Merced Planning Commission Meeting – July 9, 2025

The Merced Planning Commission held a regular meeting on July 9, 2025, beginning at 6:00 PM in the City Council Chamber. The commission considered two public hearing items: a major residential and commercial development proposal (up to 570 homes and 9 acres of commercial space) and a request for a 48-foot-tall shopping center sign with a digital screen. Both items received unanimous approval with conditions.

Consent Calendar

• Planning Commission Minutes of June 4, 2025 – Approved and filed unanimously (7-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

Item E1 – Gateway Residential Development:

• Sarah Noster (San Castle subdivision resident) opposed the general plan amendment, citing loss of commercial land and safety concerns about on-street parking near a 55 mph road. She requested the entire area remain zoned for business park and manufacturing/industrial uses.
• Timothy Jones (property owner, Merced Gateway LLC) spoke in favor, noting that after 17–18 years of marketing, no business park development materialized. He expressed confidence in Lennar Homes to deliver the project and noted that residential development would drive demand for commercial uses.
• Eric Plyme (adjacent landowner, Gateway Marketplace) supported the project, stating that rooftops are needed to attract retail tenants. He requested that a cost‑share condition (already in Condition 22) be moved from findings to conditions of approval to make it binding. Staff clarified the condition already existed.
• Anthony DeMello (project engineer) confirmed that the roads on the south portion (Welton product) are city standard residential streets, not narrow pocket streets like those in Moraga, and that the development will tie into the existing bike path along Campus Parkway.
• A veteran from the audience (first-time attendee) expressed general support for development but asked for guidance on how to get involved in the process.

Item E2 – Shopping Center Sign:

• No members of the public spoke. The applicant (Marco Ospina) and property manager (Max Whitley) answered commissioner questions about brightness, road closures, and technical controls.

Discussion Items

E1 – General Plan Amendment #24‑03, RP‑D #83, Zone Change #435, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map #1333, Environmental Review #24‑30 (Lennar Homes)

• The project proposes 570 detached residential units on 61 of 73.7 acres, with 9 acres of commercial/business park, parks, and open space. The site is located at 3610 East Gerard Avenue (southwest corner of Gerard and Campus Parkway).
• Staff presented a mitigated negative declaration and recommended approval. The applicant described three product lines (Treasures, Alpha, Welton) and emphasized plans for simultaneous north/south construction.
• Commissioners discussed park timing: The applicant agreed to a condition that parks be dedicated and improved by the close of 100 units (approximately 20% build‑out), subject to unforeseen delays (e.g., equipment supply).
• Other discussion included: parking adequacy (city standard streets with two off‑street spaces per unit plus street parking), traffic signal timing at Plyme Road and Campus Parkway (not required by study but agreed to by developer, with no specific occupancy trigger), connection to existing bike paths, and school proximity (Pioneer Elementary within half‑mile; mitigation letter not returned).
• The commission voted unanimously to recommend approval to City Council for the General Plan Amendment, RP‑D Establishment #83, and Zone Change #435, with the amended park timing condition (Condition 2). They also unanimously approved the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Environmental Review (mitigated negative declaration) with staff‑proposed condition changes (Conditions 7, 11, 22, 37).

E2 – Conditional Use Permit #25‑0007 & Site Plan Review #25‑0009 (Marketplace at Merced Sign)

• The applicant seeks a 48‑foot‑tall pylon sign with a digital screen at 851 West Olive Avenue. The sign would replace an existing 45‑foot sign and serve a 439,012‑square‑foot shopping center.
• Staff recommended approval with conditions: no flashing/video, no audible sound, city may use screen for community events, and landscaping maintenance.
• Commissioners asked about brightness limits (to be addressed at building permit stage) and potential road closures (none planned). The property manager stated the sign can be dimmed at night.
• The commission unanimously approved the Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Environmental Review (categorical exemption with staff revisions).

Key Outcomes

• Item E1 – Unanimous vote (7‑0) to: (1) recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment #24‑03, Residential Planned Development Establishment #83, and Zone Change #435; (2) approve Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map #1333 and Environmental Review #24‑30 (mitigated negative declaration), with amended conditions including park completion by 100 units. The commission also noted staff’s condition changes (Conditions 7, 11, 22, 37) as part of the approval.
• Item E2 – Unanimous vote (7‑0) to approve Conditional Use Permit #25‑0007, Site Plan Review #25‑0009, and Environmental Review #25‑0017 (categorical exemption), with staff‑proposed revisions.
• Information Items – The commission was informed of upcoming agenda items (July 23 meeting, appreciation dinner for Commissioner Delgadillo, appointment of new commissioners, and a returning general plan amendment for a self‑storage/41‑home project sent back by City Council).
• Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at approximately [time not specified in transcript].