City Council/Public Finance and Economic Development Authority/Parking Authority
January 16, 2024

CITY OF MERCED

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Merced Civic Center
678 W. 18th Street
Merced, CA 95340
File #: 23-979 Meeting Date: 11/8/2023
Planning Commission Staff Report
Report Prepared by: Julie Nelson, Acting Planning Manager, Development Services Department SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment #17-02 and Site Utilization Plan Revision #12 to Planned Development (P-D) #42, initiated by Benchmark Engineering, on behalf of Bellevue Merced, LLC, Baxter Ranches, LLC, and Stonefield Home, Inc. The General Plan Amendment and Site Utilization Plan Revision would amend the land use designation for approximately 238.86 acres of land within the Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (BRMDP) area. The Site Utilization Plan Revision would also amend Table 6.1 of the BRMDP related to required roadway improvements and the timing of said improvements. This property is generally bounded by the City Limit line to the north, Cardella Road and existing urban development to the south, G Street to the east, and a mix of agricultural and urban uses to the west**PUBLIC HEARING** ACTION: PLANNING COMMISSION:

Recommendation to City Council
1) Environmental Review #17-07 (Addendum to General Plan EIR) 2) General Plan Amendment #17-02
3) Site Utilization Plan Revision #12 to Planned Development (P-D) #42
CITY COUNCIL:

Approve/Disapprove/Modify
1) Environmental Review #17-07 (Addendum to General Plan EIR) 2) General Plan Amendment #17-02
3) Site Utilization Plan Revision #12 to Planned Development (P-D) #42

SUMMARY
This is a request to amend the General Plan and Site Utilization Plan land use designations for approximately 239 acres of land within the Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (BRMDP) area including Villages 19A and 19B, 21, 22A and 22B, R Street Multi-Family, 25, 26, 28A, 28B, 30, a portion of Lot J, 34A, 34B, 35A, and 35B. The Site Utilization Plan Revision also includes amendments to Table 6.1 of the BRMDP related to required roadway improvements and the timing of said improvements. The proposed changes are a result of biological (wetland) areas being identified within the BRMDP area that preclude development within those specific areas. The proposed land use changes would allow the development of housing, including a percentage of affordable housing, in areas not currently designated for residential use. The land use changes also include changes in CITY OF MERCED Printed on 11/3/2023Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
1 ATTACHMENT 14
File #:23-979 Meeting Date: 11/8/2023
in areas not currently designated for residential use. The land use changes also include changes in density for some areas currently designated for residential uses.

RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Environmental Review #17-07 (Addendum to the General Plan EIR), General Plan Amendment #17-02, and Site Utilization Plan Revision # 12 to Planned Development (P-D) #42 (including the adoption of the Draft Resolution at Attachment A of Planning Commission Staff Report #23-979) subject to the conditions in Exhibit A and the findings/considerations in Exhibit B of the Draft Resolution.

DISCUSSION
Project Description
The applicant is requesting to amend the General Plan and Site Utilization Plan land use designations and components of Table 6.1 of the Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (BRMDP). The changes would affect approximately 239 acres of land generally bounded by the City Limit line to the north, Cardella Road and existing urban development to the south, G Street to the east, and a mix of agricultural and urban uses to the west (Attachment B).

The proposed land use changes would affect Villages 19A and 19B, 21A and 21B, 22A and 22B, R Street Multi-Family (formerly known as Lot F within Bellevue Ranch West), 25, 26, 28A, 28B, 30, a portion of Lot J, 34A, 34B, 35A, and 35B as shown on the map at Attachment C. The proposed changes are a result of biological areas (wetlands) being identified in much of the land north of Bellevue Road (Bellevue Ranch North). These areas, along with a buffer area around the wetlands, require preservation with no development taking place, which has substantially reduced the developable area in the Bellevue Ranch North (BRN) area (north of Bellevue Road). A wetland delineation map was prepared to show the sensitive areas in the BRN area (Attachment D).

Because of the substantial reduction in developable land, specifically for residential development, the developer is requesting land use changes to allow the development of residential uses in areas that are currently designated as open space or commercial. The request also includes a change to the density for some areas that are currently designated for residential uses and a reconfiguration of some of the villages. For context of the entire area, the proposed changes along with the existing land uses within the BRMDP Area are shown on the map at Attachment E. The map at Attachment F shows the proposed changes along with conceptual park site and school site designs as well as conceptual landscaping designs throughout the development area.

Along with the land use changes requested, the applicant is requesting modifications to Table 6.1 of the BRMDP (Attachment G). Table 6.1 of the BRMDP identifies the phasing of major infrastructure required with each village within the BRMDP area. The infrastructure phasing is only directed toward regional improvements such as arterial roads, intersection signalization, bridges, sewer lift stations, and water wells. Each village is responsible for the infrastructure within the villages, such as interior roads, utilities, etc. Some villages are also responsible for the installation of regional improvements such as arterial roads and bridges. The table is divided into 5 columns: Sub-phase (Village), Contiguous Improvements, Non-Contiguous Improvements, Interior Improvements, and Villages Able to Construct Out of Sequence with This Sub-Phase.

CITY OF MERCED Printed on 11/3/2023Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
2 File #:23-979 Meeting Date: 11/8/2023
The changes proposed for Table 6.1 would incorporate a North Merced Roadway Improvement Impact Fee (NMMRIIF) that would be assessed on certain construction within the BRMDP area to help pay for major roadway improvements. The changes also identify the improvements that are eligible for reimbursement/credit through the City’sPublic Facilities Financing Program (PFFP) and the improvement that would be made as part of a City Capital Improvement Project. Additionally, as a result of the wetland areas, there are two bridges proposed to be eliminated as well as the extension of Old Lake Road, west of G Street. The applicant had an updated traffic study prepared with this request to determine the current and future infrastructure needs based on current conditions and the proposed land use changes. The study revealed that due to the decrease in the number of units within the BRMDP area certain improvements were not warranted as required by Table 6.1.

Therefore, the requested update would modify the timing of these improvements as determined by the traffic analysis prepared by Ken D Anderson and Associates (KDA) and supplemented by Fehr and Peers (Appendix D of Attachment P).

The Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (BRMDP) has been developed in phases with the area east of M Street and south of Bellevue Road being the first to develop. This area is commonly referred to Bellevue Ranch East (BRE). The area south of Bellevue, west of M Street is known as Bellevue Ranch West (BRW), and the area north of Bellevue Road is known as Bellevue Ranch North (BRN) (Attachment B). Single-family development within the Bellevue Ranch East area has been completely built out providing 1,015 single-family homes. There is available land to accommodate an estimated 414 multi-family units and approximately 248,000 square feet of commercial uses within Bellevue Ranch East. Bellevue Ranch West (BRW) is currently under construction with most of the single-family homes south of Arrow Wood Drive already constructed. Construction is under way for some of the homes north of Arrow Wood Drive. Under the current land use designations, land within the BRW area is designated for residential development (both single-family and multi-family), commercial uses, and school and park sites. No residential development has occurred within the Bellevue Ranch North area.

However a tentative subdivision map has been approved for Villages 23 A and B located north of El Capitan High School. The current land use designations for BRN include single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial uses, and school and park sites. El Capitan High School was originally intended to be constructed in BRE, but due to the need for a larger site, it was moved to BRN.

Additional details on the proposed land use changes and changes to Table 6.1 are provided in the Findings at Exhibit B of Draft Planning Commission Resolution #4125 at Attachment A.

Surrounding uses as noted in Attachment B.

Surrounding Land Existing Use of Land City Zoning
Designation
City General Plan
Land Use
Designation
North Vacant County Low Density
Residential (LD) /
Commercial Office
(CO)
South Residential P-D #42 Low Density
Residential (LD)
East Residential/School P-D #42, RP-D #63 Low Density
Residential
(LD) /Low-Medium
Density Residential
(LMD) / School
(SCH)
West Vacant/Residential County Low Density
Residential (LD)
CITY OF MERCED Printed on 11/3/2023Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
3 File #:23-979 Meeting Date: 11/8/2023
Surrounding Land Existing Use of LandCity Zoning
Designation
City General Plan
Land Use
Designation
North Vacant County Low Density
Residential (LD) /
Commercial Office
(CO)
South Residential P-D #42 Low Density
Residential (LD)
East Residential/SchoolP-D #42, RP-D #63Low Density
Residential
(LD) /Low-Medium
Density Residential
(LMD) / School
(SCH)
West Vacant/ResidentialCounty Low Density
Residential (LD)
Background
The portion of the Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (BRMDP) south of Bellevue Road (known at that time as Areas 1 and 2, now known as Bellevue Ranch East and West) was annexed into the City in 1997. At that time Planned Development (P-D) #42 was established. The area north of Bellevue Road (previously known as Areas 3 and 4, now known as Bellevue Ranch North) was annexed in 2000.

The Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (BRMDP) was approved in 1995. The BRMDP provides guidance, standards and a comprehensive approach for the development of over 1,300 acres of land. The Plan lays the groundwork for a mixed-use development that includes single-family and multi-family residential, neighborhood commercial, regional/community commercial, commercial office, open space, parks, schools, and a fire station. The BRMDP includes Table 2.1 (refer to Attachment H) that outlines the number of units expected to be constructed (both single-family and multi-family) as well as the amount of commercial, schools, parks, open space, etc. that was intended.

The original plans included the channelization of Fahrens Creek along the western boundary of the BRMDP area. However, those plans were changed shortly after adoption of the plan and the creek has remained in its original location. The area adjacent to the creek has been designated as open space in the General Plan.

Through the years, there have been several amendments to the master plan including relocating the designated High School site from south of Bellevue Road in Bellevue Ranch East, to north of Bellevue Road where the El Capitan High School was recently constructed. Other changes include amending the density for residential development, relocating park sites, relinquishing a fire station site in Bellevue Ranch East at the northeast corner of Cardella Road and M Street, and several changes to Table 6.1 dealing with infrastructure and timing of the installation of the infrastructure.

Additional details related to the BRMDP are provided at Finding of A of Draft Planning Commission CITY OF MERCED Printed on 11/3/2023Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
4 File #:23-979 Meeting Date: 11/8/2023
Resolution #4125 at Attachment A.

Process
When a Planned Development is established, a Site Utilization Plan (SUP) is established as well identifying the land uses allowed within the Planned Development Area. The land uses identified by the Site Utilization Plan, in this case the Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan should be consistent with the General Plan land use designations. Changes to the General Plan land use designation may require a Site Utilization Plan Revision (or vice versa) to ensure the land use designations are consistent with each other. Therefore, the applicant is requesting both a General Plan Amendment and Site Utilization Plan Revision to make changes to the land use designations.

The Planning Commission reviews the request and makes a recommendation to the City Council regarding the request. The City Council will make the final decision, considering the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

Findings/Considerations
Please refer to Exhibit B of the Draft Planning Commission Resolution at Attachment A.

ATTACHMENTS
A) Draft Planning Commission Resolution #4125
B) Location Map
C) Map of Areas Propose to be Changed
D) Wetland Delineation Map
E) Proposed and Existing Land Uses
F) Conceptual Master Site Plan
G) Table 6.1
H) Map Showing Elimination of Bridges and Road
I) Table 2.1 Bellevue Ranch MDP Approved Land Use
J) VTSM #1213 (BRE & BRW)
K) VTSM #1280 (BRN)
L) Affordable Housing Sites
M) Conceptual Park Locations - BRMDP
N) Proposed Open Space & Park Locations
O) Open Space & Parks Acreage Table
P) Schools & Public Facilities
Q) Addendum to GP EIR
R) Draft Presentation
CITY OF MERCED Printed on 11/3/2023Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
5 CITY OF MERCED
Planning Commission

Resolution #4125

WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission at its regular meeting of November 8, 2023, held a public hearing and considered General Plan Amendment #17-02 and Site Utilization Plan Revision # 12 to Planned Development (P -D) #42, on behalf of Bellevue Merced, LLC , Baxter Ranches, LLC, and Stonefield Home, Inc. The General Plan Amendment and Site Utilization Plan Revision would amend the land use designation for approximately 238.86 acres of land within the Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (BRMDP) area including Villages 19A and 19B, 21, 22A and 22B, R Street Multi -Family, 25, 26, 28A, 28B, 30, a portion of Lot J, 34A, 34B, 35A, and 35B. The Site Utilization Plan Revision would also amend Table 6.1 of the BRMDP related to required roadway improvements and the timing of said improvements. This property is generally bounded by Old Lake Road to the north, Cardella Road and existing urban development to the south, G Street to the east, and a mix of agricultural and urban uses to the west ; also known as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 170-060-015, -018 to -021; 224-300-005, -007, - 008, -010 to -012, -013, -017; and 230-010-012; and,

WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission concurs with Findings/Considerations A through K of Attachment A of Staff Report # 23-979 (Exhibit B); and,

NOW THEREFORE, after reviewing the Initial Study and Draft Environmental Determination, and fully discussing all the issues, the Merced City Planning Commission does resolve to hereby recommend to City Council adoption of a n Addendum to the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (Environmental Review #17-07), subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit A and the Findings set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Upon motion by Commissioner ____________________, seconded by Commissioner ____________________, and carried by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioner(s)
NOES: Commissioner(s)
ABSENT: Commissioner(s)
ABSTAIN: Commissioner(s)

ATTACHMENT A
6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

November 8, 2023

Adopted this 8th day of November 2023

______________________________
Chairperson, Planning Commission of
the City of Merced, California

ATTEST:

_______________________________
Secretary

Exhibits:

Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B – Findings/Considerations

\\vm-merfile01\DATA\SHARED\PLANNING\PC RESOLUTIONS\RESOLUTIONS\#4125 GPA 17-02 &SUP Rev #12 to P-D #42.docx

7 EXHIBIT A
of Planning Commission Resolution #4125

Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Resolution #4125
General Plan Amendment #17-02
Site Utilization Plan Revision #12 to Planned Development (P-D) #42

1. The General Plan and Site Utilization Plan designations shall be changed as shown on the map and listed in the table at Exhibit C of this resolution for Villages 19A and 19B, 21A and21B, 22A and 22B, R Street Multi-family (aka Lot F as shown on TSM #1213), 25A and 25B, 26, 28A and 28B, 30, 30-Lot D3, 30-Lot F, 30 Lot G, a portion of Lot J (Bellevue Ranch North), 34A and 34B, 34 Lot B, 35A and 35B.

2. All previously adopted conditions, mitigation measures, and guiding principles contained in Appendices D, E, and F of the Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (BRMDP) adopted by the Merced City Council on May 15, 1995, which are applicable to this project, shall apply to the current tentative map and all subsequent tentative maps, improvement plans, building permits, and discretionary approvals.

3. All other applicable codes, ordinanc es, policies, etc. adopted by the City of Merced shall apply.

4. Approval of the General Plan Amendment and Site Utilization Plan Revision is subject to the applicant's entering into a written agreement (Legislative Action Agreement) that they agree to all the conditions and shall pay all City and school district fees, taxes, and/or assessments, in effect on the date of any subsequent subdivision and/or permit approval, any increase in those fees, taxes, or assessments, and any new fe es, taxes, or assessments, which are in effect at the time the building permits are issued, which may include public facilities impact fees, a regional traffic impact fee, Mello- Roos taxes — whether for infrastructure, services, or any other activity or project authorized by the Mello-Roos law, etc. Payment shall be made for each phase at the time of building permit issuance for such phase unless an Ordinance or other requirement of the City requires payment of such fees, taxes, and or assessments at an earlier or subsequent time. Said agreement to be approved by the City Council prior to the adoption of the ordinance, resolution, or minute action.

5. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by the City), and hold harmless the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and any officers, officials, employees, or agents thereof, from any and all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, or judgments 8 EXHIBIT A
of Planning Commission Resolution #4125

against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, and any officers, officials, employees, or agents thereof to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body, including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the project and the approvals granted herein.

Furthermore, developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, against any and all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, or judgments against any governmental entity in which developer/applicant’s project is subject to that other governmental entity’s approval and a condition of such approval is that the City indemnify and defend (with counsel selected by the City) such governmental entity. City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, suits, or proceeding. Developer/applicant shall be responsible to immediately prefund the litigation cost of the City including, but not limited to, City’s attorney’s fees and costs. If any claim, action, suits, or proceeding is filed challenging this approval, the developer/applicant shall be required to execute a separate and formal defense, indemnification, and deposit agreement that meets the approval of the City Attorney and to provide all required deposits to fully fund the City’s defense immediately but in no event later than five (5) days from that date of a demand to do so from City.

In addition, the developer/applicant shall be required to satisfy any monetary obligations imposed on City by any order or judgment. The developer/applicant shall construct and operate the project in strict compliance with the approvals granted herein, City standards, laws, and ordinances, and in compliance with all State and Federal laws, regulations, and standards. In the event of a conflict between City laws and standards and a State or Federal law, regulation, or standard, the stricter or higher standard shall control.

6. The developer/applicant shall construct and operate the projec t in strict compliance with the approvals granted herein, City standards, laws, and ordinances, and in compliance with all State and Federal laws, regulations, and standards. In the event of a conflict between City laws and standards and a State or Federal law, regulation, or standard, the stricter or higher standard shall control.

7. All development other than standard single-family homes, shall be subject to a Site Plan Review Permit prior to construction. This includes zero-lot line or small lot single-family homes.
9 EXHIBIT A
of Planning Commission Resolution #4125

8. The developer shall work with the City to implement the North Merced Major Roadway Improvement Impact Fee (NMMRIIF) (also referred to as a Category II fee in the Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan) . The Developer shall provide any information necessary to allow the City to implement and administer this fee.

9. Community Facilities District (CFD) annexation is require d for annual operating costs for police and fire services as well as storm drainage, public landscaping, street trees, street lights, parks and open space. CFD procedures shall be initiated before final map approval or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any development that does not require a Final Map.

Developer/Owner shall submit a request agreeing to such a procedure, waiving right to protest and post deposit as determined by the City Engineer to be sufficient to cover procedure costs and maintenance costs expected prior to first assessments being received. Bellevue Ranch West has already been annexed into the City’s CFD for Services 2003-2. This condition shall apply only apply to the Bellevue Ranch North area that is not already annexed into the CFD.

10. Improvements that are eligible for reimbursement or credit through the Public Facilities Financing Program (PFFP) shall be subject to all requirements of City Administrative Police A-32 for reimbursement or credit. Reimbursement is available on a first in time basis and funds may not be available at the time of request. Credit may be given in lieu of reimbursement.

11. The developer shall provide all frontage improvements along all park sites as required by the City Engineer. The improvements shall be installed with the Village nearest the park site or at such time as required by the City Engineer.

These improvements shall not be subject to reimbursement.

12. As allowed by the Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (BRMDP), full or partial fee credit of the park portion of the PFFP Impact Fee (or other park fee in effect at the time) shall be provided for linear parks.

13. All subsequent construction within the B RMDP area shall comply with Post Construction Standards in accordance with the requirement for the City’s Phase II MS-4 Permit (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System).

14. As subsequent development occurs within the BRMDP area, a ll storm water shall be retained onsite and metered out to the City’s storm water system in accordance with City Standards.
10 EXHIBIT A
of Planning Commission Resolution #4125

15. All construction activity shall be conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.

16. The developer shall use proper dust control procedures during site development in accordance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District rules.
11 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

Findings and Considerations
Planning Commission Resolution #4125
General Plan Amendment #17-02
Site Utilization Plan Revision #12 to Planned Development (P-D) #42 FINDINGS/CONSIDERATIONS:

Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (BRMDP)
A) The Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (BRMDP) was adopted in 1995. The Plan provides guidance on the development of over 1,300 acres of land. The Plan’s concept is to develop a mixed -use development that would include single-family, multi-family, and commercial uses as well as schools, parks, and fire stations. The BRMDP divided the development area into three areas according to ownership at the time the plan was development (Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 ). These areas are now known as Bellevue Ranch East ( BRE), Bellevue Ranch West (BRW), and Bellevue Ranch North (BRN) (refer to the map at Attachment B for the boundaries of each area). The BRMDP identified development areas by villages and in some cases lots. As shown on the Table at Attachment I, which was excerpted from the BRMDP, the BRMDP shows a range for the number of residential units expected to be developed within the plan area. The range for single-family dwellings was between 4,084 and 4,979. The range for multi-family dwellings is between 759 and 1,669 units.

This would provide a total range for residential units within he BRMDP of 4,843 to 6,648 units. The original master developers had planned to construct approximately 6,600 units in order to help pay for the infrastructure required within the BRMDP area.

The original Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM #1213) for Bellevue Ranch East and West is provided at Attachment J and shows the original design of these areas. Through the years, there have been changes made to the original design to accommodate needs that were not anticipated when the BRMDP was originally developed. These changes are not reflected on the Tentative Map at Attachment J. Some of the changes include the relocation of the high school site from the northeast corner of Cardella Road and M Street to the current location of the El Capitan High School located north of Bellevue Road and Farmland Avenue and G Street.

The Bellevue Ranch North (BRN) area was also identified t he different development areas by villages and lots. A large lot tentative subdivision map (TSM #1280) was approved in 2006 and modified in 2022 (refer to the modified map at Attachment K). This map shows the villages and lots as they 12 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

are proposed to be developed today. The modifications made in 2022, reflect the changes necessary to accommodate the biological areas identified as being undevelopable.

Development within the Bellevue Ranch area began in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s with homes being constructed in the Bellevue Ranch East section of the master plan area. To date, the single-family residential areas have been completed within BRE area providing approximately 1,015 single family homes. There remains vacant area for multi-family and comm ercial development.

Most of the Bellevue Ranch West (BRW) area has also been developed or is approved for development, with the exception of Villages 18B, 19, 21, 22 A & B, and the R Street site referred to as Lot F on the original tentative map for Bellevue Ranch (TSM #1213 – Attachment J). Under the current land use designations, BRW would provide a total of 1,267 single family dwellings and approximately 340 multi-family units. There is also approximately 312,000 square feet of commercial uses designated for the BRW area.

Prior to Bellevue Ranch North being developed, a biological assessment was required. This assessment found areas of wetlands with sensitive biological species. Because of this, much of the Bellevue Ranch North area cannot be developed. Not only do the areas identified as wetlands have to be avoided, but a buffer area around the wetland areas must also be avoided. The map at Attachment D shows the areas identified as avoidance areas due to biological habitat. Due to the avoidance areas, the number of dwelling units that could be developed was reduced by approximately 1,500 units. This reduction is the catalyst for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Site Utilization Plan Revision. It should also be noted that as a result of t he biological constraints identified on the map, Old Lake Road would not be able to be extended as originally proposed. A new alignment would have to be determined in the future to avoid these area. Due to the wetlands south of the current alignment of Old Lake Road, the new alignment would need to move the road to the north. In order to provide a connection to the Highway 59, Nevada Street (currently a County road that runs east of Highway 59) would be extended east to M Street (extended).

Proposed General Plan Amendment and Site Utilization Plan Revision Land Use Changes
B) The applicant is requesting several changes to the existing General Plan and Site Utilization Plan land use designations as well as changes to Table 6.1 of 13 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

the Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (BRMDP) dealing with infrastructure and the timing for installing said infrastructure.

The proposed land use changes would amend the existing land use designations for several areas (villages) within the BRMDP area and re - configure several villages. The Villages affected include the following villages in BRW 19A and 19B, 21A and 21B, 22A and 22B, R Street Multi- Family. The Villages included in the proposed changes or reconfiguration in BRN include Villages 25, 26, 28A, 28B, 30, a portion of Lot J, 34A, 34B, 35A, and 35B (Attachment C).

The table below identifies the Villages included in the General Plan Amendment and Site Utilization Plan Revision, the current land use designation and the proposed land use designation. It is also noted if the change includes a reconfiguration of the village. Some of the Villages have been broken down into sub-villages (i.e., Village 19 A & 19 B) or remainder lots within a village (i.e. Vill age 30 – Lot D3) to differentiate the different land uses within the village.

Village
Current Land Use
Designation
Proposed Land Use
Designation
Bellevue Ranch West (BRW)
19A & 19B Park/Open Space
High Medium Density
Residential
21A & 21B
Regional/Community
Commercial
Low Medium Density
Residential
22 A & 22B
High Medium Density
Residential
Low Medium Density
Residential
R Street Multi-Family Park/Open Space
High Medium Density
Residential
Bellevue Ranch North (BRN)
25A
School/Low Medium
Density Residential School
25B
Low Medium Density
Residential Park/Open Space
26 Low Medium Density
Residential Park/Open Space
28A
Low Medium Density
Residential
Low Medium Density
Residential
(Reconfigured)
14 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

Village
Current Land Use
Designation
Proposed Land Use
Designation
28B
Low Medium Density
Residential
High Medium Density
Residential
30 Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
(Reconfigured)
30 – Lot D3 Low Density Residential Park/Open Space
30 – Lot F Low Density Residential Park/Open Space
30Lot G Low Density Residential Park/Open Space
Portion of Lot J Low Density Residential Park/Open Space 34A
Village Residential
(16.72 acres)
Village Residential
(10.02 acres)
(Reconfigured)
34B
Low Density Residential
(21.87 acres)
Low Density Residential
(25.50 acres)
(Reconfigured)
34 Lot B Low Density Residential Park/Open Space
35A
Neighborhood
Commercial (11.6 acres)
Neighborhood
Commercial
(13.65 acres)
(Reconfigured)
35B
Neighborhood
Commercial (11.5 acres) Park/Open Space
Under the current General Plan land use designations, the following would be allowed: 1,816 dwelling units, 292,941 s.f. of Regional/Community Commercial, 301,653 s.f. of Neighborhood Commercial uses, and 5.81 acres of Open Space/Park.

With the proposed changes, the following would be allowed: 1,188 dwelling units, 161,934 s.f. of Neighborhood Commercial uses, and 52.5 acres of Open Space/Park.

The map and table at Attachment C shows the areas proposed to be ch anged with this request. The map at Attachment E shows the entire BRMDP area and includes the proposed land uses changes for the villages described in the table above. The map at Attachment F shows the BRMDP area with the 15 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

proposed changes along with conceptual park and school designs, as well as conceptual landscaping throughout the area.

The table below shows the changes to the number of units by area (BRE, BRW, and BRN) between the approved BRMDP and the number of units proposed with the changes and existing units. The unit number includes both single-family and multi-family.

Area Approved
BRMDP
Proposed & Existing
Units Difference
BRE 1,375 1,429 +54
BRW 1,982 1,829 -153
BRN 3,305 1,814 -1,491
Total -1,590
Although most of the proposed changes affect either open space or residential areas, the proposed changes to Village 21 A & B would change approximately 27 acres of land designated for Regional/Community Commercial to Low- Medium Density Residential. A discussion regarding this change is provided in Finding D. It should be noted that the land use plan for BRW included residential uses in Village 19 and the Merced Vision 2015 General Plan land use map showed this site as Low Density Residential. Because the plan to channelize Fahrens Creek on the west side of the BRMDP area was abandoned, a large portion of the site was designated by FEMA as a regulatory floodway which precluded development within that area. Recently a hydrology study was conducted and a Letter of M ap Revision (LOMR) removing the floodway designation from the site was approved by FEMA.

This change now allows the site to be developed. The LOMR also removed the R Street Multi-Family site from the floodway.

The proposed land use designations are the General Plan land use designations. The designations for the Site Utilization Plan would be as shown below to be consistent with the General Plan land use designations.

General Plan Designation Site Utilization Plan Designation Low-Medium Density (LMD) Single-Family/Duplexes/Townhomes High-Medium Density (HMD) Multi-family

16 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

Proposed Site Utilization Plan Revision to Table 6.1
C) The Site Utilization Plan Revision also includes changes to Table 6.1 of the BRMDP. Section 6 of the BRMDP addresses Phasing, Infrastructure Sequence, Facilities Benefits, and Financing Mechanisms. Table 6.1 of the BRMDP identifies the phasing of major infrastructure required with each village within the BRMDP area. The infrastructure phasing is only directed toward regional improvements such as arterial roads, intersection signalization, bridges, sewer lift stations, and water wells. Each village is responsible for the infrastructure within the village, such as interior roads, utilities, etc. The table is divided into 5 columns: Sub-phase (Village), Contiguous Improvements, Non-Contiguous Improvements, Interior Improvements, and Villages Able to Const ruct Out of Sequence with This Sub-Phase. The table with the proposed changes shown in green is provided at Attachment G. The proposed changes are also outlined in the table below.

Table 6.1 has previously been modified three times. The most recent changes in August 2008 were made to clarify some inconsistencies from the previous revision in June 2008.

The changes proposed for Table 6.1 would incorporate a North Merced Major Roadway Improvement Impact Fee (NMMRII F) that would be assessed on certain construction within the BRMDP area to help pay for major roadway improvements. This fee was contemplated with the BRMDP and was referred to as Category II fees but was not implemented with the original plan. The improvements funded through the NMMRIIF would become City Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) which would be constructed when funds were available and when all right-of-way could be obtained (some of the roadway improvements are on land outside of the City Limits and out of the developer’s control). The changes also identify the improvements that are eligible for reimbursement/credit through the City’s Public Facilities Financing Program (PFFP) and improvement s that would be made as part of a City Capital Improvement Project.

The proposed changes also include the elimination of certain bridges and a portion of roadway (Catherine A Hostetler Blvd.) that could not be installed due to the biologically sensitive areas in Bellevue Ranch North (refer to the map at At tachment H to see the proposed bridges and roadway to be eliminated).

To support the changes to Table 6.1, the applicant had an updated traffic study prepared for this project to reflect the reduction in units and the current level 17 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

of development. The s tudy revealed that some improvements were not warranted as required by Table 6.1. Therefore, the requested update would modify the timing of some improvements as determined by the traffic analysis prepared by KD Anderson and Associates (KDA) and supplemented by a memo prepared by Fehr and Peers related to the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis (Appendix D of the Addendum to the Merced Vision 2030 EIR at Attachment Q).

The proposed changes to Table 6.1 are outlined in the table below. Please note the following acronyms when reviewing the table: NMMRII F – North Merced Major Roadway Improvement Impact Fee (proposed by developer); PFFP – Public Facilities Financing Plan (currently a City impact fee). Also, please note that the obligation for the development of the roadway segments would be as shown on the existing Table 6.1 (i.e., number of lanes required, etc.).

Village Proposed Change
17 R St – Yosemite Ave. to Cardella Rd. to be funded through the

NMMRIIF
Cardella Rd. - Freemark Ave. to R St. to be funded through the

NMMRIIF
Fahrens Creek Bridge at Cardella Rd . to become a City Capital Improvement Project funded through PFFP.

R St ./Cardella Rd . Traffic Signal – to be installed when intersection is constructed. Signal is eligible for reimbursement through PFFP.
18 R St. – Cardella Rd. to Franciscan Dr. (now Arrow Wood) to be funded through the NMMRIIF
R St. – Franciscan Dr. (now Arrow Wood) to Bellevue Rd. to be funded through the NMMRIIF
Franciscan Dr. (Arrow Wood)/R St. Signal - to be installed when intersection is constructed. Signal is eligible for reimbursement through PFFP.

R St./Bellevue Rd. Signal - to be installed when intersection is constructed. Signal is eligible for reimbursement through PFFP.

18 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

Village Proposed Change
19 Responsible for Bellevue Rd. Frontage
Franciscan Dr. (Arrow Wood) – from Freemark Ave. to R St. to be funded through the NMMRIIF
Fahrens Creek Bridge at Francscan Ave. (Arrow Wood) - to be funded through the NMMRIIF
21 G St. – Bellevue Rd. to Merced College - to be funded through the NMMRIIF or Measure V funds
G St. & Foothill Dr. Signal – to be installed as “warranted” per Traffic Study prepared by Traffic Engineering Consultant. PFFP Eligible.
24 Changed Old Lake Rd. to Nevada St. due to the fact that Old Lake Rd. can’t be extended to the west of G St. as originally planned.
25 Collector St./Fahrens Creek bridge – omit due to biological constraints (wetlands) preventing the construction of the bridge Collector St (Farmland Ave.)/Fahrens Cr Bridge (near Phase 30 – clarified that the Collector St is Farmland Ave.
26 Old Lake Rd (omit) due to biological constraints preventing the extension of road west of G St.

Old Lake Rd/Fahrens Creek Bridge (omit) due to biological constraints preventing the extension of road west of G St.

