• 254,390 square feet of commercial office land use
• 54,450 square feet of self-storage land use
• K-8 public school facilities with 750 student enrollment • High School facilities with 1,800 student enrollment
Currently-Proposed Land Uses:
• 3,805 single family dwelling units
• 1,317 multifamily dwelling units
• 500,400 square feet of retail commercial land use
• 254,390 square feet of commercial office land use
• K-8 public school facilities with 1,500 student enrollment • High School facilities with 1,800 student enrollment
The proposed land uses will be built over time, and the changes in proposed land uses will require a General Plan amendment. The VMT analysis (described in the following sections) assesses the VMT effect of the proposed changes against the previously-approved/General Plan land use assumptions at the site.
Analysis Methodology
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in its Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory, 2018) notes the use of travel demand models as an appropriate tool to assess VMT for land use projects given a model’s ability to forecast traffic volumes and travel patterns/trip lengths. City staff directed the project team to use the Three County travel demand model (in lieu of the MCAG travel demand model) that was recently used for the SR 59 widening project environmental document. Accordingly, Fehr & Peers used the Three County model to assess the VMT effects of the change in project description.
The VMT analysis considered the General Plan buildout year of the model (Year 2045). The analysis in the model was comprised of the following steps:
First, the VMT generated by the previously-approved development was assessed by aggregating the VMT generated by the model traffic analysis zones (TAZs) where the project is located considering the previously-approved project description. Second, the VMT generated by the currently-proposed development was assessed by aggregating the VMT generated by the model traffic analysis zones (TAZs) where the project is located considering the currently-proposed project description. Finally, the delta was computed between the two VMT values to arrive at the VMT effect of the project description change.
Other traffic studies prepared for the project include estimates of trip generation considering nationally-published data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’s Trip Generation Manual. 188
Tiffanie Marshall, Stonefield Home
October 24, 2023
In an effort to retain consistency between the other traffic studies and this analysis, the VMT analysis was conducted considering the trip generation native in the Three County model (which takes into account internalization of project trips given the mix of uses proposed by the project) as well as the ITE-derived trip generation from previous studies, which do not appear to account for internalization.
Vehicle‐Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Table 1 below presents the results of the VMT analysis for the proposed project using the native trip generation rates in the Three County model.
Table 1: Bellevue Ranch VMT Analysis – Three County Model Trip Generation Project Description Weekday Project Generated Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) Previously-Approved 666,916
Currently-Proposed 595,087
Delta -71,829
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023.
The trip generation differences for the previously-approved and currently-proposed land use programs are described below. As noted previously, the ITE-derived trip generation values do not appear to account for internalization, and thus the ITE-derived numbers are substantially higher. Previously-Approved Project:
o Model trip generation: 43,704 trips per weekday
o ITE trip generation: 89,146 trips per weekday
o ITE/Model ratio: 1.96
Currently-Proposed Project:
o Model trip generation: 33,723 trips per weekday
o ITE trip generation: 72,933 trips per weekday
o ITE/Model ratio: 1.86
Table 2 below presents the results of the VMT analysis for the proposed project by factoring the VMT estimates from the Three County model by the ITE/Model ratio.
189
Tiffanie Marshall, Stonefield Home
October 24, 2023
Table 2: Bellevue Ranch VMT Analysis – ITE-Factored Trip Generation Project
Description
Model Weekday Project Generated
Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT)
ITE/Model Trip
Generation Ratio
ITE-Factored Weekday
Project Generated VMT
Previously-
Approved 666,916 1.96 1,308,325
Currently-
Proposed 595,087 1.86 1,106,898
Delta -71,829 -- -201,427
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023.
The analyses presented in Table 1 and Table 2 yield similar conclusions – the currently-proposed project will generate less VMT than the previously-approved project. This result was expected given the reduction in development intensity (including removal of nearly 1,500 housing units from the development), which has a direct effect on trip generation and thus VMT.
This concludes our assessment of the change in VMT associated with the change in project description for the Bellevue Ranch project in Merced. Please call Mackenzie Watten or Ian Barnes at (925) 930-7100 with any questions.
190
This page left intentionally blank.
191
Planning Commission 11/8/23
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT R
192
DRAFT
193
REQUESTED CHANGES
f Land Use Changes
f General Plan
f Site Utilization Plan
f Changes to Table 6.1
DRAFT
194
LAND USE CHANGES
Proposed General Plan and Site Utilization Plan
Land Use Designation changes are provided in
the table at Pages 2 and 3 of Attachment C of
the Planning Commission Staff Report #23-979.
DRAFT
195
WETLAND
DELINEATION
North of Bellevue Road
West of G Street
DRAFT
196
IMPACT OF WETLAND
DELINEATION
f Approximately 20 acres of land affected by
wetland features and creeks.
f The biological constraints reduced the number
of units that could be developed in the BRN
area by approximately 1,500 units.
DRAFT
197
CONCEPTUAL
MASTER SITE PLAN
DRAFT
198
TABLE 6.1 CHANGES
Changes to infrastructure and timing for the installation of improvements.
