Attachment 13
CITY OF MERCED
Planning Commission
Resolution #4163
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission at its regular meeting of July 9, 2025, held a public hearing and considered General Plan Amendment #24-03, Zone Change #435 and Residential Planned Development Establishment #83, initiated by Lennar Homes of California, on behalf of Merced Gateway, LLC and Lyons Investments property owners for the property located at 3610 East Gerard Avenue (APN s 061-680-001, 061-710- 009 and 061-710-023). The General Plan Amendment would change the General Plan land use designation of the 73.7-acre site from Business Park (BP) and Manufacturing/Industrial (IND) to Business Park (BP), Low Medium Residential (LMD), and High Medium Residential (HMO). Zone Change #435 would rezone the site to establish Residential Planned Develo pment (RP-D) #83 changing the zone for 64.6 acres from Business Park (BP) and Heavy Industrial (1-H) to Residential Planned Development #83 and to Business Park for the remaining 9 acres. The approximate 73. 7- acre subject site is generally located on the southwest comer of East Gerard Avenue and Campus Parkway.
The property being more particularly described as Lots "9" and "23" of o
Assessors Map Book 61 - Page 71 and Lot "1" of Assessors Map Book 61-Page 68.
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission concurs with Findings/Considerations A through E of Staff Report #25-638 (Exhibit B of Planning Commission Resolution #4163 ); and,
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission concurs with the Findings for Planned Development (P-D) Zoning Districts in Merced Municipal Code Section 20.20.020 (J); and, NOW THEREFORE, after reviewing the City's Initial Study and Draft Environmental Determination, and fully discussing all the issues, the Merced City Planning Commission does resolve to hereby recommend to City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration regarding Environmental Review #24-30, and recommend approval of General Plan Amendment #24-03, Zone Change #435 and Residential Planned Development #83 Establishment, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Upon motion by Commissioner Ochoa, seconded by Commissioner Delgadillo, and carried . .
by the following vote: A YES: Commissioners Ochoa, Delgadillo, Smith, Thao, Swiggart, Greggains, and Chairperson Gonzalez
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: N one
Exhibit C
Findings and Considerations
Planning Commission Resolution #4163
General Plan Amendment #24-03, Zone Change #435 and
Residential Plan Development #83 Establishment
FINDINGS/CONSIDERATIONS:
General Plan Compliance and Policies Related to This Application A) If the General Plan Amendment is approved, the proposed project would comply with the General Plan land use designation of Business Park (BP), Low Medium Residential (LMD) and High Medium Residential (HMD), which allows for the development of a residential small lot subdivision, open space and adjacent commercial/business park uses. The project would also comply with the Zoning classification of Residential Planned Development (RP-D) #83 wi h the change in land use designation from Business Park (BP) and Heavy Industrial (I-H) to Business Park (BP), Low Medium Residential (LMD) and High Medium Residential (HMO). The proposed project, with conditions of approval, will help achieve the following General Plan land use policies:
Policy L-3.2: Encourage Infill Development and a Compact Urban Form The proposed project would develop an approximate 73.7-acre site that has been vacant for decades. Developing this site addresses some maintenance issues associated with undeveloped parcels, such as overgrown weeds (fire hazard), vandalism, and loitering which could impact neighboring parcels. In addition, infill t
development is an efficient use of development that utilizes existing infrasructure within City limits as opposed to annexing land that requires expanding City infrastructure and services.
General Plan Amendment - Findings
B) Chapter 20.82 (General Plan Amendments) outlines procedures for considering General Plan Amendments but does not require any specific findings to be made for approval. However, Planning practice would be to provide objective reasons for approval or denial. These findings can take whatever form deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and City Council. Based on State law and case law, the following findings are recommended:
EXHIBITB
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4163
1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest because it will provide employment a nd housing which will help alleviate the housing needs in the community.
2. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.
As shown under Finding A, the proposed development meets the General Plan Goals and Policies regarding promoting infill developments. The proposed project would comply with the General Plan designation of Business Park (BP) Low Medium Residential (LMD) and High Medium Residential (HMD) if the General Plan Amendment is approved.
3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.
The proposed project does not include any uses that would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the City.
Implementation of the conditions of approval and adherence to all applicable Building Codes, Fire Codes, and City Standards would prevent the project from having any detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the City as a whole.
4. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The proposed General Plan Amendment has been processed in accordance with all applicable California Government Code sections. In addition, Planning staff has conducted an
environmental review (#24-30) of the project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Attachment J of Planning Commission Staff Report #25-638) has been
recommended.
EXHIBITB
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4163
Page2
Zoning Code Compliance for Planned Development Establishments or Revision
C) Per Merced Municipal Code Section 20.20.20 (J) Planned Development (PD) Zoning Districts, an application for Planned Development Establishment or Revision can only be approved if the following findings can be made.
1. The proposed development is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan and community plan.
The proposed Residential Planned Development would change the land use designation for the approximately 73. 7 -acre subject site from Business Park(BP) and Heavy Industrial (I-H) to Business Park (BP), Low Medium Residential (LMD) and High Medium Residential (HMO).
This use would be consistent with the General Plan if General Plan Amendment #24-03 is approved. As described in Finding A above, the project would help achieve Land Use Policy L-3.2 by encourage in-fill development.
2. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size and shape to accommodate proposed land uses.
The project site is approximately 73.7 acres, and would be used to develop 570 detached residential units, 3 acres of open space and 9 acres of business park/commercial uses. Therefore, the project site is considered adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed land uses
3. The site for the proposed development has adequate access considering the limitations of existing and planned streets and highways.
The proposal would have adequate access to existing and planned streets and highways. The proposed development would have access to E. Gerard Avenue, Campus Parkway, East Mission Avenue and Pluim Drive through streets at the northern, western and southern property lines. The project proposes new internal streets that would connect to the arterial and collector streets listed above. TheseEXHIBITB OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4163
Page3
Neighborhood Impact
F) The subject site is surrounded by a variety of uses which include residential to the north, vacant industrial to the east, county agricultural uses to the south and regional commercial to the west. The subject site is designated Business Park (BP) and Heavy Commercial (I-H). Even though the applicant is proposing a General Plan designation of Business Park, Low Medium Density Residential (LMD) and High Medium Density Residential (HMD), the proposed uses are expected to produce less traffic than expected for a Business Park development and would not significantly alter the traffic patterns
throughout the adjacent neighborhood.
Public hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. At the time that this report was prepared, the City had not received
any comments regarding this project.
Housing Opportunity
G) The proposed would change the General Plan designation from Business Park and Heavy Industrial to Business Park (BP), Low Medium Density Residential (LMD) and High Medium Density Residential (HMD) . As such, zoning at this location currently does not allows for any residential uses. Thus, by changing the land use designation to Business Park (BP), Low Medium Density Residential (LMD) and High Medium Density Residential (HMD), the site goes from no potential of having any residential units constructed at its current designation, to up to 12 to 24 units per acre in the proposed High Medium Density residential portion of the project.
Staff believes this site would be good for residential given that the site fronts a major roads (East Gerard, Campus Parkway, East Mission and the future Pluim
Drive) and its close proximity to shopping centers and the 99 freeway.
Environmental Clearance
H) Infill projects over 5 acres or projects that don't comply with Zoning/General Plan designations require an Initial Study, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this case, the project is over 5 acres (at 73.7 acres), and the site is not consistent with Zoning or the General Plan requiring an
EXHIBITB
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4163
Page7