G St/Collector St (Farmland Ave) Signal – complete
29 N/S Collector /Fahrens Creek Bridge (between M & R St) – omit 30 R St: 2 lanes 1/ mile north of Bellevue to Bellevue Rd to be funded through the NMMRIIF
Bellevue (changed from R St)/Fahrens Creek Bridge to become a City Capital Improvement Project funded through PFFP
As previously mentioned, the proposed changes to the timing of improvements are supported by a traffic analysis. Due to the reduction in the number of units, the infrastructure is not needed as originally planned.

19 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

General Plan Compliance and Policies Related to This Application D) The proposed General Plan and Site Utilization Plan Revision land use changes are shown on the map and table at Attachment C. The project would comply with the proposed General Plan and Site Utilization Plan land use designations if the requested General Plan Amendment and Site Utiliz ation Plan Revision are approved.

The proposed land use changes also help provide areas for affordable housing potentially for homeownership rather than apartments for rent (additional information is provided in Finding E below).

Because the proposed changes would allow more housing units to be constructed than would currently be allowed due to the biological constraints in the Bellevue Ranch North area, the proposed General Plan Amendment and Site Utilization Plan Revision would achieve the General Plan Goals and Policies listed below:

Goal Area L-1: Residential & Neighborhood Development
• A Wide Range of Residential Densities and Housing Types in the City • Quality Residential Environments
Policy L -1.2: Encourage a diversity of building types, ownership, prices, designs, and site plans for residential areas throughout the City.

Policy L-1.7: Encourage the location of multi- family developments on sites with good access to transportation, shopping, employment centers, and services.

Implementing Action 1.2.e Consider density increases for existing residential sites where the necessary conditions exist for
higher densities.

Implementing Action 1.7a Designate areas adjoining arterial streets, major transportation routes, and commercial areas for
multi-family development.

Housing Element Goal H-1: New Affordable Housing Construction • Increase the stock of affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate- income households.

Policy H-1.2 Support Development of Affordable Housing. 20 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

Policy H-1.4 Provide Priority Review and Permitting for Affordable Housing Projects.

Policy H-1.8b Prioritize City efforts to encourage residential development by focusing on in- fill development and densification with the existing City Limits.

Housing Element Goal H-3: Housing Affordability
• Increase Homeownership Opportunities for Low and Moderate Income Groups
Urban Village Concept
The Urban Village Concept is the growth concept the City’s General Plan has been based on for many years. This concept is based on mixed-use, pedestrian friendly and transit-friendly design principles. The BRMDP was based on this concept and the concept can clearly be seen when looking at the design of the BRMDP (i.e., the wagon wheel design at Bellevue Road and M Street).

Although the BRMDP was based on the Village Concept, the plan also realized that it may be necessary to make changes to the plan to accommodate specific needs in the future. Section 2.4 Commercial of the BRMDP describes the design of the commercial areas as being part of the Village core areas as described in the Village Concept. However, this section also states that “If necessary, these commercial areas may be redesignated to residential or office uses in the future.”
As described in Finding A, the proposed change for Village 21A & B would change the land use designation from Regional/Community Commercial to Low-Medium Density Residential. It should be noted that there would still be approximately 21 acres of land on the east side of M Street that would have a Regional/Community Commercial land use designation which would still provide a large amount of commercial uses to the area. In addition, there is an approximately 8- acre Neighborhood Commercial site at the southeast corner of M Street and Cardella Road that would provide commercial uses for the area. North of Bellevue Road is approximately 23 acres of land designated as Commercial Office and at the north end of the BRMDP area, is an additional 13 acres of land (Village 35A) designated for Neighborhood Commercial uses. In addition to the commercial land use designations that would remain unchanged in the BRMDP area, the City is currently processing several annexations near the UC Merced campus that would include commercial uses, as well as the Rogina Annexation directly north of the 21 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

BRMDP area that would include a Neighborhood Commercial area. With the future improvements to Bellevue Road and the future transit system envisioned by the Bellevue Corridor Community Plan, the area near the UC Merced Campus would be easily accessible by alternative transportation.

There is also commercial development at the corner of Yosemite and G Street that is easily accessible to the BRE and BRW areas.

Based on the discussion above, the cha nge of the Regional/Community Commercial land use designation for Villages 21 A & in Bellevue Ranch West, would not violate the Village Concept of the General Plan or the BRMDP. In addition, the change would allow for much needed housing and the possibility of affordable single-family housing in this area.

Affordable Housing
E) The BRMDP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes a mitigation measure that requires a total of 17.31% of all the units within the BRMDP area to be affordable. This requirement is substantially more than the RHNA Production Policy adopted by the City Council which required 12.5% of all units to be affordable (this requirement may be reduced in the near future depending on City Council action) . The table below shows the affordable housing obligations by income level based on the range of total units proposed by the BRMDP.

Income
Level
% of Project
Housing
Very Low 4.33%
Low 6.63%
Moderate 6.35%
Total 17.31%
The obligation for affordable housing applies to the entire BRMDP area.

However, the previous developers chose to defer the majority of the affordable housing development to a later time. Unfortunately, with the economic downturn in the early 2000’s, the original developers abandoned the development and the majority of the affordable housing was never constructed. The exception was an 81-unit moderate-income subdivision at the northeast corner of M Street and Cardella Road, and an apartment project that was developed off -site to satisfy a portion of the affordable housing requirements. The apartment project was the Gateway Terrace Apartment 22 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

complex at 410 Lesher Drive in Merced. This complex provides 66 affordable housing units. This development was part of the obligation of the BRE area.

The current developer is committed to providing the affordable housing required by the mitigation measure for the areas he is developing (BRW and BRN). Based on the total number of units proposed for BRN and BRW, with the proposed land use changes, the total number of units constructed (single- and multi-family) would be 2,793. Based on the EIR mitigation measure, 485 affordable housing units would be required to satisfy the mitigation measure requirements. The developer has conceptually planned to provide affordable housing in the villages shown on the map at Attachment L. The City is currently working on an in-lieu fee program to allow a developer to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing the affordable units. The fee would go into the City’s Housing Trust Fund. Although the developer has conceptually planned areas to provide affordable housing, he may opt to pay the in-lieu fee if that is an option based on the direction given by City Council in the near future.

One of the proposed land use changes as discussed in Finding B above is to change Villages 21A and B from Regional/Community Commercial to Low- Medium Density Residential. This change would allow for the development of approximately 60 zero-lot line townhomes that would be affordable to the moderate-income levels. This development would provide an opportunity for homeownership of these units. In addition, there would be an affordable component included in the multi-family developments within the areas designated as High -Medium Density (HMD) Residential which will incorporate low- and very low-income levels.

No Net Loss Finding (RHNA)
F) Per California Government Code 65863, when a land use is proposed to be changed from residential to a non-residential land use or the density of the site is reduced, the City must demonstrate that sufficient residentially zoned land remains availab le to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). According to Table 9.4.2 of the City’s current Housing Element (adopted in 2016), the City has a total of 2,768 acres of planned residential vacant land within its limits. When analyzing site s that would accommodate the RHNA, the City considered those sites that would allow a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. These include land that has a General Plan designation of High -Medium Density (HMD) (allows 12 -24 dwelling units/acre) and Village Residential (allows a minimum of 10 dwelling units/acre for an overall average of 30 dwelling units/acre). Villages 22 A and B are currently designated for High- Medium Density Residential (12- 24 23 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

units/acre). These parcels were included in the City’s Hou sing Element as sites to meet the RHNA for affordable housing sites. Therefore, a change in land use, requires a finding of no net loss to confirm the City continues to have sufficient land zoned appropriately to meet the RHNA allocation.

The proposed General Plan Amendment and Site Utilization Plan Revision would change the land use designation for Villages 22 A and B (approximately 17 acres) from HMD Residential to Low -Medium Density (LMD) Residential (6-12 units/acre). While the change reduces the de nsity for this site, there are other changes included in the project that would replace the sites lost through the proposed General Plan Amendment and Site Utilization Plan Revision. The Vacant Sites Analysis to accommodate the RHNA allocation for the Cit y’s 5
th Cycle Housing Element (2016 to 2024)
estimated that Villages 22 A and B would provide a realistic capacity of 256 units. As shown in the table below, there are four villages that are proposed to be changed to allow for High Medium Density Residential (12 -24 units/acre). If approved the General Plan Amendment and Site Utilization Plan revision would change the land use designation for 23.3 acres of land as shown in the table below which would off -set the loss of Villages 22 A and B. The villages listed in the table below would provide approximately 466 housing units. This would be approximately 55% more units than would have been provided in Villages 22 A and B.

Village Acres
Current GP
Designation
Proposed GP
Designation
19 A & B 10.55 OS/PK HMD
R St. 5.81 OS/PK HMD
28B 6.94 LMD HMD
Additionally, as described in Finding E above, a minimum of 17.3% of all the units built in Bellevue Ranch West and Bellevue Ranch North are required to be affordable. Therefore, a total of 485 affordable housing units would be provided throughout the development.

Parks/Open Space
G) Section 4 of the BRDP addresses Parks, Open Space, and Recreation. The amount of park land required was determined using the formula of 5 acres/1,000 population. Based on the original BRMDP, it was estimated that approximately 75 – 100 acres of park land would be required. This included a combination of neighborhood parks, minim parks, and community parks, as 24 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

well as linear parks and bike trails (refer to Conceptual Plan for Parks excerpted from the BRMDP at Attachment M). The proposed General Plan Amendment and Site Utilization Plan Revision includes changes to villages/lots designated for Open Space/Parks. As shown in the table in Finding E above, Villages 19 A and B and the R Street site are currently designated as Open Space/Park. These parcels are proposed to be changed to High Medium Density Residential. The map at Attachment M shows the land to be dedicated for open space/park use. The areas identified as wetlands on the wetland delineation map at Attachment D would be dedicated as open space. A portion of those areas could also be used as active park sites. The Table at Attachment O shows that with the existing open space/park land and the proposed open space/park land there would be approximately 293 acres of open space/park land within the BRMDP area. This total includes park/basin areas, linear parks, open space along Fahrens Creek, Cottonwood Creek, and the Parkinson Drain, and the parks previously dedicated in Bellevue Ranch East and West. Refer to the Conceptual Master Site Plan at Attachment F for park locations and conceptual park site designs.

Public Facilities
H) Within the BRMDP area there are three school sites identified. The site where El Capitan High School is located within the BRN area, a site at the northwest corner of M Street and Arrow Wood Drive in BRW, and another site located northwest of El Capitan H igh School in the BRN area (refer to the map at Attachment P). There have also been sites dedicated for water well sites, sewer lift stations, and a site will be identified for a future fire station in the Bellevue Ranch North area.

Neighborhood Impact/Interface
I) As previously discussed, much of the BRMDP area has already been developed with single-family housing in the BRE and BRW areas. The proposed changes in the BRW area include changing Villages 22 A and B from High -Medium Density (HMD) Residential to Low -Medium Density (LMD) Residential. This change would change the development for these villages from multi-family to single-family development (this could include duplexes, zero-lot -line townhomes, etc.). Multi -family development is proposed in Village 19 A & B and the R Street site south of Cardella Road.

The nearest occupied homes near Villages 22 A & B are at the corner of M Street and Barclay Way. There are houses under construction in Villages 17 25 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

and 18 west of M Street, but no occupied homes yet. Because most single - family neighborhoods do not favor having multi-family units nearby, the proposed change for Villages 22 A & B would most likely be welcomed by the existing and future residents in the area.

There are no occupied homes within the BRMDP area near Villages 19 A & B. There are ranchettes across Bellevue Road to the north. The impacts from multi-family on the ranchettes is expected to be minimal given the width of Bellevue Road and the requirement for a wall along Bellevue Road whe n Village 19 develops.

The R Street site is bounded by Fahrens Creek to the east and R Street to the west. There are existing single-family homes across Fahrens Creek to the east and across R Street to the west. These neighborhoods would be most likely to be impacted by the proposed land use changes. Approval of the General Plan Amendment and Site Utilization Plan Revision would allow the development of multi-family housing on this site which was previously designated as Open Space/Park. This site was originally designated as Open Space due to the flood hazard designation for the site. Prior to the recent approval of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) through FEMA for the Bellevue Ranch area which amended the flood zone designation for certain sites within the BRMDP area, this site was partially designated as a floodway which would not allow development. The recent changes to the flood zone removed this site from the floodway which would allow the site to be developed. Although the construction of a mul ti-family development would have some impact on the single -family neighborhood s, the fact that both neighborhoods have a buffer between the site ( Fahrens Creek to the east and R Street to the west) reduces some of the potential impacts. Additionally, access to the site would not be through either neighborhood which would reduce any traffic -related impacts to the existing neighborhoods. Prior to development of the R Street site (as with the other multi-family sites), a Site Plan Review P ermit would be required. Through this permit process, the impacts of development would be reviewed and conditions placed to reduce potential impacts.

The overall BRMDP area could be affected by the reduction of commercial land along Bellevue Road. The re duction of commercial land would reduce the amount of land available for the development of large retail centers that would be within walking/biking distance of most of the development.

However, as discussed in Finding D, reduction in the amount of commer cial land to allow for more residential development was contemplated by the 26 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4088

BRMDP. Additionally, there would still be over 20 acres of retail commercial land at Bellevue Road and M Street. In addition, based on the current trend, many retailers are reducing the number of brick and mortar buildings they have and rely more on online retail. Although the proposal includes the reduction of commercial land, the commercial development at Yosemite Avenue and G Street is within 2 miles or less of most of the development within the BRMDP area. It should also be noted that as the City continues to grow and the annexations near UC Merced develop, additional retail areas would develop that would be accessible by future bike/walking facilities and public transit.

Land Use/Density Issues
J) The BRMDP area was intended to develop between 4,843 and 6,648 dwelling units (single-and multi-family). With the identification of the wetlands in the BRN area, the number of units that could be developed based on the current land use designations was reduced by approximately 1500 units. In order to offset that loss in units, the developer has requested the land use changes. The proposed densities and land uses remain consistent with the General Plan and BRMDP.

Environmental Clearance
K) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project was reviewed and an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan (SCH #2008071069) was prepared. This Addendum is provided at Attachment Q of Planning Commission Staff Report #23-979. The Addendum concluded that no additional impacts would be caused by the proposed change.
27 EXHIBIT C - Page 1
28 Village
Current General Plan Land
Use Designation
Proposed General Plan
Land Use Designation
Proposed Site Utilization
Plan Designation
Bellevue Ranch West (BRW)
19A & 19B Park/Open Space
High Medium Density
Residential Multi-family
21A & 21B
Regional/Community
Commercial
Low Medium Density
Residential
Single-family, including
duplexes, and townhomes
22 A & 22B
High Medium Density
Residential
Low Medium Density
Residential Multi-family
R Street Multi-
Family Park/Open Space
High Medium Density
Residential Multi-family
Bellevue Ranch North (BRN)
25A
School/Low Medium Density
Residential School School
25B
Low Medium Density
Residential Park/Open Space Park/Open Space
26 Low Medium Density
Residential Park/Open Space Park/Open Space
28A
Low Medium Density
Residential
Low Medium Density
Residential
Single-family, including
duplexes, and townhomes
28B
Low Medium Density
Residential
High Medium Density
Residential Multi-family
30 Low Density Residential Low Density Residential
Single-family, including
duplexes, and townhomes
30 – Lot D3 Low Density Residential Park/Open Space Park/Open Space 30 – Lot F Low Density Residential Park/Open Space Park/Open Space 30Lot G Low Density Residential Park/Open Space Park/Open Space EXHIBIT C - Page 2
29 Portion of Lot J Low Density Residential Park/Open Space Park/Open Space Village
Current General Plan Land
Use Designation
Proposed General Plan
Land Use Designation
Proposed Site Utilization
Plan Designation
34A
Village Residential (16.72
acres)
Village Residential (10.02
acres
Single-family, including
duplexes and townhomes or
Multi-family
34B
Low Density Residential
(21.87 acres)
Low Density Residential
(25.50 acres) Single-family
34 Lot B Low Density Residential Park/Open Space Park/Open Space 35A
Neighborhood Commercial
(11.6 acres)
Neighborhood Commercial
(13.65 acres)
Neighborhood Commercial
(13.65 acres)
35B
Neighborhood Commercial
(11.5 acres) Park/Open Space Park/Open Space

EXHIBIT C - Page 3
30 CARDELLA

BELLEVUE

OLD LAKE
M
G
R
LEHIGH
MERCED

COLLEGE

ARROW WOOD

BANCROFT

FOOTHILLBARCLAY
NEVADA
HWY 59
Areas of Proposed Changes
Bellevue Ranch MDP Area
Bellevue Ranch East
Bellevue Ranch West
Bellevue Ranch North
City Limit
±
County
County
County
County
Vacant
Single-Family
County

ATTACHMENT B
31 ATTACHMENT C - Page 1
32 Village
Current General Plan Land
Use Designation
Proposed General Plan
Land Use Designation
Proposed Site Utilization
Plan Designation
Bellevue Ranch West (BRW)
19A & 19B Park/Open Space
High Medium Density
Residential Multi-family
21A & 21B
Regional/Community
Commercial
Low Medium Density
Residential
Single-family, including
duplexes, and townhomes
22 A & 22B
High Medium Density
Residential
Low Medium Density
Residential Multi-family
R Street Multi-
Family Park/Open Space
High Medium Density
Residential Multi-family
Bellevue Ranch North (BRN)
25A
School/Low Medium Density
Residential School School
25B
Low Medium Density
Residential Park/Open Space Park/Open Space
26 Low Medium Density
Residential Park/Open Space Park/Open Space
28A
Low Medium Density
Residential
Low Medium Density
Residential (Reconfigured)
Single-family, including
duplexes, and townhomes
(Reconfigured)
28B
Low Medium Density
Residential
High Medium Density
Residential Multi-family
30 Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
(Reconfigured)
Single-family, including
duplexes, and townhomes
(Reconfigured)
30 – Lot D3 Low Density Residential Park/Open Space Park/Open Space ATTACHMENT C - Page 2
33 Village
Current General Plan Land
Use Designation
Proposed General Plan
Land Use Designation
Proposed Site Utilization
Plan Designation
30 – Lot F Low Density Residential Park/Open Space Park/Open Space 30Lot G Low Density Residential Park/Open Space Park/Open Space Portion of Lot J Low Density Residential Park/Open Space Park/Open Space 34A
Village Residential (16.72
acres)
Village Residential (10.02
acres (Reconfigured)
Single-family, including
duplexes and townhomes or
Multi-family (Reconfigured)
34B
Low Density Residential
(21.87 acres)
Low Density Residential
(25.50 acres) (Reconfigured)
Single-family
(Reconfigured)
34 Lot B Low Density Residential Park/Open Space Park/Open Space 35A
Neighborhood Commercial
(11.6 acres)
Neighborhood Commercial
(13.65 acres) (Reconfigured)
Neighborhood Commercial
(13.65 acres) (Reconfigured)
35B
Neighborhood Commercial
(11.5 acres) Park/Open Space Park/Open Space

ATTACHMENT C - Page 3
34 ATTACHMENT D
35 ATTACHMENT E
36 ATTACHMENT F
37 Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (MDP) Table 6.1 Major Infrastructure Phasing
(Revised & Adopted by City Council on June 21, 2004)
(Revision & Adopted by Planning Staff on August 17, 2005) (Revision & Adopted by Planning Commission on June 18, 2008) (Revision to be presented to Planning Commission and City C
ouncil Fall of 2023)

The following table shows the same circulation and major infrastructure improvements listed in the MDP Table

6.1,adopted by the City Council May 15, 1995, in the columns for contiguous and non-contiguous improvements. Two new columns have been added to show the village interior improvements as well as concurrent construction phasing.

This table indicates when certain improvements are warranted by Sub- Phase development. It does not address funding sources or the timing of available funding. In general, each Developer shall be responsible for construction of the warranted improvements, with the exception of wells, which the City will construct.

The Sub-Phases have been reorganized to show the order in which the Villages are now expected to be developed by Crosswinds and Woodside, for the area south of Bellevue Road. North of Bellevue Road the order shown in the adopted Table 6.1 shall be maintained except as noted. MDP Villages 6, 11, 13 and 19 have been excluded from this proposed sequence due to floodplain constraints.

The “Clarification Revision” of August 2008 to the 6- 18-08 version of Table 6.1 clarifies inconsistencies presented by Notes #1 and #2. These notes referred to recommended improvements of the Fehr & Peers memorandum of 12- 2-04. The notes stated that certain improvements were “revised” as recommended in said traffic report. However, the text within Table 6.1 did not reflect those changes. To view these referenced changes, one needs to look at Table 6 of the 12-2-04 memorandum. The August 2008 Table 6.1 presented here reconciles the inconsistencies by showing where modification to text in Table 6.1 would have to be made in order to be consistent with Staff accepted portions of Table 6 of the 12-2-04 memorandum.

NOTE: Table 6.1 was not officially amended to include these “clarifications.” This document is prepared to show Staff’s interpretation and affect of the 12-2-08 traffic study.

Color Coding of Responsible Areas:

Red Bold=Bellevue Ranch East Improvements (Crosswinds)
Green Bold=North Merced Major Roadway Improvement Impact Fee Blue U nderlined=Bellevue Ranch West Improvements (Woodside) Black Bold=Bellevue Ranch Improvements, joint responsibility in Village 22 Black=Bellevue Ranch Improvements, North of Bellevue Road (unchanged since May 15, 1995). [Phases are as noted on Minor Phasing Diagram in Master Development Plan—page 60 and Attachment B of Planning Commission Staff Report #04-13 2nd Addendum]

ATTACHMENT G
38 Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan
Table 6.1—Major Infrastructure Phasing
Sub-
Phase
(Village)
Contiguous
Improvements
Non-Contiguous
Improvements
Interior Improvements Villages Able to
Construct out of
sequence with this
sub-phase
BIIP I None • M St (Barclay Rd. to
Lehigh)(1/2 street)
• M St Cottonwood
Creek Bridge (1/2
Street)
• Well Site (G St/
Cardella Rd)
• BIIP I Collectors
• Sewer, Drain and
Water
• Detention Basins
DB-P, T and U
• Storm Drain and
Sewer Pump
Stations Outfalls
• Village 15, 16,
8A, 14 and 9
8A None None • V-8A streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
BIIP I
15 None • Fire Station
Dedication
• Village-15 streets
and utilities
• Concurrent with
BIIP I
1 • M St: Lehigh
to
Cottonwood
Ck (1/2
Street)
• M St:

Cottonwood
• M St: Cottonwood Ck
to Cardella Rd
intersection (1/2 street)
• V-1 streets and
utilities
• None

Note: Sub-Phase
(Village) 1 is not
dependent on Sub-
Phases BBIP I, 8A,
and 15.

Bridge (1/2
street) and
bike crossing

9 None None • V-9 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
BIIP I
3 • Cardella
Road: M St to
Bancroft Dr
(1/2 street)
• Cottonwood
Ck bike
path/imp.
• Cardella Rd
(Bancroft Dr
to G St) (1/2
street)
None

• Cardella Rd/Bancroft
Signal (as part of the
development of the
commercial site).
• V-3 streets and
utilities
• V-11 drainage basin
• Village 2

Note: Sub-Phase
(Village) 3 is not
dependent on Sub-
Phases BBIP I, 8A, 9,
and 15.
2 • Cottonwood
Ck bike
path/improve
ments
None • V-2 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
Village 3
5 • Cardella: (M
St to Round
Hill Dr
(Freemark)) (4
lanes total)
• Well site
(Cardella
Rd/Fahrens
Ck.)
None • V-5 streets and
utilities
• Villages 4, 10, &
12 Note: Sub-Phase
(Village) 5 is not
dependent on Sub-
Phases BBIP I, 8A,
15 and 9.
14 None None • Village-14 streets
and utilities
• Concurrent with
BIIP I
Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan
Table 6.1—Major Infrastructure Phasing
Clarification Memorandum - August 2008, Page 2
39 Sub-
Phase
(Village)
Contiguous
Improvements
Non-Contiguous
Improvements
Interior Improvements Villages Able to
Construct out of
sequence with this
sub-phase
16 • Well Site (G
Street/Bellev
ue Road)
• M St: Cardella to
Barclay (remainder to
full improvements)
• Village-16 streets
and utilities
• Concurrent with
BIIP I
BIIP II None None • BIIP II Collector
Roadways
• Sewer, Drain and
Water
• Village 8B, 7 and
Lot Q
4 • Cottonwood
Ck pedestrian
bridge
None • V-4 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
Village 5
8B None None • V-8B streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with

BIIP II
7 • Cardella Rd
(M St to G
St)(1/2 street)
• C ardella
Road/G
Street signal
• V-7 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with

BIIP II
10 None None • V-10 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
Villages 5 and
BBIP I (M Street
component only)
12 None • M St/Cardella Rd
signal1,
• V-12 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
Village 10
17 None • R St (Yosemite to
Cardella)(4 lanes total)
1, 8 10
• Cardella Rd (Round
Hill Dr (Freemark) to R
St) (4 lanes total)
1,8 10
• Fahrens Ck Bridge at
/Cardella Rd (4
lanes total) 1,8 14
• R St/Cardella Rd
Signal1 11
• V-17 streets and
utilities
• Villages 18 & 19
• Note: Sub-Phase
(Village) 17 is not
dependent on Sub-
Phases BBIP I,
8A, 15, 9, 14, 16,
BBIP II, 8B and 7.

Excepting “M”
Street portion
of BBIP I.
18 None • R Street: Cardella Rd to
Franciscan Dr (4 lanes
total)
1,8 10
• R Street: Franciscan Dr
(Arrow Wood) to
Bellevue Rd (4 lanes
total)1,8 10
• Cardella Rd/Bancroft
Signal
• F ranciscan Dr
(Arrow Wood)/R
St signal 1,8 11
• R St/Bellevue Rd
Signal1 11
• Cardella Rd/Round Hill
Dr (Freemark) signal
• V-18 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
Village 17

•
Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan
Table 6.1—Major Infrastructure Phasing
Clarification Memorandum - August 2008, Page 3
Sub-
Phase
(Village)
Contiguous
Improvements
Non-Contiguous
Improvements
Interior Improvements Villages Able to
Construct out of
sequence with this
sub-phase 40
19 None
Bellevue Road
Frontage
• Franciscan Dr
(Arrow Wood)
(Freemark Ave to R
St)
1,8 10
• Fahrens Creek Bridge at
Franciscan Dr (Arrow
Wood) 8 10
• V-19 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
Village 17
Lot Q None • None • Lot Q streets &
utilities
• Concurrent with

BIIP II
22-East6
(MFR)
• M Street
(Barclay
Drive to
Bellevue
Road) (2
lanes) on east
side including
Transit
Circle w/ V-
21 segments
,
8 • Bellevue/G Signal1, 8,
• Bellevue Rd: M St to
G St (3 lanes)8, 9
None None

22-West
(MFR)
• M Street
(Barclay
Drive to
Bellevue
Road) (2
lanes) on
west side
including
Transit
Circle w/ V-
21 segments
,
8 • Well site (Bellevue/R
St)7, 8
• Bellevue Rd: R St to
M St (3 lanes)8, 9
None None
216
(Comm)
• M & Bellevue Signal1 11,,
• G St: Bellevue to
Merced College (4
lanes total)3 10, or
Measure V Funds
• G & F oothill (Harvest)
Signal1 12
• Fahrens Creek Bridge
at Bellevue Rd(3
lanes)
8 13
• Cardella Rd/Round Hill
Dr (Freemark) signal (at
time western portion of
V-21 is developed.

None
41 Above
Bellevue
Road
Same as adopted in
the MDP, 5/15/95
(see below)
Non-Contiguous
Improvements
Each village’s streets and
utilities
20 • Fahrens Creek
Bypass
(Drainage
Phase 3)
• Fahrens Creek
Bypass (Phase 3)
• V. 20 streets and
utilities
23 None None • V. 23 streets and
utilities
24 • Well Site No. 6
• Old Lake Rd
(Nevada
Street) (2
lanes)
None • V. 24 streets and
utilities
25 • Collector
St./Fahrens Cr.

Bridge (near
Phase 23/24)
(omit)
• Collector St
(Farmland
Avenue)
/Fahrens Cr.

Bridge (near
Phase 20)
None • V. 25 streets and
utilities
26 • Old Lake Rd: 2
lanes (omit)
• Old Lake
Rd/Fahrens
Creek Bridge
(omit)
• G St: 2 lanes Old
Lake Rd to Bellevue
Rd (4 lanes total)
• G St/Collector St
Traffic Signal (near
Phase 20/23)
(complete)
• V. 26 streets and
utilities
27 • M St: 2 lane
ultimate section
• Collector St/Fahrens
Cr. Bridge (near
Phase 20/23)
• N/S
Collector/Bellevue
Signal
• V. 27 streets and
utilities
28 None None • V. 28 streets and
utilities
29 • M St: 2 lane
ultimate section
• N/S
Collector/Fahrens
Creek Bridge
(between M & R Sts.)
(omit)
• M St: 2 lanes (So. To
Bellevue)
• M St/Fahrens Creek
Bridge
• V. 29 streets and
utilities
Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan
Table 6.1—Major Infrastructure Phasing
Clarification Memorandum - August 2008, Page 4
42 Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan
Table 6.1—Major Infrastructure Phasing
Clarification Memorandum - August 2008, Page 5
30 • R St: 2 lanes
• Fire Station
• R St: 2 lanes ½ mile
north of Bellevue to
Bellevue Rd 10
• R St: 2 lanes
Bellevue to ½ mile
south of Bellevue (4
lanes total) 10
• R St
Bellevue/Fahrens
Creek Bridge: 2
lanes (4 lanes
total)13
• R St/Collector St
• V. 30 streets and
utilities
Traffic Signal (near
Phases 13/18)

31 None None • V. 31 streets and
utilities
32 None None • V. 32 streets and
utilities
33 • R St: 2 lanes
• Old Lake Rd: 2
lanes
• Old Lake Rd: 2 lanes
(in Phase 35)
• V. 33 streets and
utilities
34 None None • V. 34 streets and
utilities
35 None None • V. 35 streets and
utilities
36 None None • V. 36 streets and
utilities

Notes:
1A. The R Street improvements as well as the staging of signal improvements, including the specified lane configurations throughout the plan area have been revised as recommended by in Table 6 of the memorandum dated December 2, 2004 entitled “Timing of off -site roadway improvements for Bellevue Ranch” prepared by Fehr & Peers, except that: (a) the signal at “M” Street and Cardella Road will remain as a requirement of Phase 12; (b) the signal at “G” Street and Bellevue will remain a Village 22 -“East” requirement; (c) “G” Street road widening between Bellevue Road and Merced College will remain a Village 21 requirement; and the signal at Cardella Road and “G” Street will remain a Village 7 requirement.

1B. “R” Street will be constructed as shown in Table 6.1, not the Fehr & Peers memo dated 12-2-04. 43 N:\SHARED\PLANNING\APPLICATIONS\GPA\GPA 17-02_SUP Rev #12 to P-D #42 BRN & BRW\Environmental\Draft Env. Doc\Draft Addendum\Revised Draft 10-24-23\Appendix B - SUP Revision Table 6-1 Modifications.docx-RS

2. Not used. “R” Street will be constructed as shown in Table 6.1; the Fehr & Peers memo dated 12-2-0 4 did not change the timing of this improvement.

3. The G Street improvements have not been revised as recommended by in Table 6 of the memorandum dated December 2, 2004 entitled “Timing of off-site roadway improvements for Bellevue Ranch” prepared by Fehr & Peers.

4. Projects revised due to lack of Corps of Engineers drainage projects:
a. Cottonwood Creek Bypass (Drainage Phase 1, 2): By Bellevue Ranch West, Villages 1-3. b. Fahrens Creek Bypass (Drainage Phase 1, 2, 3): deleted

5. Project moved to a later phase: Bellevue Rd : M to R (last 1 of 6 lanes) is moved into Phase 3/4.

6. The timing and responsibility (Crosswinds or Woodside) for these improvements in Village 21 (commercial) will be determined at the time of conditional use permit approval for this village.

