SR 1.3 PC MTG #24-031 — City Council/Public Finance and Economic Development Authority/Parking Authority, January 16, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

January 3, 2024

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)

Adopted this 3rd day of January 2024

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

ATTEST:

_______________________________
Secretary

Attachment:

Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B – Findings
Exhibit C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 210

EXHIBIT A
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4128

Page 1 ends

Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Resolution #4128
Pre-Annexation Development Agreement Regarding Pending
Annexation and Pre-zoning Application #23-03, General Plan Amendment #23-04, Establishment of Planned Development (P-D) #80, Adoption of VST Specific Plan and Environmental Review #23-44

1. All development within the annexation area shall comply with all provisions of the Pre -Annexation Development Agreement and all requirements of Planning Commission Resolution #4127 for Annexation and Pre -zoning Application #23 -03, General Plan Amendment #23-04, Establishment of Planned Development (P -D) #80, Adoption of VST Specific Plan and Environmental Review #23- 44 2. 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 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 t he 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 in demnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by the City), 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 such governmental entity. City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, the developer/applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, officials, employees, or agents.
211

EXHIBIT A
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4128

Page 2 ends

3. The developer/applicant shall construct and operate all future projects within the annexation area in strict compliance with the approvals granted herein, City s tandards, 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.
212

EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4128

Page 1 ends

Findings and Considerations
Planning Commission Resolution #4128
Pre-Annexation Development Agreement regarding Pending Annexation and Pre-zoning Application #23-03, General Plan Amendment #23-04, Establishment of Planned Development (P-D) #80, and Adoption of the VST Specific Plan

FINDINGS/CONSIDERATIONS:

General Plan Compliance
A) On December 20, 2023, the Planning Commission considered Annexation and Prezoning Ap plication #23 -04, General Plan Amendment #23-04, Establishment of Planned Development (P-D) #80, and Adoption of the VST Specific Plan. These applications were found to be consistent with the General Plan (refer to Planning Commission Resolution #4127 at Attachment B of Planning Commission Staff Report #24-031).

The City Council will consider the above applications on January 16, 2024. General Plan Amendment #23 -04 would amend text within the General Plan to be consistent with the Virginia Smith Specific Plan. If General Plan Amendment # 23-04 is approved, the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement would be consistent with the General Plan.

Zoning Code Compliance for the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement B) Per Merced Municipal Code (MMC) Section 20. 86 Development Agreements, the City may enter into a Development Agreement with any person or authorized agent who has legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property.

A Development Agreement is a Legislative Act. The City Council shall take action on all Development Agreements after considering the recommendation of the Planning Commission and City Staff.

Prior to the Planning Commission making a recommendation on the Pre- Annexation Development Agreement, a public hearing is required in compliance with MMC Section 20.86.050. The City Council shall also hold a public hearing prior to taking actio n on the Pre -Annexation Development Agreement.

213

EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4128

Page 2 ends

Specific Plan
C) The Virginia Smith Trust Specific Plan will be considered by the City Council on January 16, 2024. If the Specific Plan is approved, the Pre- Annexation Development Agreement would be consistent with the Virginia Smith Trust Specific Plan.

Pre-Annexation Development Agreement
D) Section 20.86.150 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a property owner to enter into a Pre -Annexation Development Agreement prior to annexation. This agreement shall not become operative unless annexation proceedings are completed by the Local Agency Formation commission (LAFCO). The agreement at Attachment C of addresses items such as a description of the project, project development parameters, applicable city, state and federal laws, uniform codes and standard specifications, the financial commitments of the city and VST, VST project facility and infrastructure obligations, permits and approvals and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Environmental Clearance
E) Planning staff has conducted an environmental review of the project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Focus ed Subsequent Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2001021056 (certified 10/17/2023) was prepared , including the Findings required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit C), and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is being recommended. This environmental document is provided at Attachment G of Planning Commission Staff Report #24-031.

214

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

FOR THE
University Community Plan Update
and VST Specific Plan Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2001021056
County of Merced
Planning Department
2222 M Street, 2nd Floor
Merced, California 95340
Contact:

Tiffany Ho
Merced County Planning Department
July 28, 2023

EXHIBIT C
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4128
215

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................3

1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ..............................................................5

1.1. Purpose of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ..........................................5

1.2. 2001/2004 UCP EIR and relationship to the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan MMRP ..............................................................................................................................................5

1.3. Roles and Responsibilities..................................................................................................6

1.4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table ....................................................6

216

3 List of Abbreviations
AAQA Ambient Air Quality Analysis
BESD Banta Elementary School District
BMP best management practice
CALGreen State Building Energy Efficiency Standards
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
City City of Merced
CNEL community noise equivalent level
County County of Merced
dBA A-weighted decibel
ESA federal Endangered Species Act
ghg greenhouse gas
lb/day pounds per day
Ldn day-night average noise level
Leq energy-equivalent noise level
MMRP mitigation monitoring and reporting program
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NAHC Native American Heritage Center
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Eliminate System
217

4 PCC Public Contract Code
PRC Public Resources Code
RWQCB regional water quality control board
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SWPPP storm water pollution prevention plan
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Valley CAN Valley Clean Air Now
VELB valley elderberry longhorn beetle
VERA Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
ZNE zero net energy

218

5 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.), the County of Merced (County) prepared a Focused Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Project (the Project). The Project is located in unincorporated Merced County, northeast of the City of Merced, south of UC Merced, and within the City’s sphere of influence (SOI). The proposed UCP Update area encompasses 1,841 acres and includes two properties; the Hunt and VST properties. The VST Property consists of 654 acres immediately south of the UC Merced Campus and is bounded generally by Lake Road on the west, UC Merced to the north, Cardella Road on the south and the Orchard Drive alignment on the east. The Hunt property is referred to as UCP South in the Adopted UCP, and includes approximately 1,187 acres of land south of UC Merced and is bounded by Lake Road on the west, Cardella Road to the north, Fairfield Canal to the east and Yosemite Road to the south. The Project includes modifications to the University Community Plan as part of the UCP Update and a Specific Plan for the 654-acre VST Property.

The SEIR evaluates the program-level impacts of the proposed changes to the Adopted UCP, and the project specific impacts associated with the VST Specific Plan. The SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001021056) identified significant impacts and mitigation measures that would reduce the identified impacts to less- than-significant levels, where feasible , and concluded that some environmental impacts would be significant and unavoidable. CEQA (PRC Section 21081.6) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15091[d] and 15097) require public agencies to “adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” This mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) has been prepared for the Project because the SEIR identifies significant adverse impacts related to project implementation, and mitigation measures have been identified to reduce or eliminate most of those impacts. Adoption of this MMRP would occur in conjunction with approval of the Project.

1.1. Purpose of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This MMRP has been prepared to ensure that all required mitigation measures are implemented and completed in a satisfactory manner before and during project construction and operation, as applicable.

The MMRP table provided below has been prepared to assist the responsible parties in implementing the mitigation measures applicable to the Project. The table identifies the impact; the individual mitigation measures; the specific actions required before, during, and after construction; the implementing party; and mitigation timing. The table also includes a column to confirm implementation of the mitigation measures after project approval. The numbering of mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence found in the project SEIR. Mitigation measures that are referenced more than once in the SEIR are not duplicated multiple times in the MMRP table.

1.2. 2001/2004 UCP EIR and relationship to the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan MMRP
In 2004, the County adopted the UCP, which covered a 2,133-acre area that included most of the VST property, just south of the UC Merced campus (Adopted UCP). A program EIR was certified with adoption of the UCP in 2001 and a supplemental EIR, which focused on hydrology and water quality, was certified on December 21, 2004 via Resolution No. 2004-238 (referred to collectively herein as the 2001/2004 UCP EIR; State Clearinghouse No. 2001021056). The 2001/2004 UCP EIR was identified as the appropriate document to base the subsequent CEQA analyses upon because it describes the potential environmental impacts of the planning documents that would be amended by the VST Specific Plan and was certified by the County.

The County adopted an MMRP as part of the 2001/2004 UCP EIR approvals and those mitigation measures are incorporated herein by this reference. This MMRP is focused specifically on the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan 219

6 Project. Where mitigation measures applicable to the Project remain the same as those adopted in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR, the title, “Adopted Mitigation Measure,” is used as the mitigation measure was “adopted” as part of the 2001/2004 UCP EIR; where mitigation measures would be modified or eliminated from those identified in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR, the title, “Modified Mitigation Measure,” is used; and where new mitigation measures were developed for the modified Phase 2 Project, the title, “New Mitigation Measure,” is used.

This MMRP only applies to activities associated with implementation of the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Project applicable to the portions of the Project detailed in each measure. In addition, if the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Project does not proceed, and the Project as approved through the 2001/2004 UCP EIR is implemented across the UCP area, the 2001/2004 UCP EIR mitigation measures would be applied to those activities.

1.3. Roles and Responsibilities
The County is responsible for overall administration of the MMRP and for verifying that the applicant, builder, construction contractor, or other designated party has completed the necessary actions for each measure. The party responsible for implementing each item will identify the staff members responsible for coordinating with the County on the MMRP.

1.4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table
Table 1, which identifies the mitigation measures applicable to the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Project, includes the table columns identified and described below:
 Impact: This column presents all the impacts disclosed in the SEIR for which mitigation was identified.  Mitigation Measure: This column presents all the mitigation measures identified in the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Project SEIR, each of which has been adopted and incorporated into the project.  Action(s): For every mitigation measure, one or more actions are described. The actions delineate the means by which the mitigation measures will be implemented and, in some instances, the criteria for determining whether a measure has been successfully implemented. Where mitigation measures are particularly detailed, the action may refer back to the measure.
 Implementing Party: This column identifies the entity responsible for undertaking the required action.  Timing: Implementation of the action must occur before or during some part of project approval, project design, or project construction or on an ongoing basis. This column identifies the timing for implementation of each mitigation measure.
 Completion of Implementation: The County is responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures are successfully implemented with respect to work implemented within the County’s jurisdiction. The “Completion of Implementation” column is to be used by the County to indicate when implementation of a mitigation measure has been completed. The County, at its discretion, may delegate implementation responsibility or portions thereof to qualified consultants or contractors. Upon annexation, the County’s responsibility to ensure that the mitigation measures are successfully implemented will be transferred to the City of Merced. The “Completion of Implementation” column is to be used by the City to indicate when implementation of a mitigation measure has been completed.
220

7 Table 1 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Air Quality
Impact 3.1.1:

Generation of
Short-Term,
Construction-
Related Emissions
of ROG, NOX,
PM10, and PM2.5
Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.3 -1 Compliance with the following SJVAPCD mitigation measure listed in Table 6 -3 of the GAAMAQD would further reduce dust created during construction activities:
 Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.

Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.3 -2 Construction contracts shall include the following specifications:
 Minimize idling time to a maximum of ten minutes when construction equipment is not in use;
 Employ construction activity management techniques such as extending the construction period outside the ozone season of May through October, reducing the number of hours of
construction and scheduling activities during off peak hours;  Tuning engines to manufacturer’s specifications;
 When feasible, schedule equipment usage to avoid
simultaneous use of equipment.

New Mitigation Measure 3.1-1a: Utilize the cleanest available off - road construction equipment, including the latest Tier diesel or electric equipment (e.g. scrapers, graders, trenchers, tractors, loaders, backhoes, etc.) (UCP South only)
All construction specifications shall require use off-road construction equipment that meet EPA’s Tier 4 emission standards as defined in 40 CFR 1039 and comply with the appropriate test procedures and provisions as contained in 40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1068. Tier 3 models can be used if a Tier 4 version of the equipment type is not yet produced by manufacturers. This measure can also be achieved by using battery-electric off-road equipment as it becomes available. Implementation of this measure shall be requi red in the Prepare an AAQA for all
construction and operational
emissions that exceed 100 lb/
day.

Project applicant,
construction
contractor,

SJVAPCD
During
preparation of
the EIR for UCP
South

Confirm that construction
equipment measures are
implemented
County of
Merced
Before grading

1 The County’s obligation to implement or confirm that implementation has been satisfied will transfer to the City of Merced up on annexation. 221

8 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
contract the project applicant establishes with its construction contractors. The applicant shall demonstrate its plan to fulfill the requirements of this measure in a report or in project improvement plan details submitted to the discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County) prior to the use of any off-road, diesel-powered construction equipment.

New Mitigation Measure 3.1-1b: Preparation of an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (UCP South only)
SJVACPD recommends that construction and operational emissions that exceed 100 lb/day prepare an AAQA to assess whether a project would violate an AAQS. Prior to the approval of a Final Map, the project applicant shall prepare a project-level analysis of emissions for development in the UCP area that is subject to SJVAPCD oversight to confirm whether the particular land use development would result in emissions that exceed this 100 lb/day screening criterion. In cases where a project’s construction activity would generate emissions above this screening criterion (i.e., 100 lb/day) s, the project applicant shall prepare an AAQA. If, following the preparation of an AAQA, emissions are found to contribute to an exceedance of an AAQS, the project applicant shall either implement additional emission reduction measures as part of the project or, once all feasible on-site reduction measures have been exhausted, engage in regional programs that serve to reduce air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley. An example of a potential program includes the Valley Clean Air Now (Valley CAN)
organization, which improves public health through investments in vehicle repair and replacement programs. Emissions reduction programs must demonstrate a quantifiable reduction and must be located within the SJVAB so air pollution reductions are realized in the basin. Alternatively, if regional air pollution reduction programs are unavailable, the project applicant may enter into a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) with SJVAPCD to reduce emissions to below 100 lb/day for any pollutant that exceeds the screening criteria. If conditions warrant participation in a VERA, the VERA shall demonstrate a pound-for-pound reduction in emissions 222

9 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
that exceed 100 lb/day through a process that funds and implements emissions reduction projects within the SJVAB. The types of emission reduction projects that could be funded include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as well pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of old farm tractors. If a VERA is found to be required to meet thresholds, and the applicant elects to enter into one, the project applicant shall enga ge in a discussion with SJVAPCD prior to the adoption of the VERA to ensure that feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce emissions to a less-than-significant level.

Impact 3.1-2:

Long-Term,
Operational
(Regional)
Emissions of
Criteria Air
Pollutants and
Precursors
Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.3 -4
(a) Outdoor electrical outlets shall be installed in the front and backyards of all housing units.
(b) Use solar or low emission water heaters.
(c) Orient buildings to take advantage of solar heating and natural cooling and use passive solar design.
(d) Increase wall and attic insulation.

New Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a: Implement On-Site Project Design Features to Reduce Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants (UCP South) Prior to the issuance of any development permits, the project applicant shall Implement the following measures to reduce the project’s emissions:
 Use low-VOC (50–100 grams per liter) paint for external residential applications on all construction drawings for review and approval by staff of the discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County).
 Incorporate traffic calming measures including marked crosswalks, count-down signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, roundabouts, and on-street parking
Implement construction design
features to minimize impacts.

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before building
permit issuance

Preparation of air quality
assessment to determine
whether any SJVAPCD annual
mass emissions thresholds are
exceeded.

Project applicant,

SJVAPCD
Before building
permit issuance

223

10 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
throughout the site plan. Specific calming measures and locations shall be identified by a qualified transportation specialist.
 Electric water heaters in all residences (no gas storage tank heaters).
 Electric heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units in residences (no gas units).
 Meet Tier 2 electric vehicle charging standards of the most recent version of Part 11 of the Title 24 California Building Code (CalGreen Code) for all land use types.
 Restrict idling times for heavy heavy duty trucks accessing the project site to 3 minutes or less through the signage indicating that idling must be limited to this duration.
 Plant vegetation throughout the project site near areas of high pollution generation (e.g., heavily traveled roadways, sites of truck idling) to reduce the dispersion of air pollutants.  Apply for grant funding through SJVAPCD’s Bikeway Incentive Program, which offers funding for Class I, Class II, and Class III bicycle paths for projects within the SJVAB.

11 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
VERA to ensure that feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce emissions to a less-than-significant level consistent with the direction given in SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. As allowed by SJVAPCD, the project applicant shall be provided the opportunity to perf orm an additional quantification of the project’s operational emissions following the implementation of the proposed measures listed above under Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a to estimate the TPY needed to reduce emissions to meet SJVAPCD’s annual thresholds of significance.

Biological
Resources
Impact 3.2-1:

Result in
Disturbance to or
Loss of Special-
Status Plant
Species
Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.4-2: The County shall ensure that at least 551 acres of upland annual grassland is preserved in conjunction with and to support at least 61.2 acres of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat (for a total of 612 acres).

Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.4-6: Seed collection from the shining navarretia located within the UCP area shall be conducted prior to the loss of the populations in the UCP area. Seed collection shall be conducted by a qualified botanist or restoration biologist. Collected seeds shall be d
ispersed within suitable habitat (i.e., seasonally moist Preservation of upland annual
grassland.

Project applicant,
County of
Merced
Before
construction
This has been completed for VST.

Collection of shining navarretia
seeds within UCP area.

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before
construction

Pre-construction surveys of
special-status species.

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before
construction

225

12 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
clay flats in grassland). Seeds shall be dispersed only within suitable habitats where shining navarretia does not currently occur to avoid impacts on the genetic composition of existing populations.

Seed from shining navarretia shall be dispersed in suitable habitat within the annual grassland preserved in conjunction with loss of vernal pool habitat (Impact 4.4.1) and/or Swainson’s hawk habitat (Impact 4.4.4) if feasible. However, if mitigation lands to serve both purposes cannot be found, the applicant will be responsible for negotiating a conservation easement with a land owner in the vicinity such that a minimum of seven populations of shining navarretia receive long-term protection.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Implement Avoidance Measure and Mitigation for Special-Status Plant Species Not Covered by the Existing CDFW Incidental Take Permit or USFWS Biological Opinion  During implementation of preconstruction surveys required under the CDFW ITP and USFWS Biological Opinion
Conservation Measures, a qualified botanist will target additional special-status plant species not covered by these permits.

