and we're full at our Simply Space facility. Our storage facility is full. And we've we've done a lot of deep homework on it. We would not invest in a project like this if we didn't think there was demand. That's another point. I know there's been more popping up, but it's because the city is behind on providing for this self storage service. I think that's it. I just again, we're anxious to do a nice community and to add to the housing and to do something for for Merced out in that area.

This property is mentioned by staff. It's been sitting there since it was annexed in the eighties. And I think it's time to do something nice on it. So again, I hope that answers your questions and ask for your support tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. And with that, I bring it back to the commission for discussion. Wait, sorry. The leader of opposition does get time for rebuttal. Apologize.

Good evening, counsel, again. I'd like

Hold on one second. We've to get the clock right.

I fraud.

There we go.

Okay. I want to reiterate something that I forgot to bring up earlier, and that is that we had a petition that was brought to this council here the last time, had a 179 signatures of opposition to this. So it's just not the few people you see here tonight. Also, there was 15 letters submitted to the council that were in opposition to this project. I don't care what the applicant wants to call it, goalpost or whatever.

They have changed the plans on us numerous times, and we were misunderstood because we were told it didn't change. I'm just at the ends of what they're going to come up and ask for to be changed next. There are easements. I got that easement map from city staff. So that's an item that's gonna have to be addressed, and that was approved back by the council in 2021 I mean, twenty o one in April. And I will leave that map with staff here. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. At this time, I'd like to bring it back to the commission for a discussion and close the public comment. Commissioners. Commissioner Ochoa. Alright.

It's a project that we've seen a couple times now. Wasn't really sure the thoughts of the city council to bring this back because, you know, it is something that we denied unanimously, and they decided to send it back to us. I do wanna say I do appreciate the developer going out of their way to meet with the surrounding area, trying to come up with, you know, some sort of middle ground there. For me, it's it's hard, right, because we have the housing element, which I I don't mind. I think the storage unit facility, there is a demand for it there.

My thoughts, the mini storage on Yosemite And R, I don't drive by and say, I I don't notice it when I drive by. I I I really don't. And I just feel like that's more in the residential area than than this one is. My thoughts are, you know, we need four yes votes on approval or denial here tonight. And regardless of what we do tonight, this is gonna go to the city council regardless. So the members here in the audience, regardless of what we do tonight, they have another meeting to attend.

Commissioner Smith.

The homes where they're at. They don't need to have a storage bin that looks like a little prison in the neighborhood with a big wall around it, you know? So I think that we really need to put a plaza there, a bowling alley, or something that's gonna make use for the neighborhood, for the people that have somewhere to go. But a storage bin ain't the place to go. It's gonna attract different type of people and a lot of noise, and I don't think that's a good idea. It's a good idea, but not that that neighborhood is not the place to put it. Thank you.

Anything else, commissioners? I think I have some thoughts here on this. And I appreciate the developer and the public coming out and voicing their concerns. And I think it's a good project, for the city. I am having a bit of a pause, and before I go into what that pause is, the reason why I believe that the city council brought this back to us was because there was some more vetting that needed to be done, some more fact finding, things of that nature.

And I I think the city council was, inadvertently of course, giving us a a lesson in how to be a better planning commission. And I do appreciate that from the city council. So by bringing this back to us, it has prolonged this process longer than I think most of us in the room will agree was necessary, but here we are. And I think it speaks to the commission and all commissioners of taking the time and asking the questions and having to really vet out all projects, not just this project, and getting involved and asking those hard questions so we can make the hard decisions. My pause is I'm still kinda where I was at at the last time we were here in regards to it being a singular project with housing and the mini storage.

And that still gives me pause because I believe both are needed. I see the need for planning for for mini storage, and I see definitely need the the need for housing. And it being tied together makes this a really difficult decision to balance the needs of everybody involved. And I'm having troubles, and I'm gonna look to city staff here to really help convince me that this project is in line with our 2030 plan, and how it really connects our our our vision, how it connects to our community, and make I guess I guess I have to leave it to the city staff to try to convince me that this is a good project moving forward for the city, and I don't know if I've really received that specifically in regards to the the mini storage section. I I just I'm not quite there yet.