7. Well site may be required sooner if deemed necessary by the City Engineer.

8. Improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy of any unit in this village.

9. Frontage improvements per Table B (Attachment H) of PC Staff Report #07-32 – 3rd Addendum.

10. North Merced Major Roadway Improvement Impact Fee (NMMRIIF)

11. To be installed at the time intersection improvements are made. PFFP Eligible.

12. To be installed as “warranted” per Traffic Study prepared by Traffic Engineering Consultant. PFFP Eligible.

13. City of Merced Capital Improvement Project PFFP Funds and Fees collected with Bellevue Ranch building permits.

14. City of Merced Capital Improvement Project utilizing PFFP funds.

Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan
Table 6.1—Major Infrastructure Phasing
Clarification Memorandum - August 2008, Page 7
44 ATTACHMENT H - Page 1
45 Village
Current Land Use
Designation
Proposed Land Use
Designation
Bellevue Ranch West (BRW)
19A & 19B Park/Open Space
High Medium Density
Residential
21A & 21B
Regional/Community
Commercial
Low Medium Density
Residential
22 A & 22B
High Medium Density
Residential
Low Medium Density
Residential
R Street Multi-Family Park/Open Space
High Medium Density
Residential
Bellevue Ranch North (BRN)
25A
School/Low Medium
Density Residential School
25B
Low Medium Density
Residential Park/Open Space
26 Low Medium Density
Residential Park/Open Space
28A
Low Medium Density
Residential
Low Medium Density
Residential
28B
Low Medium Density
Residential
High Medium Density
Residential
30 Low Density Residential Low Density Residential
30 – Lot D3 Low Density Residential Park/Open Space
30 – Lot F Low Density Residential Park/Open Space
30Lot G Low Density Residential Park/Open Space
Portion of Lot J Low Density Residential Park/Open Space 34A
Village Residential
(16.72 acres)
Village Residential
(10.02 acres
34B
Low Density Residential
(21.87 acres)
Low Density Residential
(25.50 acres)
34 Lot B Low Density Residential Park/Open Space
35A
Neighborhood
Commercial (11.6 acres)
Neighborhood
Commercial (13.65
acres)
35B
Neighborhood
Commercial (11.5 acres) Park/Open Space

ATTACHMENT H - Page 2
46 September 12, 2022
Job # 125972
Land Use Gross Acres
DU Range
Per Acre Dwelling Units Commercial or Office SF
Single Family Detached Standard Homes 561.7 4.0 - 5.0 2247-2808 Single Family Detached Patio Home 334 5.5 - 6.5 1837-2171 Multi-Family 75.9 10.0 - 22.0 759-1669
Commercial 91.7 998613
Office 23.1 251559
Elementary Schools 20.8
Park and Transit Station 14.7
Park 78.2
Open Space/Creek/Easements/Corridors 119.9
High School 43
Fire Station 2.5
Grand Total 1365.5 4843-6648 1250172
Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (BRMDP) Approved Land Use (Per Table 2.1 of the Approved BRMDP)
Merced, California
K:\125972\Planning\GPA\Bellevue Ranch MDP Approved Land Use-RM

ATTACHMENT I
47 ATTACHMENT J
48 ATTACHMENT K
49 ATTACHMENT L
50 ATTACHMENT M
51 ATTACHMENT N
52 Job # 125972
Bellevue Ranch West Lots Acres Land Use MF Units
Commercial
SF
Village 1 LDR
Village 1- Lot A 9.09 OS/LP/CC
Village 1- Lot B 0.29 LP
Village 1- Lot D 0.53 LP
Village 2 LMDR
Village 2- Lot A 1.98 PARK/LP
Village 2- Lot B 1.42 PARK
Village 3 LMDR
Village 3- Lot A NC
Village 3- Lot B 0.17 PARK
Village 3- Lot C 3.46 OS/LP/CC
Village 3- Lot D 0.93 PARK
Village 3- Lot E 2.35 LP
Village 3- Lot F 0.09 LP
Village 3- Lot G 0.24 LP
Village 4 LMDR
Village 4- Lot A 5.18 OS/LP/CC
Village 5 LMDR
Village 5- Lot A 0.22 OS/B
Village 5- Lot B 7.86 P/B
Village 5- Lot C 1.05 PARK
Village 10 LDR
Village 12 LDR
Village 17A 4.96 PARK
Village 17B SCHOOL
Village 17C LMDR
Village 18 A LMDR
Village 18 C 24.77 P/OS
Village 19A HMDR
Village 19B HMDR
Village 19C 2.50 BPC
Village 21 LMDR
Village 22A LMDR
Village 22B LMDR
R Street Multi-Family HMDR
R Street Multi-Family 4.09 BPC
West of Fahrens Creek 50.14 P/OS
East of Fahrens Creek 13.06 OS/PR
Lot Z 3.80 P/T
Streets STREETS
Sub-Total 0 138.18 0 -
Bellevue Ranch Land Use by Village
Proposed General Plan Amendment (Park, Open Space, Basin, Creek and Bypass Channel) September 14, 2023
Merced, California
1 ATTACHMENT O
53 Bellevue Ranch East Lots Acres Land Use MF Units
Commercial
SF
Village 7 LDR
LOT P 3.68 PARK
LOT W3 WELL
Remainder 0.48 PARK
Village 8 Phase 1 LDR
Village 8 Phase 2 LDR
Village 9 Phase 1 LDR
Village 9 Phase 2 LDR
Village 14 Phase 1 LMDR
Village 14 Phase 2 LMDR
LOT T 3.56 PARK
Village 15 Phase 1 LDR/LMDR
Village 15 Phase 2 LDR/LMDR
LOT U 3.89 PARK
Village 16 Phase 1 LDR
Village 16 Phase 2 LDR
LOT U4 2.94 OS
LOT W2 WELL
Village Q LDR
Village 21E (LOT V) RCC
Village 22E-A (LOT W) HMDR
Village 22E-B (LOT X) HMDR
Lot Z 3.76 P/T
Streets STREETS
Sub-Total 0 18.31 0 -
Bellevue Ranch North Lots
Area
(Acres) Land Use MF Units
Commercial
SF
Village 20 HIGH SCHOOL
Village 21A COMM/OFFICE
Village 21 B COMM/OFFICE
Village 23 LDR
Village 24 LDR
Village 25A - School SCHOOL
Village 25B 12.94 P/OS
Village 26/35B 39.56 P/OS
Village 27 LMDR
Village 28A LMDR
Village 28B HMDR
Village 29A LDR
Village 29B LMDR
Village 29C 6.07 R-W/OS
Village 29D 13.59 R-W/OS/B
Village 30 LDR
Village 31 LDR
Village 33 LMDR
2 54
Village 34A VR
Village 34B LDR
Village 35A NC
Village 36A HMDR 162
Village 36B HMDR 103
Village 36C HMDR 122
LOT A1 2.94 FAHRENS CR.

LOT A2 1.33 FAHRENS CR.

LOT A3 1.50 FAHRENS CR.

LOT B 2.46 P/OS
LOT C 0.89 PARKINSON
LOT D1 1.21 PARKINSON
LOT D2 3.84 PARKINSON
LOT D3 1.85 PARKINSON
LOT D4 0.42 P/OS
LOT E 3.35 P/OS
LOT F 2.36 P/OS
LOT G 9.42 P/B
LOT H 0.85 LP
LOT I 1.59 P/OS
LOT J 5.31 P/OS
LOT Z 4.51 P/T
Streets STREETS
Fahrens Creek 16.95 FAHRENS CR.

Parkinson Drain 3.94 PARKINSON
Sub-Total 0 136.88 387 -
Grand Total 0 293.37 387 -
NC
LDR
LMDR
HMDR
VR

COMM/OFFICE
RCC

HIGH SCHOOL
SCHOOL
WELL

STREETS
P/OS
BPC
P/OS/B

R-W/OS/B
P/B
P/T

OS/LP/CC
LP
OS/T
FAHRENS CR.

PARKINSON
Open Space/Linear Park/Cottonwood Creek
Linear Park

LAND USE LEGEND
Neighborhood Commercial
Low Density Residential
Low/Medium Density Residential
High/Medium Density Residential
Open Space/Transit
Fahrens Creek
Parkinson Creek/Drain
Village Residential
Commercial/Office
Regional Community Commercial
High School
School
Well
Streets
Park/Open Space
Bypass Channel
Park/Open Space/Basin
Right-of-Way/Open Space/Basin
Park/Basin
Park/Transit
K:\125972\Planning\GPA\2023-09-14 Bellevue Ranch Land Use by Village - Proposed GPA - P OS B C BPC-RS 3 55 ATTACHMENT P
56 BELLEVUE RANCH PROJECT
General Plan Amendment No. 17-02, Site Utilization Plan Revision No. 12 to Planned Development (P-D) No. 42 and Environmental Review No. 17-07

Addendum to the Adopted
Merced Vision 2030 General Plan
Environmental Impact Report
SCH #2008071069

prepared by
City of Merced
Development Services Department
678 West 18th Street
Merced, California 95340

prepared with the assistance of
J.B. Anderson Land Use Planning
139 S. Stockton Avenue
Ripon, California 95366

October 2023

ATTACHMENT Q
57 This page intentionally left blank.
58 1 | Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 2

1.1 Purpose of the EIR Addendum 3

1.2 Basis for Decision to Prepare an Addendum 3

2.0 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5

2.1 Original Project 5

2.2 Modified Project 6

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 10

3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 12

3.2 Traffic and Circulation 25

FIGURES
1 Proposal Land Uses 8

TABLES
2-1 Existing 2030 General Plan Land Use Designations 5 2-2 Land Uses Entered into CalEEMod 22
2-3 Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO2e) in Metric Tons 2 4 2-4 Bellevue Ranch VMT Analysis – Three County Trip Generation 2 6 2-5 Bellevue Ranch VMT Analysis – ITE Factored Trip Generation 2 7

REFERENCES 28

APPENDICES
Appendix A Land Use Matrix
Appendix B SUP Revisions – Table 6.1 Modifications
Appendix C Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Greenhouse Gas Assessment, dated May 5, 2023
Appendix D Traffic Impact Study, dated May 10, 2023 and a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Project Comparison Assessment dated October 24, 2023

59 2 | Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes and Guidelines. This document has been prepared to serve as an Addendum to the previously certified 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR)(State Clearinghouse Number 2008071069) for the City of Merced 2030 General Plan, adopted by the Merced City Council on January 4, 2012 as per Resolution No. 2011-63.

The City of Merced is the L ead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed project modifications (Modified Project). For the purposes of this Addendum, the Project will be referred to as “Bellevue Ranch.”

The Addendum addresses the Modified Project in relation to the O riginal Project analyzed in the previously certified EIR prepared for the 2030 General Plan. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 describes the circumstances that require preparation of an Addendum as:

An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared only if minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a su bsequent EIR purs uant to Section 15 162 should be included in an add endum to an EIR, the lead a gency's findings on the project, o r elsewhere in the record.

Information and technical analyses from the previously certified EIR are utilized throughout this Addendum. Relevant passages and information from the previously certified EIR are cited and available for review at:

City of Merced
Development Services Department
678 West 18th Street
Merced, CA 95340
https://www.cityofmerced.org/departments/development-services/planning-division/merced-vision- 2030-general-plan

60 3 | Page

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE EIR ADDENDUM

In determining whether an Addendum is the appropriate document to analyze the proposed modifications to the project and its approval, CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) states:

a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.

b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling or the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.

d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum wi th the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.

e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.

1.2 BASIS FOR DECISION TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM

When an environmental impact report has been certified for a project, Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 set forth the criteria for determining whether a subsequent EIR, subsequent negative declaration, addendum, or no further documentation be prepared in support of further agency action on the project. Under these Guidelines, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared if any of the following criteria are met:

(a) When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
61 4 | Page

(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;

(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur, or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, and addendum, or no further documentation.

The Modified Project is described in Section 2.0 of this Addendum. Based on a review of the Modified Project, no new significant environmental effects, no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effects, and no new information of substantial importance that would require major changes to the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) have been identified.

Therefore, an Addendum to the 2030 General Plan’s certified EIR is the appropriate level of environmental review in accordance with CEQA Statutes and Guidelines. 62 5 | Page

2.0 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

INTRODUCTION

2.1 O RIGINAL PROJECT

As discussed previously, the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan and associated EIR was adopted by the Merced City Council on January 4, 2012, as per Resolution No. 2011- 63. An EIR was also previously prepared and certified for the Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (BRMDP) as part of the preparation and approval of the BRMDP in 1995. The Project Description of the General Plan Draft EIR can be found in Chapter Two of the Draft EIR, and is available at the following link:

https://www.cityofmerced.org/home/showpublisheddocument/4878/637031513984930000

While the Original Project consists of the City’s Vision 2030 General Plan and General Plan EIR, the requested action consists of a General Plan Amendment and S ite Utilization P lan (SUP) Revision affecting land use designations and the phasing of backbone infrastructure within the BRMDP .

Specifically, the requested action pertains to “Villages” within the BRMDP. Table 2-1, below, provides the existing General Plan land use designation for the “Villages” included as part of this requested action. Approximately 238.86-acres are included as part of the Original Project and as part of the Modified Project.

63 6 | Page

Table 2-1 – Existing 2030 General Plan Land Use Designations Village Acres Existing General Plan Land Use
Designation
19A and 19B 10.55 Open Space/Park Recreation
21 26.90 Regional Community
Commercial
22A and 22B 17.07 HMDR
R Street Multi-Family Village 5.81 Open Space/Park Recreation 25 36.56 LMDR
26 13.3 LMDR
28 A 22.04 LMDR
28 B 6.94 LMDR
30 16.81 LDR
30 – Lot D3 1.85 LDR
30 – Lot F 2.36 LDR
30 – Lot G 9.42 LDR
Portion of Lot J 2.5 LDR
34 A 10.04 VR
34 B 25.5 LDR
34 – Lot B 2 LDR
35 A 13.65 Neighborhood Commercial
35 B 15.56 Neighborhood Commercial
Totals 238.86 -
Under the current Vision 2030 General Plan, build out of the Project area would result in the following:

• 212 Low Density Residential Units;
• 789 Low to Medium Density Residential Units;
• 472 High to Medium Density Residential Units;
• 343 Village Residential Units;
• 292,941 square feet (sf) of Regional Community Commercial land uses; • 301,653 sf of Neighborhood Commercial uses; and,
• 5.81-acres of Open Space/Park Recreation.

In total, the Original Project will result in 1,816 residential units, 594,594 sf of commercial uses, and

5.81-acres of open space and park recreational uses.

2.2 M ODIFIED PROJECT

The Modified Project consists of the installation of site improvements and equipment to allow the amendment of various land uses within the BRMDP, including amendments for Villages 19A and 19B, 21, 22A and 22B, R Street Multi-Family, 25, 26, 28A, 28B, 30, a portion of Lot J, 34A, 34B, 35A, and 35B.

Under existing General Plan and BRMDP land use designations, these Villages could accommodate 1,816 dwelling units. With the Modified Project, the proposed land use designations would allow for the 64 7 | Page

development of 1,188 dwelling units. Thus, under the Modified Project, build -out would result in less dwelling units than what was previously contemplated in the General Plan EIR and BRMDP EIR. Future development within these Villages will be consistent with the adopted densities prescribed by the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan and BRMDP.

The Modified Project’s proposed land uses are illustrated in Figure 1 – Proposed Land Uses. In addition, the proposed land use amendments and land use matrix is provided herein as Appendix A. At full build- out, the Modified Project would result in the following:

• 230 Low Density Residential Units;
• 372 Low to Medium Density Residential Units;
• 466 High to Medium Density Residential Units;
• 120 Village Residential Units;
• 0 sf of Regional Community Commercial uses;
• 161,934 sf of Neighborhood Commercial uses; and,
• 52.5-acres of Open Space/Park Recreation.

In total, the Modified Project will result in 1, 188 residential units (628 unit decrease from the Original Project), 161,934 sf of commercial uses (432,660 sf decrease from the Original Project), and 52.5-acres of open space/park recreation uses (a 46.69-acre increase from the Original Project).

The Modified Project also includes an SUP revision to Table 6.1 of the BRMDP to update and clarify backbone infrastructure installation thresholds for specific BRMDP Villages. The previously adopted Table 6.1 dated August 2008 and further refined in June 2018 is being modified to clarify inconsistencies presented in the notes of Table 6.1.

The proposed revisions to Table 6.1 are included as Appendix B of this document.

65 8 | Page

Figure 1 – Proposed Land Uses
66 9 | Page

This page left intentionally blank.
67 10 | Page

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

This Chapter provides an analysis and cites substantial evidence that supports the County’s determination that the Modified Project to the Original Project does not meet the criteria for preparing a subsequent or supplemental Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, the Modified Project includes an amendment to the Vision 2030 General Plan Land Use Element that allows for the development of 1,188 residential dwelling units, 161,934 square feet and commercial and office building space, and 52.50-acres of parks and open space. This development yield is substantially less than what is currently allowable by the Vision 2030 General Plan, as detailed in Section 2.0. The Modified Project will not cause a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact from the Original Project IS/MND (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would require major revisions to the certified Vision 2030 General Plan EIR.

The Modified Project does not cause a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact, and there have been no other changes in the circumstances that meet this criterion (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a] [2]). There have been no changes in the environmental conditions on the property not contemplated and analyzed in the EIR that would result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts.

There is no new information of substantial importance (which was not known or could not have been known at the time of the application, that identifies: a new significant impact (condition “A” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]); a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact (condition “B” CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]); mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible that would now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects; or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR which would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment (conditions “C” and “D” CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]). None of the “new information” conditions listed in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3] are present here to trigger the need for a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) states that “an addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.” An addendum is appropriate here because as explained above, none of the conditions calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred.

To confirm the applicability of the findings provided within the Addendum, the Modified Project as discussed in Section 2.0, above, have been evaluated for potential impacts to the Vision 2030 General Plan EIR. It was determined that the amendments would have no effect on the analyses in the Vision 68 11 | Page

2030 General Plan EIR for the following environmental resources as there would be no change to the project area or overall construction activities. The amendments would not create any new or different impact to geology and soils, mineral resources, agricultural resources, hydrology and water quality, air quality, climate, land use and planning, population and housing, utilities and service systems, recreation, noise, visual quality, hazards and hazardous materials, economics, or energy consumption, or contribute to cumulative impacts in these resource areas. Therefore, these resource areas are not further discussed in this Addendum:

• Aesthetics
• Agricultural and Forest Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Recreation
• Public Services
• Utilities and Service Systems

The following environmental resource areas may be affected by the Modified Project, and these resource areas have therefore been assessed in this Addendum:

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Traffic and Circulation

The section below identifies the environmental topics addressed in the EIR, provides a summary of impacts associated with the Original Project, as described in the EIR, and includes an analysis of the potential impacts associated with the Modified Project when compared to the Original Project. Note that the environmental topics for these environmental resource areas have been updated to be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.
69 12 | Page

3.1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Would the Proposed
Project/Action:

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Previous
EIR
Less Than in
Previous EIR
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X

Original Project Analysis:

The following analysis for the Original Project is taken from and can be found in the Vision 2030 General Plan Draft EIR, Chapter 3.17.

Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Vision 2030 General Plan GHG emissions associated with the Project were estimated using CO 2 emissions as a proxy for all GHG emissions. This is consistent with the current reporting protocol of the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). Calculations of GHG emissions typically focus on CO 2 because it is the most commonly produced GHG in terms of both number of sources and volume generated, and because it is among the easiest GHGs to measure; however, it is important to note that other GHGs have a higher global warming potential than CO2. For example, as stated previously, 1 lb of methane has an equivalent global warming potential of 21 lb . of CO2 (CalEPA. Climate Action Team Report. March 2006).

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006 -04- 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF)

Nonetheless, emissions of other GHGs from the Project (and from almost all GHG emissions sources) would be low relative to emissions of CO
2 and would not contribute significantly to the overall generation of GHGs from the project.

Although the CCAR provides a methodology for calculating GHG emissions, the process is designed to be applied to a single or limited number of entities or operations where detailed information on emission s sources is available (e.g., usage of electricity and natural gas, numbers and types of vehicles and equipment in a fleet, type and usage of heating and cooling systems, emissions from manufacturing processes).

Information at this level of detail is not available for the Project area. For example, the ultimate GHG 70 13 | Page

emissions from the approximately 486 ac res of additional commercial uses in the proposed General Plan could vary substantially depending on the type and amount of office and commercial uses that are developed, the density of employees in each facility, the hours of operation for each facility, and other factors. Similarly, GHG emissions from the proposed residences could vary substantially based on numerous factors, such as the sizes of homes, the type and extent of energy efficiency measures that might incorporated into each home’s design, the type and size of appliances installed in the home, and whether solar energy facilities are included on any of the residences. Given the lack of detailed design and operational information available at this time for facilities in the Project area, the CCAR emissions inventory methodology is not appropriate for estimating GHG emissions from the project.

Additionally, it should also be noted that the emissions described above do not take into account reductions in GHG emissions resulting from implementation of AB 32. Stationary emissions sources on the project site resulting from energy usage and stationary sources that serve the project site’s energy needs will be subject to emissions reductions requirements of AB 32. The extent of these reductions has yet to be quantified by ARB. At the time of project buildout, overall CO2 emissions attributable to the Project could be substantially less than current emission assumptions might indicate. Similarly, if GHG emissions reductions for vehicles are enacted, through either the requirements of AB 1493 or AB 32 or a federal regulation, CO 2 emissions from the Project would be further reduced. If regulations proposed to comply with AB 1493 survive current legal challenges, by project buildout CO
2 emissions from vehicles associated with the project could be 20% to 30% less than under current conditions.

Impact #3.17-1: Development of the Project could potentially result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global climate change.

Discussion/Conclusion: As described above in the “Environmental Setting” discussion, the cumulative increase in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere has resulted in and will continue to result in increases in global average temperature and associated shifts in climate and environmental conditions. Multiple adverse environmental effects are attributable to global climate change, such as sea level rise, increased incidence, and intensity of severe weather events (e.g., heavy rainfall, droughts), and extirpation or extinction of plant and wildlife species. Given the significant adverse environmental effects linked to global climate change induced by GHGs, the emission of GHGs is considered a significant cumulative impact. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, t ransportation, residential, and agricultural sectors (California Energy Commission 2006a); therefore , the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and individual on Earth. The challenge in assessing the significance of an individual project’s contribution to global GHG emissions and associated global climate change impacts is to determine whether a project’s GHG emissions which, it can be argue d, are at a micro- scale relat ive to global emissions result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact.

Global climate change is projected to affect water resources in California; for example, an increase in the global average temperature is projected to result in a decreased volume of precipitation falling as snow in 71 14 | Page

California and an overall reduction in s nowpack in the Sierra Nevada. Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada provides both water supply (runoff) and storage (within the snowpack before melting) and is a major source of water supply for the state. Although current forecasts vary (see, e.g., Department of Water Resources [hereafter “DWR” 2006], this phenomenon could lead to significant challenges in securing an adequate water supply for a growing population and California’s agricultural industry. An increase in precipitation falling as rain rather than snow could also lead to increased potential for floods because water that would normally be held in the Sierra Nevada until spring could flow into the Central Valley concurrently with winter storm events. This scenario would place more pressure on California’s levee/flood control system.

Global change is expected to influence many interconnected phenomena, which will in turn affect the rate of climate change itself. Faced with this overwhelmingly complex system, scientists who model climate change must make d ecisions about how to simplify the phenomenon, such as assuming a fixed rate of temperature change or a certain level of aerosol production or a particular theory of cloud formation. These assumptions make the models applicable to aspects of the changing ecosystem, given a good guess about how the future will be. Rather than try to be predictive, the models represent possible scenarios that come with a set of presuppositions. Even when results are quantified, such quantifications are meaningless unless viewed in the light of those presuppositions. For these reasons, a range of models must be examined when trying to assess the potential effects of climate change and the resulting analysis is most appropriately qualitive (See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001). This section, therefore, provides a qualitative analysis of the impacts of global climate change as they affect water resources in California and in the project area.

When discussing global climate impacts in industrialized nations, such impacts are significantly driven by population / demand (e.g., demand for residential and commercial building arises from society’s demand for the additional housing and provider of basic services). Therefore, society’s increasing population is the underlying trigger to any greenhouse gas emissions associated with housing construction.

In the majority of studies on greenhouse gas emissions, traffic associated with development of residential and commercial buildings due to increasing populations is considered the primary contributor to operational greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, an increase in stationary source emissions from commercial buildings and residential homes (natural gas, landscape maintenance equipment, etc.) is anticipated from buildout under the General Plan.

Even if it were assumed that the proposed plan’s contribution to global climate change was a significant environmental impact, the impact would be considered unavoidable. Because global climate change is a global issue that can only be addressed through regional, state, national, and international cooperation, plan specific impacts are extremely difficult to determine. Until the SJVAPCD modifies regulations to address the emission of greenhouse gases, specific mitigations that would address climate change locally are speculative.

As the SJVAPCD modifies its plans and policies to address global warming considerations, CEQA documents will have to consider those plans and policies when assessing projects. The air quality impact analysis in Section 3.3 and in this section include mitigation measures at the local level to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with existing plans and policies to address global climate change.

However, development under the propose d General Plan in combination with growth and development at the regional level, would result in a significant, cumulatively considerable, and unavoidable impact.

72 15 | Page

Mitigation Measures

Even with the proposed policies and implementation actions in the prop osed General Plan, the impact will remain significant, cumulatively considerable, and unavoidable. No mitigation measures are available.

Impact #3.17-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Discussion/Conclusion: Implementation of General Plan policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the extent practicable will ensure City of Merced General Plan consistency with applicable plans, policies or regu lations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This impact is less than significant.

Impact #3.17 -3: Climate change could potentially result in an impact on City of Merced water resources.

Discussions/Conclusion: From a st atewide perspective, global climate change could affect California’s environmental resources through potential and uncertain changes related to future air temperatures and precipitation on their resulting impacts on water temperatures, reservoir operations, stream runoff, and sea levels. These changes in hydrological systems could threaten California’s economy, public health, and environment. The types of potential climate effects that could occur on California’s water resources include:

Water Supply. Several recent studies have shown that existing water supply systems are sensitive to climate change. Potential impacts of climate change on water supply and availability could directly and indirectly affect a wide range of institutional, economic, and societ al factors. Much uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of global climate change on future water supplies. For example, models that predict drier conditions (i.e., parallel climate model [PCM] suggest decreased reservoir inflows and storage and decreased river flows, relative to current conditions. By comparison, models that predict wetter conditions (i.e., HadCM2) project increased reservoir inflows and storage, and increased river flows (Brekke, 2004).

Both projections are equally probable based on which model is chosen for the analyses (Ibid.). Much uncertainty also exists with respect to how climate change will affect future demand for water supply (DWR 2006). Still, changes in the reliability of water yields from reservoirs could result from only small changes in inflows.

Surface Water Quality. Global climate change could affect surface water quality as well. Water quality is affected by several variables, including the physical characteristics of the watershed, water temperature, runoff rate and timing. A combination of a reduction in precipitation, the shift in volume and timing of runoff flows, and the increased temperature in lakes and rivers could affect several natural processes that eliminate pollutants in water bodies. For example, the overall decrease in stream flows could potentially con centrate pollutants and prevent the flushing of contaminants from point sources. Still, considerable work remains to determine the potential effect of global climate change to water quality.

73 16 | Page

Groundwater. Little work has been done on the effects of cli mate change on specific groundwater basins, groundwater quality or groundwater recharge characteristics. Changes in rainfall and changes in the timing of the groundwater recharge season would result in changes in recharge. Warmer temperatures could increase the period where water on the ground by reducing the soil freeze. Conversely, warmer temperatures could lead to higher evaporation or shorter rainfall seasons, which could mean that soil deficits would persist for longer time periods, shortening recharge seasons. Warmer, wetter winters would increase the amount of runoff available for groundwater recharge. This additional winter runoff, however, would be occurring at a time when some basins, particularly in Northern California, are being recharged at their maximum capacity. Reductions in spring runoff and higher evapotranspiration, on the other hand, could reduce the amount of water available for recharge. However, the extent to which climate will change and the impact of that change on groundwater are bot h unknown. A reduced snowpack, coupled with increased rainfall, could require a change in the operating procedures for California’s existing dams and conveyance facilities.

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. In California, the timing and amounts of water re leased from reservoirs and diverted from streams are constrained by their effects on various native fish, especially those that are listed under the federal and state endangered species acts as threatened or endangered. Several potential hydrological changes associated with global climate change could influence the ecology of aquatic life in California and have several negative effects on cold -water fish (DWR 2006). For example, if climate change raises air temperature by just a few degrees Celsius, this ch ange could enough to raise the water temperatures above the tolerance of salmon and trout in many streams, favoring instead non -native fishes such as sunfish and carp (DWR 2006). Unsuitable summer temperatures would be particularly problematic for many of the threatened and endangered fish that spend summers in cold-water streams, either as adults, juveniles, or both (DWR 2006). In short, climate change could significantly affect threatened and endangered fish in California. It could also cause non-threatened and non-endangered fish to reach the point where they become designated as such (DWR 2006).

Flood Control, It is difficult to assess implications of climate change for flood frequency, in large part because of the absence of detailed regional precipitation information from climate models and because human settlement patterns and water -management choices can substantially influence overall flood risk. Still, increased amounts of winter runoff could be accompanied by increases in flood event severity an d warrant additional dedication of wet season storage space for flood control as opposed to supply conservation. This need to manage water storage facilities to handle increased runoff could in turn lead to more frequent water shortages during high water demand periods. (Brekke 2004). It is recognized that these impacts would result in increased challenges for reservoir management and balancing the competing concerns of flood protection and water supply (DWR 2006).

Sudden Climate Change. Most global climat e models project that anthropogenic climate change will be a continuous and gradual process through the end of this century (DWR 2006). California is expected to be able to adapt to the water supply challenges posed by climate change, even at some of the warmer and dryer projections for change. Sudden and unexpected changes in climate, however, could leave water managers unprepared and could, in extreme situations, have significant implications for California and its 74 17 | Page

water supplies. For example, there is speculation that some of the recent droughts that occurred in California and the western United States could have been due, at least in part, to oscillating oceanic conditions resulting from climate changes. The exact causes of these events are, however, unk nown, and evidence suggests such events have occurred during at least the past 2,000 years (DWR 2006).

The following topics summarize current literature related to the impact of global climate change on water resources in California’s Central Valley:

• Climate Warming and Water Management Adaptation for California. Tanaka et al. (2006) explored the ability of California’s water supply system to adapt to long -term climatic and demographic changes using the California Value Integrated Network (CALVIN), statew ide economic-engineering optimization model of water supply management. The results show agricultural water users in the Central Valley are the most sensitive to climate change, particularly under the driest and warmest scenario (i.e. PCM 2100), predicting a 37% reduction in of Valley agriculture water deliveries and a rise in Valley water scarcity cost by $1.7 billion. Though the results of the study are only preliminary, they suggest that California’s water supply system appears “physically capable of adapting to significant changes in climate and population, albeit at a significant cost.” Such adaptations of new technology.

• Potential Implications of PCM Climate Change Scenarios for Sacramento -San Joaquin River Basin Hydrology and Water Resources. VanRheenen et al. (2004) studied the potential effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Basin using five PCM scenarios. The study concludes that most mitigation alternatives examined satisfied only 87 to 96% of environmental targets in the Sacramento system, and less than 80% in the San Joaquin system. Therefore, system infrast ructure modifications and improvements could be necessary to accommodate the volumetric and temporal shifts in flows predicted to occur with future climates in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River basins.

• Estimated Impacts of Climate Warming on California Wa ter Availability Under Twelve Future Climate Scenarios. Zhu et al (in press) studied climate warming impacts on water availability derived from modeled climate and warming stream flow estimates for six index California basins and distributed statewide temp erature shift and precipitations changes for 12 climate scenarios. The index basins provide broad information for spatial estimates of the overall response of California’s water supply and the potential range of impacts. The results identify a statewide trend of increased winter and spring runoff and decreased summer runoff. Approximate changes in water availability are estimated for each scenario, though without operations modeling. Even most scenarios with increased precipitation result in a decrease in available water. The result is due to the inability of current storage systems to catch increased winter stream flow to offset reduced summer runoff.

75 18 | Page

• Trends in Snowfall versus Rainfall in the Western United States. To better understand the nature of the observed changes in snowpack and stream flow timing in the west, Knowles et al. (2006) addressed historical changes in the relative contributions of rainfall and snowfall. The study documents a regional trend toward smaller ratios of winter-total snowfall water to winter-total precipitation during the period of 1949-2004. The trends toward decreased winter-total snowfall are a response to warming across the region, with the most significant decreases occurring where winter wet -day minimum temperatur es were on average warmer than - 5 degrees Celsius over the study period. The authors suggest that, if warming trends continue, the snowfall fraction of precipitation is likely to continue to decline, which combined with earlier melting of the remaining acc umulations of snowpack, will diminish the West’s natural freshwater storage capacity. This trend could, in turn, exacerbate tensions between flood control and storage priorities that many western reservoir managers face.