Surveys will follow survey methods from CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts on Special -Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018) and will be conducted during the blooming period for these species (Table MM 3.2-1).
 If special-status plant species are not found, the botanist will document the findings in a report to the discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County), and no further mitigation will be required.

If special-status plant species are found, the area occupied by special-status plants will be avoided completely, if feasible (i.e., project objectives can still be met). This may include establishing a no-disturbance buffer around the occupied habitat and
demarcation of this buffer by a qualified biologist or botanist using flagging or high-visibility construction fencing. The size of the buffer Establishment of buffer area if
any special-status species are
found.

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before
construction

226

13 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
will be determined by the qualified biologist or botanist and will be large enough to avoid direct or indirect impacts on the plant.  If special-status plans are found during special-status plant surveys and cannot be avoided, the project applicant shall, in consultation with CDFW or USFWS as appropriate depending on species status, develop and implement a site -specific mitigation strategy to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat or individuals.

It is likely that existing mitigation efforts for state and fed erally listed plant species required under the ITP and USFWS Biological Opinion would be sufficient to reduce impacts on non -listed special-status plant species to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum, preserving and enhancing existing populations, establishing populations through seed collection or transplantation from the site that is to be affected, and/or restoring or creating habitat in sufficient quantities to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat or individuals. Purchase of credits from an agency -mitigation bank that contains the affected species may also be used to offset loss of occupied habitat. Potential mitigation sites could include suitable locations within or outside of the UCP area or VST Specific Plan area. Habitat and individual plants lost shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio, considering acreage as well as function and value. Success criteria for preserved and
compensatory populations will include:
 The extent of occupied area and plant density (number of plants per unit area) in compensatory populations will be equal to or greater than the affected occupied habitat.  Compensatory and preserved populations will be self - producing. Populations will be considered self -producing when:
 plants reestablish annually for a minimum of five years with no human intervention such as supplemental seeding; and
227

14 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
 reestablished and preserved habitats contain an occupied area and flower density comparable to existing occupied habitat areas in similar habitat types in the project vicinity.

If offsite mitigation includes dedication of conservation easements, purchase of mitigation credits, or other offsite conservation measures, the details of these measures will be included in the mitigation plan, including information on responsible parties for long-term management, conservation easement holders, long -term management requirements, success criteria such as those listed above and other details, as appropriate to target the preservation of long-term viable populations.

Impact 3.2-2:

Result in
Disturbance to or
Loss of Special-
Status Wildlife
Species and
Habitat
Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.4-2: The County shall ensure that at least 551 acres of upland annual grassland is preserved in conjunction with and to support at least 61.2 acres of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat (for a total of 612 acres).

Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.4-4(a): The County shall ensure that Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat is preserved offsite in sufficient quality and quantity, as determined through consultation with the CDFW, to mitigate for the loss resulting from the proposed UCP.

The preservation of annual grasslands (through Policy PA 2.3) that are suitable as foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk shall be located within 10 miles of a current or historic Swainson’s hawk nest site (consistent with CDFG guidance).

Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.4-4(b): The County shall require pre- construction surveys to identify active raptor nests prior to the onset of construction activities within 1,000 feet of any ground disturbing activities (i.e., construction site). The pre-construction surveys will be conducted in accordance with USFWS and/or CDFW guidelines. If Preservation of upland annual
grassland.

Project applicant,
County of
Merced
Before
construction
This has been completed for VST.

Preservation of offsite foraging
habitat for Swainson’s hawk
Project applicant,
construction
contractor, CDFW
Before
construction

Pre-construction surveys to
identify active raptor nests.

Consultation with CDFW and
USFWS if any are located
Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before
construction

Pre-construction surveys to
identify San Joaquin kit fox. If
any are located, implementation
of June 1999 Standardized
Recommendations for
Protection of the San Joaquin Kit
Fox Prior to or During Ground
Disturbance
Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before
construction

228

15 no active raptor nests are identified within 1,000 feet of the construction site, no further mitigation would be necessary.

If active nests are found within 1,000 feet of the construction site, the CDFW shall be consulted to determine appropriate mitigation measures to minimize the effect. At a minimum, construction shall be delayed within an appropriate buffer zone, as determi ned by consultation with CDFW, until the young have fledged.

Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.4-5: Project applicants shall conduct surveys for dens/burrows that could be occupied by vagrant San Joaquin kit fox prior to any ground-disturbing activities within the UCP area. The surveys shall be conducted within two weeks or less of any ground-disturbing activities. If dens/burrows meeting the criteria suitable for use by San Joaquin kit fox are found, the dens/burrows shall be cleared using the methodologies that are consistent with those described in the June 1999 Standa rdized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance.

New Mitigation Measure 3.2-2a: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Western Spadefoot, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Relocate Individuals
 Within 7 days before commencement of project activities that would result in ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or use of vehicles, a qualified biologist familiar with the life history of western spadefoot and experienced in performing surveys for western spadefoot will conduct a focused preconstruction survey of habitat suitable for the species within the UCP area. The qualified biologist will inspect the project site in the UCP area for adult western spadefoot toads, eggs and tadpoles within aquatic breeding habitat, as well as suitable burrow habitat.
 If western spadefoot adults, tadpoles, or eggs are not detected during the focused survey, the qualified biologist will submit a report summarizing the results of the survey to the discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County), and further mitigation will not be required.
 If western spadefoot adults, tadpoles, or eggs are detected, a qualified biologist with an appropriate CDFW Scientific Collecting Pre-construction surveys to
identify presence of Western
spadefoot. Implementation of
mitigation with CDFW permit if
any are located.

Project applicant,
construction
contractor, CDFW

Before
construction

229

16 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Permit that allows handling of amphibians will relocate individual adults, tadpoles, or eggs to nearby suitable habitat with prior approval of CDFW. The qualified biologist will also be present during initial ground disturbance activities and will inspect the project site in the UCP area before initiation of project activities.

If additional western spadefoot are detected, the qualified biologist will relocate individuals into suitable habitat for western spadefoot (i.e., vernal pool grasslands) that will b e preserved in perpetuity.

New Mitigation Measure 3.2-2b: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Western Pond Turtle, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Relocate Individuals
 Within 48 hours before commencement of project activities that would result in ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or use of vehicles, a qualified biologist familiar with the life history of western pond turtle and experienced in performing surveys for western pond turtle will conduct a focused survey of habitat suitable for the species within the UCP area . If aquatic habitat potentially suitable for the species is present within a project site in the UCP area (e.g., streams, ponds, drainages), upland h abitat within approximately 1,600 feet of this aquatic habitat will also be surveyed. The qualified biologist will inspect the project site for western pond turtles as well as suitable burrow habitat.  If western pond turtles are not detected during the focused survey, the qualified biologist will submit a report summarizing the results of the survey to the discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County), and further mitigation will not be required.
 If western pond turtles are detected, a no -disturbance buffer of at least 100 feet will be established around any identified nest sites or overwintering sites. A qualified biologist with an appropriate CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit that allows Pre-construction surveys to
identify presence of Western
pond turtle. Implementation of
avoidance measures and
relocation.

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before
construction
230

17 handling of reptiles will be present during initial ground disturbance activities and will inspect the project site before initiation of project activities. If western pond turtles are detected, the qualified biologist will move the turtles downstream and out of harm’s way.

New Mitigation Measure 3.2-2c: Conduct Focused American Badger Survey and Establish Protective Buffers
 Within 30 days before commencement of project activities that would result in ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or use of vehicles, a qualified wildlife biologist with familiarity with American badger and experience using survey methods for the species will conduct focused surveys of habitat suitable for the species within the UCP area to identify any American badger dens.
 If occupied dens are not found, the qualified biologist will submit a report summarizing the results of the survey to the discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County), and further mitigation will not be required.
 If occupied dens are found, impacts on active badger dens will be avoided by establishing exclusion zones around all active badger dens, the size of which will be determined by the qualified biologist. No project activities (e.g., vegetation removal, ground disturbance, staging) will occur within the exclusion zone until denning activities are complete or the den is abandoned, as confirmed by a qualified biologist. The qualified biologist will monitor each den once per week to track the status of the den and to determine when it is no longer occupied. When it is no longer occupied, project activities within the exclusion zone may occur.

New Mitigation Measure 3.2-2d: Conduct Focused Surveys for Crotch Bumble Bee and Implement Avoidance Measures If Listed under CESA
Prior to implementation of project activities that could result in loss of crotch bumble bees (e.g., ground disturbance, vegetation removal), the following measures will be implemented.
 The project applicant will retain a qualified biologist familiar with bumble bees in California, with experience using survey methods Pre-construction surveys to
identify presence of American
Badger. Establishment of
protective buffers.

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before
construction
231

18 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
for bumble bees, and with approval from CDFW to conduct focused surveys of suitable habitat within the project site in the UCP area. Because a survey protocol for this species has not been established, survey methods will be developed and
approved in consultation with CDFW, and will generally include but not be limited to the following elements (included in survey protocols for other bumble bee species in the United States [USFWS 2018]):
 Surveys will be conducted during the active flight season (typically March through September).
 Surveys will be conducted by walking transects through suitable habitat, or by surveying a minimum of one person - hour per 3 acres of suitable habitat without transects.  Bumble bees within the project site will be identified through passive, non-lethal methods (e.g., visual surveys using binoculars, photographic documentation), as approved by CDFW.
 If crotch bumble bees are detected during focused
surveys, the survey results will be submitted to the
discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County) and CDFW. The project applicant will consult with CDFW to determine whether there are additional
avoidance measures available that would reduce the
likelihood of injury or mortality of crotch bumble bee . The project applicant will consult with CDFW to determine
whether authorization for take of crotch bumble bees
would be required by obtaining an incidental take permit pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 2081. If required, the project applicant will implement measures required under the permit which may include
compensatory mitigation to fully mitigate impacts on
crotch bumble bee.

Pre-construction surveys to
identify presence of Crotch
Bumble Bee. Establishment of
avoidance measures
Project applicant,
construction
contractor.

CDFW
Before
construction
Pre-construction surveys to
identify presence of bats.

Establishment of avoidance
measures
Project applicant,
construction
contractor.

County of
Merced
Before
construction
232

19 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
 If no crotch bumble bees are detected during focused
surveys, the survey results will be submitted to the
discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County). The project applicant will consult with CDFW to determine whether the negative survey results are
sufficient to conclude that crotch bumble bees (including underground overwintering and nesting colonies) are
absent from the project site, and that authorization for take of crotch bumble bees would not be required. If
CDFW concurs, then further mitigation would not be
required.

New Mitigation Measure 3.2-2e: Conduct Focused Bat Surveys and Implement Avoidance Measures
Within 30 days before commencement of project activities, a qualified biologist familiar with bats and bat ecology and experienced in conducting bat surveys will conduct surveys for bat roosts in suitable habitat (e.g., trees, crevices, cavities, exfoliati ng bark, bridges, unoccupied buildings) within and adjacent to the UCP area.
 Surveys will consist of a daytime pedestrian survey looking for evidence of bat use (e.g., guano) and/or an evening emergence survey to note the presence or absence of bats within potential roosts.
 If no evidence of bat roosts is found, the qualified biologist will submit a report summarizing the results of the survey to the discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County), and no further study will be required.
 If evidence of bat roosts is observed, the species and number of bats using the roost will be determined. Bat detectors shall be used if deemed necessary to supplement survey efforts by the qualified biologist.
 If an active western red bat maternity roost is detected, a qualified biologist shall determine an appropriate avoidance buffer to be maintained from April 1 until young are capable of Pre-construction surveys to
identify presence of burrowing
owl. Establishment of avoidance
measures and compensation for
affected areas
Project applicant,
construction
contractor.

CDFW
Before
construction
If pile driving must occur within
55 feet of existing structures, use
vibratory pile driving or augered
piles.

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
During
construction

233

20 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
flight (typically through August). Project activities will not occur within this buffer until after the roosts are unoccupied.  If roosts of western red bat are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats will be excluded from the roosting site before the tree, building, or other roost structure is removed.

A program addressing compensation, exclusion methods, and roost removal procedures will be developed in consultation with CDFW before implementation. Exclusion methods may include use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave but not reenter) or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed to contain no bats. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). The loss of each roost (if any) will be replaced in consultation with CDFW and may require construction and installation of bat boxes suitable to the bat species and colony size excluded from the original roosting site. If determined necessary during
consultation with CDFW, replacement roosts will be implemented before bats are excluded from the original roost sites. Once the replacement roosts are constructed and it is confirmed that bats are not present in the original roost site by a qualified biologist, the roost tree, building, or roost other structure may be removed.

New Mitigation Measure 3.2-2f: Conduct Protocol-Level Surveys for Burrowing Owl, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Compensate for Loss of Occupied Burrows
This mitigation measure would remove the requirements of Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.4-4(b) and implement the following protocol-level survey requirements.

A qualified biologist will conduct focused breeding and nonbreeding season surveys for burrowing owls in areas of habitat suitable for the species identified during the reconnaissance-level survey (e.g., grassland, agricultural land) on and within 1,640 feet (500 meters) of the UCP area. Surveys will be conducted before the start of project 234

21 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
activities and in accordance with Appendix D of the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012; CDFW Staff Report).  If no occupied burrows are found, the qualified biologist will submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County), and no further mitigation will be required.
 If an active burrow is found within 1,640 feet of pending construction activities that would occur during the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31), a minimum protection buffer of 164 feet (50 meters) shall be established and maintained around the occupied burrow throughout construction. The protection buffer may be adjusted if, in consultation with CDFW, a qualified biologist determines that an alternative buffer will not disturb burrowing owl use of the burrow because of particular site features or other buffering measures. If occupied burrows are present that cannot be avoided or adequately protected with a no- disturbance buffer, a burrowing owl exclusion plan will be developed, as described in Appendix E of the CDFW Staff Report.

Burrowing owls will not be excluded from occupied burrows until the project burrowing owl exclusion plan is approved by CDFW.

The exclusion plan will include a compensatory habitat mitigation plan (see below).
 If an active burrow is found during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows will not be disturbed and will be provided with a protective buffer at a minimum of 164 feet unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive means that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg laying, or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. The size of the buffer may be adjusted depending on the time of year and level of disturbance as outlined in the CDFW Staff Report. The size of the buffer may be reduced if a broad-scale, long-term, monitoring program acceptable to CDFW is implemented so that burrowing owls are not adversely affected. Once the fledglings are capable of independent survival, 235

22 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
the owls can be evicted, and the burrow can be destroyed per the terms of a CDFW-approved burrowing owl exclusion plan
developed in accordance with Appendix E of CDFW Staff Report.  If burrowing owls are evicted from burrows and the burrows are destroyed by implementation of project activities, the project applicant will mitigate the loss of occupied habitat in accordance with guidance provided in the CDFW Staff Report, which states that permanent impacts on nesting, occupied and satellite burrows, and burrowing owl habitat (i.e., grassland habitat with suitable burrows) will be mitigated such that habitat acreage and number of burrows are replaced through permanent
conservation of comparable or better habitat with similar vegetation communities and burrowing mammals (e.g., ground squirrels) present to provide for nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal. The project applicant will retain a qualified biologist to develop a burrowing owl mitigation and management plan that incorporates the following goals and standards:
 Mitigation lands will be selected based on comparison of the habitat lost to the compensatory habitat, including type and structure of habitat, disturbance levels, potential for conflicts with humans, pets, and other wildlife, density of burrowing owls, and relative importance of the habitat to the species throughout its range.
 If feasible, mitigation lands will be provided adjacent or proximate to the project site so that displaced owls can relocate with reduced risk of injury or mortality. Feasibility of providing mitigation adjacent or proximate to the project site depends on availability of sufficient habitat to support displaced owls that may be preserved in perpetuity.
 If habitat suitable for burrowing owl is not available for conservation adjacent or proximate to the project site, mitigation lands can be secured offsite and will aim to consolidate and enlarge conservation areas outside of
planned development areas and within foraging distance of 236

23 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
other conservation lands. Mitigation may also be
accomplished through purchase of mitigation credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank, if available. Alternative mitigation sites and acreages may also be determined in consultation with CDFW.

If burrowing owl habitat mitigation is completed through permittee- responsible conservation lands, the mitigation plan will include mitigation objectives, site selection factors, site management roles and responsibilities, vegetation management goals, fina ncial assurances and funding mechanisms, performance standards and success criteria, monitoring and reporting protocols, and adaptive management measures. Success will be based on the number of adult burrowing owls and pairs using the site and if the numbe rs are
maintained over time. Measures of success, as suggested in the CDFW Staff Report, will include site tenacity, number of adult owls present and reproducing, colonization by burrowing owls from elsewhere, changes in distribution, and trends in stresso rs.

Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and
Climate Change

Impact 3.4-1:

Conflict with an
Applicable Plan,
Policy or
Regulation
Adopted for the
Purpose of
Reducing the
Emissions of
Greenhouse Gases
New Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s On-Site Project Design Features to Demonstrate the Project’s Fair Share in Meeting the State’s Long - Term GHG Reduction Targets (UCP South only)
The following mitigation measure shall be applied to the UCP South portion of the project site. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall include the following elements in all construction drawings.
 Eliminate all on-site natural gas infrastructure for all land uses.  Adherence to the most recent Tier 2 requirements of Part 11 of the Title 24 California Buildings Code’s (CALGreen Code’s) electric vehicle (EV) charging standards.

Adherence to applicable state
guidelines and standards with
respect to GHG reduction
strategies.

