Merced annexation proposal reignites housing debate about the city’s future growth
.JPG "The Civic Center in Merced on 18th and N streets.")
A new proposal to add over 150 acres of land to the City of Merced’s domain has community members generally excited, but what to do with that land remains a matter of debate.
City Council members on Monday cast their votes largely in support of beginning first steps to annex the 151-acre parcel on the west side of G Street at Old Lake Road, adjacent to north Merced.
With only City Councilmember Jesse Ornelas opposing the decision, elected officials gave the green light to initiate an official annexation application. Ornelas cited a lack of information about the project’s vision as his reason for objecting.
Now, the project can move forward with the the formal application, followed by a environmental review process. The final proposal will ultimately be heard by the City Council during scheduled public hearings.
The parcel is owned by fourth generation farmers Kimber Lee and Robert Rogina, who bought it in the 1990s. The family is now seeking to annex the farmland into the city for future development, including commercial, residential and public land uses.
The site is is re-imagined as mixed-use development with roughly 138,700 square feet of neighborhood commercial land and 11 acres of open space or park use. An estimated 522 to 608 low-density residential housing units and 162 to 324 high-medium density residential units are planned as well.
Approximately three miles west from the UC Merced Campus, the project is expected to assist students desperately in need of housing.
“We want to do what will be good for the community,” Kimber Lee Rogina said of the proposal during Monday’s City Council meeting.
Range of opinions expressed
What is good for the community proved a topic of discussion encompassing a range of opinions by City Council and community members. As it frequently has recently, the debate centered on what type of housing is most suitable to Merced’s needs.
Some residents took issue with the project’s high density housing, airing fears that more tenants will exacerbate traffic congestion on G Street and contribute to sprawl. On the flip side, others said the project won’t put a significant dent in addressing Merced’s housing problems.
Resident Fue Xiong critiqued the proposal by pointing out that it doesn’t tackle the need for low and very low-income units, adding that a majority of the project plans for low density housing. While the proposal does include some high density units, that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily affordable, he added.
“That doesn’t help us,” Xiong said.
Like many parts of the state, Merced’s low vacancy rate and rapid growth pose a challenge for renters and low-income residents competing for a place to live. State Auditor data also shows Merced’s severe cost-burden rating, overcrowding, and unavailability of units are all high.
Merced leaders have reiterated their commitment to attracting more developments and completed a housing policy overhaul last year that culminated in a set of strategies geared at boosting housing. While in agreement over the need to increase the volume of units, leaders have been split over how to do so.
Some council members have advocated for policies that promote building more affordable housing, like inclusionary zoning and putting aside city funds for an affordable housing trust fund.
Affordable housing units have fixed costs so that very low to moderate income-level earners spend no more than 30% of their wages on housing. While units present feasible options to lower-income residents, building and selling homes below market rate makes affordable housing construction a lengthy and complex process.
Ornelas, who cast the lone vote against the annexation proposal, stated earlier this year that he wouldn’t support new development projects until the city committed to bolstering affordable housing by establishing an affordable housing trust fund.
Monday’s proposal didn’t include a summary of affordable housing units planned for the project, but city staff said the applicant is aware it must comply with any future affordable housing policies the City Council adopts. The council is expected to soon consider a policy that would require a percentage, likely around 10%, of a housing development to be affordable units.
Other council members, while not wholly opposed to affordable housing, have indicated their preference to let prices be guided by the free market. Councilmember Kevin Blake voiced such a position Monday, stating that housing prices come down to supply and demand.
“From a market perspective, I think we need to build until the pendulum swings the other way,” Blake said, noting Merced’s less than 1% vacancy rate. “I think it’s a great project,” he said of the annexation project.
Councilmember Fernando Echevarria seconded Blake in supporting increasing housing supply, but cautioned against being overly optimistic that boosting units will meaningfully decrease cost. Echevarria was met with applause in the council chambers after he requested that 15% of the project’s units be affordable.
While responses to the project run the gamut, city leaders appeared largely united in the opinion that more housing is good for Merced.
“There’s an ongoing conversation about the need for housing, and I think this is part of the solution,” Councilmember Delray Shelton said.
Other project logistics
Additional infrastructure projects would be needed to extend the city’s boundaries further north, including work on G and M streets, proposal documents show.
Merced officials said they anticipate needing to expand the city’s wastewater system to accommodate the annexation, as well as other potential annexations expected near UC Merced in the future.
The proposed project would require connecting to a 16-inch water main line along the Old Lake Road extension to Snelling Highway. The site would also need storm drains constructed, as there are currently none.
Wastewater generation estimates show that the residential development would generate about 257 gallons of water per day per unit. The commercial development is projected to produce 41,600 gallons per day more.
If the process moves forward as expected, the public will have the opportunity to weigh in on the project during scheduled public hearings.
