Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners discuss Farm Bureau letter, farmland protections and multifamily development standards
Summary
Staff updated the commission on a Farm Bureau letter about proposed sphere‑of‑influence changes and described potential policies — ag buffers, right‑to‑farm notices and setback buffers — to be analyzed in the general‑plan EIR; commissioners also reviewed existing multifamily development standards and asked staff to return with targeted design standards.
The planning commission discussed two related agenda items on Feb. 10: a Farm Bureau letter (9a) about proposed sphere‑of‑influence and land‑use changes, and a request to review the city’s multifamily residential development standards (9b).
Staff described how the Farm Bureau’s concerns have been incorporated into the general‑plan update process. Contract planner Miguel Galvez said staff would evaluate agricultural impacts in the general‑plan environmental review (EIR) and consider policies such as ag buffers, right‑to‑farm notices for new subdivisions, setback provisions for high people‑intensive uses near active farmland, mitigation for conversion of prime farmland (one‑for‑one replacement suggestions), and an ag element or related programs to support farmworker housing and value‑added ag businesses.
"We're looking at incorporating policies and mitigation measures that can continue to allow ag uses within the city limits, even with adjacent development," Miguel Galvez said, describing staff’s approach to balancing infill housing needs and farmland protection.
Brianne Vandenberg, executive director of the Merced County Farm Bureau, attended and offered to be a point of contact for follow‑up. Commissioners asked staff for more documentation and asked that the council‑adopted preferred land‑use alternative be redistributed to the commission for review.
On multifamily regulations (9b), staff presented existing code provisions covering parking, private and shared open space, storage, landscaping, height limits, setbacks and special standards for the interface between multifamily and single‑family zones. Staff recommended returning with targeted design standards and code text once the housing‑element implementation issues and court amendments are clarified.
No formal action was required on these items; staff said the items will be carried forward as part of the general‑plan update and returned to the commission for more detailed review and public outreach.
