City of
Merced
Housing Element
Proposed Rezoning
April 2025
Introduction
3 •
The State of California requires our City adopt a
Housing Element: a Chapter of our General Plan
The State tells the Region how many units we must
provide for – MCAG assigns us our allocation
We are required to accommodate our allocation
which is 10,517 units
Units have to be spread among all income
categories to accommodate all residents
Introduction Continued
3 •
The City has been working with the State, MCAG
and the community to complete our Element
The City has held public meetings and received
comments in writing and in person
Some of those meetings were recent workshops for
the Planning Commission and City Council
The City also held a lunch time meeting about the
programs, which garnered great input
To accommodate the required
units rezoning existing properties
is required
Rezoning will
3 •
Align with the Housing Element Updates
Support the City’s ability to meet its Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Allow for housing development where housing
is currently not permitted
Reduce constraints to housing development and
to accommodate special housing needs
• 33 Rezone Sites were Considered
• 3 Sites Rezoned in 2024
• 3 Sites are in Close Proximity to Council
Persons
• 3 Sites Recommended for Denial by PC
• All Sites are Vacant
• Rezoning Provides for the Opportunity to
Build at Higher Density
• Rezoning Satisfies State Density
Requirement
Potential
Rezone Sites
Potential
Rezone Sites
Noticing
• Normally Rezones Require 300-foot notice - there is an exception
• If the notices rise to over 1000 properties (those
properties within 300 feet of rezone sites) staff may
generally notice through publication and other means
• Staff advertised in our Merced County Times and
Merced Sun-Star and online with social media
Noticing Continued
• Staff sent individual letters to rezone site property owners • Solicited comments and concerns
• Before Planning Commission, 8 of 30 property owners
reached out with comments, concerns or for clarity
• Many comments were positive
• Copy of Comments to the Planning Commission is attached Noticing Continued
• Staff received 1 comment resulting from City Council
meeting notification.
• Property owner came to Planning counter
• Property owner wanted more information
Noticing Continued
• On February 5, 2025, the Planning Commission held a
Public Hearing
• They considered all 30 sites
• Agreed with staff and recommended approval of 27
sites (sites A-F, H-Q and T-DD)
• Recommended denial of 3 sites (sites G, R and S)
Public Hearing Tonight:
• Open Public Hearing
• Take Comments
• The City Council must adopt General Plan EIR Addendum – Environmental Review #24-42 with the Actions
• Vote on Planning Commission’s Recommended Approvals
• Vote on Planning Commission’s Recommended Approvals - Minus Conflicts of Interest
• Vote on Planning Commission’s Recommended Denials
• The Ordinance and Resolution summarizes all actions
Recommended for Approval by Planning Commission
Recommended for Approval by Planning Commission
Mr. DeAnda - Recusal
Recommended for Approval by Planning Commission
Mr. Harris - Recusal
NOT Recommended for Approval by Planning
Commission