Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Ceres planning commission approves site plan and tentative map for two large warehouses on Crows Landing Road

Ceres Planning Commission · August 19, 2025
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

The Ceres Planning Commission voted 3–1 to approve a site plan and tentative parcel map for two speculative warehouses on a 57.34‑acre West Landing parcel at 3807 Crows Landing Road, after hearing neighbors’ concerns about traffic, farmland impacts and notice; staff said the project is covered by the West Landing EIR (2012).

The Ceres Planning Commission on Wednesday approved a site plan and tentative parcel map for Warehouse 18 and 19, two speculative, single‑story buildings the applicant said could be as large as 249,200 square feet, to be built on a 57.34‑acre parcel at 3807 Crows Landing Road.

Planning consultant Leah Simbelakis told the commission the proposal would subdivide the parcel into five lots and that the city could rely on the West Landing specific plan environmental impact report (2012) and CEQA section 15162, so no additional environmental review was required. "When there are no changes in the area, no changes to proposed projects that were already contemplated in the original EIR, you do not have to do additional CEQA work," Simbelakis said.

The applicant, Dave Romano, speaking for g3, described the site as well‑located for business park uses with access toward Highway 99 and Interstate 5 and said the company agreed with the conditions of approval and staff recommendations. "We agree with all the conditions of approval and staff report, and we would ask for your approval this evening," Romano said.

Several neighbors and stakeholders urged caution. Michelle Vargas, who said her family farms an almond orchard backing the parcel, asked the city to notify future warehouse owners about typical agricultural practices and worried about dust, chemicals and property values. "We're aware of the following dumping incident... those are just concerns that there's not going to be any dumping or things drained out in the property," Vargas said. Charles Evans, a nearby property owner, asked that the item be tabled to allow time for an appraisal, saying residents had fewer than five days to respond.

A local trades representative urged approval on economic grounds. "This project represents a vital opportunity for our local workers to support their families," Mike Mendoza of the electrical union told the commission, adding that tens of millions of dollars in construction wages are expected and that the union will seek community benefits discussions with g3.

City staff and public works commenters flagged traffic and infrastructure impacts if the project proceeds. John Warren, city staff, said heavy trucks—"those things weigh 80,000 pounds"—would accelerate wear on Crow's Landing and Service Road. City staffer Beltran outlined interim and longer‑term plans: interim restriping of Crow's Landing from Service to Whitmore is planned to be presented Sept. 22 to council, and a full rehabilitation design is underway with construction anticipated in future years. Beltran estimated about "$6 to $7 million" would be invested in Crow's Landing rehabilitation.

Commissioners asked about street ownership and access; staff confirmed that B Street in the West Landing plan is public and that future development of front parcels would require the street and driveways. Staff also told the commission the project honors the city's "right to farm" protections and that the 10‑day mailed notice for this item met legal notice requirements.

A motion to adopt the resolution approving the tentative parcel map and site plan as consistent with the West Landing specific plan passed on a roll call vote, 3–1, with one commissioner absent. The dissenting vote was recorded as a "No." The applicant remains available to work with neighbors on buffering and construction‑period communications, and the commission forwarded the resolution to the city council as the next procedural step.

The commission moved on to other business and adjourned to its next regularly scheduled meeting.