DRAFT
199
PROPOSED TABLE 6.1 CHANGES
f Implement the North Merced Major Roadway Improvement Fee (NMMRIIF) (formerly known as a Category II fee in the BRMDP. f Clarifies what improvements are eligible for PFFP credit. f Identifies projects that would be CIP (City to install improvements when sufficient funds are received an all right-of-way has been obtained).
f Eliminates 3 bridges north of Bellevue Road due to biological constraints.
f Eliminates the extension of Catherine A Hostetler Blvd. north of Bellevue Road.
DRAFT
200
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
¾ The proposed changes to provide additional housing which achieves Goals and Policies of the Land Use and Housing Elements. ¾ Implementing Action 1.2.e Consider density increases for existing residential sites where the necessary conditions exist for higher densities,
¾ Policy H-1.2 Support Development of Affordable Housing. ¾ Policy H-1.8b Prioritize City e fforts to encourage residential development by focusing on in-fill development and densification with the existing City Limits.
Housing Element Goal H-3: Housing Affordability
¾ Increase Homeownership Opportunities for Low- and Moderate-Income Groups DRAFT
201
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
¾ Urban Village Concept
General Plan is based on the Village Concept
Concept is based on mixed-use, pedestrian friendly and transit-friendly design principles. The BRMDP is based on the Village Concept, except that the BRMDP anticipated that some commercial areas may need to be changed to residential. The proposed change for Villages 21 A & B would change the land use from Regional/Community Commercial to Low-Medium Density Residential. Approximately 21 acres of Commercial land at southeast corner of Bellevue and M St. Additional commercial (Neighborhood Commercial) at southeast corner of Cardella and M St.
Commercial uses at Yosemite & G Street (within 2 miles of most of the BRMDP area). Additional commercial with future annexations near the UC and north of Bellevue Ranch. Based on these factors the proposed change does not violate the General Plan.
DRAFT
202
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• A Mitigation Measure for the BRMDP
EIR, requires 17.3% of all housing units
within the area to be affordable.
• Previous developers of BRE did not
meet this obligation, but did provide
66 affordable units off-site.
• The current developer of BRW
and BRN intends to meet the
obligation based on the number
of units in the BRW and BRN area.
• If in-lieu fee is approved by
Council, the fee could be paid in-
lieu of constructing some units.
• Based on the number of units that
would be developed if this
request is granted, 485 affordable
housing units would be required.
Income
Level
% of Project
Housing
Very Low 4.33%
Low 6.63%
Moderate 6.35%
Total 17.31%
DRAFT
203
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
DRAFT
204
NO NET LOSS
f State law requires a “NO NET LOSS” Finding if property used to accommodate the RHNA is “down-zoned.”
f Villages 22 A & B were sites used to accommodate the affordable housing requirement of the RHNA.
f The proposed changes would change the land use designation from High- Medium Density Residential (12-24 units/acre) to Low-Medium Density Residential (6-12 units/acre).
f If all the changes as proposed are approved, there would be no net loss due to the other areas being “up-zoned” to High-Medium Density.
DRAFT
205
PARKS/OPEN SPACE/PUBLIC
FACILITIES
f The areas designated as being biologically sensitive would be dedicated as open-space/park land. Some of the land in the buffer areas around the sensitive areas could be developed as parks. The sensitive areas would remain undeveloped.
f Over 293 acres of open space/parks would be dedicated within the BRMDP. f The existing El Capitan HS was part of the BRMDP (relocated from south of Bellevue Rd).
f An elementary school site has been dedicated at the NWC of Arrowwood and M St.
f An elementary school site is designated in BRN, northwest of El Capitan H.S.
DRAFT
206
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT
f Many of the changes would be made to land that is surrounded by other vacant land. f The changes to V 22 A & B are near existing homes at the southeast corner of M Street and Barclay Way.
f The R Street site is near existing neighborhoods to the east and west. f The site is separated from the neighborhood to the east by Fahrens Creek and the neighborhood to the west by R Street.
f All multi-family developer would require a Site Plan Review Permit prior to construction.
At that time, impacts to the adjacent neighborhoods would be evaluated against the proposed design.
f Public Hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet. At the time the staff report was prepared, no comments had been received from the public.
DRAFT
207
LAND USE/DENSITY
f Residential Land Uses are appropriate for this area.
f BRMDP anticipated a wide range of residential units.
f The biological constraints in BRN reduced the number of units that could be constructed by approximately 1,500 units. f The proposed changes would help off-set that loss by adding an additional 584 units in BRW and 605 units in BRN.
f There would still be a net loss of units below the maximum number allowed in the BRMDP by 628 units.
DRAFT
208
f An Addendum to the General Plan EIR was
prepared by JB Anderson Land Use Planning.
f The General Plan EIR considered the
development within the BRMDP area.
f A Traffic Analysis [including Greenhouse
Gas(GHG) Emissions] was prepared to
analyze the changes proposed with Table
6.1 and to comply with state law on GHG
emissions. No impacts were identified.
f The proposed changes would result in a net
loss of units within the BRMDP area.
f The addendum did not identify any new
impacts or require any additional mitigation
measures.
f The project would be required to comply
with all mitigation measures of the Merced
Vision 2030 General Plan EIR.
DRAFT
209
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
fHold a Public Hearing
fRecommend to the City Council
fApproval/Denial/Modification of:
f General Plan Amendment #17-02
f Site Utilization Plan Revision #12 to P-D #42
f Environmental Review #17-07
DRAFT
210