Project applicant Before building
permits are
issued and/or
before approval
of improvement
plans

237

24 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
 Demonstrate consistency with OPR’s SB 743 regional VMT standards (i.e., residential projects meeting a 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita, office projects meeting a 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee, and r etail projects attaining a no net increase in existing VMT)
 If the aforementioned project design features cannot be incorporated into the project’s design, the applicant shall include other relevant project design characteristics such that any additional emissions generated from natural gas, insufficient EV charging, or excessive VMT can be fully offset. Examples of measures that could be applied to individual projects in UCP South include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Implementation of a solid waste diversion program.
 Exceedance of the most recent version of Part 6 of the Title 24 California Building Code (California Energy Code).
 Use of low-flow appliances.
 Use of energy star appliances.

Implementation of ZNE buildings.

Impact 3.4-3:

Conflict with or
Obstruct a State
or Local Plan for
Renewable Energy
or Energy
Efficiency
New Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: Implement On-Site Project Design Features that that Address Building Carbonization and Energy Efficiency (UCP South)
Implement the project design features in Mitigation Measure 3.4 -1 that address building carbonization and energy efficiency.

Implementation of design
features during building
construction
Project applicant Before building
permit is issued

Hydrology and
Water Quality
238

25 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Impact 3.5-3:

Substantially Alter
the Existing
Drainage Pattern of
Project Area
Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: Implement Altered Channel Cross Section Subject to MID Approval (VST Specific Plan Only)
Prior to initiation of infrastructure improvements for Phase 2 of the VST Specific Plan, the project applicant or subsequent developer shall submit evidence to the discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County) that:
 the proposed modification of the Fairfield Canal is designed such that no change would occur in the hydraulic flow rates and velocities of the canal, and
 necessary permits have been obtained from MID.
 Specific features that can be incorporated into the design to effectively control flowrate and velocity include (but are not limited to) adjusting the channel cross section, use of construction material that has higher roughness coefficient (i.e., river rock, rip rap, gabions), incorporating roughness baffles, and energy dissipaters at the downstream end of the canal.

Implementation of altered
channel cross section of Fairfield
Canal
Project applicant
with oversight
from MID,
subject to
approval from
City of Merced or
Merced County
Before
infrastructure
improvements

Impact 3.5-5:

Cumulative
Impacts to Water
Quality
No new mitigation is required for this impact.

In light of changes to the cumulative condition and current regulations, Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.8 -12 is no longer applicable or required to address the cumulative impacts of the UCP Update. The mitigation requirement would be removed as follows:

Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.8-12 The County shall develop Best Management Practices and prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and a stormwater monitoring program consistent with National Pollution Discharge System Phase 2 Permit Criteria.

None N/A N/A
Impact 3.5-6:

Cumulative
Impacts to
No new mitigation is required for this impact.

In light of changes to the cumulative condition and current regulations, Adopted Mitigation Measures 4.8 -15 and 4.8-16 are no None N/A N/A
239

26 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Hydrology and
Flooding
longer applicable or required to address the cumulative impacts of the UCP Update. The mitigation requirement would be removed as follows:

Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.8 -15: The County shall work with the Merced County Flood Control District, MID, and the City of Merced to update the Merced County Critical Area Flooding and Drainage Plan to identify a stategy for managing storm drainage runoff associated with future development within the Merced area. The plan update shall include at a minimum: existing hydrologic and hydraulic conditions, identification of base flood elevations that meet FEMA 44 CFR part 60 requirements, if such data have not been developed, and a process to evaluate the one- foot cumulative increase criteria; estimates of future peak flows and volumes based on anticipated land uses; performance standards for new development that address both peak flows and volumes while downstream conditions are not worsened; strategies to coordinate the development of local storm drainage and flood protection improvements with Merced County Streams Group projects; and mechanisms to update or revise the plan as needed as new information becomes available.

Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.8-16: MID and the County shall coordinate to ensure that additional stormwater drainage systems do not add flows into the Fairfield Canal that would exceed the canal’s capacity restrictions, potentially creating levee failure or overtopping conditions downstream of the UCP area.

Noise and
Vibration
Impact 3.6-1:

Short-Term
Construction-
Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.10-4: Construction contractors shall comply with the following or an equivalent noise control program:

Construction equipment must
comply with noise control
program
Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before ground
disturbance

240

27 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Generated Noise
Levels

 All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with exhaust mufflers and air-inlet silencers where appropriate, in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification.
 Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g. , arc-welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment.  All mobile or fixed noise producing equipment used on the project, that is regulated for noise output by local, state or federal agency, shall comply with such regulation while engaged in project-related activities.
 Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment, where practicable.
 Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive receptors.
 The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells shall be for safety warning purposes only. No project-related public address loudspeaker, two-way radio, or music system shall be audible at any adjacent noise -sensitive receptor except for emergency use.

The erection of temporary noise barriers will be considered where project activity is unavoidably close to noise -sensitive receptors.

New Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Revise Policy N 2.6 for Managing Noise from Construction Activities of the Adopted UCP
Revise Policy N 2.6 of the Adopted UCP as follows:

Policy N 2.6
Manage noise from construction activities by:
 Limiting the hours of construction activities that generate noise, when adjacent to housing and other “sensitive” uses. Typically, Construction is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Implementation of noise control
features on certain equipment
Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before ground
disturbance

241

28 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
10:00 p.m., weekdays and Saturday, and prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, except for emergency work.  Requiring that all construction vehicles or equipment, ﬁxed or stationary, be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufﬂers.
 All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise-reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’
recommendations. Equipment engine shrouds shall be closed during equipment operation.
 Requiring that construction vehicle staging areas be located as far as practical from existing residential uses
 Requiring that construction vehicle trips be routed as far as practical from existing residential uses
 Construction equipment with back-up alarms shall be equipped with either audible self-adjusting backup alarms or alarms that only sound when an object is detected. Self -adjusting backup alarms shall automatically adjust to 5 dB over the surrounding background levels. All non-self-adjusting backup alarms shall be set to the lowest setting required to be audible above the surrounding noise levels.
 Locate any trailers and materials used during construction capable of breaking the line of sight between the noise -sensitive receptors and construction-noise generating equipment such that they would serve as noise barriers in order to protect noise - sensitive receptors from noise generated by off -site construction activity.
 For construction occurring within 600 feet of an existing noise sensitive receptor, install temporary noise curtains as close as possible to the noise-generating activity such that the curtains obstruct the direct line of sight between the noise -generating construction activity and the nearby sensitive receptors.

Temporary noise curtains shall consist of durable, flexible composite material featuring a noise barrier layer bounded to 242

29 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
sound-absorptive material on one side. The noise barrier layer shall consist of rugged, impervious, material with a surface weight of at least one pound per square foot.
 Noise-reducing enclosures and techniques shall be used around stationary noise-generating equipment (e.g., concrete mixers, generators, compressors).
 Operate heavy-duty construction equipment at the lowest operating power possible.

Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment, where practicable.

Impact 3.6-2:

Long-Term,
Operational Noise
(Stationary and
Area Sources)
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Amend the UCP to Include Provisions for Operational Stationary Source Noise Generating Activities The County of Merced shall revise the following policies in the UCP Update as follows:
 Policy N 1.1 Design and construct new noise-generating land uses in a manner that does not cause excessive exterior or interior noise for noise-sensitive land uses on any location of nearby residential properties. The exterior noise standard for noise-sensitive land uses is of 65 60 dBA Ldn and the interior noise standard for residential structures and other noise-sensitive land uses is 45 dB Ldn; provided, however, that residential uses within and immediate adjacent to the Town Center shall be considered commercial mixed uses for the purposes of determining noise compatibility.

Additionally, exterior stationary source noise standards for noise- sensitive land uses are 55 dB Leq between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00p.m. and 45 dB Leq and 50 Lmax between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. shall not be exceeded by stationary noise generating land uses at any existing or planned residential land use. Noise reduction features shall be included in the design of any land use that has noise sources affecting residential land uses.

These noise reduction features shall include structure design and layout, site planning, and other measures; block walls and barriers Design of new land uses to
prevent excessive noise near
noise-sensitive receptors
Project applicant,
County of
Merced
Prior to Project
approval

243

30 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
(including berms) shall only be used where such measures are deemed infeasible or ineffective.

Policy N X.X Loading docks shall be located and designed such that noise generated by activity at the loading dock would not exceed the City’s stationary noise source criteria (i.e., exterior noise levels of 55 dB Leq between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00p.m. and 45 dB Leq and 50 Lmax between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m) at any existing noise sensitive receptor. As part of the design-build process for uses that include loading docks, a specialized noise study will be completed to evaluate the specific design and ensure compliance with City of Merced noise standards. Reduction of loading dock noise can be achieved by locating loading docks as far away as possible from noise sensitive land uses, constructing noise barriers between loading docks and noise-sensitive land uses, or using buildings and topographic features to provide acoustic shielding for noise-sensitive land uses. Final design, location, and orientation shall be dictated by findings in the noise study.

Impact 3.6-3:

Long-Term,
Operational Noise
(Traffic)
Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.10 -3(a): The County shall construct barriers and/or retrofit affected homes with noise attenuation measures (e.g., sound-rated windows) necessary to achieve a 45 Ldn interior noise level.

Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.10 -3(b): For development within the UCP area, noise considerations should be taken into account during initial site planning, in order to maximize shielding by the planned structures or other on-site features.

During planning, applicant shall
design development with noise
considerations in mind.

Project applicant Prior to Project
approval

Impact 3.6-4:

Generate
Excessive
Groundborne
Vibration or
Groundborne
Noise Levels
Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.10 -5: Limit groundborne vibration due to construction activities to 0.2 in/sec velocity (limit of potential for damage to structures) in the vertical direction at sensitive receptors. For construction adjacent to highly sensitive uses, apply additional measures as feasible, including advance notice to occupants of sensitive facilities to ensure precautions are taken in those facilities to protect ongoing activities from the effects of vibration.

Implementation of vibration
reduction measures,

Project applicant,
construction
contractor.

During
construction.

244

31 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
New Mitigation Measure 3.6-4: Amend the UCP to Include
Provisions for Potential Vibration -Inducing Activities The County of Merced shall include the following policy in the UCP Update:
 Policy N.X: Construction Vibration. All potential vibration- inducing activities shall comply with the following measures, setback distances, precautions, monitoring programs, and alternative methods to traditional construction activities:
 Ground vibration-producing activities, such as pile driving and blasting, shall be limited to the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and shall not occur on
weekends and holidays consistent with County of Merced
Municipal Code Section 10.60.040.
 If pile driving is used and would occur within 630 feet of existing residential receptors, pile holes shall be predrilled to the maximum feasible depth to reduce the number of blows required to seat a pile.
 All construction equipment on construction sites shall be operated as far away from vibration-sensitive sites as
reasonably possible.
 Earthmoving and ground-impacting operations shall be phased so as not to occur simultaneously in areas close to sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. The total vibration level produced could be significantly less when each vibration source is operated at separate times.
 Minimum setback requirements for different types of ground vibration producing activities (e.g., pile driving and blasting) for the purpose of preventing negative human response shall be established based on the specific nature of the vibration producing activity (e.g., type and duration of pile driving), local soil conditions, and the type of sensitive receptor.

Established setback requirements (i.e., 630 feet) can be breached only if a project-specific, site-specific, technically adequate ground vibration study indicates that the buildings 245

32 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
would not be exposed to ground vibration levels in excess of 70 VdB, and ground vibration measurements performed
during the construction activity confirm that the buildings are not being exposed to levels in excess of 70 VdB.
 All vibration-inducing activity within the distance parameters described above shall be monitored and documented for
ground vibration noise and vibration noise levels at the nearest sensitive land use and associated recorded data submitted to the County of Merced so as not to exceed 70 Vdb.

Alternatives to traditional pile driving (e.g., sonic pile driving, jetting, cast-in-place or auger cast piles, nondisplacement piles, pile cushioning, torque or hydraulic piles) shall be considered and implemented where feasible to reduce vibration levels.
246

33 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Impact 3.6-5:

Cumulative Noise
Impacts
Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.10 -3(a): The County shall construct barriers and/or retrofit affected homes with noise attenuation measures (e.g., sound-rated windows) necessary to achieve a 45 Ldn interior noise level.

Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.10 -4: Construction contractors shall comply with the following or an equivalent noise control program:
 All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with exhaust mufflers and air-inlet silencers, where appropriate, in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification.
 Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arc -welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment.  All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project, that is regulated for output by local, state or federal County to retrofit affected
homes.

County of
Merced
Before
construction.

247

34 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
agency, shall comply with such regulation while engaged with project-related activities.
 Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment, where practicable.
 Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise- sensitive receptors.
 The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. No project-related public address loudspeaker, two-way radio, or music system shall be audible at any adjacent noise -sensitive receptor except for emergency use.
 The erection of temporary noise barriers will be considered where project activity is unavoidably close to noise -sensitive receptors.

Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.10 -5: Limit groundborne vibration due to construction activities to 0.2 in/sec velocity (limit of potential for damage to structures) in the vertical direction at sensitive receptors. For construction adjacent to highly sensitive uses, apply additional measures as feasible, including advance notice to occupants of sensitive facilities to ensure precautions are taken in those facilities to protect ongoing activities from the effects of vibration.

Implementation of noise
attenuation measures.

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
During
construction
Transportation
248

35 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Impact 3.7-1:

Conflict with a
Program, Plan,
Ordinance, or
Policy Addressing
the Circulation
System, Including
Transit, Roadway,
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Facilities
Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.14 -4: Merced County will, and the City of Merced should, ensure adequate maintenance of the existing path along Lake Road and other regional bicycle and pedestrian facilities that provide access to the proposed UCP.

Maintain of existing path and
other bike and pedestrian
facilities providing access to
UCP.

Merced County
and City of
Merced
During Project
operation

Impact 3.7-3:

Substantially
Increase Hazards
Due to a Geometric
Design Feature
(e.g., Sharp Curves
or Dangerous
Intersections) or
Incompatible Uses
(e.g., Farm
Equipment)
Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.14-4: Merced County will, and the City of Merced should, ensure adequate maintenance of the existing path along Lake Road and other regional bicycle and pedestrian facilities that provide access to the proposed UCP.

Maintain of existing path and
other bike and pedestrian
facilities providing access to
UCP.

Merced County
and City of
Merced
During Project
operation

249

36 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Impact 3.7-5:

Cumulative
Transportation
Impacts
Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.14 -7(a): UCP development shall contribute its fair share toward the following Tier road improvements which are shown in Figure 4.14 -3 [in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR]:
 Highway 59, widen to 4 lanes, Yosemite Avenue to Bellevue Road  Highway 59, new segment between Highway 99 and 140
 Yosemite Avenue, extend from R Street to Highway 59
 Yosemite Avenue, widen to 4 lanes, Campus Parkway to G Street  Bellevue Road, widen to 6 lanes, Highway 59 to Campus Parkway  R Street, extend from Yosemite Avenue to Bellevue Road  Parsons Avenue/Gardner Avenue, extend and widen to 4 lanes, Childs Avenue to Bellevue Road
 Highway 59, new alignment along Mission Avenue
 Mission Avenue, widen to 4 lanes, Highway 99 to Highway 59  Childs Avenue, widen to 4 lanes, Campus Parkway to Highway 59 Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.14 -7(b): For development through year 2025, UCP development shall only contribute its fair share toward the following Tier road improvements, which are shown on Figure 4.14-4:
 Yosemite Avenue, extend from R Street to Highway 59
 Yosemite Avenue, widen to 4 lanes, Campus Parkway to G Street  R Street, extend from Yosemite Avenue to Belleview Avenue  Parsons Avenue/Gardner Avenue, extend and widen to 4 lanes, Childs Avenue to Bellevue Road
Contribution of fair share road
improvements
Project applicant Before
construction

250

37 Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
 Bellevue Road, widen to 4 lanes, Highway 59 to Campus Parkway Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.14 -7(c): For development through Year 2015, the County shall analyze the expected future operations of the Lake/Yosemite intersection at the following milestone points:
(1) determination of conceptual alignment for Campus Parkway, (2) preparation of the Geometric Approval Drawings for Campus Parkway, and (3) each October, beginning in the opening year of the UC Merced Campus. If any of these analyses determine that the Lake/Yosemite intersection will operate at unacceptable LOS, the proposed UCP shall contribute its fair share toward the cost of any improvements deemed necessary at the intersection. Monitoring of the Lake/Yosemite intersection shall end upon completion of the Campus Park extension from Yosemite Avenue to Bellevie w Road.

Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.14 -7(d): The County shall work with the City of Merced, Caltrans and MCAG to establish rights -of-way and access management requirements along the routes identified above.

Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.14 -8(a): Implement Mitigation Measure 4.14-7(a). In addition, UCP development shall contribute its fair share toward intersection improvement alson G Street between Highway 99 and Childs Avenue.

Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.14 -8(b): Implement Mitigation Measure 4.14-7(d).

Establishing proper rights of way
and access for identified routes.