• Climate Warming and Water Supply Management in California. Medellin et al. (2006) use the CALVIN model under a high emissions “worst case” scenario, called a dry -warming scenario. The study found that climate change would reduce water deliveries 17% in 2050. The reduction in deliveries was not equally distributed, however, between urban and agricultural areas. Agricultural areas would see their water deliveries drop by 24% while urban areas would only see a reduction of 1%. There was also a geographic difference: urban scarcity was almost absent outside of southern California. • Climate scenarios for California. Cayan et al. (2006b) considered two GHG emissions scenarios, a medium-high and a low. The study found that California will experience a warming trend from 2000 to 2100, with temperatures rising between 1.7 and 5.8
0 C, depending on the model and the scenario
chosen. This increase in temperature could potentially impact snowpack levels as the state experiences less snow and more rain. The results also indicate that snowpack in the Sierra Nevada could be reduced 32 to 70%, depending on the model and scenario chosen. The study does not consider the ability of California’s water supply system to adapt to these potential changes.

• Our Changing Clim ate – Assessing the Risks to California, California Climate Change Center 2006 Biennial Report. In 2003, the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) program established the California Climate Change Center (CCCC) to conduct cl imate change research relevant to the state. Executive Order S -3-05 called for CalEPA to prepare biennial science reports on the potential impact of continued climate change on certain sectors of California’s economy. CalEPA entrusted PIER and its CCCC to lead the effort. The climate change analysis contained in its first biennial science report is the product of a multi- institution collaboration among the California Air Resources Board, DWR, CEC, CalEPA and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

With respect to the most severe consequences of global climate change on California’s water supplies, the study concludes that major changes in water management and allocation systems could be required in order to adapt to the change. As less winter precipitation falls as snow, and more as rain, water managers would have to balance the need to construct reservoirs for water supply with the need to maintain reservoir storage for winter flood control. The assessment suggests that additional storage could be developed, but with environmental and economic costs.

• Climate Warming and California’s Water Future. Lund et al. (2003) examined the effects of a range of climate warming estimates on the long -term performance and management of California’s water 76 19 | Page

system. The study estimates changes in California’s water availability, including effects of forecasted changes in 2100 urban and agricultural water demands using a modified version of the CALVIN model.

The main conclusions are summarized as follows:

• Methodologically, it is useful and realistic to include a wide range of hydrologic effects, changes in population and water demands, and changes in system operations in climate change studies;

• A broad range of climate warming scenarios show significant increase in wet season flows and significant decreases in spring snowmelt. The magnitude of climate change effec ts on water supplies is comparable to water demand increases from population growth in twenty -first century; and

• California’s water system would be able to adapt to the severe population growth and climate change modeled. The adaptation would be costly, but it would not threaten the fundamental prosperity of the state, although it could have major impacts on the agricultural sector. The water management costs represent only a small proportion of California's current economy.

• Under the driest cl imate warming scenarios, Central Valley agricultural users could be quite vulnerable to climate change. Wetter hydrology could increase water availability for these users. The agricultural community would not be compensated for much of its loss under the dry scenario. The balance of climate change affects agricultural yield and water use in unclear. While higher temperatures could increase evapotranspiration, longer growing seasons and higher carbon dioxide concentrations could increase crop yield.

• Population growth is expected to be more problematic than climate change in Southern California.

Population growth, conveyance limits on imports, and high economic value of water in Southern California, could lead to high implementation of wastewater reuse and substantial use of seawater desalination along the coast.

• Under some wet warming climate scenarios, flooding problems could be substantial. In certain cases, major expansions of downstream floodways and alterations in floodplain land use could become desirable.

• California’s water system could economically adapt to all the climate warming scenarios examined in the study. New technologies for water supply, treatment, and water use efficiency, implementation of water transfers and conjunctive use, coordinated operation of reservoirs, improved flow forecasting, and the cooperation of local regional, state and federal government can help California adapt to population growth and global climate change. Even if these strategies are implemented, however, the costs of water management are expected to be high and there is likely to be less “slack” in the system compared to current operations and expectations.

As described by the literature survey above, overall, climate change is expected to have a greater ef fect in Southern California. In the Sacramento Valley/Sierra Nevada area, climate change will have a greater effect on agricultural users than urban users. For example, for 2020 conditions, where optimization is allowed (i.e., using the CALVIN model), scarcity is essentially zero in the Sacramento Valley for both urban and agricultural 77 20 | Page

users, and generally zero for urban users in the San Joaquin and Tulare Basins. Rather, most water scarcity will be felt by agricultural users in Southern California, though Southern California urban users, especially Coachella urban users, will also experience some scarcity. By the year 2050, urban water scarcity will remain almost entirely absent north of the Tehachapi Mountains, although agricultural water scarcity could increase in the Sacramento Valley to about 2% (Medellin et al. 2006; see also Tanaka et al. 2006 and Lund et al. 2003 for further discussion of global climate change impacts on agricultural uses).

Based on the conclusions of current literature regarding California’s ability to adapt to global climate change, it is reasonably expected that, over time, the State’s water system will be modified to be able to handle the projected climate changes, even under dry and/or warm climate scenarios (DWR 2006). Although coping with climate change effects on California’s water supply could come at a considerable cost, based on a thorough investigation of the issue, it is reasonably expected that statewide implementation of some, if not several, of the wide variety of adaptation measures available to the state, will likely enable California’s water system to reliably meet future water demands. For example, traditional water supply reservoir operations may be used, in conjunction with other adaptive actions, to offset the impacts of global warming on water supply (Medellin et al. 2006; see also Tanaka et al. 2006 and Lund et al. 2003). Other adaptive measures include getter urban and agricultural water use efficiency practices, conjunctive use of surface and ground waters, des alination, and water markets and portfolios (Medellin et al. 2006; see also Lund et al. 2003, Tanaka et al. 2006). More costly statewide adaptation measures could include construction of new reservoirs and enhancements to the state’s levee system (California Energy Commission 2003). As described by Medellin et al. 2006, with adaptation to the climate, the water deliveries to urban centers are expected to decrease by only 1%, with Southern California shouldering the brunt of this decrease.

Although California could potentially experience an increased number of single -dry and multiply -dry years as a result of global climate change, based on current knowledge, it is reasonably expected that such increase would not significantly affect the reliability o f the City of Merced’s water supply, (due to the proposed Project’s location in Central/Northern California and the reasonable expectation that California’s water system can be modified to handle projected climate changes as explained above).

Because considerable uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of global climate changes on future water supply in California, it is unknown to what degree global climate change will impact the City of Merced water supply and availability in the future. However, based on consideration of the recent regional and local climate change studies described in the literature review above, it is reasonably expected that the impacts of global climate change on the City’s water supply would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impact Analysis

Policies of the proposed General Plan will reduce global climate change impacts; however, buildout under the proposed General Plan will nonetheless result in a substantial amount of GHG emissions contributing to global climate change. Because it cannot be determin ed to a reasonable degree of certainty that buildout under the proposed General Plan will not result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global climate change, the impacts of the proposed project on global climate change are a significant, unavoidable, and cumulative considerable impact.

78 21 | Page

Modified Project Analysis:

To evaluate the Proposed Project’s potential impacts to greenhouse gas emissions, a Greenhouse Gas Assessment, dated May 5, 2023, prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. (Appendix C) was prepared.

It is generally accepted that individual development projects, in and of themselves, are too small to have a perceptible effect on global climate. However, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from each development project results in an incremental contribution to global warming and climate change. The scope of climate change is global, and the cumulative emissions of GHGs globally have resulted in cumulatively significant climate change impacts. Thus, in CEQA terms, GHG emissions associated with individual development projects are by nature cumulative in their effects. A significant impact would occur if the GHG emissions associated with the General Plan Amendment (GPA) represent a considerable contribution to the cumulatively significant impacts resulting from global climate change. As such, the focus of this analysis is to determine whether the GHG emissions associated with the GPA represent a considerable contribution to the cumulatively significant impacts resulting from global climate change.

GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Project would occur over the short-term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust, worker vehicles, and vendor vehicle trips.

There would also be long-term emissions associated with vehicular traffic within the project vicinity, energy and water usage, and solid waste disposal.

SJVAPCD Methodologies

The S JVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land-Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts for New Projects under CEQA provides for three alternative methodologies for evaluating project's potential impact on climate change and determination reducing GHG emissions from a project to less-than-significant levels. These include: ( 1) Demonstrate com pliance with a loc ally-adopted GHG re duction plan ( i.e., CAP or P CAP); (2) Demonstrate implementation of a combination of Air District-approved and pre-qualified BPS which taken together are deeme d to result in a 29 percent reduction in project GHG emissions relative to Business- As-Usual (BAU) conditions; o r (3) For projects not implementing bps, qua ntification of proj ect GHG emissions and comparison to GHG emissions from BAU conditions in order to demonstrate a 29 percent reductions in emissions relative to BAU conditions. BAU is defined as the operation of the proposed project with emissions factors from the 2002-2004 baseline period established by the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Land use projects not achieving the necessary reductions would be considered to have a significant impact. It is important to note that projects that require the preparation of an EIR for any reason are required to quantify GHG emissions, even if they are compliant with an adopted climate action plan or are implementing BPS.

CalEEMod Modeling

CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) was used to quantify GHG emissions from Proposed Project operations - related activities assuming full build-out of the project by 2035 and a BAU scenario using 2005 emissions factors. GHG emissions from the GPA would be generated primarily from autos driven by future residents, employees, customers, and vendors and for energy use associated with the land use changes. The land use types, size, and other area-specific information were input to the model. The use of this model for evaluating emissions from land use projects is recommended by the SJVAPCD. 79 22 | Page

CalEEMod Land Uses

The land uses associated with the Proposed Project were input into CalEEMod as summarized in Table 2-2 The amounts of each land use type were provided by the applicant. These were used for both the build- out (2035) and BAU (2005) scenarios.

Table 2-2 Land Uses Entered into CalEEMod

GPA Land Use Category

CalEEMod Land Use Type

Amount
Unit of
Measure
Neighborhood Commercial General Office Building 80.97 1,000-sf Open Space/Park Recreation City Park 52.5 Acres
High to Medium Density
Residential

Apartments Low Rise

466
Dwelling
Units

Low to Medium Residential

Condo/Townhouse

372
Dwelling
Units
Low Density Residential Single Family Housing 230 Dwellings Village Residential Single Family Housing 120 Dwellings Neighborhood Commercial Strip Mall 80.97 1,000-sf

The Proposed Project would change the amounts of several land use categories built in the plan area.

CalEEMod uses specific land use categories to estimate emissions. Thus, the categories identified in the Proposed Project were related to the CalEEMod land u se categories as shown in Table 2-2 . Because the specific type of commercial land use are not known, GHG emissions are based on 50 percent being office uses and 50 percent being strip mall retail uses. These categories are used by the model to estimate GHG emissions related to mobile sources (i.e., traffic), energy use, waste, and water/wastewater.

Mobile Source Emissions

GHG emissions from on -road mobile sources (i.e., traffic) were estimated for both the 2035 build -out scenario and the BAU scenario using CalEEMod default emissions rates, trip generation rates, and trip lengths. Version 2020.4.0 of CalEEMod uses emissions factors from CARB's EMFAC2017 emissions model and ITE trip generation rates. More information on how the model calculates GHG emissions from traffic can be found in the model's technical documentation. Note that the mobile emissions modeling does not reflect the effect of California's recently adopted Advanced Clean Car, Phase II regulation that will require an increased phase in of electric vehicles from 35 percent in 2026 to 100 percent in 2035. The current version of CalEEMod that is based on EMFAC2017 underestimates the effect of this regulation. Future updates to the State's EMFAC model will reflect the effect of this regulation.

Energy

GHG emissions modeling includes those indirect emissions from electricity consumption. Default 2019 Title 24 Building Standards were used to estimate energy consumption. The 2035 build-out scenario used the CalEEMod default for Pacific Gas and Electric's (PG&E's) energy emission factor for CO₂ per megawatt of electricity produced and the default 2019 Title 24 Building Standards energy intensity factors. The PG&E factor is based on 2019 emissions rates. Note that PG&E's carbon intensity for delivered electricity has decreased 80 23 | Page

by 64 percent over the last ten (10) years. PG&E plans to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, by substantially reducing emissions by 2040 and neutralizing remaining emissions by 2050.

The BAU emissions estimate used default emission factor for PG&E in the previous version of the CalEEMod model (Version 2020.4.0) of 641.3 pounds of CO₂ per megawatt of electricity produced. This factor is based on PG&E's 2008 emissions rate.

Wood-Burning Devices

CalEEMod default inputs assume new residential construction would include woodburning fireplaces and stoves. The project would not include wood-burning devices, as these devices are prohibited by SJVAPCD Rule 4901. Therefore, the number of woodstoves and woodboring fireplaces in CalEEMod were set to zero and assigned as natural gas in both the 2035 build-out and BAU scenarios.

Water Usage and Wastewater

CalEEMod assigns water usage rates for the various land uses based on statewide rates developed prior to the model in 2008. Water/Wastewater use was changed to 100 percent aerobic conditions for both the 2035 build-out and BAU scenarios to represent the City's wastewater treatment plant conditions. The GPA area would not send wastewater to septic tanks or facultative lagoons.

Solid Waste

CalEEMod defaults were used to estimate GHG emissions associated with solid waste generation for both the 2035 build-out and BAU scenarios.

Summary of Computed GHG Emissions

The CalEEMod model estimated annual emissions associated with the GPA's 2035 build-out and the BAU scenario. In 2035, annual emissions are calculated to 13,725 MT of CO₂ₑ, as shown in Table 2-3. The percent reduction when compared to the BAU scenario is estimated to be approximately 43 percent, 14 percent over the 29 percent reduction target. Therefore, per SJVAPCD methodologies for identifying Project- Specific GHG Emissions impacts per the Guidance for Valley Land- Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts for New Projects under CEQA, the Proposed Project would have less -than-significant impact as it exceeds the 29 percent reduction in GHG emissions needed relative to BAU conditions. Accordingly, as compared to the Original Project, the Modified Project would have less potential impact to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Additionally, the Proposed Project is required to comply with the City’s PCAP and UDM. The project check list includes several applicable strategies individual projects in the Project site can include to ensure adherence to in the City's CAP.

81 24 | Page

Table 2-3. Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO₂ₑ) in Metric Tons Source Category BAU Emissions 2035 Project Emissions
Area 685 685
Energy Consumption 3,536 1,967
Mobile 18,873 10,392
Solid Waste Generation 458 458
Water Usage 414 223
Total 23,966 13,725
Percentage Reduction 42.7 percent
SJVAPCD Reduction Target for Project-Specific
missions (for Projects not compliant with a CAP
or not implementing BPS)

29 percent

The City of Merced has a CAP and a PCAP/UDM that enforce its building codes, which aim to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, if individual projects included in the Proposed Project conform to City building Codes, the Proposed Project would conform with the CAP and would not conflict with local plans, policies, or regulations applicable to GHG emissions. The projects proposed as part of the overall Proposed Project would be constructed in conformance with at minimum the 2022 CalGreen and the Title 24 Building Codes, which require high -efficiency water fixtures, water -efficient irrigation systems, and compliance with current energy efficiency standards. Compliance with these standards ensures compliance with State and federal plans, policies and regulations applicable to GHG emissions. Accordingly, as compared to the Original Project, the Modified Project would have less potential impact to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

82 25 | Page

3.2 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION

Would the Proposed
Project/Action:

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
New Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact
as
Previous
EIR
Less
Than in
Previous
EIR
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
X

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
X

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X

d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? X

Original Project Analysis:

Impacts to Transportation/Traffic as a result of the City’s 2030 General Plan is discussed in Section 3.15 of the Vision 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The 2030 General Plan EIR (Draft EIR) can viewed here:

https://www.cityofmerced.org/departments/development- services/planning-division/merced-vision- 2030-general-plan-adoption/-folder-1177.

The City’s Vision 2030 General Plan EIR study area included the planning area presented in the Circulation Diagram of the General Plan (Figure 3.15-1). The study locations are provided in Table 3.15- 4 of the Draft EIR.

The Draft EIR concluded that implementation of Mitigation Measure No. 3.15-1a and the Goals, Policies, and Implementing Actions of the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan would reduce the impact of increased traffic on area roadways as the 2030 General Plan is implemented; however, absent funding guarantees for many of the roadway improvement projects identified in the traffic conditions analysis, as and referenced in Mitigation Measure No. 3.15 -1a, traffic impacts associated with build -out of the 83 26 | Page

Vision 2030 General Plan are considered significant and unavoidable .

The Draft EIR also concluded that compliance with the policies of the 2030 General Plan and the City’s Roadway Design Standards will ensure that there will not be a significant increase in hazards due to design features or incompatible uses as the 2030 General Plan is implemented and the impact is less than significant.

Finally, the 2030 General Plan Circulation Plan and Policies promote emergency vehicle access to all portions of the City and Plan Area and implementation of the 2030 General Plan will not result in inadequate emergency access. Roadway improvement standards adopted by the City provide for adequate street width and secondary access to ensure that emergency vehicles have adequate access to development throughout the Plan Area. The Draft EIR concluded the impact would be less than significant.

Modified Project Analysis:

This section of the CEQA Addendum analyzes the Modified Project’s potential to conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), which relates to a project’s vehicle miles travelled (Traffic and Circulation Impact (b) set forth above). Traffic and Circulation impacts a, c and d are not evaluated further in the CEQA Addendum, as the City has determined that the Modified Project would have the same impact as analyzed in the EIR for the Original Project. To evaluate the Proposed Project’s potential impacts to transportation/traffic, a Traffic Impact Study, dated May 10, 2023, and a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Project Comparison Assessment, dated October 24, 2023, was prepared. Both of these studies can be found in Appendix D of this document.

As noted above, a VMT Project Comparison Assessment was prepared for the Proposed Project. The table below depicts the results of the VMT analysis for the Proposed Project using the native trip generation rates in the Three County Model.

Table 2-4 – Bellevue Ranch VMT Analysis – Three County Trip Generation Project Description Weekly Project Generated VMT
Previously Approved BRMDP 666,916
Proposed BRMDP 595,087
Net Difference -71,829

The trip generation differences for the previously approved BRMDP land use designations are described below.

• Previously approved BRMDP:
o Model Trip Generation: 43,704 trips per weekday.
o ITE Trip Generation: 89,146 trips per weekday.
o ITE/Model ratio: 1.96
84 27 | Page

• Proposed BRMDP:
o Model trip generation: 33,723 trips per weekday.
o ITE trip generation: 72.933 trips per weekday.
o ITE/Model ratio: 1.86.

The table below depicts 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.

Table 2-5 – Bellevue Ranch VMT Analysis – ITE Factored Trip Generation Project Description Model Weekday
Project Generated
VMT
ITE/Model Trip
Generation Ratio
ITE-Factored Weekday
Project Generated
VMT
Previously Approved
BRMDP
666,916 1.96 1,308,325
Proposed BRMDP 595,087 1.86 1,106,898
Net Difference -71,829 - -201,427

The analysis presented in the tables above determined similar conclusions, the Proposed Project will generate less VMT than the previously approved BRMDP. This result is expected as the Proposed Project results in a significant reduction of development in tensity. As such, this impact is considered less than significant.

85 28 | Page

REFERENCES

Merced Vision 2030 General Plan, dated January 2012.

Merced Vision 2030 General Plan Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2008071069), dated January 2012.

Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Greenhouse Gas Assessment, dated May 5, 2023, prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc.

Traffic Impact Study, dated May 10, 2023 and a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Project Comparison Assessment dated October 24, 2023, prepared by Fehr and Peers

86 29 | Page

APPENDICES

87 30 | Page

Appendix A

Land Use Matrix

88 Bellevue Ranch – General Plan Amendment and SUP Revision Draft Land Use Matrix
August 2023

Village Acres 1995 MDP
Land Use
Designation
# of Lots/Units
Under Existing
MDP Land Use
Designation
Commercial/Office
Building Square
Footage Under
Existing MDP Land
Use Designation
Existing General
Plan Land Use
Designation
Proposed General
Plan Land Use
Designation
# of Lots/Units Under
Proposed GPA
Commercial/Office
Building Square
Footage Under
Existing MDP Land
Use Designation
19A and 19B 10.55 SFDSH 122 - Open Space/Park
Recreation
HMDR 211 -
21 26.90 Commercial - 292,941 Regional
Community
Commercial
LMDR 173 -
22A and 22B 17.07 MF 472 - HMDR LMDR 84 -
R Street Multi-Family Village 5.81 Land originally
part of Fahrens
Creek
Realignment
- - Open Space/Park
Recreation
HMDR 116 -
25 36.56 SFDPH 213 - LMDR Open Space/Park
Recreation and School
- -
26 13.3 SFDPH 73 - LMDR Open Space/Park
Recreation
- -
28 A 22.04 SFDPH 149 - LMDR LMDR 115 -
28 B 6.94 SFDPH 35 - LMDR HDMR 139
30 16.81 SFDPH 179 - LDR LDR 98 -
30 – Lot D3 1.85 SFDSH 9 - LDR Park/Open Space - -
30 – Lot F 2.36 SFDSH 12 - LDR Park/Open Space - -
30 – Lot G 9.42 SFDSH 47 - LDR Park/Open Space - -
Portion of Lot J 2.5 SFDSH 12 - LDR Park/Open Space - - 34 A 10.04 Village
Residential
343 - VR VR 120 -
34 B 25.5 SFDPH 140 - LDR LDR 132 -
34 – Lot B 2 SFDSH 10 - LDR Park/Open Space - -
35 A 13.65 Commercial - 301,653 Neighborhood
Commercial
Neighborhood
Commercial
- 161,934
35 B 15.56 Commercial - Included with 35A Neighborhood
Commercial
Park /Open Space - -
Totals 238.86 1,816 594,594 - - 1,188 161,934
Notes:

LDR – Low Density Residential
LMDR – Low to Medium Density Residential
HMDR – High to Medium Density Residential
VR – Village Residential
SFDSH – Single Family Detached Standard Homes
SFDPH – Single Family Detached Patio Homes

89 Draft Land Use Matrix – by Land Use Designation

Land Use Designation 1995 MDP (Acres and Units/Square Feet) Proposed General Plan Amendment (Acres and Units/Square Feet
Acres Units/Square Feet Acres Units/Square Feet
Low Density Residential 28.68 212 42.31 230
Low to Medium Residential 121.15 789 67.92 372
High to Medium Density Residential 17.07 472 23.3 466
Regional Community Commercial 26.90 292,941 sf - -
Neighborhood Commercial 29.21 301,653 sf 13.65 161,934 sf Village Residential 10.04 343 10.04 120
Open Space/Park Recreation 5.81 - 52.5 -
Total 238.86 1816 units + 594,594 sf 225.85 1188.00 units + 161,934 sf

90 31 | Page

This page left intentionally blank.

91 32 | Page

Appendix B
SUP Revisions – Table 6.1 Modifications

92 Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (MDP) Table 6.1 Major Infrastructure Phasing
(Revised & Adopted by City Council on June 21, 2004)
(Revision & Adopted by Planning Staff on August 17, 2005) (Revision & Adopted by Planning Commission on June 18, 2008) (Revision to be presented to Planning Commission and City Council Fall of 2023)

The following table shows the same circulation and major infrastructure improvements listed in the MDP Table

6.1,adopted by the City Council May 15, 1995, in the columns for contiguous and non-contiguous improvements. Two new columns have been added to show the village interior improvements as well as concurrent construction phasing.

This table indicates when certain improvements are warranted by Sub- Phase development. It does not address funding sources or the timing of available funding. In general, each Developer shall be responsible for construction of the warranted improvements, with the exception of wells, which the City will construct.

The Sub-Phases have been reorganized to show the order in which the Villages are now expected to be developed by Crosswinds and Woodside, for the area south of Bellevue Road. North of Bellevue Road the order shown in the adopted Table 6.1 shall be maintained except as noted. MDP Villages 6, 11, 13 and 19 have been excluded from this proposed sequence due to floodplain constraints.

The “Clarification Revision” of August 2008 to the 6- 18-08 version of Table 6.1 clarifies inconsistencies presented by Notes #1 and #2. These notes referred to recommended improvements of the Fehr & Peers memorandum of 12- 2-04. The notes stated that certain improvements were “revised” as recommended in said traffic report. However, the text within Table 6.1 did not reflect those changes. To view these referenced changes, one needs to look at Table 6 of the 12-2-04 memorandum. The August 2008 Table 6.1 presented here reconciles the inconsistencies by showing where modification to text in Table 6.1 would have to be made in order to be consistent with Staff accepted portions of Table 6 of the 12-2-04 memorandum.

NOTE: Table 6.1 was not officially amended to include these “clarifications.” This document is prepared to show Staff’s interpretation and affect of the 12-2-08 traffic study.

Color Coding of Responsible Areas:

Red Bold=Bellevue Ranch East Improvements (Crosswinds)
Green Bold=North Merced Major Roadway Improvement Impact Fee Blue Underlined=Bellevue Ranch West Improvements (Woodside) Black Bold=Bellevue Ranch Improvements, joint responsibility in Village 22 Black=Bellevue Ranch Improvements, North of Bellevue Road (unchanged since May 15, 1995). [Phases are as noted on Minor Phasing Diagram in Master Development Plan—page 60 and Attachment B of Planning Commission Staff Report #04-13 2nd Addendum] 93 Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan
Table 6.1—Major Infrastructure Phasing
Sub-
Phase
(Village)
Contiguous
Improvements
Non-Contiguous
Improvements
Interior Improvements Villages Able to
Construct out of
sequence with this
sub-phase
BIIP I None • M St (Barclay Rd. to
Lehigh)(1/2 street)
• M St Cottonwood
Creek Bridge (1/2
Street)
• Well Site (G St/
Cardella Rd)
• BIIP I Collectors
• Sewer, Drain and
Water
• Detention Basins
DB-P, T and U
• Storm Drain and
Sewer Pump
Stations Outfalls
• Village 15, 16,
8A, 14 and 9
8A None None • V-8A streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
BIIP I
15 None • Fire Station
Dedication
• Village-15 streets
and utilities
• Concurrent with
BIIP I
1 • M St: Lehigh
to
Cottonwood
Ck (1/2
Street)
• M St:

Cottonwood
• M St: Cottonwood Ck
to Cardella Rd
intersection (1/2 street)
• V-1 streets and
utilities
• None

Note: Sub-Phase
(Village) 1 is not
dependent on Sub-
Phases BBIP I, 8A,
and 15.

Bridge (1/2
street) and
bike crossing

9 None None • V-9 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
BIIP I
3 • Cardella
Road: M St to
Bancroft Dr
(1/2 street)
• Cottonwood
Ck bike
path/imp.
• Cardella Rd
(Bancroft Dr
to G St) (1/2
street)
None

• Cardella Rd/Bancroft
Signal (as part of the
development of the
commercial site).
• V-3 streets and
utilities
• V-11 drainage basin
• Village 2

Note: Sub-Phase
(Village) 3 is not
dependent on Sub-
Phases BBIP I, 8A, 9,
and 15.
2 • Cottonwood
Ck bike
path/improve
ments
None • V-2 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
Village 3
5 • Cardella: (M
St to Round
Hill Dr
(Freemark)) (4
lanes total)
• Well site
(Cardella
Rd/Fahrens
Ck.)
None • V-5 streets and
utilities
• Villages 4, 10, &
12 Note: Sub-Phase
(Village) 5 is not
dependent on Sub-
Phases BBIP I, 8A,
15 and 9.
14 None None • Village-14 streets
and utilities
• Concurrent with
BIIP I
Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan
Table 6.1—Major Infrastructure Phasing
Clarification Memorandum - August 2008, Page 2
94 Sub-
Phase
(Village)
Contiguous
Improvements
Non-Contiguous
Improvements
Interior Improvements Villages Able to
Construct out of
sequence with this
sub-phase
16 • Well Site (G
Street/Bellev
ue Road)
• M St: Cardella to
Barclay (remainder to
full improvements)
• Village-16 streets
and utilities
• Concurrent with
BIIP I
BIIP II None None • BIIP II Collector
Roadways
• Sewer, Drain and
Water
• Village 8B, 7 and
Lot Q
4 • Cottonwood
Ck pedestrian
bridge
None • V-4 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
Village 5
8B None None • V-8B streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with

BIIP II
7 • Cardella Rd
(M St to G
St)(1/2 street)
• C ardella
Road/G
Street signal
• V-7 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with

BIIP II
10 None None • V-10 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
Villages 5 and
BBIP I (M Street
component only)
12 None • M St/Cardella Rd
signal1,
• V-12 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
Village 10
17 None • R St (Yosemite to
Cardella)(4 lanes total)
1, 8 10
• Cardella Rd (Round
Hill Dr (Freemark) to R
St) (4 lanes total)
1,8 10
• Fahrens Ck Bridge at
/Cardella Rd (4
lanes total) 1,8 14
• R St/Cardella Rd
Signal1 11
• V-17 streets and
utilities
• Villages 18 & 19
• Note: Sub-Phase
(Village) 17 is not
dependent on Sub-
Phases BBIP I,
8A, 15, 9, 14, 16,
BBIP II, 8B and 7.

Excepting “M”
Street portion
of BBIP I.
18 None • R Street: Cardella Rd to
Franciscan Dr (4 lanes
total)
1,8 10
• R Street: Franciscan Dr
(Arrow Wood) to
Bellevue Rd (4 lanes
total)1,8 10
• Cardella Rd/Bancroft
Signal
• F ranciscan Dr
(Arrow Wood)/R
St signal 1,8 11
• R St/Bellevue Rd
Signal1 11
• Cardella Rd/Round Hill
Dr (Freemark) signal
• V-18 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
Village 17

•
Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan
Table 6.1—Major Infrastructure Phasing
Clarification Memorandum - August 2008, Page 3
Sub-
Phase
(Village)
Contiguous
Improvements
Non-Contiguous
Improvements
Interior Improvements Villages Able to
Construct out of
sequence with this
sub-phase 95
19 None
Bellevue Road
Frontage
• Franciscan Dr
(Arrow Wood)
(Freemark Ave to R
St)
1,8 10
• Fahrens Creek Bridge at
Franciscan Dr (Arrow
Wood) 8 10
• V-19 streets and
utilities
• Concurrent with
Village 17
Lot Q None • None • Lot Q streets &
utilities
• Concurrent with

BIIP II
22-East6
(MFR)
• M Street
(Barclay
Drive to
Bellevue
Road) (2
lanes) on east
side including
Transit
Circle w/ V-
21 segments
,
8 • Bellevue/G Signal1, 8,
• Bellevue Rd: M St to
G St (3 lanes)8, 9
None None

22-West
(MFR)
• M Street
(Barclay
Drive to
Bellevue
Road) (2
lanes) on
west side
including
Transit
Circle w/ V-
21 segments
,
8 • Well site (Bellevue/R
St)7, 8
• Bellevue Rd: R St to
M St (3 lanes)8, 9
None None
216
(Comm)
• M & Bellevue Signal1 11,,
• G St: Bellevue to
Merced College (4
lanes total)3 10, or
Measure V Funds
• G & F oothill (Harvest)
Signal1 12
• Fahrens Creek Bridge
at Bellevue Rd(3
lanes)
8 13
• Cardella Rd/Round Hill
Dr (Freemark) signal (at
time western portion of
V-21 is developed.

None
96 Above
Bellevue
Road
Same as adopted in
the MDP, 5/15/95
(see below)
Non-Contiguous
Improvements
Each village’s streets and
utilities
20 • Fahrens Creek
Bypass
(Drainage
Phase 3)
• Fahrens Creek
Bypass (Phase 3)
• V. 20 streets and
utilities
23 None None • V. 23 streets and
utilities
24 • Well Site No. 6
• Old Lake Rd
(Nevada
Street) (2
lanes)
None • V. 24 streets and
utilities
25 • Collector
St./Fahrens Cr.

Bridge (near
Phase 23/24)
(omit)
• Collector St
(Farmland
Avenue)
/Fahrens Cr.

