Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council gives general support to Mission 82 pre‑annexation application for 110‑acre development east of Highway 99

Merced City Council · March 3, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City planning staff presented the Mission 82 pre‑annexation (25‑0002), a 110.6‑acre proposal with commercial, business park and residential designations and potential for up to 1,056 single‑family lots. After questioning zoning mix and station impacts, council voted to give general support; Council Member DuPont recused and one member voted no.

Associate Planner Valeria presented the Mission 82 pre‑annexation application (25‑0002) and described a 110.6‑acre site at East Mission Avenue and Mariano Way with proposed commercial reserve, business park reserve and multiple residential zoning designations. The proposal would include approximately 42 acres of commercial reserve and 46 acres of business park with remaining acreage planned for low‑ and low‑medium density residential use.

"With those density ranges, we are looking at a potential development of up to 1,056 single‑family lots," Valeria said, summarizing the applicant’s proposed zoning and phasing plan. Staff noted the project would require environmental review, a sphere‑of‑influence amendment where applicable and LAFCO approval for annexation.

Steve Maxey, representing the applicant family, thanked staff for their review and asked the council for general support to proceed with formal annexation filings and environmental study. Councilors raised questions about the mix of uses, the omission of higher‑density or affordable housing in early phases, the potential loss of freeway‑adjacent commercial land, and the implications of a possible high‑speed rail station in the area.

Council Member Jean said the proposal as presented lacked higher‑density residential and business‑park balance; Council Member Smith said rooftops were needed to support commercial development but cautioned about station‑area taxing and land‑use authority that the High‑Speed Rail Authority might seek. Council Member Harris moved for general support; the motion passed with Council Member Zhang voting no and Council Member DuPont recusing himself from the matter.

Next steps: staff will continue review if the applicant proceeds with a formal annexation application, including environmental analysis, tentative maps and coordination with other planned developments in the corridor.