So does it meet the the 2,030 policies that we have in in in the vision for what we see as a gateway to the city of Merced. And I understand what Commissioner Ochoa says that when we drive by the storage facility on the corner of R And Yosemite Avenue, we don't really see it. But we weren't there to make that decision when that was actually put into play. We're now looking at today and how that affects the future of Merced. So I I kinda guess I could bounce it back to staff and and really, let's dive into, does this meet the 2030 plan and the vision that the city of Merced, even though it was twenty years ago or, you know, roughly twenty years ago, Is it aligned?

Does it align with this?

Thank you. Yes, I believe it does. So we now, it's a again, it's a plan development. So you have the purview to require different standards. But when it comes to our general plan, the general plan does call this out as commercial office. This you have the purview to be able to change the land use designation if if that is what you so choose. Does it meet our standards? Does it meet our requirements per general plan? Yes, it does. And it supports the economic development portion and and the policies of of the city.

It isn't really our role to advocate for a project. It is our role to process and to look at the projects based on our codes and requirements. And in this case, it is a plan development, which allows them a lot of leeway to create the code themselves, the zoning themselves. So with the zone change and the general plan change, that does give you allowances to add conditions if you're not happy or not convinced that the landscaping in the front or the setbacks or that kind of thing for the self storage, you can require changes if you would like. That is your purview.

The other option would be to send it back to staff to work with the applicant to make changes that they could then bring back. If the issues for you are the landscaping or the setbacks or the look of the front, we can work with them on that to mitigate some of those concerns from you and the neighbors. But as mentioned, this would not be a proposal if it did not financially make sense. The office space has been there for many years. And I do know that people do utilize the storage, the small businesses.

Public agencies use small storage for evidence. I know of law enforcement agencies that utilize those things. So it's not just for some person who was storing things in their garage now to have a place. It does satisfy the needs of a community holistically, and it would not be placed here if there wasn't an economic need to do so, or that the data didn't show that. But as far as the city requirements, it meets all of our requirements and standards and policies related to the general plan and otherwise.

Thank you. Commission

commissioners, do

you have any questions? Commissioners, oh, Commissioner Smith, I show you on the queue. Are you on the still on the queue? You want to speak? Okay. Commissioner Swigert?

Yes. Just to kind of I think the housing part of it I mean, that's what I do for a living, these are gonna these are gonna sell like hotcakes. Everybody wants a, you know, a a gated community. I think it's amazing. I just am a little on the fence with, again, the the storage unit.

I I just found out where how many storage units are we gonna have in Merced, and they said 11. Yeah. That that was surprising. So I'm I also sat through that very, very long city council meeting, and what was what was proposed to us was not what was proposed to the city council. So they were almost two different pro you know, projects. So when I sat through that, I was I was a little taken back. So at this point, the two projects together, I'm kinda with you, Jeremiah, where it's I wish they were two different projects. So just a comment.

Mister her commissioner Ochoa.

So here as a planning commission, what we have control over is the environmental review, the vesting tentative subdivision map, the site plan review, and the minor use permit. The recommendations to city council will be for the commercial office to business park and to high, medium dense density residential, and then the site utilization plan to develop number 20 to change for approved development standards. With that being said, the use of the land is in I can be someone correct me if I'm wrong, is gonna go to the city council regardless if we approve or deny. We are here to approve the plans of the project to say, hey, is this a good plan? Does it make sense?

Is there and that's kind of where I'm at. Does the project here meet all our city requirements? And I think that's the scope of what we are here to do as the planning commission, not to change the zoning. That's the job of the city council. Yes. I if I'm wrong, yeah, I just wanna clarify for the city council member or not the city council, the planning commission members here because we do have some people that are new. This is a big project.