Bridge (near
Phase 20)
None • V. 25 streets and
utilities
26 • Old Lake Rd: 2
lanes (omit)
• Old Lake
Rd/Fahrens
Creek Bridge
(omit)
• G St: 2 lanes Old
Lake Rd to Bellevue
Rd (4 lanes total)
• G St/Collector St
Traffic Signal (near
Phase 20/23)
(complete)
• V. 26 streets and
utilities
27 • M St: 2 lane
ultimate section
• Collector St/Fahrens
Cr. Bridge (near
Phase 20/23)
• N/S
Collector/Bellevue
Signal
• V. 27 streets and
utilities
28 None None • V. 28 streets and
utilities
29 • M St: 2 lane
ultimate section
• N/S
Collector/Fahrens
Creek Bridge
(between M & R Sts.)
(omit)
• M St: 2 lanes (So. To
Bellevue)
• M St/Fahrens Creek
Bridge
• V. 29 streets and
utilities
Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan
Table 6.1—Major Infrastructure Phasing
Clarification Memorandum - August 2008, Page 4
97 Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan
Table 6.1—Major Infrastructure Phasing
Clarification Memorandum - August 2008, Page 5
30 • R St: 2 lanes
• Fire Station
• R St: 2 lanes ½ mile
north of Bellevue to
Bellevue Rd 10
• R St: 2 lanes
Bellevue to ½ mile
south of Bellevue (4
lanes total) 10
• R St
Bellevue/Fahrens
Creek Bridge: 2
lanes (4 lanes
total)13
• R St/Collector St
• V. 30 streets and
utilities
Traffic Signal (near
Phases 13/18)

31 None None • V. 31 streets and
utilities
32 None None • V. 32 streets and
utilities
33 • R St: 2 lanes
• Old Lake Rd: 2
lanes
• Old Lake Rd: 2 lanes
(in Phase 35)
• V. 33 streets and
utilities
34 None None • V. 34 streets and
utilities
35 None None • V. 35 streets and
utilities
36 None None • V. 36 streets and
utilities

Notes:
1A. The R Street improvements as well as the staging of signal improvements, including the specified lane configurations throughout the plan area have been revised as recommended by in Table 6 of the memorandum dated December 2, 2004 entitled “Timing of off -site roadway improvements for Bellevue Ranch” prepared by Fehr & Peers, except that: (a) the signal at “M” Street and Cardella Road will remain as a requirement of Phase 12; (b) the signal at “G” Street and Bellevue will remain a Village 22 -“East” requirement; (c) “G” Street road widening between Bellevue Road and Merced College will remain a Village 21 requirement; and the signal at Cardella Road and “G” Street will remain a Village 7 requirement.

1B. “R” Street will be constructed as shown in Table 6.1, not the Fehr & Peers memo dated 12-2-04. 98 N:\SHARED\PLANNING\APPLICATIONS\GPA\GPA 17-02_SUP Rev #12 to P-D #42 BRN & BRW\Environmental\Draft Env. Doc\Draft Addendum\Revised Draft 10-24-23\Appendix B - SUP Revision Table 6-1 Modifications.docx-RS

2. Not used. “R” Street will be constructed as shown in Table 6.1; the Fehr & Peers memo dated 12-2- 04 did not change the timing of this improvement.

3. The G Street improvements have not been revised as recommended by in Table 6 of the memorandum dated December 2, 2004 entitled “Timing of off-site roadway improvements for Bellevue Ranch” prepared by Fehr & Peers.

4. Projects revised due to lack of Corps of Engineers drainage projects:
a. Cottonwood Creek Bypass (Drainage Phase 1, 2): By Bellevue Ranch West, Villages 1-3. b. Fahrens Creek Bypass (Drainage Phase 1, 2, 3): deleted

5. Project moved to a later phase: Bellevue Rd: M to R (last 1 of 6 lanes) is moved into Phase 3/4.

6. The timing and responsibility (Crosswinds or Woodside) for these improvements in Village 21 (commercial) will be determined at the time of conditional use permit approval for this village.

7. Well site may be required sooner if deemed necessary by the City Engineer.

8. Improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy of any unit in this village.

9. Frontage improvements per Table B (Attachment H) of PC Staff Report #07-32 – 3rd Addendum.

10. North Merced Major Roadway Improvement Impact Fee (NMMRIIP)

11. To be installed at the time intersection improvements are made. PFFP Eligible.

12. To be installed as “warranted” per Traffic Study prepared by Traffic Engineering Consultant. PFFP Eligible.

13. City of Merced Capital Improvement Project PFFP Funds and Fees collected with Bellevue Ranch building permits.

14. City of Merced Capital Improvement Project utilizing PFFP funds.

Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan
Table 6.1—Major Infrastructure Phasing
Clarification Memorandum - August 2008, Page 7
99 33 | Page

This page left intentionally blank.

100

34 | Page

Appendix C
Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Greenhouse Gas Assessment, dated May 5, 2023
101

BELLEVUE RANCH GENERAL

PLAN AMENDMENTS

GREENHOUSE GAS

ASSESSMENT
Merced, California

May 5, 2023

Prepared for:

Rick Mummert
Benchmark Engineering, Inc.
915 17th Street
Modesto, CA 95354

Prepared by:

Jay Witt and Jordyn Bauer

429 E. Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
(707) 794-0400

I&R Project: 23-044
102
1 INTRODUCTION

This report assesses the greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts associated with the proposed General Plan Amendments (GPA) for the Bellevue Ranch area located south of Bellevue Road and west of G Street in Merced, California. The Bellevue Ranch General Plan and subsequent development projects were entitled in 1995 when a GHG analysis was not required. Recently, the project owner has made changes to the approved plan (i.e., the proposed GPA) to reduce residential densities for seven yet -to-be developed parcels and replace some of the planned commercial/office development on seven yet-to-be developed parcels within the area to dedicated open/park space.

Because of the proposed GPA, an amendment to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document is required, which triggers the need to analyze the GHG impacts of the portions of the plan which are being changed.

The approved 1995 plan included the following l and uses spread amongst 238.86 acres of “Villages:”
• 212 Low Density Residential Units
• 789 Low to Medium Residential Units
• 472 High to Medium Density Residential Units
• 343 Village Residential Units
• 292,941 square-feet (sf) of Regional Community Commercial • 301,653 sf of Neighborhood Commercial
• 5.81 acres of Open Space/Park Recreation

The GPA would revise these totals to include more open space, impacting 225.85 acres of “Villages:”
• 230 Low Density Residential Units
• 372 Low to Medium Residential Units
• 466 High to Medium Density Residential Units
• 120 Village Residential Units
• No (0 sf) Regional Community Commercial
• 161,934 sf of Neighborhood Commercial
• 52.5 acres of Open Space/Park Recreation

GREENHOUSE GASES (GHGs)

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, Greenhouse gases (GHGs), regulate the earth’s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO 2) and water vapor but there
are also several others, most importantly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These are released into the earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities. Sources of GHGs are generally as follows:

• CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. • N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops. 103
2 • CH4 is commonly created by off -gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations.
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents but their production has been stopped by international treaty. • HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling. • PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semi-conductor manufacturing.

Each GHG has its own potency and effect upon the earth’s energy balance. This is expressed in terms of a global warming potential (GWP), with CO
2 being assigned a value of 1 and sulfur
hexafluoride being several orders of magnitude stronger. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its GWP and is measured in units of CO2 equivalents (CO2e).

An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global climate change is currently affecting changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California are adversely affected by the global warming trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise will increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also occur. Potential effects of global climate change that could adv ersely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat -related stress; an increase in climate- sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes, and drought; wildfires and increased levels of air pollution.

REGULATORY ACTIONS FOR GHG EMISSIONS

State of California

Executive Order S-3-05 – California GHG Reduction Targets

Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 to set GHG emission reduction targets for California. The three targets established by this EO are as follows:
(1) reduce California’s GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, (2) reduce California’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and (3) reduce California’s GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Assembly Bill 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006)

Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming S olutions Act of 2006, codified the State’s GHG emissions targets by directing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to reduce the State’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 was signed and passed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. Since that time, the CARB, California Energy Commission (CEC) , California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and Building Standards Commission have all developed regulations that will help meet the goals of AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, which has a target of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels.

104
3 The first Scoping Plan for AB 32 was adopted by CARB in December 2008. It contained the State’s main strategies to reduce GHGs from business- as-usual emissions projected in 2020 back down to 1990 levels. Business -as-usual (BAU) is the projected emissions in 2020, including increases in emissions caused by growth, without any GHG reduction measures. The Scoping Plan had a range of GHG reduction actions, including direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non- monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market -based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system.

As directed by AB 32, CARB has also approved a statewide GHG emissions limit. On December 6, 2007, CARB staff resolved an amount of 427 million metric tons (MMT) of CO 2e as the total statewide GHG 1990 emissions level and 2020 emissions limit. The limit was a cumulative statewide limit, not a sector- or facility-specific limit. CARB updated the future 2020 BAU annual emissions forecast, due to the economic downturn in 2010, to 545 MMT of CO 2e. Two GHG emissions reduction measures that were not previously included in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory were included, further reducing the baseli ne inventory to 507 MMT of CO 2e. Thus, an estimated reduction of 80 MMT of CO2e was necessary to reduce statewide emissions to meet the AB 32 target by 2020.

Senate Bill 375 – California's Regional Transportation and Land Use Planning Efforts (2008)

California enacted legislation (SB 375) to expand the efforts of AB 32 by controlling indirect GHG emissions caused by urban sprawl. SB 375 provide d incentives for local governments and applicants to implement new conscientiously planned growth patterns. This include d incentives for creating attractive, walkable, and sustainable communities and revitalizing existing communities. The legislation also allow ed applicants to bypass certain environmental reviews under CEQA if they buil t projects consistent with the new sustainable community strategies.

Development of more alternative transportation options that would reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, along with traffic congestion, was encouraged. SB 375 enhanced CARB’s ability to reach the AB 32 goals by directing the agency in developing regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from the transportation sector for 2020 and 2035. CARB works with the metropolitan planning organizations to align their regional transportation, housing, and land use plans to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and demonstrate the region's ability to attain its GHG reduction targets.

Senate Bills 350 and 100 - Renewable Portfolio Standards

In September 2015, the California Legislature passed SB 350, which increase d the states Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) for content of electrical generation from the 33 percent target for 2020 to a 50 percent renewables target by 2030.

In September 2018, SB 100 was signed by Governor Brown to revise California’s RPS program goals, furthering California’s focus on using renewable energy and carbon-free power sources for its energy needs. The bill requires all California utilities to supply a specific percentage of their retail sales from renewable resources by certain target years. By December 31, 2024, 44 percent of the retails sales would need to be from renewable energy sources, by December 31, 2026 the target would be 40 per cent, by December 31, 2027 the target would be 52 percent, and by December 31, 2030 the target would be 60 percent. By December 31, 2045, all California utilities 105
4 would be required to supply retail electricity that is 100 percent carbon -free and sourced fr om eligible renewable energy resources to all California end-use customers.

SB 743 Transportation Impacts

Senate Bill 743 required lead agencies to abandon the old “level of service” metric for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts, which was based solely on the amount of delay experienced by motor vehicles. In response, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) developed a VMT metric that considered other factors such as reducing GHG emissions and developing multimodal transportation.
1 A VMT -per-capita metric was adopted into the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 in November 2017. Given current baseline per -capita VMT levels computed by CARB in the 2017 Scoping Plan of 22.24 miles per day for light-duty vehicles and 24.61 miles per day for all vehicle types, the reductions needed to achieve the 2050 climate goal are 16.8 percent for light-duty vehicles and 14.3 percent for all vehicle types combined. Based on this analysis (as well as other factors), OPR recommended using a 15 -percent reduction in per capita VMT as an appropriate threshold of significance for evaluating transportation impacts.

1 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December.
106
5 Executive Order B-55-18 – Carbon Neutrality

In 2018, a new statewide goal was established to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and to maintain net negative emissions thereafter. CARB and other relevant state agencies are tasked with establishing sequestration targets and creating policies/programs that would meet this goal.

Executive Order B-30-15 & Senate Bill 32 - GHG Reduction Targets

In April 2015, Governor Brown signed EO B -30-15, which extended the goals of AB 32, setting a GHG emissions target at 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. On September 8, 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which established the GHG reduction target of 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. In November 2017, CARB issued California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, replacing the 2008 Plan.
2 In December 2022, CARB adopted a Scoping Plan Update to reflect the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The 2022 Plan Update:

• Identifies a path to keep California on track to meet its SB 32 GHG reduction target of at least 40 percent below 1990 emissions by 2030.
• Identifies a technologically feasible, cost -effective path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier.
• Focuses on strategies for reducing California’s dependency on petroleum to provide consumers with clean energy options that address climate change, improve air quality, and support economic growth and clean sector jobs.
• Integrates equity and protecting California’s most impacted communities as a driving principle.
• Incorporates the contribution of natural and working lands to the state’s GHG emissions , as well as its role in achieving carbon neutrality.
• Relies on the most up to date science, including the need to deploy all viable tools, including carbon capture and sequestration as well as direct air capture. • Evaluates multiple options for achieving our GHG and carbon neutrality targets, as well as the public health benefits and economic impacts associated with each.

The Scoping Plan Update lays out how the state can get to carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. It is also the first Scoping Plan that adds carbon neutrality as a science- based guide and touchstone beyond statutorily established emission reduction targets. 3 The mid-term 2030 target is considered critical by CARB on the path to obtaining an even deeper GHG emissions target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as directed in Executive Order S- 3-05. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update outlines the suite of policy measures, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure, providing a blueprint to continue

2 California Air Resource Board, 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Targets. November. Web:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf 3 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents 107
6 driving down GHG emissions and to not only obtain the statewide goals, but cost -effectively achieve carbon -neutrality by 2045 or earlier. In the 2022 Scoping Plan Update, CARB recommends:

• VMT per capita reduced 12% below 2019 levels by 2030 and 22% below 2019 levels by 2045.
• 100% of Light-duty vehicle sales are zero emissions vehicles (ZEV) by 2035. • 100% of medium duty/heavy duty vehicle sales are ZEV by 2040. • 100% of passenger and other locomotive sales are ZEV by 2030. • 100% of line haul locomotive sales are ZEV by 2035.
• All electric appliances in new residential and commercial building s beginning 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial).
• 80% of residential appliance sales are electric by 2030 and 100% of residential appliance sales are electric by 2035.
• 80% of commercial appliance sales are electric by 2030 and 100% of commercial appliance sales are electric by 2045.

California Building Standards Code – Title 24 Part 11 & Part 6

The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) is part of the California Building Standards Code under Title 24, Part 11.
4 The CALGreen Code encourages sustainable
construction standards that involve planning/design, energy efficiency, water efficiency resource efficiency, and environmental quality. These green building standard codes are mandatory statewide and are applicable to residential and non -residential developments. The most recent CALGreen Code (2022 California Building Standard Code) was effective as of January 1, 2023.

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code) is under Title 24, Part 6 and is overseen by the CEC. This code includes design requirements to conserve energy in new residential and non-residential developments, while being cost effective for homeowners. This Energy Code is enforced and verified by cities during the planning and building permit process.

The current energy efficiency standards (2022 Energy Code) replaced the 2019 Energy Code as of January 1,2023. The 2022 Energy Code builds on California’s technology innovations, encouraging inclusion of market-ready electric products in new construction, such as heat pumps for climate control and water heating. Under the 2022 standards, all new homes are required to be electric-ready. That means buildings with gas stoves have electrical panels and wiring to support a switch to electric stoves. This Energy code also strengthens ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality. This update provides crucial steps in the state’s progress toward 100 percent clean carbon neutrality by midcentury.
5 CEC studies have identified the most aggressive electrification scenario as putting the building sector on track to reach the carbon neutrality goal by 2045. 6 Installing new natural gas

4 See: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Resources/Page-Content/Building-Standards-Commission-Resources-List- Folder/CALGreen#:~:text=CALGreen%20is%20the%20first%2Din,to%201990%20levels%20by%202020. 5 See: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/CEC_2022_EnergyCodeUpdateSummary_ADA.pdf 6 California Energy Commission. 2021. Final Commission Report: California Building Decarbonization Assessment. 108
7 infrastructure in new buildings will interfere with this goal. To meet the State’s goal, communities have been adopting “Reach” codes that prohibit natural gas connections in new and remodeled buildings.

Requirements for electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure are set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and are regularly updated on a 3 -year cycle. The CALGreen standards consist of a set of mandatory standards required for new deve lopment, as well as two more voluntary standards known as Tier 1 and Tier 2. The CalGreen 2022 standards require deployment of additional EV chargers in various building types, including multifamily residential and nonresidential land uses. They include re quirements for both EV capable parking spaces and the installation of Level 2 EV supply equipment for multifamily residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2022 CALGreen standards include both mandatory requirements and more aggressive voluntary Tier 1 and Tier 2 provisions for both EV readiness and the actual installation of EV chargers. Providing EV charging infrastructure that meets current CALGreen requirements will not be sufficient to power the anticipated more extensive level of EV penetration in the future that is needed to meet SB 32 climate goals.

Advanced Clean Cars

The Advanced Clean Cars Program, originally adopted by CARB in 2012, was designed to bring together CARB’s traditional passenger vehicle requirements to meet federal air quality standards and also support California’s AB 32 goals to develop and implement programs to reduce GHG emissions back down to 1990 levels by 2020, a goal achieved in 2016 as a result of numerous emissions reduction programs.

This recent rule, Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) is phase two of the original rule. ACC II establishes a year -by-year process, starting in 2026, so all new cars and light trucks sold in California will be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The regulation codifies the light -duty vehicle goals set out in Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-79-20. Currently, 16 percent of new light- duty vehicles sold in California are zero emissions or plug-in hybrids. By 2030, 68 percent of new vehicles sold in California would be zero emissions and 100 percent by 2035.

National and Statewide GHG Emissions

The U.S. EPA reported that in 2022, total gross nationwide GHG emissions were 5,215.6 million metric tons (MMT) CO
2e.7 These emissions were lower than peak levels of 7,416 MMT that were emitted in 2007. CARB updates the statewide GHG emission inventory on an annual basis where the latest inventory includes 2000 through 2019 emissions. 8 In 2019, GHG emissions from statewide emitting activities were 418.2 MMT CO 2e. The 2019 emissions have decreased by 30 percent since peak levels in 2007 and are 7.2 MMT CO 2e lower than 2018 emissions level and

Publication Number CEC-400-2021-006-CMF.August
7 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2022. Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2020. February. Web: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and- sinks
8 CARB. 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emission for 2000 to 2019. Web:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf 109
8 almost 13 MMT CO 2e below the State’s 2020 GHG limit of 431 MMT CO 2e. Per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 14.0 MT CO 2e per person to 10.5 MT CO2e per person in 2019.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

In August 2008, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) adopted the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The goals of the CCAP are to establish the Air District’s processes for assessing the significance of GHG impacts for projects permitted by the District; assist local land use agencies, developers, and the pu blic by identifying and quantifying GHG emission reduction measures for development projects, and by providing tools to streamline evaluation of project specific GHG effects; ensure that collateral emissions from GHG emission reduction projects do not adversely impact public health or environmental justice communities in the Valley; and assist Valley businesses in complying with state law related to GHG emission reduction. In particular, the CCAP directed the SJVAPCD’s Air Pollution Control Officer to develop guidance to assist Air District staff, Valley businesses, land use agencies, and other permitting agencies in addressing GHG emissions as part of the CEQA process. Pursuant to this directive, on December 17, 2009, SJVAPCD adopted Guidance for Valley Land- Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (described below). The CCAP also directs Air District staff to investigate and develop a GHG banking program, enhance the existing emissions inventory process to include GHG emissions reporting consistent with state requirements, and administer voluntary GHG emission reduction agreements.

SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts under CEQA

Under its mandate to provide local agencies with assistance in complying with CEQA in climate change matters, the SJVAPCD developed its Guidance for Valley Land-Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts for New Projects under CEQA . As a general principal to be applied in determining whether a proposed project would be deemed to have a less-than-significant impact on global climate change, a project must be in compliance with an approved GHG emission reduction plan that is supported by a CEQA -compliant environmental document or be determined to have reduced or mi tigated GHG emissions by 29 percent relative to Business- As-Usual conditions, consistent with GHG emission reduction targets established in C ARB’s Scoping Plan for AB 32 implementation. The SJVAPCD guidance is intended to streamline the process of determining if project specific GHG emissions would have a significant effect. The proposed approach relies on the use of performance-based standards and their associated pre-quantified GHG emission reduction effectiveness (Best Performance Standards, or BPS). Establishing BPS is intended to help project proponents, lead agencies, and the public by proactively identifying effective, feasible mitigation measures. Emission reductions achieved through implementation of BPS would be pre-quantified, thus reducing the need for project specific quantification of GHG emissions. For land use development projects, BPS would include emissions reduction credits for project features such as bicycle racks and pedestrian access to public transit. Projects implementing a sufficient level of BPS would be determined to have a less -than-significant individual and cumulative impact on global climate change and would not require project specific quantification of GHG emissions. For all projects for which the lead agency ha s determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required, quantification of GHG emissions would be required whether or not the project incorporates BPS. SJVAPCD’s guidance document does not constitute a rule or regulation but is intended for use 110
9 by other agencies in their assessment of the significance of project impacts to global climate change under CEQA.

City of Merced

Merced Vision 2030 General Plan

The City’s General Plan, Merced Vision 2030, serves as a blueprint for growth, establishing goals, objectives, and policies to guide planning decisions and provides the platform for local action in addressing air quality, energy, and climate change issues. Merced Vision 2030 was adopted in 2012 and has a horizon year of 2030. Applicable goals, policies, and implementing actions presented in Merced Vision 2030 are as follows:

Goal Area SD-1: Air Quality and Climate Change
• Policy SD-1.1: Accurately determine and fairly mitigate the local and regional air quality impacts of projects proposed in the City of Merced.

o Implementing Actions 1.1.a: Implement uniform standards, analysis methods, and significance thresholds recommended by the Air District for mitigating air quality impacts resulting from development.

o Implementing Actions 1.1.b: Ensure that significant air quality impacts identified during CEQA review are consistently and fairly mitigated.

o Implementing Actions 1.1.c: All air quality mitigation measures should be feasible, implementable, and cost effective.

o Implementing Actions 1.1.d: Work with the SJVAPCD to identify regional cumulative transportation and air quality impacts.

o Implementing Actions 1.1.e: Reduce the air quality impacts of development projects that may be insignificant by themselves, but cumulatively are significant.

o Implementing Actions 1.1.f: Encourage innovative measures to reduce air quality impacts by coordinating with the SJVAPCD, project applicants, and other interested parties.

o Implementing Actions 1.1.g: Include the evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change in environmental review documents prepared by the City.

• Policy SD-1.2: Coordinate local air quality programs with regional programs and those of neighboring jurisdictions.

o Implementing Actions 1.2.a: Work w ith neighboring jurisdictions and affected agencies to address cross- jurisdictional and regional 111
10 transportation and air quality issues.

o Implementing Actions 1.2.b: Consult with the SJVAPCD during CEQA review for discretionary projects.

• Policy SD-1.3: Integrate land use planning, transportation planning, and air quality planning for the most efficient use of public resources and for a healthier environment.

• Policy SD-1.7: Develop and implement a Climate Action Plan for the City.

o Implementing Actions 1.7.a: Work with neighboring jurisdictions and affected agencies to address cross- jurisdictional and regional transportation and air quality issues.

o Implementing Actions 1.7.b: Once adopted, amend City policies and ordinances as needed to implement the goals, policies, and actions of the Climate Action Plan.

o Implementing Actions 1.7.c: As part of the development of the Climate Action Plan and in the spirit of AB 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a variety of suggested measures from the California Climate Action Team Strategies and the Department of Justice Attorney General will be considered and evaluated by the City for possible future implementation.

o Implementing Actions 1.7.d: In addition to the measures described in SD-

1.7.c, during the preparation of the City’s Climate Action Plan, the City will evaluate and consider additional policies and measures for possible future implementation.

• Policy SD-1.8: Implement Policies in Other General Plan Chapters to Address Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Goals.

o Implementing Actions 1.8.a: Continue implementation of land use, transportation, urban expansion, urban design, open space, and public facilities General Plan policies that address air quality goals.

o Implementing Actions 1.8.b: Continue implementation of land use, transportation, urban expansion, urban design, open space, and public facilities General Plan policies that address greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.

Climate Action Plan

On October 1, 2012, The City of Merced adopted its current Climate Action Plan (CAP) . It includes goals, strategies, and actions to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, consistent with the state objectives set forth in AB 32. The CAP’s emission inventory for 2008 112
11 showed the City emitted 497,896 metric tons (MT) of CO2e.9 As a point of comparison, statewide emissions were about 444 million MT of CO 2e in 2011. Achieving the AB 32 target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 required a 147,915 MT reduction of CO2e. T he majority of reductions were achieved through building energy conservation (30.5% reduction), renewable energy initiatives (23% reduction), and enhanced mobility (21% reduction). Future updates to the CAP can add later target years and additional strategies needed to achieve those targets beyond 2020.

In 2013, the City launched an effort, building upon the CAP, to create a suite of tools to identify and monitor near-term community GHG emission reduction efforts, adoption of new development - related codes, and to create an urban design manual that graphically demonstrates City development policies and codes in a user -friendly format. Collectively, these tools are referred to as the Programmatic Climate Action Plan, or PCAP. The PCAP provides a development checklist that streamlines the City’s permitting process as it applies to CEQA-based GHG emission assessments.

The Residential and Nonresidential Project Options Checklist, provided as Attachment 1, summarizes the criteria for a project to claim consistency with the CAP and thereby access CEQA permit streamlining for purposes of analyzing GHG emissions. Projects that demonstrate consistency with the CAP by meeting criteria on the checklist are eligible to rely on the City’s analysis of GHG emissions for purposes of CEQA. Rather than prescribe a mandatory set of actions that all new projects must meet for CAP consistency, projects can c hoose from one of several options in the applicable checklist, also referred to as “performance measures.” Where certain CAP performance measures also have a visual component, the City provides further guidance in the Unif ied Design Manual (UDM). Together, the Project Options checklists and UDM use a performance- based approach to identify measures and performance requirements for new projects seeking consistency with the CAP.
10 Impact GHG-1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly , that may have a significant impact on the environment?

It is generally accepted that individual development projects, in and of themselves, are too small to have a perceptible effect on global climate. However, the GHG emissions from each development project results in an incremental contribution to global warming and climate change. The scope of climate change is global, and the cumulative emissions of GHGs globally have resulted in cumulatively significant climate change impacts. Thus, in CEQA terms, GHG emissions associated with individual development projects are by nature cumulative in their effects. A significant impact would occur if the GHG emissions associated with the GPA represent a considerable contribution to the cumulatively significant impacts resulting from global climate change. As such, the focus of this analysis is to determine whether the GHG emissions associated with the GPA represent a considerable contribution to the cumulatively significant impacts resulting from global climate change.

9 City of Merced. 2012. Merced Climate Action Plan. October. Web:
https://www.cityofmerced.org/departments/development-services/planning-division/climate-action-plan/-folder- 1228.
10 City of Merced. Programmatic Climate Action Plan and Environmental Permit Streamlining. Web:
https://www.cityofmerced.org/departments/development-services/planning-division/programmatic-climate-action- plan.
113
12 GHG emissions associated with the proposed GPA would occur over the short -term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust, worker vehicles, and vendor vehicle trips. There would also be long- term emissions associated with vehicular traffic within the project vicinity, energy and water usage, and solid waste disposal.

SJVAPCD Methodologies

The SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land-Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts for New Projects under CEQA provides for three alternative methodologies for evaluating project’s potential impact on climate change and determination reducing GHG emissions from a project to less-than-significant levels. These include: (1) Demonstrate compliance with a locally-adopted GHG reduction plan (i.e., City of M erced CAP or PCAP ); (2) Demonstrate implementation of a combination of Air District-approved and pre-qualified BPS, which taken together are deemed to result in a 29 percent reduction in project GHG emissions rela tive to Business-As-Usual (BAU) conditions; or (3) For projects not implementing BPS, quantification of project GHG emissions and comparison to GHG emissions from BAU conditions in order to demonstrate a 29 percent reduction in emissions relative to BAU conditions. BAU is defined as the operation of the proposed project with emission factors from the 2002-2004 baseline period established by the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

Land use projects not achieving the necessary reductions would be considered to have a significant impact. It is important to note that projects that require the preparation of an EIR for any reason are required to quantify GHG emissions, even if they are compliant with an adopted climate action plan or are implementing BPS.

CalEEMod Modeling

CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) was used to quantify GHG emissions from project operations-related activities assuming full build-out of the project by 2035 and a BAU scenario using 2005 emissions factors. GHG emissions from the GPA would be generated primarily from autos driven by future residents, employees, customers, and vendors and for energy use associated with the land use changes. The land use types, size, and other area-specific information were input to the model. The use of this model for evaluating emissions from land use projects is recommended by the SJVAPCD.

Unless otherwise noted below, the CalEEMod model defaults for Merced County in 2035 and 2005 were used. CalEEMod model outputs are included in Attachment 2.

CalEEMod Land Uses

The land uses associated with the GPA were input into CalEEMod as summarized in Table 1. The amounts of each land use type were provided by the applicant. 11 These were used for both the
build-out (2035) and BAU (2005) scenarios.

11 Via email from Mark Niskanen, J.B. Anderson Lan Use Planning, March 30, 2023. Bellevue Ranch GPA Land Ise Matrix as finalized 3-30-23.docx.
114
13 Table 1. Land Uses Entered into CalEEMod
GPA Land Use Category CalEEMod Land Use Type Amount
Unit of
Measure
Neighborhood Commercial General Office Building 80.97 1,000-sf Open Space/Park Recreation City Park 52.5 Acres
High to Medium Density
Residential Apartments Low Rise 466 Dwelling Units
Low to Medium Residential Condo/Townhouse 372 Dwelling Units Low Density Residential Single Family Housing 230 Dwellings Village Residential Single Family Housing 120 Dwellings Neighborhood Commercial Strip Mall 80.97 1,000-sf

The GPA would change the amounts of several land use categories built in the plan area.

CalEEMod uses specific land use categories to estimate emissions. Thus, the categories identified in the GPA were related to the CalEEMod land use categories as shown in Table 1. Because the specific type of commercial land use was not identified by the applicant, it was assumed to be half (i.e., 50 percent) office and half (i.e., 50 percent) strip mall type retail use. These categories are used by the model to estimate GHG emissions related to mobile sources (i.e., traffic), energy use, waste, and water/wastewater.

Mobile Source Emissions

GHG emissions from on-road mobile sources (i.e., traffic) were estimated for both the 2035 build- out scenario and the BAU scenario using CalEEMod default emissions rates, trip generation rates, and trip lengths. Version 2020.4.0 of CalEEMod uses emissions factors from CARB’s EMFAC2017 emissions model and ITE trip generation rates. More information on how the model calculates GHG emissions from traffic can be found in the model’s technical documentation. 12 Note that the mobile
emissions modeling does not reflect the effect of California’s recently adopted Advanced Clean Car, Phase II regulation that will require an increased phase in of electric vehicles from 35 percent in 2026 to 100 percent in 2035. The current version of CalEEMod that is based on EMFAC2017 underestimates the effect of this regulation. Future updates to the State’s EMFAC model will reflect the effect of this regulation.

Energy

GHG emissions modeling includes those indirect emissions from electricity consumption. Default 2019 Title 24 Building Standards were used to estimate energy consumption. The 2035 build-out scenario used the C alEEMod default for Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E’s) energy emission factor for CO
2 per megawatt of electricity produced and the default 201 9 Title 24 Building Standards energy intensity factors. The PG&E factor is based on 2019 emissions rates. Note that PG&E’s carbon intensity for delivered electricity has decrease d by 64 percent over the last 10 years. PG&E plans to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, by substantially reducing emissions by 2040 and neutralizing remaining emissions by 205013.

12 Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide 13 PG&E Climate Strategy Report. June 2022
115
14 The BAU emissions estimate used default emission factor for PG&E in the previous version of the CalEEMod model (Version 2016.3.2) of 641.3 pounds of CO 2 per megawatt of electricity produced. This factor is based on PG&E’s 2008 emissions rate.

Wood-Burning Devices

CalEEMod default inputs assume new residential construction would include woodburning fireplaces and stoves. The project would not include wood- burning devices, as these devices are prohibited by SJVAPCD Rule 4901.
14 Therefore, the number of woodstoves and woodburning
fireplaces in CalEEMod were set to zero and assigned as natural gas in both the 2035 build-out and BAU scenarios.