County of
Merced, City of
Merced
Before
construction

251
FINAL
Focused Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
for the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan
State Clearinghouse No. 2001021056
Prepared for:

Merced County Community and
Economic Development Department
July 2023
Attachment F
252

FINAL
Focused Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
for the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan
State Clearinghouse No. 2001021056
Prepared for:

Merced County Community and
Economic Development Department
2222 M Street, 2nd Floor
Merced, CA 95340
Contact:

Tiffany Ho
Deputy Director of Planning
209.385.7654 ext. 4407
[email protected]
Prepared by:

Ascent Environmental
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact:

Jessica Babcock
Project Manager
916.842.3163
July 2023
20210141.01

253

Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... ii 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1-1 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 2-1 3 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 3-1 4 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4-1 5 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..5-1 Figures
Figure 1-1 Regional Location .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 Figure 1-2 University Community Plan and Virginia Smith Trust Specific Plan Area ...................................................... 1-3 Tables
Table 2-1 List of Commenters ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

254
Acronyms and Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
Merced County
ii UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAQA ambient air quality analysis
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
County Merced County
CSTDM California Statewide Transportation Demand Model
Draft SEIR draft subsequent environmental impact report eTRIP Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan
Final SEIR final subsequent environmental impact report HHD heavy heavy-duty
HRA health risk assessment
ITP Incidental Take Permit
lb/day pound per day
LRDP Long Range Development Plan
MCAG Merced County Association of Governments
MID Merced Irrigation District
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
NOX oxides of nitrogen
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s
PM particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PRC Public Resources Code
ROG reactive organic gases
SB Senate Bill
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminants
TDM Travel Demand Model
TIS Transportation Impact Study
UC University of California
UCP University Community Plan
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
VST Virginia Smith Trust

255
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION
This final subsequent environmental impact report (Final SEIR) has been prepared by Merced County (hereinafter County), as lead agency, in accordance with the requirements of the California En vironmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines ( California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15132). This F inal SEIR contains responses to comments received on the draft subsequent environmental impact report ( Draft SEIR) for the University Community Plan (UCP) Update and Virginia Smith Trust (VST) Specific Plan (collectively referred to herein as the “project”) . The Final SEIR consists of the D raft SEIR and this document, which includes comments on the Draft SEIR, responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft SEIR.

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT
This Final SEIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Draft SEIR, which are reproduced in this document; and to present corrections, revisions, and other clarifications and amplifications to the Draft SEIR made in response to input received. The Final SEIR will be used to support the County’s decision regarding whether to approve the project. This SEIR will also be used by CEQA responsible and trustee agencies to ensure that they have met their requirements under CEQA before deciding whether to approve or permit project elem ents over which they have jurisdiction. It may also be used by other state, regional, and local agencies that may have an interest in resources that could be affected by the project or that have jurisdiction over portions of the project.

Responsible, trustee, and interested agencies may include:
 Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission,
 City of Merced,
 US Army Corps of Engineers,
 US Fish and Wildlife Service,
 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and  Merced Irrigation District (MID).

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The UCP area is located in unincorporated Merced County, northeast of the city of Merced and within the City’s sphere of influence (SOI) (Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2). The UCP area is bounded by Lake Road on the west, UC Merced property (specifically the proposed UC Merced Campus Expansion Area) on the north, the Orchard Drive alignment (north of Cardella Road) and the Fairfield Canal (south of Cardella Road) on the e ast, and Yosemite Avenue on the south (Figure 1-2). The UCP area would be divided by an extension of Cardella Road; the land north of Cardella Road to UC Merced (previously referred to as the “UCP North”) would encompass the VST plan area, and the land sou th of Cardella Road to Yosemite Avenue would remain in the portion of the UCP area referred to as the “UCP South” area. 256
Introduction Ascent Environmental
Merced County
1-2 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

Sources: Data downloaded from Merced County in 2020.

Figure 1-1 Regional Location
257
Ascent Environmental Introduction
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 1-3

Sources: Data downloaded from Merced County in 2020.

Figure 1-2 University Community Plan and Virginia Smith Trust Specific Plan Area 258
Introduction Ascent Environmental
Merced County
1-4 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR include a statement of objectives for the project and that the objectives include the underlying purpose of the project. These objectives help the lead agency determine the alternatives to evaluate in the EIR (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15124[b]) and gauge whether alternatives or mitigation measures are feasible and would meet the basic project objectives.

1.3.1 Objectives of the UCP Amendments
The purpose of the UCP is to provide a planning framework for how lands are to be developed and important resources are to be protected and conserved, in anticipation of the growth and development associated with UC Merced.

The adopted objectives of the Adopted UCP are:
 to support the successful development of the University of California, Merced, campus by providing for a community that is physically contiguous to the campus and that includes appropriate and sufficient housing, commercial, industrial/business park, civic, and open space uses to meet the long -term needs of the campus and population;
 to provide adequate land and development opportunities to absorb the equivalent of 100 percent of the new growth demand generated by UC Merced over time;
 to provide a community that can be developed in an integrated fashion through a master developer rather than a fragmented subdivision process;
 to provide a community with patterns of land use and urban form that support principles of livable communities and environmental sustainability;
 to provide adequate circulation and utility infrastructure that supports the long -term sustainability of the UC Merced campus and University Community;
 to establish and support linkages and transitions that will integrate the University Community with greater Merced;  to complement and support the economy on the City of Merced and the greater Merced region;  to support the educational goals of the Virginia Smith Trust by enhancing its scholarship fund;  to support regional programs to conserve and protect the County’s important agricultural and natural resources as development of UC Merced and the University Community proceeds;  to be configured and planned so that environmental permitting allows community development to proceed at the pace necessary to support campus development;
 to be affordable and financially feasible; and
 to support implementation of the Merced County General Plan.

These objectives remain the overarching objectives of the UCP. In addition, the proposed project mo difications and UCP amendments are intended to:
 amend the Adopted UCP boundaries to reflect existing land ownership;  reallocate the potential housing units attributed to land now owned exclusively by UC Merced to within the amended UCP boundaries without substantially changing the range of unit types;  improve consistency between County and City general plans, and with the UC Merced LRDP;  revise the Adopted UCP to conform to current development regulations;  update the Adopted UCP land use plan to be compatible with adjacent development; 259
Ascent Environmental Introduction
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 1-5  update the Adopted UCP circulation plan to be compatible with existing standards and plans for regional infrastructure, including Campus Parkway;
 update the phasing program to reflect current market conditions and changes to the UCP boundaries; and  develop a “university community” that meets the needs of UC’s staff and students, as currently projected, including providing a range of housing opportunities appropriate for the local demographics and lifestyles.

1.3.2 Objectives of the VST Specific Plan
The objectives of the VST Specific Plan are to:
 provide a mix of land uses and a financially feasible phasing and implementation plan that will maximize the contribution to the VST scholarship endowment to provide college scholarships to county residents per the VST’s charter and bylaws;
 provide a master planned community with community amenities that will attract students and retain highly skilled and educated staff;
 provide diverse town and neighborhood centers to offer local shopping and service opportunities for people of different ages, income levels, cultures, and education levels;  provide increased housing density next to town centers and overall housing densities in conformance with Adopted UCP policies;
 provide a diversity of housing sizes, prices, and types to serve the full range of employees, instructors, staff, and students at UC Merced, consistent with the vision of the Adopted UCP;  comply with the City of Merced’s RHNA housing production policies by providing sufficient units that would be restricted for affordability;
 provide diverse multimodal and active transportation alternatives and a network of bike paths, pedestrian paths, and transit connections;
 connect to UC Merced’s existing and planned circulation facilities to provide a seamless connection between the VST plan area and the UC Merced campus for pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle, and transit modes;  create a continuous network of parks and open spaces; and  prioritize livability, activity, and shared community space, with neighborhoods centered around parks and schools.

1.4 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE UCP Update and VST Specific Plan

1.4.1 Overview of the Proposed Changes to the UCP
As described in further detail in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” proposed update to the Adopted UCP would modify the UCP boundary to exclude land within the planning boundary of UC Merced; revise the policy plan to reflect current conditions, regulations, and best practices; and update the land use and circulation diagram to reflect the land uses proposed within the VST Specific Plan and alignment of Campus Parkway.

1.4.2 Overview of the VST Specific Plan
The VST Specific Plan is intended to satisfy the requirement for a specific plan for each “village” within the UCP. The proposed VST Specific Plan re-envisions the portion of the UCP owned by VST so that it would be more responsive to expected market conditions, while preserving the basic components of the UCP: commercial uses, the town center 260
Introduction Ascent Environmental
Merced County
1-6 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR concept, and relatively high-density housing. The specific plan revises density and intensity of these uses compared to what was previously proposed. The specific plan includes a description of the overall land use plan and site design to provide 3,950 residential units at varying densities and supporting commercial uses. It also adjusts timing and phasing for installation of parks and public services to appropriately meet demand. Transportation facilities, including roads and bike paths, would be reconfigured in the VST Specific Plan to better serve the VST plan area and existing and planned surrounding land uses. Also, with the passage of AB 3312, VST is now seeking annexation into the City of Merced.

1.5 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The analysis in the Draft SEIR concludes that effects related to noise would remain significant and unavoidable. The Draft SEIR also identified new impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and noise and vibration; these impacts were not evaluated using the same standards in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR. New impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions and noise and vibration were identified applying currently accepted best practices for evaluation. Significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, and biological resources are unchanged and consistent with the conclusions of the 2001/2004 UCP EIR. I mpacts to air quality that were previously identified as a significant and unavoidable impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant impact with adoption of new mitigation.

1.6 CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
On April 28, 2023, the County released the Draft SEIR for a 45-day public review and comment period. The Draft SEIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to reviewing agencies and posted on the County’s website (https://www.countyofmerced.com/414/Environmental-Documents). A notice of availability of the Draft SEIR was published in Merced County Times newspaper and distributed by the County to a project-specific mailing list.

A public hearing was held on Wednesday, July 12, 2023,. during a meeting of the Planning Commission to receive input from agencies and the public on the Draft SEIR. The hearing was recorded and is available at:
https://www.countyofmerced.com/2229/Planning-Commission-Meetings.

As a result of these notification efforts, seven written comments were on the content of the Draft SEIR. Chapter 2, “Responses to Comments,” identifies these commenting parties, their respective comments, and responses to these comments. None of the comments received, or the responses provided, constitute “significant new information” by CEQA standards (State CEQA Guidelines, CCR Section 15088.5).

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL SEIR
This Final SEIR is organized as follows:

Chapter 1, “Introduction,” describes the purpose of the Final SEIR, summarizes the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan and the major conclusions of the Draft SEIR, provides an overview of the CEQA public review process, and describes the content of the Final SEIR.

Chapter 2, “Responses to Comments,” contains a list of all parties who submitted comments on the Draft SEIR during the public review period, reproductions of all the comments received on the Draft SEIR, and responses to the comments.

Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” presents revisions to the Draft SEIR text made in response to comments, or to amplify, clarify or make minor modifications or corrections. Changes in the text are signified by double strikeout where text is removed and by double underline where text is added.

Chapter 4, “References,” provides the sources cited in the preparation of this Final EIR.

Chapter 5, “List of Preparers,” identifies the lead agency contacts as well as the preparers of this Final SEIR.

261
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-1 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This chapter contains comments received during the public review period for the Draft SEIR. In conformance with Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, written responses are provided to comments on environmental issues received from reviewers of the Draft SEIR.

2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT SEIR
Table 2-1 presents the list of commenters, including the numerical designation for each comment letter received, the author of the comment letter, and the date of the comment letter. For ease of review, individual comments addressing separate subjects within each letter are labeled based on the letter’s numeric designation and comment number (e.g., the first comment in the first letter is Comment 1-1). Each comment is identified by a line bracket and an identifying number in the margin of the comment letter in the following section.

Table 2-1 List of Commenters
Letter No. Commenter Date
1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife 6/7/23
2 State Water Resources Control Board* 6/19/23
3 University of California Merced 6/12/23
4 Merced Irrigation District 6/12/23
5 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District * 6/19/23 6 Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability 6/12/23 7 Anchor Valley Partners 6/12/23
* Comments received after the close of the Comment Period

2.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This section contains each comment letter received, followed by responses. Note that some of the written comments offer suggestions or express preferences related to the proposed development and do not address environmental issues or the adequacy of the EIR. All comment letters will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for consideration via this EIR. In conformance with Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, written responses were prepared addressing comments on environmental issues raised in comments on the EIR.

In addition, an opportunity for oral comment on the Draft SEIR was offered at the at the Planning Commission hearing on July 12, 2023. The comments provided at this public hearing were either related to aspects of the specific plan proposal and did not address the analysis or conclusion in the Draft SEIR or expressed general support for the project. Comments on the plan were responded to by County staff during the meetings and are not included herein.

Video recording of the hearing is available online at https://www.countyofmerced.com/2229/Planning-Commission- Meetings.

262
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-2 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

263
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-3

264
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-4 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR Letter 1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Krista Tomlinson for Julie A. Vance, Regional Manager
June 7, 2023
Response 1-1
Following introductory remarks, the comment states that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) concurs with the biological resources-related analyses and mitigation measures proposed in the Draft SEIR. The comment states that all measures in the Draft SEIR should be carried forward into the Final SEIR and that the mitigation measures are sufficient to mitigate project-related impacts to listed species. In addition, the comment states that development on the project site may require an amendment to the University of California (UC) Merced’s Incidental Take Permit (ITP) (2081-2009-010-04).

Virginia Smith Trust (VST) was added to ITP 2081-2009-010-04 through Amendment 3 in June of 2020, and the University Community North/VST Specific Plan area is included in the project description. As stated on page 3.2 -1 of the Draft SIER, UC Merced’s ITP provides incidental take coverage for six state-listed threatened and endangered species within the UC Merced campus and the University Community Plan (UCP) North/VST Specific Plan area (including the portion of the VST Specific Plan area not analyzed in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR). Since certification of the 2001/2004 UCP EIR, four additional specials-status plant species and two additional special-status wildlife species were identified as having potential to occur within the plan area (see page 3.2-3 of the Draft SEIR). As discussed on pages 3.2-11 through 3.2-23 of the Draft SEIR, implementation of new Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2a through

3.2-2f would require avoidance and mitigation for special-status plant and wildlife species, including species not covered by the existing CDFW incidental take permit. The applicant will continue to coordinate with CDFW, including preparation of annual reports in compliance with permit conditions.

Response 1-2
The comment states that any special-status species and natural communities detected during project surveys must be documented in the California Natural Diversity Database in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21003(e). In addition, the comment states that the lead agency is required to pay filing fees if the project has potential to impact biological resources, in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 753.5; California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4; and PRC Section 21089. The comment provides closing remarks and contact information for CDFW staff.

This comment is noted and the applicant will be required to submit relevant information and pay applicable filing fees to CDFW in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the CEQA document; therefore, no revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

265
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-5

266
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-6 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

267
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-7

268
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-8 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR Letter 2 State Water Resources Control Board
Lori Schmitz, Environmental Scientist
June 19, 2023
Response 2-1
Following introductory remarks, the comment identifies the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW) as the agency responsible for issuing water supply permits pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The comment states that the City of Merced is required to apply for a water supply permit amendment for changes to a water supply source, storage, or treatment and for the operation of new water system components, pursuant to Waterworks Standards (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 22, Chapter 16 et. seq.) The VST Specific Plan area would be served by the City of Merced’s water supply infrastructure. A parcel is set aside for development of an onsite well that would be needed to meet City fire flow and peak demands and to provide redundancy for the UC Merced well. This SEIR includes a programmatic evaluation of the construction and operation of the new well. However, modification of the City’s water supply infrastructure would occur as a separate, subsequent action initiated by the City of Merced at the time such an action is proposed. As indicated in the Draft SEIR (page 3.8-21), the analysis assumes that the City would continue to construct required groundwater facilities in accordance with the City’s 2014 Water Master Plan and evaluated separately in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for City of Merced 2016 Water Master Plan Update (City of Merced 2017a).

The comment requests that DDW be identified as a CEQA responsible agency in the SEIR for approval of a water supply permit amendment. DDW would have authority to approve a water supply permit amendment. For clarification, the text on page 2-43 of the Draft SEIR has been modified to include DDW. As noted above, it is anticipated that this permit amendment would be based upon project-level review conducted by the City. This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

Response 2-2
The comment states that the Draft SEIR does not evaluate the whole project and should describe the location and impacts of the entire proposed water system infrastructure that would be needed for development under the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan.

The Draft SEIR evaluates the whole of the project action. Page 2-31 of the Draft SEIR describes all planned on-site and off-site water system improvements that would be needed to support the proposed development of the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan. The proposed water system would consist of the existing municipal well located on the UC Merced campus, an onsite municipal well to be developed in Phase 1A of the VST Specific Plan (and located in the Community Recreation Center in Phase 1D), a 16-inch main in Lake Road to be extended as part of the VST Project from the Bellevue/Lake Road intersection to the VST Specific Plan area, and water within the plan area ranging in size from 8 to 16 inches in diameter. The locations of these improvements are shown on Figure 2 -10 of the Draft EIR. In addition, offsite extension of a 16-inch water line in the paved area of Lake Road from Virginia Smith Parkway to Bellevue Road to connect to the VST Specific Plan area to Well 17 is included in the VST Specific Plan area (see Draft SEIR page 2-32). The environmental effects of constructing this infrastructure are addressed on dages 3.8-16 and 3.8- 17 of the Draft SEIR.

The comment also requests that the Draft SEIR discuss new or old water storage tanks that would be incorporated into the City’s public water system service area, citing information about existing water supply systems in Section

3.8.2, “Environmental Setting.” The UCP Update and VST Specific Plan would not involve the installation of new water storage tanks and would not include the use of UC Merced’s existing water storage tank. The existing UC Merced water tank would remain separate from the City’s water system.

The Draft SEIR evaluates the entire water supply system needed to support the VST Specific Plan, including the tie-in to the City well at UC Merced, the onsite well, the offsite connection line, and the onsite water lines. All other water system infrastructure necessary to serve reasonable build-out in the City of Merced’s planning area would undergo 269
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-9 their own individual CEQA review and would be implemented independent of the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan.

No revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response 2-3
The comment references the description of existing hydrology and drainage conditions in Section 3.5, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” and requests the State Clearinghouse number or a direct link to the CEQA document that evaluates the construction and operation of the 10-million gallon per day surface water treatment plant that is described as a component of the City’s future water supply infrastructure in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. As indicated in the analysis that follows in the Draft SEIR (see pages 3.5-22 and 3.5-23), the UCP Update would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact related to water quality control plan compliance, in part because the water demand associated with the development has been incorporated into the applicable groundwater sustainability plans and because the City has plans to supplement groundwater extraction with surface water treatment.

Insofar as the County is aware, a CEQA document evaluating the environmental impacts of the City’s planned surface water treatment plant has not been prepared. The County will forward to the City SWRCB’s request to be included in the notification for any future CEQA review.

The comment is not related to the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft SEIR for the UCP and VST Specific Plan. No revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response 2-4
The comment requests that the text in Figure 2-10 of the Draft SEIR be revised for improved legibility. Figure 2-10 on page 2-33 of the Draft SEIR has been revised accordingly (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft is not required.

Response 2-5
The comment requests clarification regarding the number and location of wells that would be drilled as part of the project and asks whether on-site treatment would be needed for the wells. As stated on page 2-31 of the Draft SEIR, one on-site municipal well would be developed in Phase 1A of the VST Specific Plan, which would be located in the Community Recreation Center in Phase 1D. Although three wells were proposed for the Adopted UCP and evaluated in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR, the UCP Update/VST Specific Plan only proposes use of one existing municipal well located on the UC Merced campus and installation of one new onsite municipal well in Phase 1A of the VST Specific Plan (refer to pages 3.5-18 and 3.8-16 of the Draft SEIR). It is likely that an additional well will be required for the UCP South area based on the City’s rough siting criteria of one water well per square mile of service area, but the need for, and location of, this well is speculative. The design of the new municipal well has not been completed, and it is not known at this time if treatment of the groundwater would be required. As indicated on page 3.8 -24 of the Draft SEIR, new water infrastructure would be constructed in conformance with applicable UCP polices , the City’s design and development standards, and the City’s 2014 Water System Master Plan. No revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response 2-6
The comment requests access to the 2001/2004 UCP EIR to support responsible agency determinations. The 2001/2004 UCP EIR is available at the Merced County Community and Economic Development Department (2222 M Street, Merced). In addition, the document has been transmitted electronically to the commenter.

Response 2-7
The comment requests copies of the Draft and Final SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), comment letters received and lead agency responses, and Resolution or Board Minutes adopting the S EIR and MMRP in support of the City of Merced’s permit application. The County will inform the City of the specific information requested in conjunction with the City’s permit application to the SWRCB. It is anticipated that the City would pursue the appropriate Division of Drinking Water permits as a subsequent action if the County approves the proposed UCP 270
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-10 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR Update and VST Specific Plan. As a responsible agency under CEQA, it is expected that the City would consider the environmental effects of the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan, make appropriate findings, and file a separate Notice of Determination.

This comment is not related to the adequacy of the CEQA document. No revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary in response to this comment.
271
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-11

272
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-12 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

273
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-13

274
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-14 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

275
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-15 Letter 3 University of California Merced
Phillip Woods, Director of Physical and Environmental Planning June 12, 2023
Response 3-1
The comment provides introductory remarks and suggests that development under the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan should be compatible with UC Merced’s campus development plans. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions in the Draft SEIR and does not raise a significant environmental issue requiring a response.

Response 3-2
The comment identifies an error regarding the inclusion of the UC Merced campus in the description of the 2, 133- acre UCP area. Page ES-1 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to remove reference to the UC Merced campus from the UCP area description (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

Response 3-3
The comment states that page ES-1 of the Draft SEIR does not identify which prior EIR the current Draft SEIR is supplementing. Page ES-1 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to clarify which EIR the subsequent CEQA analyses in the Draft SEIR is based upon (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

Response 3-4
The comment recommends that the phrase “UC Merced Expansion Area” be deleted throughout the Draft SEIR.

Pages ES-1, 1-3, and 2-1 of the Draft SEIR have been revised to remove this language (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

Response 3-5
The comment identifies an inconsistency in the total number of residential units that would potentially be developed under the VST Specific Plan between the Executive Summary (3,950 units) and Chapter 2, “Project Description,” (3,857 units) of the Draft SEIR. Page ES-2 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to reflect the correct number of residential units (3,857 units), as it appears in the Project Description and as assumed in the analysis presented throughout the Draft SEIR (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). Because the analysis in the Draft SEIR is based on the correct number of residential units (3,857 units), no further revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary in response to this comment. This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

Response 3-6
The comment states that the first mention of the 2001/2004 UCP EIR in the Draft SEIR is unclear to the reader because the document was not previously introduced in the text. Page ES-1 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to introduce the document (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

Response 3-7
The comment requests that the adoption dates of the Adopted UCP and first UC Merced Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) presented on page 2-5 of the Draft SEIR be checked for accuracy. Page 2-5 of the Draft SEIR has been 276
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-16 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR revised accordingly to correct an error in the adoption date of UC Merced’s first LRDP and subsequent LRDP amendments (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

Response 3-8
Similar to Comment 3-2, this comment identifies an error regarding the inclusion of the UC Merced campus in the description of the 2,133-acre UCP area. Page 2-5 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to remove reference to the UC Merced campus from the UCP area description (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Dr aft SEIR is not required.

Response 3-9
The comment states that the Draft SEIR incorrectly refers to the LRDP as a set of regulations. Page 2-5 of the Draft SEIR has been revised accordingly to acknowledge the LRDP as a land use plan and policy document rather than a set of regulations (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

Response 3-10
The comment identifies the abbreviated title used to refer to the UC Merced and UCP Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report prepared in 2009 and states it is incorrect. The comment specifically refers to use of the abbreviated title on page 2-7 of the Draft SEIR. Note that the use of this title for reference to the joint document is introduced on page 2-5 of the Draft SEIR.

Nonetheless, to improve accuracy and clarity in response to the comment, all r eferences to the “2009 LRDP EIR” on pages 1-9, 2-5, 2-7, 3.1-33, 3.2-17, 3.5-19, and 4-5 of the Draft SEIR have been revised to “2009 UC Merced and UCP EIS/EIR” (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

Response 3-11
The comment identifies an error regarding the description of the area covered under the Section 404 permit issued to UC Merced and University of California Land Company LLC. The comment also states that the reference to the “2017 LRDP” should be revised to “2017 LRDP amendment.” Page 2-7 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to make these corrections (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft is not required.

Response 3-12
The comment identifies an error in the UC Merced enrollment projection described in the Draft SEIR. Page 2 -7 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to include the correct enrollment projection (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). The enrollment projections are provided for context in Section 2.3, “Background and Purpose.” This revision does not result in changes to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft SEIR and is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft is not required.

Response 3-13
The comment states that a reference to the “2020 LRDP” should be revised to the “2020 LRDP EIR.” Page 2- 7 of the Draft SEIR has been revised accordingly to include the correct document reference (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.
277
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-17 Response 3-14
Chapter 2, “Project Description,” in the Draft SEIR lists 12 offsite roadway improvements that the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) identifies as necessary to support development of the project, which could be implemented through the “payment of citywide impact fees, special specific plan impact fees, or by direct improvement and construction” (Draft SEIR, page 2-29). These offsite improvements are considered a part of the project and the potential for physical environmental effects from implementing these improvements are evaluated thr oughout the Draft SEIR.

The comment indicates that page 2-32 lists a subset of the off-site intersections that is inconsistent with those described on page 2-29. In fact, no intersection improvements are listed on page 2-32 of the Draft SEIR. The intersection improvements are summarized on page 3-35 of the Project Description; this list is entirely consistent with the list provided on page 2-29.

However, in conducting a review of the listed intersection improvements, the County identified one intersection improvement that was inadvertently omitted from both lists. The intersection of McKee Road and Yosemite Avenue has been added to the lists on page 2-29 and page 3-35 (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). The intersection of McKee Road and Yosemite Avenue would not require any improvements in the near term ( through 2030). Improvements for the 2042 Horizon Year scenario include widening the eastbound approach to two through lanes and one (new) right turn lane, and widening the westbound approach to two left turn lanes and two through lanes and one right turn lane (adding one left turn lane and one through lane). This intersection improvement was evaluated in the Draft SEIR and supporting technical reports, including a Biological Resources Constraints analysis (Live Oak Associates 2022).

Two additional intersection improvements are identified in the TIS: Lake Road at Bellevue Avenue, which UC Merced is constructing, and Lake Road at Yosemite Avenue, which has already been installed by others. These intersections have not been added to the list of intersection improvements in Chapter 2 of the Draft SEIR.

The comment also identifies an apparent inconsistency between the list of offsite improvements identified as a part of the project in Chapter 2 and a list of roadway intersections and road segments provided on pages 3.7-24 and 3.7-25 in Section 3.7, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft SEIR. Here, the cumulative impact analysis lists roadway intersection improvements and roadway segments analyzed in the development of traffic impact fees. The list was included to demonstrate the scope of analysis completed for General Plan and UCP conformity which, as noted in the impact evaluation, addresses the level of service concerns that are now outside the scope of the CEQA evaluation.

The text identifies these intersections as evaluated in the VST Specific Plan for financial “fair share” contribution and does not indicate that these improvements are part of the project as proposed or that the project would be conditioned on these improvements. For clarity, however, the lists of roadway intersections and roadway segments on pages 3.7-24 and 3.7-25 of the Draft SEIR have been revised to eliminate all intersections and improvements that would not be constructed as part of the project.

The minor modifications and corrections to text made in response to this comment clarify the content of the Draft SEIR and do not result in the potential for new or more substantial environmental effects. Pursuant to CCR Section 15088.5, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

Response 3-15
The comment requests additional information regarding the cost estimates and funding allocation for the VST Specific Plan, and states that appropriate development fees should be enacted. The requested information was provided on July 12, 2023 during a meeting between VST and UC Merced. The comment is specific to the details of the proposed VST Specific Plan and administrative processes related to VST Specific Plan approval. Note that the funding plan for public improvements has been modified to reflect how Campus Parkway would be implemented.

This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions in the Draft SEIR and does not raise a significant environmental issue requiring a response. The comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration.
278
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-18 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR Response 3-16
The comment indicates that Figure 2-7 of the Draft SEIR, which presents the VST Specific Plan Land Use Diagram, maps open space lands that are part of the UC Merced campus. The comment suggests that the diagram “gives the appearance” that these areas are part of the VST Specific Plan area. For improved clarity, Figure 2-7 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to remove the referenced land use mapping for the area that is not part of the VST Specific Plan area (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”).

No additional revisions to the Draft SEIR are required in response to this comment. The minor modifications made in response to this comment clarify the content of the Draft SEIR and do not result in the potential for new or more substantial environmental effects. Pursuant to CCR Section 15088.5, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

Response 3-17
The comment identifies several figures in Appendix B of the Draft SEIR that show an approximately 1-acre area of land (northeast of the Lake Road and Meyers Gate Road intersection) that was included in the VST Specific Plan area but is part of the UC Merced campus. The comment requests that this area and any housing assumed for that area be excluded from the VST Specific Plan.

The VST Specific Plan area is shown in Figure 2-2 of the Draft SEIR and does not include land that is part of the UC Merced campus, including any land northeast of the Lake Road and Meyers Gate Road intersection. The development potential of the VST Specific Plan, shown in Table 2-2 of the Draft SEIR, does not assume that housing would be constructed northeast of the Lake Road and Meyers Gate Road intersection. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Note, however, that the following figures in the VST Specific Plan have been updated in response to this comment :
 Figure 3 Land Use and Circulation Map
 Figure 7 Project Phasing
 Figure 25 Architectural Styles by Neighborhood
 Figure 35 Overall Circulation and Key Map
 Figure 49 Transit Stops

279
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-19

280
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-20 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

281
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-21

282
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-22 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

283
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-23 Letter 4 Merced Irrigation District
Mike Morris LS, Survey Project Manager
June 12, 2023
Response 4-1
The comment states that eight Merced Irrigation District (MID) facilities would be impacted from development under the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan. These facilities are discussed in detail below .

1. Fairfield Canal: This facility is within the UCP area and would be affected by the UCP Update and the VST Specific Plan, as evaluated in the Draft SEIR. The Fairfield Canal runs roughly north to south through the VST Specific Plan area. See Figure 3.5-1, “Hydrology,” in the Draft SEIR. The project includes removal of an oxbow to partially straighten the canal alignment. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed modifications to Fairfield Canal are evaluated in the Draft SEIR. For example, pages 3.5-20 through 3.5-22 describe project impacts to existing drainage patterns associated with the proposed modification s to Fairfield Canal and Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 requires the applicant or subsequent developer to submit evidence to the City of Merced or Merced County, as may be appropriate, that necessary permits have been obtained from MID.

2. Le Grand Canal: As stated on page 3.5-10 of the Draft SEIR, Le Grand Canal is located outside the northern edge of the project site boundary. See Figure 3.5-1, “Hydrology,” in the Draft SEIR. The project would not involve activities within MID’s 150-foot-wide easement for this facility, including any modifications or disruptions in access to this facility.

3. Dunn Lateral: This facility is within the UCP area and would be affected by the VST Specific Plan portion of the project, as evaluated in the Draft SEIR. The Dunn Lateral is an irrigation ditch within the VST Specific Plan area that extends south from the Fairfield Canal approximately 1,600 feet before ending at an underground pipe adjacent to the southern property boundary. Page 2-32 of the Draft SIER states that the VST Specific Plan proposes to fill and remove the Dunn Lateral. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed modifications to the Dunn Lateral are evaluated in the Draft SEIR. For example, page s 3.5-20 through 3.5-22 note that the Dunn Lateral is no longer used to transport water; therefore, its removal is not anticipated to substantially alter drainage patterns. Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 requires the project applicant or subsequent developer to submit evidence to the discretionary land use authority (i.e., City of Merced or Merced County) that necessary permits have been obtained from MID.

4. Fairfield Lateral “A”: This facility is a portion of the Fairfield Canal located at the eastern edge of the UCP South.

The project would not involve activities within MID’s 60-foot-wide easement for this facility, including any modifications or disruptions in access to this facility. See Figure 2-6, “Proposed UCP Land Use and Circulation Diagram,” in the Draft SEIR, which shows the land uses proposed on the west side of the lateral.

5. Fairfield Lateral “A-A”: This facility is a portion of the Fairfield Canal located at the eastern edge of UCP South.

The project would not involve activities within MID’s prescriptive easement for this facility, including any modifications or disruptions in access to this facility. See Figure 2-6, “Proposed UCP Land Use and Circulation Diagram,” in the Draft SEIR, which shows the land uses proposed on the west side of the lateral.

6. Well 221: This facility is located outside of the southeast corner of the UCP South, near the convergency of the Fairfield Canal, Black Rascal Creek, and the proposed extension of Yosemite Avenue. The parcel that includes this well is not within the boundaries of the UCP Update. The UCP Update and the VST Specific Plan would not involve any modifications or disruptions in access to this well.

7. Lake Yosemite (un-gated overflow/spillway): As discussed on page 3.5-9 of the Draft SEIR, Lake Yosemite is located approximately 1 mile north of the UCP Update area. (See also Figure 2-2, “University Community Plan and Virginia Smith Trust Specific Plan Area” in the Draft SEIR.) The project would not involve modifications or disrupt access to MID facilities connected with Lake Yosemite. See also Response 4-3, which describes why overflowing flood waters from Lake Yosemite would not have potential to affect development within the UCP Update area. 284
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-24 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

8. Cottonwood Creek: This facility is within the UCP area and would be affected by the UCP Update and the VST Specific Plan, as evaluated in the Draft SEIR. As noted on pages 3.5-20 and 3.5-21 of the Draft SEIR, flows in Cottonwood Creek are anticipated to decrease with implementation of the UCP Update and the Cottonwood Creek drainage would be preserved under the VST Specific Plan.

As described above, the facilities identified by the commenter are evaluated, as applicable, in the Draft SEIR.

Therefore, no revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response 4-2
The comment addresses MID’s safety and operational concerns related to the proximity of the proposed development to existing MID facilities. The comment indicates that these same concerns were raised with UC Merced regarding development of the campus. The comment proposes conditions to be considered to prevent safety and operational issues with respect to existing MID facilities, which are discussed below.  Le Grand Canal: As noted in Response 4-1 above, Le Grand Canal is located outside the northern edge of the UCP Update boundary. The project would not involve activities within MID’s 150-foot-wide easement for this facility, including any modifications or disruptions in access to this facility. In addition, stormwater would not be directed into the Le Grand Canal. As discussed on page 2-31 of the Draft SEIR, stormwater drainage would be directed to onsite bioswales and basins or discharged to the Fairfield Canal, as and if permitted by MID. The Draft SEIR did not identify any potentially significant impacts to the Le Grand Canal that would warrant mitigation to this facility. No revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary.  Fairfield Canal: Page 2-32 of the Draft SEIR states that the VST Specific Plan includes a proposal to realign and straighten the Fairfield Canal. A bypass channel would be constructed at the location of a large oxbow in the canal, following which the oxbow would be filled and the bypass channel would function as the canal. The oxbow to be filled is approximately 0.3 mile in length, and the new canal segment would be approximately 900 feet long (see also Figure 2-10 of the Draft SEIR). Page 2-32 acknowledges that these modifications would be subject to MID approval of detailed facility designs and confirmation of conformance with MID’s design specifications, which would ensure that the flowrate and flow velocities would not change substantially from existing conditions.

Page 2 ends

discretionary approval. See also VST Specific Plan Policy 11.9 and VST Specific Plan Figure 11 for canal setback requirements. The plan does not anticipate installing a concrete liner in Fairfield Canal. Such modifications are not necessary to protect future development from the effects of seepage due to the setbacks established in the UCP Update.

