Merced City Planning Commission recommends City Council adopt 6th-cycle housing element and related zoning changes

Merced City Planning Commission on June 17 voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the city's 6th-cycle housing element (General Plan Amendment 24-06), Zoning Ordinance Amendment 26-0001, Environmental Review 26-0068 and the city's SB 244 analysis.

Leah Brown, senior planner for the City of Merced, told the commission the package is intended to bring the city into compliance with state housing element law and to show how the city will accommodate its RHNA (regional housing needs allocation). "If you had a calculator, you would add these numbers up and you would come up with 10,517 units. That is the City of Merced's RHNA allocation," Brown said, adding the allocation is divided into very-low, low, moderate and above-moderate categories and that the element must be adopted by the council and submitted to HCD for final approval.

Brown traced the multi-year process back to 2022, described multiple public review periods and consultant agreements (including a professional services agreement with Rincon), and said the city submitted successive drafts to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Brown said HCD granted an essentially favorable technical review (a "golden ticket" email) but noted the housing element "cannot be found in substantial compliance until the city has completed the necessary rezones." She summarized the zoning amendments required by state law, including by-right approval for multifamily developments in which at least 20% of units are affordable for lower-income households, a minimum density requirement and minimum units-per-site standards.

Brown also summarized the element's implementation programs—regional collaboration, monitoring for no-net-loss of affordable sites, by-right approvals, accessory dwelling unit incentives, preservation of at-risk housing, farmworker housing programs, water and sewer coordination, and fair housing outreach—and explained that the SB 244 analysis identifies disadvantaged unincorporated communities (six areas near South Merced) and is informational rather than a promise of annexation or funding. She said the city's environmental review found the action statutorily exempt from further CEQA analysis under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 because the item is a plan amendment, not development; Brown noted future development in rezoned areas will require project-level CEQA review.

During public comment, Ashley Maria Suarez, representing Leadership Council and the Public Interest Law Project, told the commission the draft meets statutory requirements but urged the commission to strengthen tenant protections before final adoption. Suarez asked the commission to reject the current draft unless it incorporated additional measures such as higher in-lieu fees for RHNA shortfalls, requiring a larger share of affordable units to be built concurrently with market-rate projects, a tenant relocation assistance program, and expanded legal-assistance partnerships for tenants facing eviction. "We urge the planning commission to reject the current draft now and recommend denial unless further revisions are made," Suarez said.

Commissioners asked staff what a formal rejection would mean procedurally. Brown said a rejection by the commission would still be transmitted to City Council as a formal recommendation and that council would have to provide specific direction for any further revisions; she added the current draft has been revised in response to lengthy iterative letters from HCD and staff view the zoning ordinance amendment as statutorily compliant for HCD purposes.

Commissioner Ochoa moved, and Chairperson Gonzales seconded, a motion recommending City Council adopt Resolution 4181 forwarding General Plan Amendment 24-06 (housing element), Zoning Ordinance Amendment 26-0001, Environmental Review 26-0068, and the SB 244 analysis. The motion carried and the recommendation will go to City Council for their review and final adoption.

The commission also approved the consent calendar earlier in the meeting and staff pulled Item E-2 (Minor Modification 26-0008 / Environmental Review 26-0061) at the project planner's request for re-noticing. Planning staff notified commissioners that the next substantive meeting will include consideration of the general plan update mission statement on August 5.