Water Usage and Wastewater

CalEEMod assigns water usage rates for the various land uses based on statewide rates developed prior to the model in 2008. Water/wastewater use was changed to 100 percent aerobic conditions for both the 2035 build-out and BAU scenarios to represent the City’s wastewater treatment plant conditions. The GPA area would not send wastewater to septic tanks or facultative lagoons.

Solid Waste

CalEEMod defaults were used to estimate GHG emissions associated with solid waste generation for both the 2035 build-out and BAU scenarios.

Summary of Computed GHG Emissions

The CalEEMod model estimated annual emissions associated with the GPA’s 2035 built-out and the BAU scenario. In 2035, annual emissions are calculated to be 13,725 MT of CO 2e, as shown in Table

2. The percent reduction when compared to the BAU scenario is estimated to be approximately 43 percent, 14 percent over the 29 percent reduction target. Therefore, per SJVAPCD methodologies for identifying Project-Specific GHG Emissions impacts per the Guidance for Valley Land- Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts for New Projects under CEQA, the proposed GPA would have a less-than-significant impact as it exceeds the 29 percent reduction in GHG emissions needed relative to BAU conditions.

Additionally, the project is required to comply with the City’s PCAP and UDM. The project check list (Attachment 1) includes several applicable strategies individual projects in the GPA area can include to ensure adherence to in the City’s CAP.

14 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, https://ww2.valleyair.org/compliance/residential-wood-smoke- reduction-program/rule-4901-wood-burning-fireplaces-and-wood-burning-heaters/ 116
15 TABLE 2. Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO2e) in Metric Tons Source Category
BAU Emissions 2035 Project
Emissions
Area 685 685
Energy Consumption 3,536 1,967
Mobile 18,873 10,392
Solid Waste Generation 458 458
Water Usage 414 223
Total 23,966 13,725
Percent Reduction 42.7 percent
SJVAPCD Reduction Target for Project-Specific
Emissions (for Projects not compliant with a CAP
or not implementing BPS)

29 percent

Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

The City of Merced has a CAP and a PCAP/UDM that enforce its building codes, which aim to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, if individual project s included in the GPA conform to City building Codes, the GPA would conform with the CAP and would not conflict with local plans, policies, or regulations applicable to GHG emissions. The projects proposed as part of the overall GPA would be constructed in conformance with at minimum the 2022 C alGreen and the Title 24 Building Codes, which requires high-efficiency water fixtures, water-efficient irrigation systems, and compliance with current energy efficiency standards. Compliance with these standards ensures compliance with State and federal plans, policies, and regulations applicable to GHG emissions.

117

Attachment 1: PCAP Checklists
118
City of Merced Climate Action Plan
Draft Technical Memorandum #4

Section IV: Performance-based Development
This section discusse s the new performance-based development approach and its role in implementing the measures in the CAP that apply to new development projects . The Residential and Nonresidential Project Options checklist s summarize the criteria for a project to claim consistency with the CAP and thereby access CEQA permit streamlining for purposes of analyzing GHG emissions. Projects that demonstrate consistency with the CAP by meeting criteria on th ese checklists are eligible to rely on the City’s analysis of GHG emissions for purposes of CEQA. Rather than prescribe a mandatory set of actions that all new projects must meet for CAP consistency, projects can choose from one of several options in the applicable che cklist, also referred to as “performance measures .” Where certain CAP performance measures also have a visual component, the City provide s further guidance in the UDM.

Together, the Project Options checklists and UDM use a performance -based approach to ide ntify measures and performance requirements for new projects seeking consistency with the CAP. The minimum options a project must meet for CAP consistency are summarized in the Project Options checklists. Additional information and suggestions are provided in the UDM to help the City further communicate desired outcomes to project applicants.

If new projects are subject to CEQA but do not wish to comply with the CAP or UDM, they may elect to conduct an analysis of GHG emissions and climate change as requir ed by CEQA. Such projects are expected to meet all requirements of CEQA.

The performance -based approach allows projects seeking CAP consistency to choose measures that best meets the project’s needs . These measures have already been analyzed by the City a nd would result in new development collectively achieving reductions that would contribute toward the City’s GHG reduction target. The Project Options checklists summarize the options for new projects to comply with CAP measures. The checklists also identify where the UDM provides additional guidance to support projects as they seek to meet the criteria in the Project Options checklists. City staff will use the Project Options checklists and UDM as a basis for identifying conditions of approval for new projects seeking to demonstrate CAP consistency.

Performance Approach
New development projects can demonstrate compliance with the CAP by implementing a selection of specific reduction measures. Projects can choose to implement one of the options outlined below, each of which contains design criteria based on reduction measures from the CAP and PCAP. Projects can demonstrate compliance with the CAP by implementing all reduction measures in the selected option.

Each option shows the criteria that would reduce the project’s GHG emissions 29% below baseline levels consistent with Air District’s recommended CEQA Assessment Guidance . While new projects will implement these measures on a case -by-case basis, when the total impact of each new project’s GHG reductions is aggregated, collectively new development would achieve a measureable reduction in GHG emissions that helps the City achieve its adopted GHG reduction target of returning to 1990 GHG emissions levels by 2020. Additionally, the measure options allow proje cts to achieve GHG reductions that also meet the requirements of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Indirect Source Review Program for new development. The SJVAPCD’s Indirect Source Review rule requires that most projects reduc e emissions of other air pollutants below specified levels or pay mitigation fees. The measures in the Project Options checklists are intended to help facilitate compliance with the Indirect Source Review rule and other regulations; however, projects that fully comply with the CAP are not necessarily fully compliant with SJVAPCD rules. 119
City of Merced Climate Action Plan
Draft Technical Memorandum #4

As stated above , to demonstrate consistency with the CAP, each project must fully implement all measures in one of the applicable options. However, projects are not prohibite d from implementing individual measures that enable the project to potentially achieve reductions beyond what the CAP requires.

The reduction measures in the options are not a complete list of City requirements applicable to new development that reduce GHG emissions. For example, if a project chooses to demonstrate consistency by selecting Option 1, which only requires a renewable energy system of the specified size, the project may still be required to comply with existing City requirements that also help to reduce emissions.

Reductions from these items have already been accounted for in the PCAP.

Residential and Nonresidential Project Options Checklists The applicant will be asked to indicate the option the proposed project will include. Note that, in addition to the options for CAP consistency shown below, the City assumes credit for projects based on numerous regulations already under way. The following reductions from state -mandated actions are already attributed as credits toward the project for GHG re ductions, and cannot be claimed as additional credits to meet the performance-based options below:
• Compliance with California’s RPS, mandating that utilities procure 33% of their electricity from eligible renewable sources by the end of 2020.
• Vehicles with fuel efficiencies compliant with California’s AB 1493 standards, and using fuel that meets the requirements of the state Low Carbon Fuel Standard. • Compliance with the mandatory items of the California Building Standards Code, including all minimum energy efficiency requirements.

Projects cannot count these actions as additional credits for CAP consistency. Note that the performance-based approach also does not address reductions from water efficiency, reduced solid waste generation, and off -road equipment use; reductions from these items are achieved on a citywide basis year-by-year through other CAP implementation measures, which apply to both existing and new developments. The City implements these measures through other methods, rather than as conditions of approval on new development or remodels.

The options for performance -based compliance with the CAP are provided below in the Project Options checklists. The criteria for each option vary based on project type or the assumed level of participation. Eac h option provides a level playing field for new projects to select the types of GHG reduction measures that are most cost- effective or applicable to the project. While each option presents different criteria, each option would achieve a similar relative re duction of GHG emissions reductions. Based on analysis in the CAP, the City has determined that projects consistent with the criteria below are meeting the level of GHG reductions for new development identified in the CAP and contribute to the City’s achie vement of GHG reduction targets. Accordingly, the City will provide the opportunity for streamlining to projects that are consistent with one of the following options.

Note that each option for performance -based measures is further explained in the follow ing tables and sections.
120
City of Merced Climate Action Plan
Draft Technical Memorandum #4

Project Options Checklists
Residential Project Options and Associated Measures
# GHG Reduction Measures Option Set
1 2 3 4
1 Install a solar water heating system for indoor use for all units, and for any swimming pools included in the project.  
2 Construct all new buildings to CALGreen Tier 1 standards.  3a Establish an on -site renewable energy system: The system should be capable of producing at least 7,000 kWh annually for every residential unit (for a solar photovoltaic system, this is a 5 kW system per home).  3b Establish an on-site renewable energy system: The system should be capable of producing at least 4,300 kWh annually per unit (for a solar photovoltaic system, this is a 3 kW system per home).

4a Reduce vehicle trips (VMT) through measures that support alternative transportation options such as carpooling, walking and bicycling, and increased transit use. The project should use applicable designs from the UDM.

A 15%
reduction below average for project occupants should be 2,910 per person annually. *

4b Reduce vehicle trips (VMT) through measures that support alternative transportation options such as carpooling, walking and bicycling, and increased transit use. The project should use appli cable designs from the UDM. A 20% reduction below average for project occupants should be 2,730 per person annually. *

5 Utilize passive solar design techniques. 
6 Be located in an area of moderate road connectivity with small block sizes, using concepts illustrated in the City’s Unified Design Manual. †  7 Provide one EV charging station (Level 2 or Level 3) per unit.  8 Plant trees to provide shade to building. 
*Note: The per person average VMT for project occupants is based on the average VMT for residents and employees in Merced. Depending on the specific size and land use of the development projects, actual per person VMT for individual project occupants may be higher or lower than the target average presented here. This data would typically be available in the common types of project analysis that applicants must submit to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District for compliance with the Indirect Source Rule.
†Note: “Moderate road connectivity,” as identified by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, is at least 45 intersections per square mile.

121
City of Merced Climate Action Plan
Draft Technical Memorandum #4

Residential Project: Applicant Selection of Option with Measures Option Measure Set Selection: The applicant signs here to denote which option and measures will be installed with the project
1 3a
2 1, 3b, 4a
3 1, 4b, 5, 6
4 2, 7, 8

122
City of Merced Climate Action Plan
Draft Technical Memorandum #4

Nonresidential Project Options and Associated Measures
# GHG Reduction Measures Option Set
1 2 3 4
1 Install a solar water heating system for indoor use for all buildings.  2 Construct all new buildings to CALGreen Tier 1 standards.  
3a Establish an on -site renewable energy system: The system should be capable of producing at least 14,400 kWh annually for every nonresidential building (for a solar photovoltaic system, this is a 10 kW system for every nonresidential building).

3b Establish an on -site renewable energy system: The system should be capable of producing at least 7,200 kWh annually for the average business (for a solar photovoltaic system, this is 5 kW for business).

4a Reduce vehicle trips (VMT) through measures that support alternative transportation options such as carpooling, walking and bicycling, and increased transit use. The project should use applicable designs fro m the UDM. A 15% reduction below average for project occupants should be 2,910 per person annually. *

4b Reduce vehicle trips (VMT) through measures that support alternative transportation options such as carpooling, walking and bicycling, and increa sed transit use. The project should use applicable designs from the UDM. A 25% reduction below average for project occupants should be 2,550 per person annually. *

5 Utilize passive solar design techniques. 
6 Provide an EV charging station. 
7 Be located in a mixed -use residential/commercial building, with no less than 25% of floor space devoted to either type of use. 
*Note: The per person average VMT for project occupants is based on the average VMT for residents and employees in Merced. Depending on the specific size and land use of the development projects, actual per person VMT for individual project occupants may be higher or lower than the target average presented here.

This data would typically be available in the common types of project analysis that applicants must submit to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District for compliance with the Indirect Source Rule.

123
City of Merced Climate Action Plan
Draft Technical Memorandum #4

Nonresidential Project: Applicant Selection of Option with Measures Option Measure Set Selection: The applicant signs here to denote which option and measures will be installed with the project
1 2, 4b, 7
2 2, 3b, 4a
3 1, 5, 6
4 3a

124
Attachment 2: CalEEMod Modeling Output
Available upon request.
125

This page left intentionally blank.

126

Appendix D

Traffic Impact Study, dated May 10, 2023 and a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Project Comparison Assessment dated September 1. 2023

127

Transportation Engineers

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR

BELLEVUE RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Merced, CA

Prepared For:

Stonefield Homes
923 E. Pacheco Blvd.

Los Banos, CA 93635

Prepared By:

KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.
3853 Taylor Road, Suite G
Loomis, California 95650
(916) 660-1555

May 10, 2023

7043-05

Bellevue Ranch GPA TIA 5-10-23.doc
128

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR

BELLEVUE RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... i

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description........................................................................................................................... 1 Traffic Study Scope ......................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 2

EXISTING SETTING ................................................................................................................................ 6 Study Area - Roadways ................................................................................................................... 6 Study Area - Intersections ................................................................................................................ 7 Level of Service Analysis Procedures ........................................................................................... 10 Existing Traffic Conditions and Levels of Service ........................................................................ 14 Alternative Transportation Modes ................................................................................................. 19

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................................... 22 Project Use / Access Characteristics .............................................................................................. 22

LONG TERM YEAR 2035 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ............................................................... 26 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Daily Traffic Volumes / Levels of Service .................................................................................... 30 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes and Levels of Service ................................................................ 33

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 48

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................... 49

129

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page i Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR

BELLEVUE RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Merced, California

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Executive Summary is a brief overview of the analysis prese nted in this traffic impact analysis (TIA). It is not intended to be a comprehensive description of the analysis. For m ore details, the reader is referred to the full description presented in the TIA.

This TIA presents an analysis of the traffic -related effects of proposed amendments to the Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan (BRMDP).

Project Description

The BRMDP in cludes land use development on the north side of the City of Merced. The vicinity of the BRMDP is shown in Figure 1. The BRMDP was originally approved by the City of Merced in 1995. Since then, development of portions of the BRMDP has occurred, and the plan has been occasionally amended . The BRMDP includes a mix of residential and non - residential land use designations.

A revision to the currently-approved BRMDP is proposed, which would require an amendment to the City of Merced General Plan. The Gener al Plan Amendment (GPA) would reflect a change in land use designations for some of the undeveloped portions of the BRMDP.

The net change in the BRMDP area from the currently-approved land uses to the proposed land uses would be:

• a reduction in single family dwelling units,
• a reduction in multiple-family dwelling units,
• a reduction in retail commercial land use,
• elimination of self-storage land use, and
• an increase in primary public school facilities.

Study Scope

At City of Merced staff direction, this TIA considers the following scenarios:

• Existing Conditions;

• Year 2035 Cumulative Conditions with the Approved Bellevue Ranch development and circulation plan; and

130

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page ii Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
• Year 2035 Cumulative Conditions with the Proposed GPA land uses and circulation.

To identify the long-term cumulative effects of the proposed GPA, the analysis presented in this TIA compares traffic operations under 2035 wit h Approved BRMDP conditions to 2035 with Proposed BRMDP conditions.

Analysis of near-term future Existing conditions plus development of Proposed Bellevue Ranch land uses are addressed in a separate document, Transportation Impact Analysis and Traffic Operational Analysis for Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan Agreement Revisions to Table 6.1 – Circulation Improvements Phasing.

Study Area

The analysis presented in this TIA is intended to address the effects of the proposed GPA within a study area that is applicable to the project location and scale of the project.

The study area includes 17 intersections, which were analyzed during the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour.

The analysis also addresses the current conditions and project impacts to Arteri al and Collector roadway segments based on daily traffic volume. The analysis addresses 35 roadway segments.

Alternative Transportation Modes

Alternative modes of transportation include pedestrian travel, bicycles, and public transit. These modes of travel are described in this TIA and recommended improvements are presented.

Proposed Master Development Plan Site Plan

The proposed BRMDP site plan is shown in Figure 2. The portion of the site plan south of Bellevue Road is shown in Figure 3. The portion north of Bellevue Road is shown in Figure 4. 131
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 1

VICINITY MAP
7043-05 RA 5/10/2023

PROJECT

LOCATION
132
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 2

SITE PLAN
7043-05 RA 5/10/2023
133
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 3

PROPOSED SITE PLAN (SOUTH OF BELLEVUE ROAD)
7043-05 RA 5/10/2023
134
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 4

PROPOSED SITE PLAN (NORTH OF BELLEVUE ROAD)
7043-05 RA 5/10/2023
135

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page vii Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
Existing Conditions

Levels of Service. The City of Merced has established Level of Service (LOS) D as the minimum acceptable standard for intersections and roadways.

With one exception, current traffic conditions in the study area are acceptable based on satisfaction of minimum City of Merced standards for intersection LOS. The exception is the Olive Avenue / G Street intersection wh ich operates at LOS E in the a.m. peak hour. All of the study area roadway segments carry daily traffic volumes that indicate LOS D or better conditions under the Merced General Plan’s thresholds.

Traffic Signal Warrants. The unsignalized State Route ( SR) 59 / Bellevue Road intersection, and Bellevue Road / M Street intersection carry volumes that nearly satisfy warrants during the a.m. peak hour, but the M Street / Cardella Road intersection does not carry volumes that reach the level that satisfies peak hour traffic signal warrants during any time period.

Pedestrian Facilities. Sidewalks are generally absent along rural Merced County ro ads but are constructed as properties are annexed into the City of Merced and developed. Sidewalks are available along all the local and collector streets in the neighborhoods south of the project site where development has occurred. The traffic signals at Bellevue Road / Barclay Way and Bellevue Road / G Street also have crosswalks. Today there are no sidewalks along Bellevue Road west of Barclay Way.

Bicycle Facilities. The City of Merced General Plan includes the Bicycle Master Plan which identifies existing and planned facilities. Today Class II bike lanes exist on some of the developed collector streets south of the project site, on M Street and on the west side of G Street along the El Capitan High School (HS) fronta ge and south to Mercy Avenue. Both sides of G Street have bike lanes south of Mercy Avenue.

Transit Facilities. The public bus system, created in 1974, served the community as the Merced Transit System (MTS) / City Shuttle for more than two decades. Today the area of the project is served by The Bus. Route M1 – Merced West, M2 R Street Shuttle, M3 M Street Shuttle and M4 G Street Shuttle and UC Merced all reach the Yosemite Avenue / M Street intersection or travel along Yosemite Avenue by the site. All connect the site with the do wntown Transportation Center on 16th Street. (Merced Transit Authority 2023)

Year 2035 Cumulative Conditions

Basis for Traffic Volumes. The Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) Year 2035 travel demand forecast model was refined and used to d evelop background traffic volume projections that assume development of the BRMDP, as well as other area development.

Forecasts were made with the approved BRMDP and with the proposed GPA.

Assumed Improvements. The following regional improvements were a ssumed for this cumulative analysis:
136

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page viii Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

• MCAG RTP improvements are assumed in the MCAG traffic model • Widen SR 59 to 4-lanes from W. 16th Street beyond Bellevue Road • Campus Parkway extend to Yosemite Avenue
• Atwater-Merced Expressway (AME) extended to Bellevue Road • Cardella Road extended from SR 59 to M Street as 4-lane road • R Street extended to Bellevue Road as 4-lane road
• Bellevue Road widened east of SR 59 to 6-lane road

2035 With Approved BRMDP. Under 2035 Cumulative conditions with development of the Approved BRMDP, 15 of the 17 study intersections would operate under LOS considered unacceptable by the City of Merced du ring either the a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour, or both.

Recommended improvements are presented in this TIA. All study roadway segments would operate under LOS considered acceptable by the City of Merced.

2035 With Proposed BRMDP. Under 2035 Cumulative conditions with development of the Proposed BRMDP, 14 of the 17 study intersections would operate under LOS considered unacceptable by the City of Merced during either the a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour, or both. At three of the study intersections, the increase in delay is considered appreciable. Recommended improvements are presented in this TIA. All study roadway segments would operat e under LOS considered acceptable by the City of Merced.

137

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 1 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR

BELLEVUE RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Merced, California

INTRODUCTION

The following presets a description of proposed amendments to the BRMDP, and the scope of the analysis presented in this TIA.

Project Description

The Bellevue Ranch project site is located on the north side of th e City of Merced. The vicinity of the project site is shown in Figure 1. The BRMDP was originally approved by the City of Merced in 1995. Since then, development of portions of the BRMDP has occurred, and the plan has been occasionally amended. The BRM DP includes a mix of residential and non -residential land use designations.

A revision to the currently -approved BRMDP is proposed, whic h would require an amendment to the City of Merced General Plan. The GPA would reflect a change in land use designatio ns for some of the undeveloped portions of the BRMDP.

Previously-approved land uses in the BRMDP include:

• 4,873 single family dwelling units,
• 1,675 multiple family dwelling units,
• 618,000 building square feet of retail commercial land use, • 254,390 building square feet of commercial office land use, • 54,450 building square feet of self-storage land use, • primary public school facilities with 750 student enrollment, and • high school facilities with 1,800 student enrollment.

Proposed land uses in the BRMDP include:

• 3,805 single family dwelling units,
• 1,317 multiple family dwelling units,
• 500,400 building square feet of retail commercial land use, • 254,390 building square feet of commercial office land use, • primary public school facilities with 1,500 student enrollment, and • high school facilities with 1,800 student enrollment.

138

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 2 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
The net change in the BRMDP area from previously -approved land uses to proposed land uses would be:

• a reduction of 1,068 single family dwelling units,
• a reduction of 358 multiple-family dwelling units,
• a reduction 117,600 building square feet of retail commercial land use, • elimination of self-storage land use, and
• an increase in primary public school facilities with 750 student enrollment.

Traffic Study Scope

This analysis is intended to evaluate the traffic -related effects of implementing the proposed BRMDP amendments within a range of relevant scenarios as required und er City of Merced guidelines. The analysis considers traffic conditions occurring during weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, and during 24-hour daily periods.

At City of Merced staff direction, this TIA considers the following scenarios:

• Existing Conditions;

• Future Cumulative Conditi ons with the currently-approved BRMDP land use designations, and

• Future Cumulative Conditions with the proposed BRMDP amendments.

Analysis of near-term future Existing conditions plus development of Proposed Bellevue Ranch land uses are addressed in a separate document, Transportation Impact Analysis and Traffic Operational Analysis for Bell evue Ranch Master Development Plan Agreement Revisions to Table 6.1 – Circulation Improvements Phasing . The analysis of near -term scena rios is conducted with phased implementation of the BRMDP. The phased analysis was conducted to facilitate an update to Table 6.1 of the Bellevue Ranch Master Development Agreement.

Study Area

The study area includes the following 17 intersections, whic h were analyzed during the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour. The locations of the study intersections are shown in Figure 5:

1. G Street / Farmland Avenue

2. Bellevue Road / SR 59

3. Bellevue Road / R Street (future)

4. Bellevue Road / M Street

5. Bellevue Road / Barclay Way

6. Bellevue Road / G Street

7. Cardella Road / M Street
139

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 3 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

8. Cardella Road / G Street

9. Lehigh Street / M Street

10. Yosemite Avenue / SR 59

11. Yosemite Avenue / R Street

12. Yosemite Avenue / M Street

13. Yosemite Avenue / G Street

14. Olive Avenue / SR 59

15. Olive Avenue / R Street

16. Olive Avenue / M Street

17. Olive Avenue / G Street

The analysis also addresses the current conditions and project effects to Arterial and Collector roadway segments based on daily traffic volume. The analysis addresses the following roadway segments:

• Old Lake Road from SR 59 to R Street
• Old Lake Road from R Street to M Street
• Old Lake Road from M Street to G Street
• Old Lake Road from G Street to Golf Road
• Farmland Avenue from M Street to El Capitan HS
• Farmland Avenue from El Capitan Entrance to G Street
• Farmland Avenue from G Street to Golf Road
• Bellevue Road from SR 59 to R Street
• Bellevue Road from R Street to M Street
• Bellevue Road from M Street to Barclay Way
• Bellevue Road from Barclay Way to G Street
• Bellevue Road from G Street to Golf Road
• SR 59 from Nevada Street to Bellevue Road
• SR 59 from Bellevue Road to Cardella Road
• SR 59 from Cardella Road to Belcher Road
• SR 59 from Belcher Road to Yosemite Avenue
• SR 59 from Yosemite Avenue to Olive Avenue
• R Street from Old Lake Road to Bellevue Road
• G Street from Old Lake Road to Farmland Avenue
• G Street from Farmland Avenue to Bellevue Road
• G Street from Bellevue Road to Cardella Road
• Barclay Way from Farmland Avenue to Bellevue Road
• Barclay Way from Bellevue Road to M Street
• Cardella Road from SR 59 to R Street
• Cardella Road from R Street to M Street
• Cardella Road from M Street to G Street
• M Street from Old Lake Road to Bellevue Road
• M Street from Bellevue Road to Cardella Road
140

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 4 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
• M Street from Cardella Road to University Drive
• M Street from University Drive to Yosemite Avenue
• San Jose Avenue from University Drive to Yosemite Avenue • Yosemite Avenue from SR 59 to R Street
• Yosemite Avenue from R Street to M Street
• Yosemite Avenue from M Street to G Street
• Yosemite Avenue from G Street to Parsons Avenue
141
9 4 5 6
1 14
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 5

STUDY INTERSECTIONS
7043-05 RA 5/10/2023
15 16
17 11 12 1310
2 7 8
3 142

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 6 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

EXISTING SETTING

This section of the TIA presents a description of existing conditions in the study area.

Information presented in this section of the study is based on new traffic count data collected in 2022 to account for th e effects of recent development in the BRMDP and state -mandated changes to the schedule at El Capitan High School.

Study Area - Roadways

This study area addresses roadway segments and intersections near the project that may be affected by the proposed pr oject. Numerous arterial roadways provide regional access to the north Merced area. The following is a description of roadways that provide regional and local access to the proposed project site.

State Route 59. SR 59 is an important route through Mer ced County which links the City of Merced with SR 152 at the Madera County line and extends north to the Snelling are a of northern Merced County. SR 59 is a Major Arterial in the Merced General Plan (128’ ROW). In the vicinity of the BRMDP, SR 59 is a tw o-lane conventional highway which is being incrementally widened to a four -lane section as funds become available. I mplementation of improvements to SR 59 has been constrained by the UPRR at a two -lane at -grade crossing roughly midway between the Olive Av enue and Cooper Avenue – Willowbrook Drive intersections and by the two-lane structure across Rascal Creek north of Olive Avenue.

Traffic volume count data collected for this TIA indicates a daily volume of 12,705 vehicles per day between Yosemite Avenue and Belcher Road, with the volume dropping to 4,572 vehicles per day between Belcher Road and Bellevue Road.

Bellevue Road. Bellevue Road is an east -west Major Arterial that traverses Merced in the area roughly a mile north of Yosemite Avenue. Bellevue Road originates at an interchange on SR 99 in western Atwater and continues beyond the city across Merced County to an intersection on SR

59. Bellevue Road continues through the City of Merced to its eastern terminus at Lake Road and UC Merced. Ultimate ly the road is to be a six -lane facility under the Merced General Plan.

Today the portion of Bellevue Road near SR 5 9 is a two-lane facility, although portions near the G Street intersection have been widened to its ultimate width as adjoining development has occurred. The speed limit on Bellevue Road is 55 miles per hour (mph).

Cardella Road. Cardella Road is an eas t-west two-lane road that extends easterly from rural Merced County to SR 59. Another segment of Cardella Road exists in the BRMDP as a Di vided Arterial from Fahrens Creek across M Street east to G street. Ultimately , Cardella Road is to extend as a four -lane roadway from SR 59 to Lake Road, with the missing pieces installed as development proceeds. Completing Cardella Road is constrained by the need to bridge Fahrens Creek, which meanders through the BRMDP area.

143

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 7 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
Yosemite Avenue. Yosemite Avenue is an east-west Major Arterial / Divided Arterial that traverses Merced in the area roughly a mile north of Olive Avenue. In the study area of t he project, Yosemite Avenue is a four-lane facility with a 45 mph speed limit.

G Street. G Street is a north -south Arterial. G Street extends north from the downtown area as a four -lane roadway to the Yosemite Avenue intersection. Beyond that inters ection, the configuration of the road varies as portions of G Street have been widened to its ultimate six-lane section but a single through travel lane remains in other areas, including the segment from Mercy Avenue – Community College Drive. The posted speed limit on G Street is 45 mph south of Yosemite Avenue and 55 mph to the north.

M Street. M Street is a north -south Arterial that extends from downtown Merced to Bellevue Road. In the area of Yosemite Avenue, M Street is a divided four -lane roadway w ith on-street parking and Class 2 bike lanes. The roadway narrows to a two -lane facility from Cardella Road to Belle vue Road. The speed limit is 40 mph south of Yosemite Avenue and 45 mph to the north.

R Street. R Street is a north-south four-lane Arterial that extends north from downtown Merced to a point just beyond the Yosemite Avenue intersection. Ultimately, R Street will continue north across Bellevue Road to Nevada Street - Lake Road. South of Bellevue Road , R Street is separated from the BRMDP area by Fahrens Creek.

Barclay Way. Barclay Way is a Collector Street that extends north and south from Bellevue Road at a location midway between M Street and G Street. The southern leg continues to an intersection on M Street, while the northern leg extends to the El Capitan High School southwestern access.

Nevada Street - Old Lake Road. Nevada Street and Old La ke Road are rural east -west roadways that generally follow the northern BRMDP area boundary from SR 59 westerly to Gold Road. Today the route is discontinuous but the General Plan Circulation Element indicates that these roadways will be upgraded to a four-lane Arterial.

Farmland Avenue. Farmland Avenue is an east -west Collector located midway between Bellevue Road and Old Lake Road. Today, Farmland Avenue extends west from G Street to El Capitan High School’s northern entrance . In the future, the road is planned to extend west into the BRMDP area. Farmland Avenue extends easterly from G Street to Gold Road.

Study Area - Intersections

The quality of traffic flow is typically governed by the operation of major intersections. Based on a re view of the original Bellevue Ranch California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental documents and its impact conclusions , as well as direction from City staff , 17 study intersections were analyzed for this TIA. The study intersections are previously listed in the Study Area section of this TIA, and t he locations of the study intersections are shown in Figure 5.
144

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 8 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

The geometric configuration of study intersections and the traffic controls are described in the text which follows.

The G Street / Farmland Avenue intersection is controlled by an actuated traffic signal. G Street has been widened along the high school’s frontage to its ultimate ½ sec tion (i.e., 3 southbound lanes), but northbound G Street remains a single through lane with an auxiliary right turn lane at Farmland Avenue. Separate left turn lanes are provided on G Street, with the southbound turn lane being about 60 feet long, but the northbound turn lane stretches for 850 feet. Eastbound Farmland Avenue has two lanes along the school frontage and at the G Street intersection is configured as a three -lane approach with separate left turn, through and right turn lanes.

The SR 59 / Bel levue Road intersection is controlled by an all -way stop. The intersection has single travel lanes on each approach, and there are no crosswalks.

The Bellevue Road / M Street intersection is a “Tee” intersection controlled by a stop sign on the northbound M Street approach. No turn lanes are provided today on Bellevue Road at this intersection, but the M Street appro ach has a large median area that separates inbound and outbound lanes. There are no crosswalks at this intersection.

The Bellevue Road / Barclay Way intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. Each approach leg has a separate left turn lane, and the westbound and southbound approaches also have right turn lanes. Crosswalks exist on the north and east legs of the intersection.

The G Street / Bellevue Road intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. G Street has two through travel lanes in each direction, but the second northbound lane ends about 300 feet north of the intersection. Each approach has a separate left turn lane, but t he westbound and southbound approaches have separate right turn lanes. Crosswalks exist on the north and west legs of the intersection.

The M Street / Cardella intersection is a broad four-legged intersection that is controlled by an all-way stop. The i ntersection is laid out in its ultimate configuration for a Divided Arterial Street. The northbound M Street approa ch has dual left turn lanes, a through lane and a separate right turn lane. The three-lane southbound approach has separate left turn, through and right turn lanes. Cardella Road has two through lanes in each direction, as well as separate left turn and right turn lanes. The westbound approach has dual left turn lanes. Crosswalks exist on all four legs of the intersection.

The Cardella Road / G Street intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. The intersection is a “Tee”, but future construction w ill extend Cardella Road easterly. While portions of the intersection have been widened to their ultimate width, interim striping is consis tent with the available through travel lanes. The eastbound Cardella Road approach is striped for a single left turn lane and a separate right turn lane. Southbound G Street has separate left, through and right 145

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 9 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
turn lanes, northbound G Street has a left turn lane and a through travel lane. There are no crosswalks at this location.