As suggested in the comment, the VST Specific Plan includes measures to prevent public access to the Fairfield Canal. Specifically, Policy 1.9 states that buildings and improvements adjacent to the Fairfield Canal and Cottonwood Creek shall have adequate setbacks to ensure adequate fill and cut slopes, and transition areas.

Within the structural influence area of the Fairfield Canal, the set-backs shall include a 25-foot canal service and access area from the top of bank, plus an additional area to ensure that there is no structural bearing from the project’s improvements, as illustrated in Figure 21 of the UCP. There shall be a 10 -foot setback to the nearest improvement with intervening planting to discourage access and vandalism, and a 20 -foot setback to the nearest structure. A Wood Frame Hog Wire fence or a Metal Rail Horse Panel fence, shall be provided along these corridors to discourage pedestrians and trespassing (see Policy 12.4). These project elements address the safety and operational issues raised in the comment. No revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary.  Fairfield Lateral “A”: As noted in Response 4-1, the project would not involve activities within MID’s 60-foot-wide easement for this facility, including any modifications or disruptions in access to this facility. The Draft SEIR did not identify any potentially significant impacts to the Fairfield Lateral “A” that would warrant mitigation. No revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary.
 Fairfield Lateral “A-A”: As noted in Response 4-1, the project would not involve activities within MID’s prescriptive easement for this facility, including any modifications or disruptions in access to this facilit y. The Draft SEIR did 285
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-25 not identify any potentially significant impacts to the Fairfield Lateral “A-A” that would warrant mitigation. No revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary.
 Dunn Lateral: As noted above, page 2-32 acknowledges that modifications to the Dunn Lateral would be subject to MID approval of detailed facility designs and confirmation of conformance with MID’s design specifications.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 requires the applicant or subsequent developer to submit evidence to the discretionary land use authority (i.e., City of Merced or Merced County) that necessary permits have been obtained from MID.

No revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary.
 Well 221: As noted in Response 4-1, the project would not involve activities any modifications or disruptions in access to this well. No revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary.

Note that the VST Specific Plan identifies parkland and open space in the area adjacent to the canals to allow for groundwater infiltration and limit the potential for damage due to seepage. MID would retain control over the existing facilities; the VST Specific Plan includes specific fencing and setback requirements to limit the potential for safety and operational issues. No revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response 4-3
The comment states that the potential impact of overflowing flood waters from Lake Yosemite onto the proposed development must be analyzed. As discussed on pages 3.5-9 and 3.5-10 of the Draft SEIR, Lake Yosemite is located approximately 1 mile north of the UCP Update area and a 53-foot-high earthen dam is located along the lake’s southwest side. See also Section 4.8 of the 2001/2004 UCP EIR at page 4.8-3. The crest of Lake Yosemite Dam is approximately 4 feet higher than the edge of the rim of the lake. Failure of the earthen dam would occur if the lake were overtopped by water. The area to the west and southwest of the lake would experience a gradual floodi ng if the earthen dam were to fail. Because the UCP Update area is located south and southeast of the lake, development under the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan would be unaffected by flooding. No revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response 4-4
The comment identifies approvals, agreements, easements, and other requirements that would be necessary for any work affecting MID facilities. This comment is noted and page 2-43 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to identify MID as a responsible agency with authority to approve improvement plans, issue encroachment agreements, and execute easements for work affecting MID facilities (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”).

Note also that the VST Specific Plan would not result in discharge of agricultural tail water or untreated storm water runoff into the MID canal system. Detention basins are proposed to filter and accommodate peak drainage flows, as noted in the comment.

Response 4-5
The comment states that capacity restrictions should be analyzed if the project would result in discharge of stormwater to Cottonwood Creek. These capacity restrictions have been evaluated in the Draft SEIR. The VST Specific Plan would comply with the City’s drainage ordinance and City drainage regulations, which limit discharge rates to Cottonwood Creek. Chapter 2, “Project Description,” provides additional information about stormwater treatment and management improvements that would be used to capture, treat, and release stormwater at the discharge rates prescribed by state and local regulations (see page 2-31).

As indicated on page 3.5-20 of the Draft SEIR, the 2001/2004 UCP EIR determined that the development would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The Draft SEIR summarizes the results as follows:

Modeling of the post-development condition (that would include buildout of the stormwater conveyance system that incorporated numerous detention basins, conveyance pipelines, and pump stations to regulate flow of stormwater) showed that total flows in Fairfield Canal would increase while flows in Cottonwood Creek would decrease with the implementation of the Adopted UCP. Peak flows in Fairfield Canal would not increase because Adopted UCP policies and MID regulations require that water is metered into the canal 286
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-26 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR when capacity is available. This would be beneficial for offsite properties subject to flooding during peak flows on Cottonwood Creek under existing conditions.

Similar to the Adopted UCP, the Draft SEIR concludes that the UCP Update would continue to adequately minimize impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns.

Response 4-6
The comment states that there is no opportunity for annexation by MID and that MID reserves the right to provide further comments. This comment is noted, and the text on page 2-41 of the Draft SEIR in Section 2.7, “Required Discretionary Actions,” has been revised to remove the mention of potential annexation to MID (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CC R 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft is not required. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions in the Draft SEIR and does not raise a significant environmental issue requiring a response. The comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. 287
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-27

288
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-28 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

289
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-29

290
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-30 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

291
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-31

292
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-32 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

293
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-33

294
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-34 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

295
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-35

296
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-36 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

297
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-37

298
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-38 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

299
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-39 Letter 5 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Brian Clements, Director of Permit Services (for Mark Montelongo, Program Manager) June 19, 2023
Response 5-1
The comment provides introductory remarks and a summary of the project description. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions in the Draft SEIR and does not raise a significant environmental issue requiring a response.

Response 5-2
The comment states that Mitigation Measure 3.1-1a allows for the use of Tier 3 engines if Tier 4 engines are not available, and notes that the modeling performed for the mitigated scenario for the UCP South assumed all Tier 4 engines. As a result, the quantification may overstate the emissions reductions a chieved through application of the measure.

The 2001/2004 UCP EIR previously evaluated and confirmed that the UCP would generate less than significant construction-related PM
10 emissions with mitigation incorporated into the project. Construction-generated emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO would be significant and unavoidable with implementation of UCP policies and mitigation.

Because this is an SEIR, the environmental review need only evaluate new significant impacts or substantially greater impacts that the program EIR did not previously evaluate. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15168 (d)(3).) Accordingly, the SEIR evaluated the UCP update in relation to the 2001/2004 UCP EIR analysis. The Draft SEIR evaluated the project using more effective construction equipment that nonetheless estimated “higher worst-case scenarios than reality” (Draft SEIR, page 3.1-32). Moreover, the Draft SEIR notes that project phasing would overlap, so construction equipment would be shared, resulting in an overestimate of likely daily emissions (Draft SEIR, page 3.1-32). Thus, the emissions analysis already overestimates total emissions. The SEIR also requires implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1 -1b, which would require preparation of an Ambient Air Quality Analysis to further verify air quality impacts, and may require the developer to implement additional emission reduction measures (Draft SEIR, page 3.1-29). Finally, the UCP Update proposes a reduction in total overall development, from 2,133 acres to 1,841 acres —a reduction of nearly 14 percent (Draft SEIR, page 2-12). Compared to the Adopted UCP, overall development is less than that previously evaluated. Taken together, the Draft SEIR properly determined that these construction-generated impacts caused by the UCP Update would not be substantially more severe than the impact identified in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR (Draft SEIR, page 3.1-32).

The comment also suggests that Mitigation Measure 3.1.-1a be applied to the VST portion of the plan area. Table 3.1- 6 in Section 3.1, “Air Quality,” summarizes the anticipated level of emissions generated from the VST Specific Plan. As shown in Table 3.1-6, the VST Specific Plan’s emissions would not exceed San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD’s) annual mass emissions thresholds; therefore, the VST Specific Plan’s contribution of construction-generated criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors would not be significant. Mitigation Measure 3.1 - 1a would not be necessary to reduce the VST Specific Plan’s less-than-significant impact.

The Draft SEIR analysis for the UCP South is intended to be programmatic in nature. Future development under the UCP South would require a separate specific plan and would undergo further environmental review prior to the issuance of any development entitlements including building or construction permits, at which time the efficacy of Mitigation Measure 3.1-1a would be reevaluated. Future project proponents may commit to the use of Tier 4 or Tier 3 engines, and the emissions reduction achieved through those commitments would b e quantified and disclosed at that time.

Response 5-3
The comment addresses the language and application of Mitigation Measure 3.1-b. This mitigation measure includes separate requirements for the UCP South, which is evaluated programmatically in the Draft SEIR, and the VST Specific Plan, for which emissions are fully quantified. The comment quotes language from the portion of the mitigation measure that applies to the UCP South and suggests that future project applicants should consult with the air district prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy to “ensure the VERA [Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement] is 300
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-40 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR timely executed.” It should be noted that Mitigation Measure 3.1-2b specifically states that, when thresholds are exceeded, the applicant shall “enter into the VERA” “prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy” and that the applicant “shall engage in a discussion with SJVAPCD prior to the adoption of the VERA.” Mitigation Measure 3.1 -b is clearly not suggesting that the applicant initiates coordination with the air district at the time of issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, but, rather, is requiring the applicant to coordinate with air district in advance of entering into the VERA.

The air district also recommends adoption of a VERA prior to certification of an environmental document “to appropriately characterize the project emissions and demonstrate that the project impact on air quality will be mitigated to less than significant under CEQA as a result of the implementation of the adopted VERA.” The County acknowledges the recommendation to engage with the air district early in the environmental review process and the suggestion about adopting a VERA prior to EIR certification. However, because entering into a VERA requires consideration of specific design issues and payment of mitigation fees after a project has been approved, it would not be appropriate to require approval of a VERA prior to certification of the SEIR. It is more appropriate as a mitigation measure to be implemented/enforced after project approval. A s a mitigation measure adopted by the County and enforced through the MMRP, VERA compliance, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.1-b, is a fully enforceable mitigation. As explained in the Draft SEIR (page 3.1-36):

Through the VERA, project proponents contribute money to fund programs with measurable air quality benefits. Because reducing operational emissions below applicable thresholds can be assured t hrough a VERA, this impact would be reduced, thus avoiding the potential for individuals to be exposed to unhealthy concentrations of criteria air pollutants that could result in adverse health outcomes .

In response to this comment, the text of Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a has been revised to require that a VERA is completed prior to issuance of grading permits for the first phase of development in the UCP South, where subsequent analysis demonstrates that thresholds would be exceeded (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). This modification to the mitigation measure would require completion of a VERA as early in the process as reasonable; there would be no change to the efficacy of the measure. This revision does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

Response 5-4
The comment states that the county should evaluate the risk associated with the UCP Update through the preparation of a health risk assessment (HRA) and use SJVAPCD’s Prioritization Risk Screening Tool. This tool calculates potential health risk impacts from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) associated with the operation of stationary equipment or industrial processes. The annual and maximum pounds of TAC emissions are the inputs to determine the maximum cancer, chronic, and acute risk impacts to receptors at different receptor distances.

The SEIR evaluated the potential impacts caused by exposure of sensitive receptors to both TACs and odors, and determined both to be less than significant (Draft SEIR, pages 3.1-37—40). Construction-related TACs would be dispersed throughout the UCP area and would not present a risk to sensitive receptors (Draft SEIR, page 3.1-38). No stationary source TAC-generating land uses are proposed within the UCP area (Draft SEIR, page 3.1-38). Mobile source TACs along roadway segments were projected to be below CARB’s recommended threshold for siting of sensitive receptors (Draft SEIR, page 3.1-38). The project would not introduce any new sources of odor that were not previously identified (Draft SEIR, page 3.1-39). Thus, the Draft SEIR adequately addressed impacts to sensitive receptors.

Given that the project represents an overall reduction in developable acreage, including a 38 percent reduction in commercial/office square footage across the UCP area (2,022,900 sf to 1,247,000 sf), the changes do not represent significant new impacts, and in fact represent a reduction in overall construction and mobile -source TACs. Thus, the SEIR adequately determined a less-than-significant impact to sensitive receptors.

Based on SJVAPCD’s guidance in using its Prioritization Risk Screening Tool, if a cancer prioritization score exceeds a value of a cancer risk of 10 (shorthand for a concentration of a cancer risk of 10 in one million) at the nearest residential receptor, construction emissions shall be incorporated into the HRA. A cancer risk score of 10 in one 301
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-41 million is used by several air districts in California to determine the significance of TAC impacts and is therefore similarly applied in the Prioritization Risk Screening Tool. However, of note, SJVAPCD’s CEQA threshold for assess ing the significance of TAC impacts is 20 in one million, not 10 in one million. Therefore, projects that exceed SJVACPD’s 10 in one million prioritization score may result in less-than-significant impacts when compared to SJVAPCD’s CEQA threshold of 20 in one million.

While SJVAPCD has recommended an HRA, it does not appear to have been adopted by SJVAPCD as a threshold of significance pursuant to Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines. Adopted thresholds promote “consistency in significance determinations and integrates environmental review with other environmental program planning and regulation.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7(d).) Thresholds must be “ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7(b).) HRA screening is not an applicable threshold that has been adopted by SJVAPCD . Thus, the SEIR is only required to evaluate new effects which had not been previously considered in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR. ( See CEQA Guidelines, § 15168(d)(3).) Both the 2001/2004 UCP EIR and the Draft SEIR evaluated the impact of the project—both at construction and operation stages—to sensitive receptors. Since the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan represent less intensive uses than what was previously analyzed, the Draft SEIR adequately determined that impacts would remain less than significant. Lead agencies are not required to conduct an HRA where analysis concludes that emissions associated with construction and operation of the project did not exceed air quality significance thresholds. (Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 327, 333.) Preparation of an HRA requires detailed information to provide a meaningful assessment. Specific inputs such as types of industrial or commercial land uses, proposed activities and materials used in operation, number of haul trips, and location of loading docks relative to sensitive receptors are required. This information is used to create an assessment of health risk for each nearby sensitive receptor. As explained in the Draft SEIR (page 3.1 -5), sensitive receptors are “people or facilities that generally house people (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals) that may experience adverse effects from unhealthful concentrations of air pollutants.” The UCP Update does not include industrial sources of air pollution and, given the scale of the project (i.e., the UCP Update which includes the VST Specific Plan), a construction and operation HRA was not prepared (Draft SEIR, page

3.1-38). There is inherent uncertainty surrounding the exact location where construction would occur to implement the land uses proposed under the UCP Update. Therefore, the risk to a receptor cannot be quantified with a high degree of accuracy. For the purpose of the evaluation in this SEIR, the level of health risk from exposure to construction- and operation-related TAC emissions was assessed qualitatively. This assessment was ba sed on the proximity of TAC-generating construction activity to off-site sensitive receptors, the number and types of diesel- powered construction equipment being used, and the duration of potential TAC exposure.

The County evaluated the potential effects of air pollutants generated by buildout of the VST Specific Plan and UCP Update. As discussed under Impact 3.1-4, the 2001/2004 UCP EIR did not identify any significant impacts related to TAC exposure. As summarized in the Draft SEIR (page 3.1-37):

Impact 4.3-6 of the 2001/2004 UCP EIR evaluated the potential for sensitive receptors to be exposed to onsite and offsite concentrations of TACs emanating from stationary sources. The analysis indicated that no industrial or research and development facilities would be anticipated and if any were constructed, new facilities must obtain a permit from SJVAPCD as directed by Policy AQ 3.1. This impact was concluded to be less than significant because both onsite and offsite facilities that may emit TACs would be requ ired to comply with established emission standards through the SJVAPCD permitting process.

In analyzing the proposed UCP Update and VST Specific Plan, the Draft SEIR finds that “construction-related TACs would not expose sensitive receptors to an incremental increase in cancer risk that exceeds 10 in one million or a hazard index of 1.0 or greater” due to “the highly dispersive properties of diesel PM and the relatively low mass of diesel PM emissions that would be generated at any single place during project construction ” (page 3.1-38). The maximum daily emissions of respirable particulate matter (PM 10) exhaust, which is considered a surrogate for diesel PM, would be a maximum of 2 pound per day (lb/day) for the UCP Update during the most intense period of construction activity, which would not exceed the daily threshold of 100 lb/day. Similarly, stationary source TACs 302
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-42 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR would be required to comply with the SJVAPCD permitting process (which reduces the potential for sensitive receptors to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentration), and mobile source TACs were determined to result in less-than-significant impacts because the roadway modeled to support the most vehicles per day in the cumulative context would be “below CARB’s [California Air Resources Board’s] recommended threshold for siting sensitive receptors to mobile source emissions of TACs” (Draft SEIR, page 3.1-38). Using this threshold, the SEIR determined that the project would not expose sensitive land uses to mobile-source TACs or result in increased health risks above the SJVAPCD thresholds of a cancer score of more than 20 in 1 million (Draft SEIR, page 3.1-39) potential impacts.

The SEIR is intended to satisfy Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines which posits the question of whether changes to a project would result in new or substantially more severe impacts as compared to a previously certified environmental document. The land uses proposed under the UCP Update, which includes the VST Specific Plan and its various impact-reducing project design features, would not generate more TACs than what would have occurred from the adopted land uses of the 2001/2004 UCP EIR, which did not include the VST Specific Plan project design commitments that reduce TAC and criteria air pollutant emissions, such as the prohibition of natural gas for residential land uses and investments in transportation infrastructure to reduce mobile source emissions. Also, since the certification of the 2001/2004 UCP EIR, CARB has adopted and amended various regulations that have resulted in the improved fuel efficiency that have reduced emissions generated by on-road diesel-powered vehicles and trucks including the Alternative Diesel Fuel, the Advanced Clean Fleets, and Advanced Clean Trucks regulations. The se regulations promote the use of alternatively sourced diesel fuels (i.e., not fossil fuel based) and the steady transition to the electrification of medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The implementation of the standards within these regulations has produced a more fuel efficient medium- and heavy-duty truck fleet since the certification of the 2001/2004 UCP EIR. Moreover, the project represents an overall reduction in developable acreage, including a 38 percent reduction in commercial/office square footage across the UCP area, as noted above. Therefore, emissions from truck activity under the UCP Update would not produce a new or substantially more severe impact had mobile- source TAC emissions been evaluated.