I mean, the the commission's looking at this project as it's presented to you by the applicant and as evaluated by staff. So the commission, within its immediate discretion, has the ability to approve, disapprove, modify the negative declaration, which is the sequel consideration, the vesting tentative subdivision map, the site plan review permit, and minor use permit. So those are final actions that are before the commission for its consideration, and those, again, pertain to the project. So I think to answer your question, yes, for the VTA the Fast Intentive Subdivision Map, Site Plan Review Permit, Minor Use Permit, as well as the environmental review document, the commission is considering whether or not the project as proposed meets the criteria set forth in the city's municipal code. In regards to the elements that go back or, stop, back that are then put forward in front of the city council for their consideration, deliberation, and potential approval or disapproval are the general plan amendment and the site utilization plan.

So two distinct actions, which is why staff has said you need to take two separate actions. I will say for the general plan amendment, the municipal code does require four votes either way. Failure to obtain four votes, either approving or denying, is deemed an automatic denial pursuant to the city's municipal code and then is automatically forwarded to the council for its consideration.

So theoretically, we could approve environmental review, vesting subdivision map, site plan review, minor use permit, and then recommended disapproval for general plan amendment, site utilization plan, the city council will have a final say on those two items.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Kinda where I'm at is we can go back and forth all night about this. We can say put more trees out front The way the project is in front of us with both elements, a motion needs to get made. If we modify this, say, hey. Put more trees, more foliage up front, make this a little nicer, is that gonna change your opinion on this project? No. I I I don't think so. The housing element, I do not have an issue with whatsoever. The storage units, I I kinda go back and forth.

I do see the demand for it. Like I said, when I drive past U 70 And R, I I really don't see it there. Is it the best use of the the zoning there? That's not my decision to make. That's for the city council to recommend. I could have my opinions and say what I think about that, but at the end of the day, that's gonna be for the city council to decide, not us.

I'm reflecting on on on what you just said, so give me a moment here to k. I mean and I don't disagree with you. And and the last thing I wanna do is punt this to the city council just for the sake of punting. Right? We're we're here to to make sure that we we vet this out as best we can to make the the best decision as we can for you know, overall, we're looking for, you know, does this fit public welfare compatibility?

Is it consistent with our general plan? You know? And have we shown that there's clear, specific alignment with that general plan? Have we received enough data to prove there's a public benefit and an economic value? Are there measurable, enforceable mitigation measures like lighting, storm water, heat island impacts, things of that nature?

I mean, that's what we're here for. So we have to make sure that those questions are answered before we cast our votes. And if we're at that stage where somebody or a member of the commission feels that we can put a motion together, I say we make a motion. Now, will that motion pass or fail? I'm not sure we're there yet.

So what is the pleasure of the commission?

Truly, I think if we make a motion here I I don't know if I'm allowed to say what I think of the vote will be. Am I allowed to say that?

I'm not sure what your question is,

Commissioner.

If I

say, hey. If we make a motion to approve, can I say, is this project gonna get passed, do I think it's gonna get denied?

Like a pre vote?

No. I think you would Alright. The motion and You got it. See what the commission's pleasure is. I would suggest taking this in two pieces, though, right? You have the final action before the commission, and then the second piece would be the recommendation of the city council. Yeah. But that's just my recommendation or suggestion.

Would anyone like to take a stab at a motion? I'm thinking through the motion here real quick. And if anybody wants to jump in prior to my brain, feel free. So this is what we're looking at, right? Okay, we're going to go ahead and go for the motion.

I make a motion to approve the environmental review 20 4 dash 25 with the the vesting tentative subdivision map thirteen thirty two, site plan review permit 551, and the minor use permit 2413. Is there a second?

I'll second that motion.

There is a motion to approve. There's a second. Commissioners, cast your vote. Commissioner Smith? Just to clarify, we're voting to approve the environmental review twenty four twenty five, the vested tentative map subdivision 20 51332, the site plan review permit 551, and the minor use permit '20 413.