The M Street / Lehigh Drive / Commu nity College Drive intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. M Street has two through lanes in each direction, as well as separate left turn lanes along a broad raised median. The Lehigh Drive and Community College Drive approaches are single lanes that operate under “split” phases.

The SR 59 / Yosemite Avenue intersection has a “Tee” configuration, controlled by a traffic signal. Th e intersection is configured with separate southbound and westbound left turn lanes, and the northbound SR 59 and we stbound Yosemite Avenue approaches have separate right turn lanes. Crosswalks are striped across the north and east legs of the intersection.

The Yosemite Avenue / R Street intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. The intersection has separate left turn lanes and two through lanes on each approach. The north, south and west legs also have separate right turn lanes. Crosswalks are s triped across each leg of the intersection.

The Yosemite Avenue / M Street intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. The M Street approaches have two through lanes and left turn lanes. The three -lane Yosemite Avenue approaches are configured as a le ft turn lane, combined left+through lane and through+right turn lane, and these approaches operate with “split” phas es. Crosswalks exist on all four legs of the intersection.

The Yosemite Avenue / G Street intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. Each approach has two travel lanes and a left turn lane, and with the exception of the eastbound approach, all also have separate right turn lanes. Crosswalks are marked on each leg.

The SR 59 / Santa Fe Drive / W. Olive Avenue intersection is controlled by a traffic signal.

Olive Avenue has two through travel lanes on each approach, and SR 59 has a single through lane in each direction. Each approach has separate left turn lanes and right turn lanes.

Crosswalks are marked on each leg.

The R Street / Olive Avenue intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. The Olive Avenue approaches have three travel lanes pl us separate left turn and right turn lanes. The R Street approaches have two through lanes and left turn lanes, and the southbound approach has a right turn lane. Crosswalks are marked on each leg.

The M Street / Olive Avenue intersection is controlled b y a traffic signal. The Olive Avenue approach has three travel lanes and a left turn lane. The eastbound approach has a separate right turn lane. The M Street approaches have two through lanes and a left turn lane. Crosswalks are marked on each leg.

146

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 10 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
The G Street / Olive Avenue intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. Each approach has two through travel lanes and a right turn lane. Separate right turn lanes exist on the eastbound and northbound approaches. Crosswalks are marked on each leg.

Level of Service Analysis Procedures

Level of Service (LOS) analysis provides a basis for describing existing traffic conditions and for evaluating the significance of project traffic effects. Level of Service measures the quality of traffic flow and is re presented by letter designations from A to F, with a grade of A referring to the best conditions, and F representing the worst conditions. The characteristics associated with the various LOS for intersections are presented in Table 1.

Intersection Level of Service Methodology. Intersection LOS was calculated for this TIA using the methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual, 6 th Edition (Transportation Research Board 2016) (HCM) using Synchro 11 software (Trafficware 2023). HCM techniques identify the average length of delays and use that information to determine the operating LOS.

An overall average delay and LOS is determined fo r intersections controlled by traffic signals or all-way stops. At locations controlled by side street stops, delay s can be determined for each approach that must yield the right of way, and the “worst case” approach delay is employed for analysis.

Analysis of all -way stop controlled intersections is somewhat limited under the HCM and Synchro 11, as the analysis proce dures allow a maximum of three approach lanes. As the M Street / Cardella intersection has five -lane approaches, the results presented here in should be recognized as a “conservative” estimate of current conditions.

Roadway Segment Level of Service Method ology. The Merced General Plan presents daily traffic volume LOS thresholds that can be employed on a planning level basis (GP Table 4.3), and these values are presented in Table 2. As shown, a two-lane collector street meets the City’s minimum LOS D sta ndard carrying up to 10,300 vehicles per day, while a two -lane arterial can carry up to 16,000 vehicles per day.
147

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 11 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

Table 1. Level of Service Definitions
Level of
Service Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections A Vehicle progression is exceptionally
favorable or the cycle length is very short.

Little or no delay.

Delay < 10.0 seconds/vehicle Delay < 10 seconds/vehicle B Vehicle progression is highly favorable or
the cycle length is short.

Short traffic delays.

Delay > 10 seconds/vehicle and Delay > 10 seconds/vehicle and < 20 seconds/vehicle < 15 seconds/vehicle
C Vehicle progression is favorable or the cycle
length is moderate. Individual cycle failures
may begin to appear at this level.

Average traffic delays.

Delay > 20 seconds/vehicle and Delay > 15 seconds/vehicle and < 35 seconds/vehicle < 25 seconds/vehicle
D Vehicle progression is ineffective or the
cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and
the individual cycle failures are noticeable.

Long traffic delays.

Delay > 35 seconds/vehicle and Delay > 25 seconds/vehicle and < 55 seconds/vehicle < 35 seconds/vehicle
E Vehicle progression is unfavorable and the
cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures
are frequent.

Very long traffic delays, failure, extreme
congestion.

Delay > 55 seconds/vehicle and Delay > 35 seconds/vehicle and < 80 seconds/vehicle < 50 seconds/vehicle
F Vehicle progression is very poor and the
cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear
the vehicle queue.

Intersection blocked by external causes.

Delay > 80 seconds/vehicle Delay > 50 seconds/vehicle
Source: Transportation Research Board 2016.
__________________________

148

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 12 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

Table 2. Level of Service Thresholds for Roadway Segments Daily Roadway Segment Level of Service Thresholds
Roadway Type LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E
4 Lane Freeway 25,900 42,600 57,800 68,400 76,000
6 Lane Freeway 40,000 65,800 89,200 105,600 117,400
2 Lane Highway 2,300 7,600 14,200 20,000 27,400
4 Lane Highway 20,500 33,200 48,000 62,200 70,600
2 Lane County Road 7,700 15,000 16,100
2 Lane County Road 18,000 32,200 34,000
2 Lane Arterial - - 11,600 16,000 16,800
4 Lane Arterial - 4,100 26,800 33,700 35,400
6 Lane Arterial - 6,600 41,800 50,700 53,200
2 Lane Collector - - 4,800 10,300 13,200
4 Lane Collector - - 11,300 22,200 26,400
Source: City of Merced 2012.

Standards of Si gnificance. The methods employed to determine the significance of L OS are noted in the General Plan and in Merced’s traffic study guidelines.

Implementing Action T -1.8.b of the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan (City of Merced 201 2) establishes an acceptable LOS of D for intersections and roadways. Action T-1.8.b states:

“1.8.b Use peak -hour Level of Service “D” (“To lerable Delays”) as the design standard for new streets and intersections in new growth areas.

“The preferred LOS levels are typically “ C” and “D,” particularly for larger roads and major intersections. With LOS C the road provides stable operation but i s still underutilized to some degree. LOS D represents a fine balance between the relatively large number of vehicles served and the gen erally acceptable level of 149

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 13 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
service provided. It is the intent of the City’s standards and policies for new and most upgraded intersections and road segments to be designed and built so as not to drop below LOS D (“tolerable delay”) during peak traffic periods.”

Therefore, in this traffic impact analysis, LOS A through D are considered acceptable for signalized intersections, while LOS E and F are unacceptable.

At two-way stop-sign-controlled intersections (or one-way stop “Tee” intersections), LOS can be calculated for each approach where motorists yield the right of way, as well as for the intersection as a whole. Sign ificance is based on the length of the average delay experienced by motorists on the worst -case approach, which is typically from the sto p-sign-controlled approach to the intersection. It should be noted that overall intersection average LOS at un -signalized intersections is better, often much better, than LOS on the worst single movement.

Under City of Merced guidelines, however, a poor “worst case” LOS is not necessarily significant unless the intersection also carries traffic volumes which satisfy peak hour traffic signal warrant requirements. Traffic signal warrants are a series of several standards which provide guidelines for determ ining if a traffic signal is appropriate. Signal warrant analyses are typically conducted at intersections of uncontro lled major streets and stop sign -controlled minor streets. If one or more signal warrants are met, signalization of the intersection may be appropriate. However, a signal should not be installed if none of the warrants are met, since the installation of signals would increase delays on the previously -uncontrolled major street, and may increase the occurrence of particular types of accidents.

Consistent with CEQA, the City will use the traffic study to determine the project’s effects on two broad CEQA checklist topics: (1) substantial increases in traffic; and (2) changes to LOS.

Each of these broad categories have distinct thresholds of significance (described below) and are to be utilized in the TIA.

1. Topic: Substantial Increase in Traffic Levels

A. Arterial Level Road : The threshold of significance is a project ADT contribution equal or greater than 5% of the current ADT for an “arte rial roadway” that is, or will be, operating at an unacceptable LOS “E” or “F”.

B. Collector Level Road: The threshold of significance is an amount where the Project contributes more than 20% of the current ADT on roads carrying at least 3,000 ADT.

Thus, a significant impact would occur if a Project adds 601 ADT to a collector road that currently has 3,000 ADT. [3,000 x (.20)]

2. Topic: Change in Level of Service (LOS) Rating

Merced Vision 2015 General Plan Policy T-1.8 states: Use A Minimum Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS) “D” As a Design Objective for All New Streets in New Growth Areas and for Most Existing Ci ty Streets Except Under Special Circumstances. To implement 150

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 14 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
this Policy, the City focuses on four different street system categories , each desc ribed in greater detail below: (A) roadways; (B) signalized intersections; (C) un -signalized intersections; and (D) roads within established neighborhoods.

A. Roadways and Signalized Intersections : Merced Vision 2015 General Plan, Implementing Action T -1.8.b, establishes an acceptable LOS of “D” for intersection and roadway operations.

1.8.b Use peak -hour Level of Service “D” (“Tolerable Delays”) as the design standard for new streets and intersections in new growth areas.

The preferred LOS levels are typically “C” and “D,” particularly for larger roads and major intersections. With LOS C the road provides s table operation but is still underutilized to some degree. LOS D represents a fine balance between the relatively large number of vehicles served and the generally acceptable level of service provided. It is the intent of the City’s standards and polici es for new and most upgraded intersections and road segments to be designed and built so as not to drop below LOS D (“tolerable delay”) during peak traffic periods.

Existing Traffic Conditions and Levels of Service

Traffic Volumes. Traffic count data were collected in August 2022 when local Merced schools were in operation. These counts reflect the recent changes to public school bell sched ule mandated under state law. Traffic volumes were observed at intersections in 15 -minute intervals over two hou r periods (i.e., 7:00 to 9:00 am, and 4:00 to 6:00 pm) and the four consecutive intervals with the greatest traffic volumes were identified as the peak hour. The extent to which traffic volumes within the hour was concentrated into any particular 15 -minute period was determined based on the Peak Hour Factor (PHF) at each intersection. The observed Year 2022 PHF was incorporated into the LOS ana lysis to address the specific peaking characteristics of traffic in this area. Existing peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 6. 151
4 M St/ Bellevue Rd
3 R St/ Bellevue Rd
2 SR 59/ Bellevue Rd
1 G St/ Farmland Ave
8 G St/ Cardella Rd
7 M St/ Cardella Rd
6 G St/ Bellevue Rd
5 Barclay Way/ Bellevue Rd
12 M St/ Yosemite Ave
11 R St/ Yosemite Ave
10 SR 59/ Yosemite Ave
9 M St/ Lehigh Dr/
Community College Dr
16 M St/ Olive Ave
15 R St/ Olive Ave
14 SR 59/ Olive Ave
13 G St/ Yosemite Ave
17 G St/ Olive Ave
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 6

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
7043-05 RA 5/10/2023
113 (109)
304 (235)
51 (82)
(118) 104
(318) 308
(308) 248
38 (86)
421 (695)
187 (225)
6 (19)
(86) 147
(564) 654
(97) 122
9 (2)
98 (108)
0 (0)
(1) 4
(8) 292
(100) 63
(39) 16
0 (0)
19 (0)
46 (23)
(4) 5
(1) 5
(17) 269
R1-1
R1-1
0 (0)
1 (0)
0 (0)
(0) 1
(49) 63
(0) 1
(12) 48
0 (1)
257 (239)
33(9)
(1) 1
(173) 392
(80) 66
120 (17)
100 (37)
52 (31)
(12) 5
(37) 185
(8) 15
96 (23)
164 (187)
8 (6)
(19) 184
(149) 250
(18) 9
50 (18)
331 (101)
15 (8)
(108) 159
(97) 308
(62) 123
21 (6)
57 (120)
27 (158)
(27) 53
(61) 117
(103) 149
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
R1-1
208 (244)
402 (348)
(166) 200
(200) 185
361 (313)
193 (197)
12 (12)
225 (111)
9 (9)
4 (4)
(34) 27
(96) 52
(165) 221
(101) 127
6 (14)
24 (53)
150 (109)
1 (2)
(1) 2
(5) 21
(29) 67
(55) 71
81 (32)
525 (381)
0 (0)
0 (0)
(191) 90
(304) 453
(0) 0
0 (0)
0 (1)
2 (0)
(17) 133
(0) 0
(138) 130
18 (26)
436 (200)
56 (24)
0 (0)
(1) 5
(19) 5
(314) 299
(86) 119
12 (11)
30 (37)
33 (47)
(12) 36
(28) 58
(20) 22
9 (8)
65 (59)
159 (73)
1 (1)
(11) 8
(213) 98
(48) 21
(283) 309
21 (36)
457 (593)
203 (210)
13 (11)
(3) 1
(13) 6
(453) 747
(96) 109
133 (118)
429 (234)
65 (42)
4 (1)
(3) 3
(122) 58
(318) 325
(224) 156
40 (48)
353 (574)
162 (171)
(209) 389
(437) 545
(90) 140
116 (153)
393 (283)
138 (99)
(234) 202
(349) 400
(175) 145
127 (59)
447 (459)
147 (143)
20 (15)
(91) 158
(536) 420
(139) 118
55 (133)
337 (333)
128 (135)
4 (6)
(198) 131
(606) 320
(96) 122
116 (174)
534 (695)
188 (171)
9 (26)
(18) 4
(179) 115
(681) 681
(142) 106
70 (95)
474 (422)
222 (285)
(232) 250
(472) 411
(128) 99
93 (86)
680 (698)
181 (115)
26 (36)
(32) 21
(125) 145
(730) 622
(128) 140
335 (280)
577 (512)
55 (58)
28 (31)
(2) 0
(257) 236
(615) 726
(210) 110
64 (71)
578 (390)
148 (139)
(6) 8
(294) 280
(563) 323
(208) 190
R1-1
R1-1
28 (19)
87 (119)
99 (84)
(5) 5
(70) 76
(45) 167
80 (74)
141 (154)
102 (61)
(20) 26
(122) 192
(10) 6
(254) 459
320 (288)
Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
PM Peak Hour Volume(XX)
Signalized Intersection
N.T.S.

R1-1
R1-1
152

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 16 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
24-hour roadway segment traffic volumes were observed on two weekdays (i.e., Tuesday August 16, 2022 and Wednesday August 17, 2022). The results were average d and reported as the average daily traffic on each road.

Intersection Levels of Service. Table 3 presents existing a.m. peak hour and p.m. pe ak hour LOS. As shown, with one exception, all intersections meet the City’s minimum LOS D standard. The Olive Avenue / G Street intersection operates at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour.

TABLE 3

EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS
1 G Street / Farmland Ave Signal 17 B 9 A
2 SR 59 / Bellevue Road AWS 14 B 12 B
3 Bellevue Road / R Street Future - - - - - - - -
4 M Street / Bellevue Road NB Stop 20 C 13 B
5 Barclay Way / Bellevue Rd Signal 27 C 14 B
6 G Street / Bellevue Road Signal 22 C 19 B
7 M Street / Cardella Road1 AWS 13 B 11 B
8 G Street / Cardella Road Signal 16 B 16 B
9 M Street / Lehigh Drive Signal 21 C 20 B
10 SR 59 / Yosemite Avenue Signal 18 B 14 B
11 R Street / Yosemite Avenue Signal 36 D 22 C
12 M Street / Yosemite Ave Signal 32 C 37 D
13 G Street / Yosemite Avenue Signal 28 C 29 C
14 SR 59 / Olive Avenue Signal 30 C 30 C
15 R Street / Olive Avenue Signal 25 C 35 C
16 M Street / Olive Avenue Signal 30 C 36 D
17 G Street / Olive Avenue Signal 62 E 49 D
AWS is All-Way Stop. Delay is in seconds per vehicle. Highlighting shows LOS in excess of minimum LOS D.

Conditions over the entire peak hour are shown; delays are longer during the peak minutes before the school day. 1 LOS calculated for maximum number of lanes allowed by HCM, 6th Edition Intersection Control

153

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 17 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
Traffic Signal Warrants. The volume of traffic occurring at un -signalized intersections was compared to peak hour traffic signal warrants using procedures described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California Department of Transpo rtation 2021) (MUTCD). The unsignalized SR 59 / Bellevue Road intersection, and Bellevue Road / M Street intersection carry volumes that nearly satisfy warrants during the a.m. peak hour, but the M Street / Cardella Road intersections does not carry volumes that reach the level that satisfies peak hour traffic signal warrants during any time period.

It should be noted that merely satisfying the peak hour warrant is not sufficient evidence to determine whether signalization is the applicable action. If th is initial screenline is passed, the remaining applicable MUTCD warrants need to be reviewed. In addition, Caltrans policies regarding traffic controls on state highways need to be followed. While adequate LOS may be achieved with a traffic signal, Caltrans policy requires evaluation of alternative traffic controls when it is necessary to stop traffic on the stat e highway. Those alternative s include a roundabout, in addition to a traffic signal. Current Caltrans polic y requires that an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) be prepared when it is determined that traffic on the state highway needs to be stopped in order to consider the feasibility of all-way stop control, traffic signals or a roundabout intersection. A decision regarding applicable traffic control will be made by Caltrans with local input.

Roadway Segments. Table 4 identifies current daily traffic volumes on study area roadways in 2022 as well as the applicable LOS based on Merced General Plan thresholds. As indicated, all of the study area roadway segments carry volumes that result in LOS which satisfies the City’s minimum LOS D standard.
154

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 18 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
TABLE 4. EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE Daily Level
Current Traffic of
Street From To Classification Volume Service
Farmland Avenue El Capitan Entrance G Street 2 lane Collector 3,344 C G Street Golf Road 2 lane Collector 829 C
Bellevue Road State Route 59 R Street 2 lane Arterial 6,591 C R Street M Street 2 lane Arterial 6,743 C
M Street G Street 2 lane Arterial 5,799 C
G Street Golf Road 2 lane Arterial 4,670 C
State Route 59 Nevada Street Bellevue Road 2 lane Highway 3,800 B Bellevue Road Cardella Road 2 lane Highway 4,572 B
Cardella Road Belcher Road 2 lane Highway 4,572 B
Belcher Road Yosemite Avenue 2 lane Highway 12,705 C
G Street Farmland Avenue Bellevue Road 2 lane Arterial1 5,721 C Bellevue Road Cardella Road 2 lane Arterial1 9,897 C
Cardella Road Yosemite Avenue 2 lane Arterial 13,129 D
Barclay Way El Capitan HS Bellevue Road 2 lane Collector 2,218 C Bellevue Road M Street 2 lane Collector 1,406 C
Cardella Road SR 59 R Street 2 lane Arterial 83 C
R Street M Street 4 lane Arterial 3,539 B
M Street G Street 4 lane Arterial 4,983 C
M Street Bellevue Road Cardella Road 2-lane Arterial 2,922 C Cardella Road University Drive 4 lane Arterial 6,936 C
University Drive Yosemite Avenue 4 lane Arterial 10,045 C San Jose Avenue University Drive Yosemite Avenue 2 lane Local 4,828 D Yosemite Avenue SR 59 R Street 4 lane Arterial 16,489 C R Street M Street 4 lane Arterial 21,864 C
M Street G Street 4 lane Arterial 19,810 C
G Street Parsons 4 lane Arterial 19,513 C
___________________________
Notes: Bold and highlighted values exceed General Plan level of service standard. 1 Additional lanes are available; the minimum number of lanes in one direction used for LOS analysis.

155

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 19 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
Alternative Transportation Modes

The follow ing describes existing and planned facilities for public transit riders, bicyclists and pedestrians in the area of the BRMDP.

Public Transit. The City of Merced is served by a local public bus system, inter -regional private bus companies, and private taxi -cabs, as well as rail and air passenger services. The public bus system, created in 1974, served the community as the Merced Transit System (MTS) / City Shuttle for more than two decades. Its primary goal ove r time remained to serve senior citizens, low-income people and the disabled, even as the system expanded. Originally created solely as a demand responsive Dial -A-Ride operation, the service extended as time passed to include a number of fixed routes within the City.

Today the area of the project is served by The Bus. Route M1 – Merced West , M2 R Street Shuttle, M3 M Street Shuttle and M4 G Stre et Shuttle and UC Merced all reach the Yosemite Avenue / M Street intersection or travel along Yosemite Avenue by the site. All connect the site with the downtown Transportation Center on 16th Street. (Merced Transit Authority 2023)

Bicycles. The City of Merced has an extensive network of bicycle facilities, including off -street trails and paths, as well as on -street bicycle lanes and routes. Many of these facilities also support pedestrian travel. According to Caltrans guidelines (California Departme nt of Transportation 2022), bicycle facilities are generally divided into four categories:

• Class I Bikeway (Bi ke Path). A completely separate facility designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle and pedestrian cross -flow minimized.

• Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). A striped lane designated for the use of bicycles on a street or highwa y. Vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross -flow are permitted at designated locations.

• Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). A route designated by signs or pavement markings for bicyclists within the vehicular travel lane (i.e., shared use) of a roadway.

• Class IV Separated Bikeways. Bicycle lanes that are fully protected from auto traffic through raised elements such as curbs, plastic bollards, landscaping, or parking.

The City of Merced Active Transportation Plan and Safe -Routes to School Plan. 2019 City of Merced Active Transportation and Safe Routes to Schools Plan identified existing and planned facilities. Today Class I shared paths exist:
156

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 20 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

• Along Fahrens Creek south of Cardella Road
• Linking El Capitan HS and the Bellevue Road / G Street intersection

Class II bike lanes follow:

• G Street south of Bellevue Road
• M Street from Bellevue Road to south end of M Street Circle • M Street from Barclay Way to Yosemite Avenue
• Cardella Road from Fahrens Creek to G Street
• Mandeville Lane from M Street to Barclay Way
• Bancroft Drive from M Street to Barclay Way

Pedestrians. Sidewalks exist along many study area streets, including:

• M Street from Barclay Way to Yosemite Avenue

• West side of G Street from Farmland Avenue to Cardella Road and from Community College Drive to Yosemite Avenue

• East side of Barclay Way from El Capitan HS to M Street

• Other developed local streets in Bellevue Ranch

Recommended Improvements. As part of the Active Transportation and Safe Routes to Schools 2019 plan, the City of Merced reviewed bicycle and pedestrian facilities and produced a prioritized list of recommended bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Table 5 lists the identified future improvements near the BRMDP area.
157

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 21 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

TABLE 5

CITY OF MERCED

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS PLAN IMPROVEMENTS Location Project Type Status
Bicycle Prioritized Projects
G Street: 13th Street to Mercy Avenue Class IV Not installed G Street: Mercy Hospital Path south of Korbel Avenue Class I Not installed Yosemite Ave: San Augustine to Gardner Ave Class II Buffer Not installed East side of G Street: Bellevue Road to Mercy Ave Class II Not installed Bancroft Drive: Cardella Road to Barclay Way Class II Not installed East side of G Street: Bellevue Road to Farmland Ave Class II Not installed Barclay Way: M Street to Bellevue Road Class II Not installed Bellevue Road: G Street to Barclay Way Class II Not installed Bellevue Road: Barclay Way to M Street Class II Not installed Fahrens Creek: Heitz Court to Bellevue Road Class I Not installed Fahrens Creek: Bellevue Road to Cardella Road Class I Not installed Pedestrian Prioritized Projects
G Street / Brookdale Drive Intersection Mid-Block crossing with HAWK or FFRB Not installed
Source: Appendix D City of Merced Active Transportation and Safe Routes to School Plan https://www.cityofmerced.org/home/showdocument?id=8556

158

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 22 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

The BRMDP includes a mix of single family and multi-family residential uses, retail commercial uses, office uses , and schools. The following describes traffic-related characteristics of the previously-approved BRMDP and the proposed amended BRMDP.

Project Use / Access Characteristics

Approved Land Use Designations. Land uses included in the previously -approved BRMDP include:

• 4,873 single family dwelling units,
• 1,675 multiple family dwelling units,
• 618,000 building square feet of retail commercial land use, • 254,390 building square feet of commercial office land use, • 54,450 building square feet of self-storage land use, • primary public school facilities with 750 student enrollment, and • high school facilities with 1,800 student enrollment.

Proposed Land Uses. Land Uses included in the proposed BRMDP include:

• 3,805 single family dwelling units,
• 1,317 multiple family dwelling units,
• 500,400 building square feet of retail commercial land use, • 254,390 building square feet of commercial office land use, • primary public school facilities with 1,500 student enrollment, and • high school facilities with 1,800 student enrollment.

The net chang e in the BRMDP area from previously -approved land uses to proposed land uses would be:

• a reduction of 1,068 single family dwelling units,
• a reduction of 358 multiple-family dwelling units,
• a reduction 117,600 building square feet of retail commercial land use, • elimination of self-storage land use, and
• an increase in primary public school facilities with 750 student enrollment.

Trip Generation Rates. The number of vehicle trips that are expected to be generated by development of the BRMDP has been estimated using trip generation rates based on the nature and size of project land uses. Data compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (I TE) and presented in the publication Trip Generation, 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers 20 21) was reviewed as a source of trip generation rates for the uses within the proposed project. The trip generation rates used in this analysis are presented in Table 6. 159

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 23 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
Table 6. Trip Generation Rates
Daily AM PM
LDR, LMDR, VR Single Family Residential 110 DU 9.43 0.70 0.94 HMDR Multiple Family Residential 220 DU 6.74 0.40 0.51
NC, RCC Retail 820 KSF 37.01 0.84 3.40
COMM / OFFICE Commercial Office 710 KSF 10.84 1.52 1.44 SS Self Storage 151 KSF 1.45 0.09 0.15
School Public Schools 520 Students 2.27 0.74 0.16
School High School 525 Students 1.94 0.52 0.14
_________________________________
Notes: ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers. DU = dwelling units. KSF = 1,000 building square feet.

Trip Generation Rates
Land Use Designation Description ITE
Code Units

Trip Generation Forecasts. Table 7 identifies the results of applying the identifie d trip generation rates to land use s included in the Approved BRMDP and the Proposed BRMDP, respectively. The Approved BRMDP would generate:

• 89,146 trips per day,
• 6,483 trips in the a.m. peak hour, and
• 8,282 trips in the p.m. peak hour.

The Proposed BRMDP would generate:

• 72,933 trips per day,
• 6,044 trips in the a.m. peak hour, and
• 6,808 trips in the p.m. peak hour.

As a percentage of the trip s generated by the Approved BRMDP, the Proposed BRMDP would generate:

• 82 percent per day,
• 93 percent in the a.m. peak hour, and
• 82 percent in the p.m. peak hour.
160

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 24 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
Daily AM PM
Approved BRMDP
LDR, LMDR, VR Single Family Residential 110 4,873 45,952 3,411 4,581 HMDR Multiple Family Residential 220 1,675 11,290 670 854 NC, RCC Retail 820 618 23,872 519 2,101
COMM / OFFICE Commercial Office 710 254.39 2,758 387 366 SS Self Storage 151 54.45 79 5 8
School Primary Public Schools 520 750 1,703 555 120
School High School 525 1,800 3,492 936 252
_____ _____ _____
Total 89,146 6,483 8,282
Proposed BRMDP
LDR, LMDR, VR Single Family Residential 110 3,805 35,881 2,664 3,577 HMDR Multiple Family Residential 220 1,317 8,877 527 672 NC /RCC Retail 820 500.4 18,520 420 1,701
COMM / OFFICE Commercial Office 710 254.39 2,758 387 366 School Primary Public Schools 520 1,500 3,405 1,110 240 School High School 525 1,800 3,492 936 252
_____ _____ _____
______________________ Total 72,933 6,044 6,808
Notes: ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Table 7. Bellevue Ranch Master Development Plan Trip Generation Forecasts Designation Description ITE
Code Quantity
Trip Generation Forecasts

161

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 25 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
Trip Distribution and Assignment. The geographic distribution and assignment of future vehicle trips to specific roadways was conducted using the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) Year 2 035 regional travel demand forecasting model . This approach results in the traffic analysis directly addressing and integrating:

• the geographic distribution of residential and non-residential land uses,

• the extent of intra -site travel within the BRMDP a rea between on -site residential and non-residential land uses,

• the availability of roadway facilities and the relative utility of alternative t ravel routes, and

• the extent and geographic distribution of travel between the BRMDP area and surrounding citywide and regional land uses.

The MCAG travel demand model was applied separately to both the Approved BRMDP and the Proposed BRMDP.
162

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 26 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
LONG TERM YEAR 2035 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS

Overview

The Cumulative Year 2035 analysis presented herein is intended to eval uate the relative cumulative impact of the project assuming implementation of long -term circulation system improvements and continuing development in the Merced area. As noted earlier in this TIA, t he MCAG regional travel demand forecasting model is the tool employed for this analysis.

Land Use. The land use input data in the MCAG travel demand model for the BRMDP area were revised to reflect two alternative scenarios:

• Approved BRMDP land uses
• Proposed BRMDP land uses

Circulation System Improvements. The City of Merced General Plan Circulation Element and General Plan EIR suggest that appreciable improvements will be needed to accommodate t he future traffic volumes accompanying build out of the General Plan. SR 59 is projected to be a six-lane facility from W. 16 th Street to Yosemite Avenue (refer to GP Table 4.4) and a four -lane facility north of Yosemite Avenue. Bellevue Road is to be a six-lane arterial east of SR 59, and Cardella Road is planned to be a four-lane arterial that is completed from SR 59 easterly to Lake Road. R Street and M Street will be extend ed northerly across Bellevue Road. Regionally, the General Plan envisions the completion of the Atwater Merced Expressway (AME), and Campus Parkway.

The General Plan identifies the level o f improvements planned at new intersections. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show Circulation Element Figures 4.28 and 4.29 , which identify expanded lane geometry at the intersection of a major arterial / divided arterial, and the intersection of two major arterials, respectively.

Anticipated funding constrains the level of future improvements assumed in this analysis. The MCAG travel demand model was adjusted to include Tier I improvements noted in the 20 18 Regional Transportation Plan.

Approach to Developing T raffic Volume Forecasts – Arterial Streets . An incremental approach was applied for this TIA to forecast future traffic volumes. The approach addresses the relative difference between baseline travel model estimates and actual traffic counts. Because the study area includes some streets that carry little traffic today , but are forecast to experience large future volumes, the approach follows the following steps:

Refine the MCAG travel models to reflect future improvements as noted above.

• Modify the model to replace assume d land uses within the BRMDP area with the Approved and Proposed land use plans.

163

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 27 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
• Compare baseline model forecasts with futu re forecasts to identify the incremental change in daily approach volume at each intersection and on each roadway segment.

• Add the baseline-to-future increment to the existing approach or segment volumes counted in 20 22 to create “adjusted future” volumes separately under both Approved and Proposed scenarios.

• Apply baseline-to-future growth factors to the turning movements at each intersection and adjust th e results to balance inbound and outbound traffic using the meth ods contained in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255, Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design (Transportation Research Board 1982) (Furness Factoring).

164
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 7

CIRCULATION ELEMENT EXHIBIT

EXPANDED INTERSECTION OF A MAJOR ARTERIAL

AND DIVIDED ARTERIAL
7043-05 RA 5/10/2023
165
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 8

CIRCULATION ELEMENT EXHIBIT

EXPANDED INTERSECTION OF TWO MAJOR ARTERIALS
7043-05 RA 5/10/2023
166

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 30 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
Daily Traffic Volumes / Levels of Service

Traffic Volumes. Table 8 identifies projected Year 2035 daily traffic volumes on study roadway segments and the resulting LOS under 2035 No Project conditions and 2035 Plus Project conditions. The table also shows the daily volumes presented in the General Plan EIR for buildout conditions. The No Project condition assume s development of the currently Approved BRMDP and General Plan circulation system. The Plus Project assumes development of the Proposed BRMDP land uses and General Plan circulation system.