As described above, a full HRA is not required, necessary, nor appropriate in this case. There is no commercial development proposed adjacent to Lake Road with potential to result in operational health effect on existing sensitive receptors, and pursuant to CEQA, the County is not required to evaluate t he effects of project buildout on future occupants of the project (i.e., the effects of the project on itself). Further, lead agencies are not required to conduct an HRA where analysis concludes that emissions associated with construction and operation of the project did not exceed air quality significance thresholds. (Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v.

City of Chula Vista 197 Cal.App.4th at 333.) Here, the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan have not exceeded any applicable thresholds that have been adopted by SJVAPCD. The City and County would review all subsequent development proposals for consistency with applicable SJVAPCD regulations. No additional mitigation is necessary, and no revisions have been made to the Draft SEIR in response to this comment.

Response 5-5
The comment states that an ambient air quality analysis (AAQA) should be prepared for any project with emissions exceeding SJVAPCD’s 100 lb/day screening criteria. As shown in Table 3.1-12, the UCP Update would result in fewer daily emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, and respirable particulate matter (PM10) than the Adopted UCP. Emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) were not estimated in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR and a comparison could not be made. The emissions estimates demonstrate that implementation of the UCP Update would not result in a substantially more severe impact than what was identified in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR.

The analysis prepared for the UCP South portion of the UCP Update is intended to be programmatic given that specific details such as refined land use maps are not available for the community plan. An AAQA performed for the UCP Update would not produce results of high-accuracy given the uncertainty of the locations of emissions sources.

Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure 3.1-1b will be updated to require an AAQA to confirm whether the UCP Update would violate any state or federal Ambient Air Quality Standards for future development projects in the UCP South.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-b will continue to include VERA compliance as a fully enforceable mitigation measure. 303
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-43 Also shown in Table 3.1-13, the operational emissions of the VST Specific Plan would generate emissions of ROG and carbon monoxide that exceed SJVAPCD’s 100 lb/day screening criteria. The SEIR evaluates the VST Specific Plan in consideration of the analysis prepared in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR. Given the results of the comparative analysis of the UCP Update and considering the project design commitments made by the VST Specific Plan, which are reflected in the emissions reductions shown in Table 3.1-12, the VST Specific Plan was determined to result in a decrease in operational emissions compared to the analogous portion in the previously adopted UCP. A new exceedance of an ambient air quality standard would not be anticipated as compared to what would have occurred from the land uses evaluated in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR.

Moreover, in 2018, Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines were amended to remove the significance criteri on (b) “violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality violation .” SJVAPCD’s guidance, published in 2015, uses the preparation of an AAQA to satisfy this criterion, which is no longer retained in the most current version of Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Even though it is no longer required, an AAQA will be incorporated into Mitigation Measure 3.1-1b.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1-1b, 3.1-2a, and 3.1-2b would ensure that the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan’s emissions would be reduced to SJVAPCD’s CEQA annual mass emissions thresholds. Through the VERA and AAQA, the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan would reduce emissions to less-than-significant levels. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Response 5-6
The comment recommends that the SEIR include an assessment of the patterns of heavy heavy-duty (HHD) trucks within the plan area. As discussed in Response 5-4, above, the UCP Update was evaluated on a programmatic level. It is speculative to predict the locations or number of HHD trucks that would access the plan area following buildout .

With respect to the VST Specific Plan, which has a detailed land use plan, the individual occupants and commercial businesses are not known at this time and the use of HHDs to operate is also speculative at this time. As discussed above, an HRA was not prepared for the project given the project’s size and uncertainty surrounding the types of land uses that may be constructed under the UCP Update. Therefore, the dispersal of emissions from the operation of HHDs was not prepared as it is considered a speculative exercise.

Response 5-7
The comment recommends that the County consider the feasibility of requiring that commercial and retail development in the UCP area use the cleanest available HHD trucks in vehicle fleets and that all onsite service equipment use zero-emission technologies. The comment also recommends a stringent 3-minute idling restriction and requiring appropriate signage and enforcement of idling restrictions for HHD truck trips. In response to this comment, the language of Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a on page 3.1-34 of the Draft SEIR has been amended to include restriction of idling times for HHD trucks. See Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR.” The SEIR evaluated impacts caused by mobile source TACs to sensitive receptors, including impacts caused by increased roadway traffic at buildout (Draft SEIR, pages 3.1-38—39). CARB already imposes strict limitations on diesel- fueled trucks idling within 100 feet of a restricted area, defined to include residenti al uses. Utilizing the CARB recommended threshold, the SEIR concluded these impacts would be less than significant (Draft SEIR, page 3.1-39).

The VST Specific Plan can impose this stricter 3-minute restriction for facilities within 100 feet of residential uses. To the extent that any proposed commercial use will increase truck traffic on local roads that will cause a significant increase in emissions, such proposed use will be subject to SJVAPCD regulations and permitting at that date of proposal.

The only non-residential or community uses in the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan are retail and other commercial/office uses. These uses are not the type of uses that will maintain their own fleet of HHD trucks.

Accordingly, this impact is not likely to arise within UCP Update and VST Specific Plan area. On-site service equipment will comply with the most current state regulations for such equipment.

The County has reviewed the recommended measures related to low and zero emission HHD trucks and equipment and considers these measures to be infeasible. Commercial and retail buildings would, presumably, receive deliveries 304
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-44 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR from various vendors; neither the County nor the future operator would have discretion over the types of vehicles used to make these deliveries. The County also does not have a mechanism to monitor and enforce restrictions on the types of fleet vehicles and equipment used throughout the operational life of future occupants of the UCP area.

Further, any additional mitigation measures in the form of requiring low and zero emission trucks is not required, as operation of these vehicles has not been determined to result in an environmental impact. Mitigation is only required if there are significant environmental effects. (PRC § 21100(b)(3).) An EIR is not required to discuss mitigation measures for impacts when the EIR had determined that such impacts would be less than significant. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water District (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 649.) Response 5-8
The comment summarizes the potential contribution of PM2.5 from the operation of charbroilers and recommends that the County consider measures requiring the assessment and potential installation of particulate emissions control systems for new restaurants that may use charbroilers. As shown in Table 3.1-12, the UCP Update (which includes the VST Specific Plan), operational emissions of PM2.5 would be below SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance.

While future restaurants in the plan area may seek to coordinate with SJVAPCD regarding particulate emissions control systems for charbroilers, the UCP Update’s projected emissions of PM2.5 would not be significant and use of these emissions control systems are not recommended as formal CEQA mitigation.

Although PM2.5 emissions are not the focus of the VERA required by Mitigation Measure 3.1-2b because emission levels would be not exceed established thresholds, additional discussion of appropriate particulate measures for subsequent projects that include charbroilers may occur during the VERA process. No modifications to the SEIR are required.

Response 5-9
The comment recommends that the County consider the implementation of vegetative barriers and urban greening as measures to reduce further air pollution exposure to sensitive receptors. The VST Specific Plan proposes landscaping that is compatible with each community and surrounding uses, and the VST Specific Plan includes a requirement for such landscape buffering in Table 3, Policy 8.1, Policy 8.1.1 and Policy 8.1.2. In response to this comment, the language of Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a on page 3.1-34 of the Draft SEIR has been amended to include additional vegetative barriers, and this recommendation will be factored into subsequent landscaping plans. See Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR.” This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

Response 5-10
The comment recommends that the project proponent consider participation in SJVACPD’s Clean Green Yard Machines program to reduce the emissions from gas-powered lawn and gardening equipment. While it is foreseeable that some future residents of the plan area would use electrical landscaping equipment, it is infeasible for the County to enforce a prohibition of the use of natural gas-powered landscaping equipment in the future since there is no permit process associated with consumer purchases of yard maintenance equipment . Future residents of the plan area may elect to participate in the Clean Green Yard Machine’s program; however, participation is not considered a feasible mitigation strategy under CEQA. The comment does not make any specific reference to the analysis prepared in the Draft SEIR, nor does it affect the conclusions made in the SEIR. No further response is required.

Response 5-11
The comment states that the project may be eligible for funding through SJVAPCD’s Bikeway Incentive Program. In response to this comment, the text has been added to Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a on page 3.1-34 of the Draft SEIR indicating that future project applicants for development of the UCP South would be required to apply for grant funding through SJVAPCD’s Bikeway Incentive Program prior to issuance of development permits.

See Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR.” The text edits made in response to this comment do not alter the conclusions of the Draft SEIR. This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information 305
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-45 in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft is not required. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis or conclusi ons in the Draft SEIR and does not raise a significant environmental issue requiring a response. The comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration.

Response 5-12
The comment introduces the various SJVAPCD rules that could apply to the project. The comment recommends a mitigation measure requiring future projects subject to SJVAPCD permitting to demonstrate compliance with District Rule 2201 (new and modified stationary source emissions) prior to issuance of a building permit. In evaluating the effects of the UCP Update on stationary source TACs, the Draft SEIR (page 3.1 -38) states:

The UCP Update would continue to comply with SJVAPCD Rule 2010, which regulates sources with the potential to emit TACs through a permitting process. Permits may only be granted to these operations provided that they are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations, and they include best available control technology, if applicable, based on regulations including Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule), Rule 4001 (New Source Performance Standards), and Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants). Compliance with these rules w ould ensure that these stationary sources would meet established health standards for TACs. Given that compliance with applicable standards is required for the construction and operation of facilities that may emit TACs, the TAC emissions from the routine use of TACs in manufacturing processes, both on and off the project site, are expected to be within established standards.

Because the UCP Update would not introduce any new potential for TAC-generating land uses, and the stationary sources of TACs associated with these land uses would comply with the SJVAPCD permitting process (which reduces the potential for sensitive receptors to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentration), there is no new significant impact and the impact is not substantially mor e severe than the impact identified in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR. This impact would remain less than significant as identified in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR.

The lead agency would confirm compliance with established regulations, including Rule 2201, during review of any subsequent discretionary development in the plan area.

Response 5-13
The comment states that development under the project would be subject to SJVAPCD Rules 2010, “Permits Required,” 2201, “New and Modified Stationary Source Review,” and 9510, “Indirect Source Review,” and requests that the County inform the project applicant about District Rule 9510 so that “proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be incorporated into the Project’s design.” SJVAPCD is correct that portions of the project would be subject to Rules 2010, 2201, 9510. The importance of District Rule 9510 in identifying project-specific mitigation and design for subsequent developments is noted. As indicated in the Draft SEIR (page 3.1-35), Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a would require projects in the UCP Update area outside of the VST Specific Plan area to implement specific measures that include SJVAPCD consultation and the ISR process. Compliance with these rules would occur through the permitting process when obtaining an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate prior to the operation of any new emissions generating unit. Permits can be obtained through SJVAPCD’s permit application process.

For CEQA purposes, it is assumed that future development would be required to comply with mandatory regulatory mechanisms, such as those rules enforced by SJVAPCD. The lead agency would confirm compliance with adopted regulations during review of any subsequent discretionary development in the plan area. N o formal mitigation is needed to ensure that future development goes through the proper SJVAPCD permitting process. No edits to the Draft SEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response 5-14
The comment states that the project may be subject to SJVAPCD’s Rule 9410, “Employer Based Trip Reduction.” Rule 9410 applies to each employer in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) that hires at least 100 eligible employees at a worksite for at least 16 consecutive weeks during the employer’s previous fiscal year. Rule 9410 requires these 306
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-46 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR employers to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan that encourages employees to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips to reduce emissions associated with worker commute trips. In response to this comment, a description of Rule 9410 has been added to Section 3.1.1, “Regulatory Setting,” on page 3.1-5 of the Draft SEIR following the bullet point that summarizes Rule 8021 and preceding the bullet point that summarizes Rule 9510.

The added text does not alter the significance determinations made in the Draft SEIR. Development under the project would be required to comply with the applicable rules and regulations established and enforced by SJVAPCD as conditions of project approval. Compliance with this rule would occur prior to the issuance of a Permit to Operate by future tenants of commercial properties meeting the standards of Rule 9410 through SJVAPCD’s permit application process.

The comment also states that development under the project would be subject to SJVAPCD’s Rules 4004, “National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants” and 4601, “Architectural Coatings,” and Regulation VIII, “Fugitive Dust Prohibitions.” Compliance with these rules would occur prior to the issuance of an Authority to Construct permit through SJVAPCD’s permit application process. These rules and regulations are disclosed on page 3.1-5 of the Draft SIER.

For CEQA purposes, it is assumed that future development would be required to comply with mandatory regulatory mechanisms, such as those rules enforced by SJVAPCD. The lead agency would confirm compliance wit h adopted regulations during review of any subsequent discretionary development in the plan area. No revisions to the Draft SEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response 5-15
The comment recommends that this comment letter be submitted to the project applicant for consideration. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft SEIR and no further response is required.

307
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-47

308
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-48 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

309
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-49

310
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-50 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

311
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-51

312
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-52 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

313
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-53

314
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-54 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

315
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-55

316
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-56 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR Letter 6 Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability Isaac Serratos, Staff Attorney; Ana Maria Fabian, South Merced Resident; Sofie Prado, South Merced Resident; Sara Hernandez, South Merced Resident; Bernardo Vega, South Merced Resident; Eulalio Reyes, South Merced Resident; Martha Bedolla, South Merced Resident; Jose Avila , South Merced Business Owner and Merced Resident; Maria Calderon, South Merced Resident June 12, 2023
Response 6-1
After providing introductory remarks and a summary of the project description, the comment suggests that the City of Merced is prioritizing investment in North Merced over South Merced. The comment also suggests that the Draft SEIR is deficient in analyzing and mitigating land use impacts under CEQA and that the project would result in inequality and regional environmental impacts related to water, transportation, and air quality. The SEIR evaluates the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan impacts to these resources in Section 3.5, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” Section

3.7, “Transportation and Circulation,” and Section 3.1, “Air Quality,” of the Draft SEIR. This comment does not elaborate on the claim that the project has not had a “full environmental analysis and mitigation ” of impacts to these resources. In fact, Merced County has prepared several CEQA documents since 2001 to evaluate the impacts of developing the UCP area in accordance with the County’s plans to develop this area following the development of the UC Merced campus.

Response 6-2
The comment suggests that development under the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan would skew towards high- income residents and would not provide sufficient affordable housing for lower-income households. According to the UCP Update, developments in the UCP would accommodate all economic segments of the university community including students and Above Moderate, Moderate, Low and Very Low Income households. The VST Specific Plan contains housing in accordance with those policies to maximize the capture of university students, staff, and instructors. The comment also includes commentary on the merits of the VST Specific Plan, including the effects of housing density on home price and potential to “perpetuate and exacerbate segregated living patterns.” The comment suggests that the development would contribute to sprawl, social isolation, economic disparity, and segregated living patterns. The comment also states that the project does not align with regulations governing fair housing.

CEQA does not require that housing affordability, sprawl, social isolation, economic disparity, segregation, and fair housing be evaluated in environmental documents. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15131 allows the approving agency to include or present economic or social information in an EIR, but Section 15131(a) limits the consideration of such factors in the assessment of significant impacts, stating:

Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the env ironment. An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused by the economic or social changes.

The intermediate economic or social changes need not be analyzed in any detail greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause and effect. The focus of the analysis shall be on the physical changes.

The VST Specific Plan would include the construction of a wide range of housing, including affordable housing units, and 500 deed restricted units for Extremely Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate Income households. For the purpose of community planning, the usual “nexus” approach for affordable housing is that project provide an appropriate amount of housing relative to the need for affordable housing that the project generates, not the regional “need” as established in the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) for the County. The County addresses regional housing needs as part of its Housing Element in accordance with State housing laws. Based on an analysis of the wage levels for onsite and the demand for goods and services generated by UC Merced and the UCP South, the VST Specific Plan would generate a need for 62 very low income units, 646 low income units, and 817 moderate income units. The VST Specific Plan exceeds this anticipated demand by 163 very low income units, 268 low income units, and 1,249 moderate income units. It also complies with City’s RHNA Unit Production Policy. Thus, there is no evidence that the VST Specific Plan would not provide affordable housing. 317
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-57 The comment also claims that the VST Specific Plan “lacks meaningful requirements for deed- restricted affordable housing for lower-income households.” A total of 500 units (13.1%) would be deed-restricted, in excess of the City of Merced’s RHNA Unit Production Policy. Table 2 of the VST Specific Plan and pages 35-39 summarize the affordable housing plan. This would provide a mechanism to ensure that a portion of the housing is set aside for the target population.

The April 2023 VST Specific Plan (Draft SEIR Appendix B) indicates (pages 35-39 and Table 2) the VST Specific Plan will dedicate land to affordable housing providers for deed restricted units, in the R -4 and R-2 areas. Chapter 2, “Project Description,” in the Draft SEIR includes a typo indicating that 200 R-4 units would be contributed to the non- profit. This description has been updated to provide the correct number of units (325) in the most current version of the VST Specific Plan on page 2-20. See Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR.” In addition to these units, there will be 25 deed-restricted units Very Low Income units constructed in the Mixed Use Village Center residentia l area, and 150 deed restricted units for Moderate Income households. Table 2 of the VST Specific Plan identifies the timing of these units during the buildout of the project. This update to the number of housing units subject to deed restriction would not change the analysis or conclusions in the Draft SEIR. Moreover, there are no CEQA impacts associated with the project’s inclusion of affordable housing as part of the VST Specific Plan.

