Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session on General Plan Update - May 26, 2026

The Merced City Council and Planning Commission held a joint special study session on May 26, 2026, to receive a report on the Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook and a progress update for the Comprehensive General Plan Update. The meeting was informational, with no votes taken. Consultants from the planning team presented key findings from the 263-page workbook, followed by discussion and public comments.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Marilyn Sobel praised the transformation of Bob Hart Square, calling it a great asset for the community.
• Norma Cardona, a downtown resident, asked about the types of knowledge-based industries being recommended, highlighted the potential of mixed-use housing to increase property tax revenue (citing a figure of $9.9 million per acre for mixed-use versus $384,000 for residential), and urged including digital literacy and device access in the digital divide discussion.
• Later, Marilyn Sobel defended the environmental justice methodology used, stating that rich communities also face pollution and lead issues, and expressed concern about environmental disparities in South Merced and the need for thoughtful growth beyond single-family homes.
• Norma Cardona returned to emphasize the importance of evacuation routes in flood-prone areas, the impact of short-term rentals on housing availability, extreme heat mitigation, and the need for non-traditional community engagement for limited-English residents. She shared a blurry photo illustrating property tax revenue comparisons.
• Gene (affiliated with Strong Towns and Flat Valley Land Alliance) commented on the 100-year floodplain being outdated due to climate change, noted the presence of multiple streams through Merced, and advocated for downtown housing, bike/walk infrastructure, and high-speed rail connectivity.

Discussion Items

• Presentation on Existing Conditions and Trends: Consultant Brent provided an overview of the workbook, which covers land use, population/housing, mobility, market/economic conditions, public facilities, open space, air quality, environment, safety, and environmental justice. Key facts: Merced’s population is ~98,000 (2025); annual growth rate 1.5% (2010-2025); median household income rose from ~$37,000 (2015) to ~$60,000 (2023); 65% of housing is single-family detached; 150 miles of trails in county; 14 census tracts meet state definition of disadvantaged (based on CalEnviroScreen 4.0). The consultant noted that the city has capacity for planned growth with additional groundwater wells and a 10 million gallon/day surface water treatment plant.
• Visioning Process Update: The team reported on a community open house (January 2026, over 50 attendees in English, Spanish, Hmong), an online survey (75+ respondents, 90% did not attend workshop), and CFAG meetings. Key themes: downtown as an asset, aging infrastructure, housing affordability, desire for walkability and connectivity. A draft vision statement will be presented to the CFAG on May 27.
• Council and Commissioner Q&A:
  • Commissioner Ochoa asked for clarification on water numbers.
  • Councilmember Tao asked about community feedback on housing affordability; the consultant confirmed it was a major concern, especially for first-time buyers and downsizing seniors.
  • Councilmember Smith questioned the validity of comparing Merced to coastal communities in CalEnviroScreen, arguing it forces valley communities to adopt Bay Area land use models and undermines generational wealth through homeownership. He noted that over half the town does not work and two-thirds of workers leave Merced for jobs.
  • Councilmember DuPont echoed concerns about state models not fitting the valley, and noted that retail sales growth (2015-2024) was below county and state averages despite UC Merced’s presence, calling it “wholly unacceptable.”
  • Consultant Michael and Brent defended the methodology, stating it also uses federal EJ Screen data and that air quality data is specific to the city, but acknowledged the need to consider local context.
• Timeline: The consultant outlined that visioning will continue through summer, with planning commission review of the vision statement on August 5, city council adoption in September 2026, then policy drafting (10-11 months), EIR (9-10 months), and final adoption in 2028.

Key Outcomes

• The meeting was informational only; no votes or formal decisions were made.
• Next steps: CFAG meeting on May 27 to review draft vision statement; public review period over summer; planning commission hearing on August 5; council adoption of vision statement in September 2026.
• The presentation and workbook will inform future policy discussions for the general plan update.