Roadway Segment Levels of Service – No Project . Table 8 shows 2035 roadway segment traffic volumes and LOS i f the proposed amendment to the BRMDP does not proceed , and the plan area develops as currently approved. Under 2035 No Project conditions , all study roadway segments would operate at LOS D or better conditions. Based on City General Plan policies, LOS D or better is considered acceptable. No improvements are recommended along st udy roadway segments.

Roadway Segment Levels of Service – Plus Project. Table 8 shows 2035 roadway segment traffic volumes and LOS with develop ment of the proposed amendment to the BRMDP. As previously described in the Trip Generation Forecasts section of this TIA, development of the BRMDP as Proposed would generate 82 percent of the trips that would be generated with development of the Approved BRMDP. As a result, 2035 Plus Project volumes are lower than 2035 No Project volumes on a majority of study roadway segments. Under 2035 Plus Project conditions, all study roadway segments would operate at LOS D or better conditions. Base d on City Gene ral Plan policies, LOS D or better is considered acceptable. No improvements are recommended along study roadway segments.

167

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 31 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

TABLE 8. YEAR 2035 ROADWAY SEGMENT VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE 2035 No Project 2035 Plus Project General Plan EIR
(Buildout)
Daily Level Daily Level Daily Level
General Plan Traffic of Traffic of Traffic of
Street From To Classification Volume Service Volume Service Volume Service Old Lake Road State Route 59 R Street 4 lane Arterial 10,437 C 8,216 C 20,840 C R Street M Street 4 lane Arterial 6,037 C 4,926 C 17,890 C M Street G Street 4 lane Arterial 2,273 B 0 A 17,040 C
G Street Golf Road 2 lane County Rd 1,022 C 970 C 8,830 D Farmland Avenue M Street El Capitan HS 2 lane Collector 1,776 C 1,830 C Not Avail. - - El Capitan Entrance G Street 2 lane Collector 2,541 C 4,165 C Not Avail. - - G Street Golf Road 2 lane Collector 5,546 D 5,477 D Not Avail. - - Bellevue Road State Route 59 R Street 6 lane Arterial 39,159 C 37,993 C 58,400 F R Street M Street 6 lane Arterial 31,168 C 30,568 C 55,310 F M Street Barclay Way 6 lane Arterial 28,705 C 29,127 C 57,470 F Barclay Way G Street 6 lane Arterial 34,425 C 35,077 C 57,470 F G Street Golf Road 6 lane Arterial 28,479 C 27,090 C 52,950 E State Route 59 Nevada Street Bellevue Road 6 lane Arterial 15,018 C 14,124 C 40,790 C Bellevue Road Cardella Road 4 lane Arterial 22,994 C 22,568 C 33,690 D Cardella Road Belcher Road 4 lane Arterial 26,295 C 23,898 C 30,030 D Belcher Road Yosemite Avenue 4 lane Arterial 28,691 D 26,218 C 33,030 D Yosemite Avenue Olive Avenue 6 lane Arterial 35,873 C 31,081 C 48,030 D R Street Old Lake Road Bellevue Road 6 lane Arterial 16,677 C 11,984 C 34,740 C

168

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 32 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
TABLE 8. YEAR 2035 ROADWAY SEGMENT VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE (CONTINUED) 2035 No Project 2035 Plus Project General Plan EIR
(Buildout)
Daily Level Daily Level Daily Level
General Plan Traffic of Traffic of Traffic of
Street From To Classification Volume Service Volume Service Volume Service G Street Old Lake Road Farmland Avenue 6 lane Arterial 11,267 C 3,997 B 36,750 C Farmland Avenue Bellevue Road 6 lane Arterial 16,115 C 10,151 C 36,750 C Bellevue Road Cardella Road 4 lane Arterial 22,480 C 19,656 C 30,380 D Barclay Way Farmland Avenue Bellevue Road 2 lane Collector 6,822 D 4,000 C Not Avail. - - Bellevue Road M Street 2 lane Collector 4,024 C 3,144 C Not Avail. - - Cardella Road SR 59 R Street 4 lane Arterial 24,607 C 23,713 C 31,840 D R Street M Street 6-lane Arterial 27,773 C 26,769 C 35,340 C M Street G Street 4 lane Arterial 25,322 C 24,111 C 33,520 D M Street Old Lake Road Bellevue Road 2 lane Arterial 14,744 D 15,104 D 11,910 D Bellevue Road Cardella Road 2 lane Arterial 12,687 D 11,920 D 12,920 D Cardella Road University Drive 4 lane Arterial 23,785 C 21,086 C 35,710 F University Drive Yosemite Avenue 4 lane Arterial 25,053 C 22,119 C 35,710 F San Jose Avenue University Drive Yosemite Avenue 2 lane Local 5,000 D 5,000 D 5,000 D Yosemite Avenue SR 59 R Street 4 lane Arterial 16,133 C 14,155 C 26,130 C R Street M Street 4 lane Arterial 26,084 C 26,347 C 38,430 F M Street G Street 4 lane Arterial 20,794 C 19,443 C 38,770 F G Street Parsons 4 lane Arterial 31,249 D 31,094 D 38,990 F ___________________________
Notes: Bold and highlighted values exceed General Plan level of service standard.

169

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 33 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
Peak Hour Intersection Volumes and Levels of Service

Traffic Volumes. Year 2035 a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figure 9 and Figure 10. Figure 9 presents 2035 No Project volumes , which assume the BRMDP area is developed with the Approved BRMDP land uses and the General Plan circulation system.

Figure 10 presents 2035 Plus Project volumes, which assume the BRMDP area is developed with the Proposed BRMDP land uses.

Intersection Geometry. The geometry assume d for study area intersections under Year 2035 condition is also illustrated in Figure 9 and Figure 10. Improvements consistent with the Bellevue Ranch Master Development Agreement are assumed. In the case of intersections on SR 59 , improvements planned by Caltrans and the City have been assumed . Elsewhere, intersection geometry is consistent with the City General Plan.

Intersection Level of Service – 2035 No Project. Table 9 displays the a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS at each study intersection under fut ure Cumulative 2035 conditions. Table 9 shows LOS for the No Project condition ( with Approved BRMDP land uses ), and LOS for the Plus Project condition (with Proposed BRMDP land uses).

Under 2035 No Project conditions, the following two of the 17 study intersections would operate at acceptable LOS D or better during both the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour:

7. M Street / Cardella Road, and

10. SR 59 / Yosemite Avenue.

The following 15 of the 17 study intersections would operate at LOS that exceeds the minimum LOS D standard.

Intersection 1 – G Street / Farmland Avenue. Under Cumulative No Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 95 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS B with 13 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak ho ur. LOS F is inconsistent with the General Plan policies and is considered unacceptable. The following improvements are recommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the eastbound -to-southbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit northbound-to-southbound U-turns.

• Add a second westbound-to-southbound left-turn lane.

• Optimize the traffic signal timing at this intersection to long -term future cumulative traffic volumes.
170
4 M St/ Bellevue Rd
3 R St/ Bellevue Rd
2 SR 59/ Bellevue Rd
1 G St/ Farmland Ave
8 G St/ Cardella Rd
7 M St/ Cardella Rd
6 G St/ Bellevue Rd
5 Barclay Way/ Bellevue Rd
12 M St/ Yosemite Ave
11 R St/ Yosemite Ave
10 SR 59/ Yosemite Ave
9 M St/ Lehigh Dr/
Community College Dr
16 M St/ Olive Ave
15 R St/ Olive Ave
14 SR 59/ Olive Ave
13 G St/ Yosemite Ave
17 G St/ Olive Ave
Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
PM Peak Hour Volume(XX)
Signalized Intersection
N.T.S.

KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 9

CUMULATIVE PLUS APPROVED PROJECT

TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
7043-05 RA 5/10/2023
55 (9)
385 (357)
18 (74)
(3) 463
(655) 252
(192) 154
5 (69)
191 (6)
270 (106)
(21) 8
(8) 34
(6) 379
177 (118)
340 (467)
171 (158)
(98) 98
(280) 289
(266) 891
136 (130)
1230 (1324)
550 (331)
(118) 160
(1067) 1658
(182) 117
406 (433)
354 (333)
150 (43)
(624) 1148
(248) 113
(427) 740
13 (25)
1368 (1294)
193 (271)
(170) 72
(1163) 2272
(416) 492
216 (111)
45 (22)
99 (187)
(28) 37
(37) 99
(94) 108
118 (89)
1555 (1651)
28 (37)
(42) 211
(1023) 2033
(11) 15
466 (114)
663 (173)
81 (44)
(299) 676
(157) 588
(149) 304
90 (33)
542 (1144)
55 (406)
(180) 411
(606) 1171
(319) 515
229 (248)
681 (324)
132 (111)
(591) 281
(530) 652
(190) 240
81 (129)
392 (691)
391 (204)
(144) 351
(409) 656
(264) 207
22 (31)
1126 (543)
185 (77)
(13) 6
(840) 828
(148) 191
48 (40)
25 (32)
60 (95)
(16) 47
(23) 44
(14) 13
1228 (1299)
311 (208)
(1028) 1158
(170) 94
278 (198)
104 (152)
85 (73)
847 (850)
831 (482)
(298) 174
(750) 375
(270) 285
125 (265)
254 (372)
166 (188)
(116) 60
(213) 331
(85) 121
176 (207)
723 (532)
387 (350)
(147) 132
(683) 776
(286) 206
413 (247)
487 (526)
220 (251)
(119) 223
(587) 434
(81) 67
293 (305)
940 (763)
135 (192)
(230) 180
(1015) 682
(503) 439
100 (201)
586 (995)
321 (405)
(239) 385
(803) 922
(192) 201
144 (324)
644 (647)
240 (266)
(205) 156
(1090) 685
(77) 101
207 (341)
622 (784)
168 (177)
(475) 290
(731) 753
(157) 123
85 (114)
733 (649)
610 (742)
(163) 88
(831) 693
(195) 141
326 (291)
899 (942)
345 (261)
(222) 240
(892) 758
(92) 96
501 (246)
611 (552)
130 (144)
(275) 242
(656) 785
(230) 118
104 (113)
889 (618)
161 (148)
(453) 448
(873) 500
(210) 198
171
4 M St/ Bellevue Rd
3 R St/ Bellevue Rd
2 SR 59/ Bellevue Rd
1 G St/ Farmland Ave
8 G St/ Cardella Rd
7 M St/ Cardella Rd
6 G St/ Bellevue Rd
5 Barclay Way/ Bellevue Rd
12 M St/ Yosemite Ave
11 R St/ Yosemite Ave
10 SR 59/ Yosemite Ave
9 M St/ Lehigh Dr/
Community College Dr
16 M St/ Olive Ave
15 R St/ Olive Ave
14 SR 59/ Olive Ave
13 G St/ Yosemite Ave
17 G St/ Olive Ave
Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
PM Peak Hour Volume(XX)
Signalized Intersection
N.T.S.

KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 10

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROPOSED PROJECT

TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
7043-05 RA 5/10/2023
17 (2)
123 (135)
6 (7)
(115) 290
(185) 90
(195) 110
10 (10)
65 (70)
200 (135)
(8) 11
(11) 51
(32) 546
173 (115)
330 (450)
146 (139)
(106) 109
(271) 281
(262) 871
116 (114)
1204 (1300)
535 (323)
(114) 156
(1045) 1621
(196) 130
258 (282)
283 (245)
103 (24)
(729) 1219
(185) 86
(437) 851
9 (16)
1320 (1277)
234 (303)
(118) 46
(1106) 2188
(512) 550
120 (105)
397 (264)
251 (210)
(204) 275
(228) 259
(100) 431
255 (234)
1087 (1021)
231 (97)
(108) 246
(683) 1673
(397) 223
164 (54)
19 (9)
23 (113)
(20) 74
(16) 46
(80) 65
30 (58)
1699 (1748)
16 (33)
(23) 173
(1120) 2194
(8) 28
334 (85)
392 (100)
39 (22)
(336) 817
(85) 339
(115) 244
45 (16)
565 (1165)
48 (323)
(131) 300
(622) 1196
(372) 654
234 (255)
610 (287)
134 (108)
(535) 244
(477) 584
(162) 207
84 (127)
392 (684)
343 (174)
(151) 353
(406) 636
(240) 178
377 (280)
1136 (811)
89 (102)
(646) 322
(636) 937
(39) 68
83 (106)
143 (172)
67 (42)
(150) 606
(166) 150
(479) 476
22 (31)
996 (479)
189 (81)
(11) 5
(749) 735
(134) 171
49 (43)
26 (34)
53 (86)
(17) 48
(25) 45
(13) 12
1114 (1166)
300 (214)
(930) 1047
(93) 28
277 (200)
32 (82)
75 (63)
872 (868)
836 (475)
(291) 173
(769) 384
(301) 316
126 (266)
244 (356)
186 (212)
(103) 53
(205) 319
(85) 120
257 (210)
1227 (688)
116 (50)
(251) 91
(945) 990
(298) 202
70 (59)
303 (392)
206 (234)
(365) 734
(342) 437
(176) 190
169 (196)
701 (514)
416 (380)
(126) 114
(665) 755
(282) 200
443 (271)
466 (507)
211 (247)
(113) 213
(561) 412
(69) 58
237 (239)
829 (659)
131 (187)
(199) 159
(876) 597
(540) 564
98 (196)
580 (972)
346 (437)
(187) 314
(781) 911
(165) 180
152 (344)
660 (666)
280 (308)
(188) 144
(1122) 602
(77) 102
241 (396)
647 (812)
169 (178)
(504) 305
(754) 778
(144) 112
85 (114)
745 (661)
578 (707)
(184) 100
(837) 703
(209) 152
300 (268)
931 (972)
362 (273)
(218) 237
(935) 798
(104) 108
533 (268)
551 (502)
126 (142)
(262) 229
(591) 712
(198) 102
101 (109)
905 (632)
139 (126)
(483) 480
(890) 509
(197) 188
172

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 36 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
TABLE 9
2035 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
With Current Plan With Proposed Plan
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Control Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 G Street / Farmland Ave Signal 95 F 13 B Signal 193 F 12 B 2 SR 59 / Bellevue Road Signal 196 F 43 D Signal 185 F 41 D 3 Bellevue Road / R Street Signal 301 F 128 F Signal 299 F 142 F 4 M Street / Bellevue Road Signal 113 F 56 E Signal 90 F 26 C 5 Barclay Way / Bellevue Rd Signal 56 E 30 C Signal 43 D 18 B 6 G Street / Bellevue Road Signal 90 F 23 C Signal 74 E 21 C 7 M Street / Cardella Road1 Signal 53 D 49 D Signal 46 D 43 D 8 G Street / Cardella Road Signal 181 F 106 F Signal 173 F 102 F 9 M Street / Lehigh Drive Signal 100 F 24 C Signal 92 F 23 C 10 SR 59 / Yosemite Avenue Signal 39 D 12 B Signal 17 B 10 B 11 R Street / Yosemite Avenue Signal 84 F 70 E Signal 87 F 71 E 12 M Street / Yosemite Ave Signal 142 F 70 E Signal 111 F 58 E 13 G Street / Yosemite Avenue Signal 65 E 37 D Signal 65 E 36 D 14 SR 59 / Olive Avenue Signal 64 E 62 E Signal 57 E 53 D 15 R Street / Olive Avenue Signal 88 F 201 F Signal 92 F 250 F 16 M Street / Olive Avenue Signal 216 F 160 F Signal 218 F 154 F 17 G Street / Olive Avenue Signal 131 F 56 E Signal 146 F 56 E Notes: Highlighting shows LOS in excess of minimum LOS D. Conditions over the entire peak hour; delays are longer during the peak minutes before the school day.

173

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 37 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
TABLE 10
2035 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - WITH RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS With Current Plan With Proposed Plan
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Control Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 G Street / Farmland Ave Signal 81 F 13 B Signal 79 E 11 B 2 SR 59 / Bellevue Road Signal 76 E 30 C Signal 70 E 29 C 3 Bellevue Road / R Street Signal 178 F 52 D Signal 173 F 53 D 4 M Street / Bellevue Road Signal 86 F 29 C Signal 54 D 23 C 5 Barclay Way / Bellevue Rd Signal 51 D 30 C Signal 43 D 18 B 6 G Street / Bellevue Road Signal 51 D 23 C Signal 49 D 21 C 7 M Street / Cardella Road Signal 53 D 49 D Signal 46 D 43 D 8 G Street / Cardella Road Signal 95 F 74 E Signal 89 F 69 E 9 M Street / Lehigh Drive Signal 53 D 21 C Signal 43 D 21 C 10 SR 59 / Yosemite Avenue Signal 39 D 12 B Signal 17 B 10 B 11 R Street / Yosemite Avenue Signal 36 D 44 D Signal 38 D 42 D 12 M Street / Yosemite Ave Signal 142 F 70 E Signal 111 F 58 E 13 G Street / Yosemite Avenue Signal 57 E 37 D Signal 57 E 36 D 14 SR 59 / Olive Avenue Signal 63 E 61 E Signal 56 E 51 D 15 R Street / Olive Avenue Signal 196 F 196 F Signal 92 F 243 F 16 M Street / Olive Avenue Signal 216 F 160 F Signal 218 F 153 F 17 G Street / Olive Avenue Signal 85 F 53 D Signal 85 F 50 D Notes: Highlighting shows LOS in excess of minimum LOS D. Conditions over the entire peak hour; delays are longer during the peak minutes before the school day. Blank indicates acceptable LOS and no improvement recommended, or project does not add more than five seconds of delay.

174

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 38 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS F w ith 81 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS B with 13 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. Even with implementation of the a bove improvements, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the a.m. peak hour. Additiona l improvements are not recommended at this time.

Because of existing land use development and the availability of right -of-way, it is unc lear if adding a second northbound to -westbound left-turn lane is feasible. If future study determines this second left-turn lane is feasible, it is recommended.

Intersection 2 – SR 59 / Bellevue Road . Under Cumulative No Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 196 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS D with 43 seconds of delay in t he p.m. peak hour. LOS F is inconsistent with the General Plan policies and is considered unacceptable. The following improvements are r ecommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Add a third westbound through lane and a third eastbound through lane in t he immediate vicinity of the intersection. The lengths of the third approach and departure lanes should be determined when land use development adjacent to the intersection is proposed.

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the northbound -to-eastbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit westbound-to-eastbound U-turns.

As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS E with 76 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS C with 30 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. Even with implementation of the above improvements, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable L OS E in the a.m. peak hour. Additional improvements are not recommended at this time.

Intersection 3 – Bellevue Road / R Street. Under Cumulative No Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 301 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS F with 128 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is inconsistent with the General Plan policies and is co nsidered unacceptable. The following improvements are recommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Add a second northbound-to-westbound left-turn lane.

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the eastbound -to-southbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit northbound-to-southbound U-turns.

175

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 39 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the northbound -to-eastbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit westbound-to-eastbound U-turns.

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the southbound -to-westbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit eastbound-to-westbound U-turns.

• Optimize the traffic signal timing at this intersection to long -term future cumulative traffic volumes.

As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS F with 178 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D with 52 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. Even with impleme ntation of the above improvements, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the a.m. peak hour. Additional improvements are not recommended at this time.

Intersection 4 – M Street / Bellevue Road . Under Cumulative No Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 113 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS E with 56 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS F and LOS E are inconsistent with the General Plan policies and are considered unacceptable . The following improvements are recommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Add a second southbound-to-eastbound left-turn lane.

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the eastbound -to-southbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit northbound-to-southbound U-turns.

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the westbound -to-northbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit southbound-to-northbound U-turns.

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the northbound -to-eastbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit westbound-to-eastbound U-turns.

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the southbound -to-westbound right-turn movement.

176

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 40 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
• Prohibit eastbound-to-westbound U-turns.

• Optimize the traffic signal timing at this intersection to long -term future cumulative traffic volumes.

As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS F with 8 6 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS C with 29 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. Even with implementation of the above improvements, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the a.m. peak hour. Additional improvements are not recommended at this time.

Intersection 5 – Barclay Way / Bellevue Road . Under Cumulative No Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS E with 56 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C with 30 seconds of delay in the p .m. peak hour. LOS E is inconsistent with the General Plan policies and is considered unacceptable. The following improve ments are recommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the southbound -to-westbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit eastbound-to-westbound U-turns.

As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS D with 51 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS C with 30 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. Per General Plan policies, LOS D and LOS C are considered acceptable.

Intersection 6 – G Street / Bellevue Road. Under Cumulative No Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 90 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, an d LOS C with 23 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is inconsistent with the General Plan policies and is c onsidered unacceptable. The following improvements are recommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Install permitted plus overlap phasin g on the southbound -to-westbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit eastbound-to-westbound U-turns.

• Optimize the tra ffic signal timing at this intersection to long -term future cumulative traffic volumes.

As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS D with 51 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS C with 23 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. Per General Plan policies, LOS D and LOS C are considered acceptable.

177

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 41 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
Intersection 8 – G Street / C ardella Road . Under Cumulative No Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 181 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS F with 106 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is inconsistent with the General Plan policies and is considered unacceptable. The following improvements are recommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the eastbound -to-southbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit northbound-to-southbound U-turns.

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the southbound -to-westbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit eastbound-to-westbound U-turns.

• Widen the eastbound approach to include:
- two exclusive left-turn lanes,
- two exclusive through lanes, and
- an exclusive right-turn lane.

• Widen the westbound approach to include:
- an exclusive left-turn lane,
- two exclusive through lanes, and
- an exclusive right-turn lane.

• Optimize the traffic signal timing at this intersection to long -term future cumulative traffic volumes.

As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS F with 95 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS E with 74 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. Even with implementation of the ab ove improvements, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and LOS E in the p.m. peak hour.

Due to the availability of right -of-way, it is unclear if it is feasible to add a third northbound through lane and a third southbound through lane in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. If future study determines t hese third through lanes are feasible, they are recommended. The lengths of the third approach and departure lanes should be determined when land u se development adjacent to the intersection on the east side of G Street is proposed.

Intersection 9 – M St reet / Lehigh Drive . Under Cumulative No Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 100 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C with 24 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is inconsistent with the General Plan policies and is considered unacceptable. The following improvements are recommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

178

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 42 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
• Widen the northbound approach to include:
- an exclusive left-turn lane,
- two exclusive through lanes, and
- an exclusive right-turn lane.

• Add a second southbound -to-eastbound left-turn lane. Currently, two eastbound departure lanes are present at the intersection. However, th e configuration and striping of the departure lanes might need to be modified with the addition of the second southbound-to-eastbound left-turn lane.

• Optimize the traffic signal timing at this intersection to long -term future cumulative traffic volumes.

As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS D with 53 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS C with 2 1 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. Per General Plan policies, LOS D and LOS C are considered acceptable.

Intersection 11 – R Street / Yosemite Avenue . Under Cumulative No Project con ditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 84 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS E with 70 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hou r. LOS F and LOS E are inconsistent with the General Plan policies and are considered unacceptable. T he following improvements are recommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the eastbound -to-southbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit northbound-to-southbound U-turns.

• Add a second southbound-to-eastbound left-turn lane.

• Add a second northbound-to-westbound left-turn lane.

As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS D with 36 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D with 44 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. Per General Plan policies, LOS D is considered acceptable.

Intersection 12 – M Street / Yosemite Avenue . Under Cumulative No Project c onditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 142 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hou r, and LOS E with 70 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS F and LOS E are inconsistent with the General Plan policies and are considered unacceptable. Due to the presence of existing land use development and utility infrastructure, widening of this intersection is considered infeasible.

Intersection 13 – G Street / Yosemite Avenue . Under Cumulative No Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS E with 65 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS D with 37 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS E is inconsistent with the General Plan 179

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 43 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
policies and is considered unacceptable. The following improvements are recommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the westbound -to-northbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit southbound-to-northbound U-turns.

• Optimize the traffic signal timing at this intersection to long -term future cumulative traffic volumes.

As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS E with 57 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D with 37 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. Even with implementation of the above imp rovements, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS E in the a.m. peak hour. Additional improvements are not recommended at this time.

Intersection 14 – SR 59 / Olive Avenue . Under Cumulative No Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS E with 64 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS E with 62 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS E is inconsistent with the General Plan policies and is considered unacceptable. The following improvements are recommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on th e eastbound-to-southbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit northbound-to-southbound U-turns.

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the northbound -to-eastbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit westbound-to-eastbound U-turns.

• Optimize the traffic signal ti ming at this intersection to long -term future cumulative traffic volumes.

As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS E with 63 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS E with 61 seconds of d elay in the p.m. peak hour. Even with implementation of the above improvements, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS E in both the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour.

Additional improvements are not recommended at this time.

Intersection 15 – R Street / Olive Avenue . Under Cumulative No Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 88 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, an d LOS F with 201 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is inconsistent with the General Plan 180

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 44 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
policies and is considered unacceptable. The following improvements are recommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Install permitted plus overlap phasi ng on the westbound -to-northbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit southbound-to-northbound U-turns.

As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS F with 196 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS F with 196 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. Even with implementati on of the above improvements, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in both the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour.

Because of the presence of existing land use development adjacent to this intersection, additional improvements are not recommended.

Intersection 16 – M Street / Olive Avenue . Under Cumulative No Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 216 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS F with 160 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is inconsistent with the General Plan policies and is considered unacceptable. The following improvements are recommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the eastbound -to-southbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit northbound-to-southbound U-turns.

As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS F with 216 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS F with 16 0 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour . Even with implementation of the above improvements, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in both the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour.

Because of the presence of existing land use development adjacent to this intersection, additional improvements are not recommended.

Intersection 17 – G Street / Olive Avenue . Under Cumulative No Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 131 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS E with 56 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS F and LOS E are inconsistent with the General Plan policies and are considered unacceptable. The following improvements are recommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the southbo und-to-westbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit eastbound-to-westbound U-turns.

• Optimize the traffic signal timing at this intersection to long -term future cumulative traffic volumes.
181

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 45 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS F with 85 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D with 53 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. Even with implementation of the above improvemen ts, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in the a.m. peak hour. Because of the presence of existing land use development adjacent to this intersection, additional improvements are not recommended.

Intersection Levels of Service – Plus Project Impacts. The effects of implementing Proposed amendments to the BRMDP would be significant if the change from No Project conditions to Proposed Project conditions causes an intersection’s operation to change from LOS D to LOS E or F, or if it appreciabl y lengthens the delay at a n intersection that is alr eady forecast to exceed LOS D. For this TIA, an increase in delay of more than five seconds is considered to be an appreciable increase.

As shown in Table 9, traffic peak hour conditions at intersections with implementation of the Proposed BRMDP are for the most part similar to those projected with the Approved BRMDP.

At 14 of the 17 study intersections:

• the intersection would operate at LOS D or better during both the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour; or

• delay at the intersection with the Proposed BRMDP would not be more than five seconds greater than delay with the Approved BRMDP.

The 14 study intersections that would operate at LOS D or better, or would not experience an increase in delay greater than five seconds are:

1 G Street / Farmland Avenue
2 SR 59 / Bellevue Road
4 M Street / Bellevue Road
5 Barclay Way / Bellevue Road
6 G Street / Bellevue Road
7 M Street / Cardella Road
8 G Street / Cardella Road
9 M Street / Lehigh Drive
10 SR 59 / Yosemite Avenue
11 R Street / Yosemite Avenue
12 M Street / Yosemite Avenue
13 G Street / Yosemite Avenue
14 SR 59 / Olive Avenue
16 M Street / Olive Avenue

At the following three study intersections, traffic operations under 2035 Plus P roject conditions would be unacceptable at LOS F during both the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour, and delay with the Proposed BRMDP would be more than five seconds greater than delay with the Approved BRMDP.
182

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 46 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

Intersection 3 – Bellevue Road / R Street . Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 299 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS F with 142 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is inconsistent with the General Plan policies and is consid ered unacceptable. The following improvements are reco mmended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Add a second northbound-to-westbound left-turn lane.

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the eastbound -to-southbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit northbound-to-southbound U-turns.

• Install permitted pl us overlap phasing on the northbound -to-eastbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit westbound-to-eastbound U-turns.

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the southbound -to-westbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit eastbound-to-westbound U-turns.

• Optimize the traffic signal timing at this intersection to long -term future cumulative traffic volumes.

As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS F with 173 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D with 53 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. The above improvements are the same as those recommended under Cumulative No Project conditions. Even with implementation of the above improvements, this intersection would continue to operate at unaccep table LOS F in the a.m. peak hour. Additional improvements are not recommended at this time.

Intersection 15 – R Street / Olive Avenue . Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 92 seconds of delay in the a. m. peak hour, and LOS F with 250 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is inconsistent with the General Plan policies and is considered unacceptable. The following improvements are recommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the westbound -to-northbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit southbound-to-northbound U-turns.

183

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 47 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)
As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS F with 92 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS F with 243 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. The above improvements are the same as those recommended under Cumulative No Project conditions. Even with implementation of the above improvements, this intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F in both the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour . Because of the presence of existing land use development adjacent to this intersection, additional improvements are not recommended.

Intersection 17 – G Street / Olive Avenue. Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 146 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour, and LOS E with 56 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS F and LOS E are inconsistent with the General Plan policies and are considered unacceptable. The following improvements are recommended to improve LOS at this intersection:

• Install permitted plus overlap phasing on the southbound -to-westbound right-turn movement.

• Prohibit eastbound-to-westbound U-turns.

• Optimize the traffic signal timing at this intersection to long -term future cumulative traffic volumes.

As shown in Table 10, the improvement listed above would result in this intersection operating at LOS F with 85 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hou r and LOS D with 50 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. The above improvements are the same as those recommended under Cumulative No Project conditions. Even with implementation of the above improvements, this intersection would continue to operate a t unacceptable LOS F in the a.m. peak hour. Because of the presence of existing land use development adjacent to this intersection, additional improvements are not recommended.

184

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 48 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

REFERENCES

California Department of Transportation. 2021. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014 Edition Revision 6 (March 30, 2021). Sacramento CA.

California Department of Transportation. 2022. Highway Design Manual Seventh Edition.

Sacramento CA.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 20 21. T rip Generation, 11th Edition. Washington, D.C. http://www.ite.org/tripgeneration/trippubs.asp

Merced, City of. 2004. Traffic Study Guidelines. Merced, CA.

Merced, City of. 2010. Merced Vision 2030 General Plan, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. Merced, CA.

Merced, City of. 2012. Merced Vision 2030 General Plan. Merced, CA.

Merced Transit Authority. 2023. Merced Transit Authority Internet Website. https://www.mercedthebus.com/

Transportation Research Board. 1982. National Coopera tive Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255, Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design.

Washington, D.C.

Trafficware. 2023. Trafficware Internet Website. http://www.trafficware.com/

Transportation Research Board. 2016. Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition. Washington, D.C. http://hcm.trb.org/?qr=1

185

Traffic Impact Analysis for the Bellevue Ranch General Plan Amendment Page 49 Merced, CA (May 10, 2023)

APPENDICES

(Presented in Separate Electronic File)

186

100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum

Date: October 24, 2023
To: Tiffanie Marshall, Stonefield Home
From: Mackenzie Watten, PTP, and Ian Barnes, PE, Fehr & Peers Subject: Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) Proj ect Comparison Assessment for the Bellevue Ranch Project in Merced, California
WC23-4027
This memorandum summarizes a vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) analysis for the proposed Bellevue Ranch project in northern Merced, California. The proposed project aims to modify the previously-entitled project description for the site to reduce the intensity of development on site.

As VMT is generally scalar with the number of trips generated by a project, and reducing the intensity of development reduces the number of trips generated, the net VMT change resulting from the discretionary action to approve the less-intense project should be a reduction in overall VMT generated by the project. This analysis quantifies the reduction in VMT associated with the change in project description.

It is noted that the current certified City of Merced General Plan EIR does not include VMT as the CEQA Transportation metric, which is generally consistent with the typical approaches for General Plan EIRs pre-2013. Therefore, this analysis does not include a comparison back to the General Plan EIR.

Project Description
As noted above, the project was previously approved (in 1995) presuming a more-intense development pattern for the project area. The project as currently proposed includes a reduction in development intensity. The previously-approved and currently-proposed land uses are as follows:

Previously-Approved Land Uses:
• 4,873 single family dwelling units
• 1,675 multifamily dwelling units
• 618,000 square feet of retail commercial land use
187
Tiffanie Marshall, Stonefield Home
October 24, 2023