Merced Planning Commission approves 17‑lot subdivision at 2500 East Childs Avenue

The Merced Planning Commission on Nov. 5 approved a 17‑lot tentative subdivision map for about 3.38 acres at 2500 East Childs Avenue, voting unanimously to adopt staff’s recommendation subject to 49 conditions.

Assistant Planner Matt Livingston told the commission the proposal (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 25‑0013) would create a new cul‑de‑sac off East Childs, yield 17 single‑family lots ranging roughly between 5,565 and 14,579 square feet (nine lots about 6,200 square feet), and comply with the site’s R‑15 low‑density residential general plan designation. Livingston said the project’s conditions require undergrounding utilities, limiting construction to daylight hours, installing traffic control markings as directed by the city engineer, and designing the cul‑de‑sac to fire‑department turnaround standards.

The applicant’s representative, Cesar Perez of Guadalupe Engineering, said the design before the commission was a revision submitted after public feedback and that details such as fence alignment between Lots 9 and 10 would be worked out at the design stage. “If the fence is in great condition, we usually don't touch it,” Perez said, adding that new fencing would typically follow the property line and that the final design would resolve remaining questions.

Several nearby residents urged the commission to preserve the neighborhood’s cul‑de‑sac character as a traffic‑calming safety feature. Bridal Mann, a long‑time Ry Street resident, said she has lived on the street for 18 years and described children playing in the road, asking the commission to consider bollards or other measures to prevent vehicles from driving through the proposed sidewalk and fence area. “Otherwise, this looks good to me,” Mann said of the revised plan.

Patricia Gonzales asked the commission to require more environmental review, arguing the project could increase traffic noise, vehicle trips and hazards in ways that may not be covered by a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Gonzales cited the Merced County 2030 General Plan and said staff should prepare an initial study and, if the fair‑argument standard is met, a full environmental impact report.

Robert Delina, who has experience in local subdivision projects, urged the commission to weigh the city’s legal standards and evidence, saying staff recommended approval and opponents had not submitted the kind of site‑specific studies (for example, a traffic study) the state would treat as specific evidence in a legal challenge.

Commissioner Ochoa moved to approve Environmental Review No. 25‑0038 and Tentative Subdivision Map No. 25‑0013 subject to the 49 conditions in the staff resolution; Commissioner Gregens seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioners noted the project’s density (about 5.1 units per acre) meets the general plan’s 2–6 units per acre standard and that fire, public works and Merced Irrigation District (MID) requirements would be enforced at the final map and design stages.

The commission also handled consent calendar business earlier in the meeting: it first approved the consent calendar excluding item D2, then, after the city attorney explained a typographical correction, approved item D2 (the vesting tentative subdivision map resolution) with the corrected resolution number 4172.

Next steps for the approved subdivision include final map and improvement plan review, where engineering, fire and MID conditions will be verified and details such as fence placement and street naming will be finalized. The commission adjourned at the end of the meeting.