And once again, I wanna state for the record that Anthony Gonzalez is actually Jeremiah Gragan's vote as the chair. Doesn't have to be four? No. So the motion carries three to two. Now we need a motion for the general plan amendment.

Correct? Yeah. I'll make a motion to disapprove general plan amendment number 24 dash zero two and the disapproval of site utilization plan revision number three to plan development number 20.

So the the motion is to deny

Yes. The

general plan amendment?

Yep.

Is there a second?

I will second.

There is a motion to deny the general plan amendment by Commissioner Ochoa with a second by Commissioner Swiggart. Commissioners, please pass cast your votes. Yeah. That's

So pursuant to the municipal code because the motion failed to obtain the full required votes, it's deemed denied based on the municipal code provisions, and it's automatically forwarded to the city council for consideration.

For approval or denial?

For their consideration.

Got it.

Alright. And that's specific to the general plan amendment 24 dash zero two.

Give me a second. I'm trying to figure out where we're at in the meeting now.

You read the action items, f one?

Yes. Next, was it item e three four?

F one?

F one. Yes. Thank you. Yes.

Cancellation on October 8 planning commission meeting due to lack of items. I think this requires a vote.

I'll make a motion to cancel the October 8 meeting.

I'll second.

There is a motion by commissioner Ochoa, to cancel the October 8 meeting and a second by commissioner Swiggart. Commissioners, please cast your votes. Motion passes unanimously. Next item. Play the next item?

Yes. Next item, g one, report by acting planning manager of upcoming agenda items.

Thank you very much. So you just voted to cancel October 8. We do have a a citizens advisory advisory focus group. Of course, you're, you are represented on that group, by Anthony. And actually, Jeremiah is there too, though he's holding a different, position.

And that is happening actually on October 8 where we will discuss the existing conditions and trends report from our consulting firm as well as from us with staff support. And that basically will be where we're looking at the baseline of things where they are, whether it be mobility or safety or land use. Here's our baseline. And so they have conducted research and we have worked with them to make sure everything is current and correct. And so that'll happen on the eighth at 6PM here in this room.

And then October 22, we don't currently have any items on that agenda, but that could change. November 5, we do have a tentative map for a large lot subdivision potentially for the VST. So the VST project, which many of you heard, I believe like last year, it's actually been something that has been coming through planning for a decade or so. But some of that consideration was actually under the county. It is now, it's been, it was an annex to the city last year and it is now coming through with their tentative maps to start looking at the development side and implementing that specific plan.

So those tentative maps will start coming to you. There is a large lot subdivision map that could make its way here on the fifth, or we may actually combine it on the November 19 with other tentative maps. But it would have to be considered first because that large lot map needs to sort of be the foundation for the rest of the tentative maps. And that is all that's happening. I don't know if there's anything else you'd like to for us to place on the next agenda. I'll I'm willing to add those to our list so that we can make sure that we cover anything that's of interest to you.

Commissioners, is this your chance to potentially add any agenda items? You got anything? If not, definitely send an email to Johnny.

And I will receive it and consider it and put it into some agenda that we have

in the future.

And with that, I believe we come to adjournment.

Mister chairman.

Yes.

If we may introduce our newest member to our city attorney team, Ms.

I was

gonna call you Rhonda Lewis, I know. Lucas,

Rhonda Lucas. She will be joining you, very shortly as part of the team that sits up at the dais. Nice.

Welcome aboard. Thank you.

You.

Does this mean we're losing you, Trevor? Kind of, sort of? Okay. I'll still

be here.

You'll still be here? You'll be looking in on us like the voice of God? Alright. Perfect. Alright. With that, that does bring us to an adjournment. Do we have a motion?

Motion to adjourn.

Do I have a second?

Second.

We have a motion to adjourn and a second by commissioner Swiggard. All those by all those in favor, by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Adjourned.