In addition, the comment makes general claims related to incentivizing higher vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and water use that are addressed below in Response 6-8 and Response 6-4, respectively. As explained further below in Response 6-9, the project includes a robust transit, pedestrian, and bicycle network that would connect to locations in the city and on the UC Merced campus. See, specifically, Figure 35 and Figure 49 which show bicycle and transit features and improvements for the VST Specific Plan, respectively. Assertions that the project would be “without transit” are inaccurate and inconsistent with the Draft SEIR analysis.

Finally, the comment inaccurately asserts that the State has proposed the project. The Virginia Smith Trust is the applicant for the VST Specific Plan. The trust is not a state agency. VST is a private charitable trust that donated the land for construction of UC Merced to the State with an agreement that the proceeds from the development of the remaining land by VST would increase the size and reach of the trust’s scholarship program in support of higher education. Merced County is the lead agency evaluating the environmental effects of the proposed plan and updates to the adopted UCP. The City of Merced is a responsible agency under CEQA due to the proposed annexation.

The comment states that the project does not align with the State’s mandates to affirmatively further fair housing pursuant to Government Code Section 8899.50. This regulation requires that a public agency administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing.

The comment focuses on unrelated actions taken by the City of Merced that are outside the scope of the lead agency’s control and this SEIR. These concerns, and the recommendation that said concerns are addressed through adoption of “inclusive and equitable development strategies that prioritize the needs of South Merced” are largely unrelated to the County’s evaluation of environmental impacts of the UCP Update and the VST Specific Plan.

Nonetheless, the comment is noted for the record and will be provided to decision makers for consideration.

Response 6-3
The comment cites case law pertaining to CEQA and the EIR process. The comment restates that the Draft SEIR is deficient in analyzing and mitigating environmental impacts related to water, transportation, and air quality. The comment also suggests that the deficient CEQA analysis would expose Merced County residents, including disadvantaged communities, to harm.

This SEIR provides a supplemental environmental analysis in accordance with Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and fulfills the County’s obligation under CEQA to inform the public and decision-makers of the environmental consequences of their decisions. In fact, the County has conducted extensive CEQA review for more than 20 years with respect to the UCP update and the VST Specific Plan. In particular, water issues are covered in Section 3.5, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” of the Draft SEIR, transportation issues are covered in Section 3.7, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft SEIR, and air quality issues are covered in Section 3.1, “Air Quality,” of 318
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-58 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR the Draft EIR. This comment does not identify specific concerns related to the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions in the Draft SEIR and does not raise a significant environmental issue requiring further response.

Response 6-4
The comment states that the Draft SEIR did not adequately analyze impacts related to groundwater quality or quantity. The comment identifies water quality impairments in the Merced subbasin and suggests that project-related drilling of groundwater wells has potential to contaminate the water supply. The comment suggests that water quality testing should be conducted to evaluate potential groundwater quality impacts.

As support for this claim, the comment cites the description of existing distribution system reliability in the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the project (Appendix I to the Draft SEIR, page 2-8). The WSA indicates that the City’s municipal water system has historically been a reliable water source and that there is now a Groundwater Sustainability Plan in place to address declining groundwater levels. Nonetheless, “existing wells may need to be deepened, as recommended in the 2014 WMP.” And, if deeper wells increase water quality problems, the City could address this issue with increased water treatment to ensure removal of contaminants before distribution to customers. The WSA does not indicate that the quality of the water delivered to municipal customers or the quality of the water in nearby private wells (which are typically drilled into the shallow water table) would be impaired if some existing wells are deepened in the future as envisioned in the City’s 2014 Water Master Plan. The WSA also does not indicate that the municipal well located within the VST Specific Plan would need to be made deeper than proposed.

Pages 3.5-15 through 3.5-17 of the Draft SEIR evaluate the potential for the project to substantially degrade surface water or groundwater quality. As noted in Response 2-1, the Draft SEIR includes a programmatic evaluation of the construction and operation of the proposed onsite municipal well. (Also as noted in the Draft SEIR, the existing groundwater usage from existing agricultural operations is approximately 2,400 acre-feet (AF) per year, which is 100 percent from groundwater. Full development of the project would result in the consumption of approximately 1,500 AF per year, a 900-AF reduction.) Modification of the City’s water supply infrastructure (including drilling the onsite municipal well), would occur as a subsequent action initiated by the City of Merced. As indicated on page 3.8 -21 of the Draft SEIR, the analysis assumes that the City would continue to construct required groundwater facilities as outlined in the City’s 2014 Water Master Plan and evaluated separately in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for City of Merced 2016 Water Master Plan Update (City of Merced 2017b). Compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure that drilling activities related to the onsite municipal well would not contaminate the water supply. Chapter 8.12, “Water Wells” of the City of Merced Municipal Code, was established to provide standards for the location, construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, sealing, abandonment , and destruction of all wells, test wells, and certain exploration holes so the quality of the groundwater is not polluted, contaminated , or otherwise impacted in a manner that would jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare.

Pages 3.8-19 through 3.8-21 of the Draft SEIR describe whether there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan and other reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The Draft SEIR concludes that the anticipated water demand from the amended UCP area is anticipated to be less than what was evaluated in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR because of the reduced development potential and increased concentration of land uses. Based on the findings of a Water Supply Assessment prepared pursuant to Senate Bill 610, the Draft SEIR concludes that the City has adequate water supply available to meet city- wide water demand, including water demand from the VST Specific Plan. The Draft SEIR, therefore, concludes that the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan would not result in new or more severe significant effects beyond those identified in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR and the impact would be less than significant.

The Draft SEIR, therefore, provides an updated analysis of the proposed UCP Update that is based on current groundwater conditions and the City’s 2014 Water Master Plan. There is no evidence that the well constructed in the VST Specific Plan area would be deeper than evaluated in the Draft SEIR, or that regional effects to groundwater quality would occur as a result. No changes have been made to the Draft SEIR in response to this comment.

Response 6-5
The comment states that the Draft SEIR failed to identify mitigation measures to address significant drawdown from the installation of new wells or consider alternatives to avoid this impact. The comment also suggests that the impact 319
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-59 would extend to groundwater wells outside the immediate vicinity of the new wells. Based on the information included in the comment (e.g., mention of 25-to-35-foot drawdown) the comment seems to be focused on the anticipated impacts of the Adopted UCP, not the UCP Update or VST Specific Plan currently under evaluation.

The Adopted UCP, as evaluated in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR and summarized on pages 3.5-17 and 3.5-18 of the Draft SEIR, is planned assuming a system of wells to provide onsite water to the UCP plan area through a mutual water company or a services district. A detailed evaluation of the potential effects of this adopted plan was performed as part of the 2001/2004 UCP EIR that included on-site well testing, geohydrologic studies, and groundwater modeling, to determine the effect of groundwater pumping on adjacent domestic wells that serve the nearby residents. The modeling assumed construction of three deep wells near the western edge of the plan area to serve the UC Merced campus and the Adopted UCP. As summarized in the Draft SEIR (page 3.5-17):

With respect to the Adopted UCP, the study used an estimated annual demand of 3,583 acre- feet and assumed that this water would be pumped using two wells, one near the intersection of Cardella Road and Lake Road and the second well near the intersection of Yosemite Avenue and Lake Road. Similar to City groundwater wells, all three wells were assumed to draw water from the deep aquifer and not from the shallow aquifer, which is used by the adjacent residences to draw water. All three wells were modeled to pump groundwater at these rates for a period of 100 years. The analysis showed that groundwater interference could affect the ability of some of the local wells to supply water at the existing rates. However, the potential long-term drawdown of the shallow and deep aquifers in the vicinity of the UCP would not have an environmental effect other than lowering groundwater levels by 25 to 35 feet in the area of the rural residences west of Lake Road (Merced County 2004).

In summarizing the impact analysis in the certified 2001/2004 UCP EIR, the Draft EIR (page 3.5-18) states:

Impact 4.8-5 in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR evaluated whether pumping of groundwater from the new wells necessary to meet the projected demand for the Adopted UCP could lower water levels and quality in adjacent wells. As explained in the analysis (page 2-63), Adopted UCP Policies IW 11.2, IW 11.3, and IW 11.4 would require compliance with the City of Merced, MID, and the Merced Water Supply Plan’s strategies and standards. Adopted UCP Policies IW 8.1 and IW 12.6 would ensure that groundwater extraction does not result in drawdown that would adversely affect existing or planned neighboring uses. The 2001/2004 UCP EIR concluded the impact to be less than significant.

Although the comment expresses general disagreement with this prior conclusion, the 2001/2004 UCP EIR was certified as adequate and the UCP was adopted without legal challenge. The prior EIR is legally adequate as determined by the court. The analysis of the UCP Update that follows is distinct from this prior analysis because the UCP Update proposes annexation to the City of Merced or an out of boundary service agreement, with onsite well networked into the overall citywide water distribution system. As explained on pages 3.5-18 through 3.5-20 of the Draft SEIR, this fundamentally affects the analysis of potential impacts. Page 3.5-19 of the Draft SEIR explains:
water would be provided by the City from a combination of an onsite well and other City wells. As noted in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the on-site well would be needed to meet the City fire flow and peak demands and to provide redundancy for the UC Merced well.

Because of the reduction in onsite usage of groundwater, the distribution of water wells throughout the city and the location of water wells away from the Lake Road frontage (the VST water well is 2,500 feet east of Lake Road) onsite water usage will no longer have the potential to lower groundwater levels by 25 to 35 feet in the area of the rural residences west of Lake Road, as was the case for the Adopted UCP.

As discussed on pages 3.5-17 through 3.5-20, the 2001/2004 UCP EIR concluded the that the Adopted UCP would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies because (1) proposed development would comply with the City of Merced, MID, and the Merced Water Supply Plan’s strategies and standards and (2) the Adopted UCP would include policies to ensure that groundwater extraction does not result in drawdown that would adversely affect existing or planned neighboring uses.
320
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-60 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR In preparing this SEIR, the County proceeded in a stepwise manner to identify the environmental impacts of the UCP Update that were previously disclosed and certified in the EIR, identify whether the setting in which the UCP was evaluated has substantially changed since its preparation such that those changes could result in new or substantially more severe environmental effects, and provided a comparison of whether the UCP Update would result in new or substantially more severe environmental effects compared to the environmental effects that were previously disclosed and certified in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR. Specifically, the County assessed whether the details of the UCP Update or changes in circumstance substantially differ from what was previously evaluated and whether those changes resulted in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. This stepwise analysis and substantiation follows the requirements of CCR Sections 15162-15164 for supplemental analyses. The results of this stepwise analysis concluded that the UCP update would not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts from those evaluated and certified in the GP EIR. The same is true for the VST Specific Plan as it covers only a portion of the entire UCP area approved for developme nt for more than 20 years. Because the impact would remain less than significant, no mitigation or alternatives are warranted. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response 6-6
The comment states that the Draft SEIR did not analyze the possibility and use of a water recycling treatment facility.

As discussed on page 3.8-13 and 3.8-17 of the Draft SEIR, the construction of onsite wastewater treatment infrastructure identified in the Adopted UCP is no longer being considered under the UCP Update because the plan area would be annexed by the City of Merced and served by the City’s existing sewer system. Use of recycled water requires an onsite treatment plant, or proximity to treatment plant and recycled water distribution lines. The wastewater treatment plant is 13 miles away from the project site and there are no recycled water lines.

The comment also suggests that there is uncertainty regarding the availability of water supplies. Based on the findings of the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the VST Specific Plan (MKN 2021), page 3.8-21 of the Draft SEIR concludes that the City would be capable of supplying the water required to meet the city’s water demands, including the demand from the VST Specific Plan, through the year 2040. This determination assumes that the City would continue to utilize groundwater as the main source of water through the year 2030 and add surface water by 2035, as assumed in the City of Merced’s Urban Watershed Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP was developed in coordination with MID and other appropriate agencies and meets the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act.

Response 6-7
The comment states that the Draft SEIR must consider the impacts that the project would have on local and regional groundwater supplies, including impacts resulting from population growth and other planned development within the city. The comment also suggests that mitigation would be needed to offset potential groundwater impacts.

Pages 3.8-19 through 3.8-21 evaluate whether the City has sufficient available water supply to serve future development under the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan in combination with other reasonably foreseeable future development in the city. As noted in Response 6-6, the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the VST Specific Plan determined that the City would be capable of supplying the water required to meet the city’s water demands, including the demand from the VST Specific Plan, through the year 2040 . The analysis evaluates the effects on groundwater supply (Impact 3.5-2), groundwater quality (Impact 3.5-1) and the capacity of the City of Merced’s municipal water system (Impact 3.8-2). Existing conditions and the incremental effects of future projects are evaluated in the cumulative impact analysis (Impact 3.8-5). These analyses are informed by the supplemental, updated setting information provided in Section 3.5, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” and Section 3.8 , “Utilities and Service Systems.” The Draft SEIR concludes that the impact related to water supplies from the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are warranted.

Response 6-8
The comment recognizes the appropriate application of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR’s) VMT guidelines, and requests additional support for the assumptions applied in the analysis. Specifically, the comment suggests that the Draft SEIR does not provide substantial evidence to support the assumption that 30 321
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-61 percent of trips would consist of cycling and walking because evidence that the City of Merced has achieved this rate of bicycling and walking was not provided. However, the proposed project is unlike existing development in the city of Merced because it is specifically designed to integrate with, and provide housing for, UC Merced students and staff in accordance with the County’s plans in effect for more than 20 years. For this reason, modeling was based on published mode split studies conducted for similar developments at UC Santa Cruz and UC Davis , as well as previous transportation studies of the UC Merced campus.

The Traffic Impact Study Assumptions/Methodology for the Virginia Smith Trust Property Planning Project memorandum included as Appendix A to the Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis explains on page 8 that the internal and external mode split trip factors are based on proximity to the UC and features of the plan, specifically:

UC-supporting multifamily and town center commercial uses are located closest to UC (and will eventually be physically adjacent); commercial shopping areas are distributed so that 90 percent of the residential units are located within one-quarter mile or less of commercial areas that provide daily and weekly shopping goods and services; a public park and/or open space is located within walking distance (no farther than 660 feet from any residential unit); and, all arterial and collector level streets have Class I or Class IV bike facilities to encourage bicycled usage for internal and external trips.

The assumptions in the transportation analysis were provided by VRPA Technologies, a transportation planning firm based in Fresno, California that was founded in 1988 and has completed over 1,000 successful transportation planning/modeling, environmental, air quality planning, engineering and Intelligent Transportation Systems projects.

Additional detail is provided in the Traffic Impact Study Assumptions/Methodology Memorandum which is included as an appendix to the TIS. The assumptions and methodologies contained in the traffic report and the VMT report were reviewed and approved by the City of Merced, County of Merced, and Caltrans and are considered adequate and appropriate by public officials with technical expertise and regulatory responsibilities in t his area. Moreover, this analysis updates the transportation analyses previously conducted for this area as part of prior CEQA documents.

Therefore, the modeling assumptions are adequately supported by available data based on analogous projects.

Additional analysis of VMT is not required in response to this comment.

Response 6-9
The comment suggests that the VMT analysis may overestimate the number of internal project trips by overlooking the potential for individuals that are unaffiliated with UC Merced to live in the UCP area and commute to distant job centers. Internal trips were based on the Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 684: “Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed -Use Developments.” As indicated above, the analysis was conducted by experienced transportation professionals based on industry -standard assumptions.

The internal capture rate is based on the proximity of “major trip ends such as shopping and work” (see page 1 of the Traffic Impact Study Assumptions/Methodology for the Virginia Smith Trust Property Planning Project memorandum included as Appendix A to the Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis). The Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis (page 6) describes how this approach is consistent with the OPR’s guidelines.

Additional detail is provided in the Traffic Impact Study Assumptions/Methodology Memorandum and the Internal Trip Calculations/ National Cooperative Highway Research Program Worksheets, both of which are included as appendices to the Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis. The modeling adequately accounts for individuals that reside in the VST Specific Plan and commute to jobs elsewhere.

Although there is variability in market conditions and other factors that influence individual choice and travel patterns, the VMT analysis provides a reasonable estimation of future conditions. Moreover, note that VMT of UC Merced students and faculty that currently commute to the campus due to lack of nearby housing options may be reduced in the future if these individuals were to relocate to the UCP area. These trips have, however, been assumed to be minimal for the sake of providing a conservative estimate.

The comment also indicates that the plan does not include transit options that would connect the city, VST, and UC Merced. In fact, the UCP Update includes several policies related to transit service, including Policy T 5.1 to “participate in the development of high-frequency transit services that seamlessly connect major destinations, 322
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-62 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR including the UC Merced campus” and Policy T 5.3 to establish stops that facilitate timed transfers between local campus/community transit service and regional transit connections serving the City of Merced, the rest of Merced County, and major interregional destinations. As indicated in the Draft SEIR (page 3.7 -17):

The policies contained in the UCP Update have been designed and verified to be consistent with the Merced County Regional Bicycle Transportation Plan (MCAG 2008) and the City’s 2013 BTP [Bicycle Transportation Plan], as well as relevant policies in the County and City general plans. The UCP Update would develop bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities in a manner that encourages increased use of alternative modes of transportation by providing an integrated network of facilities to facilitate these types of trips and are supported by the UCP policies referenced above. Therefore, there would not be new significant effects or more severe impacts than identified in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR.

Within the VST Specific Plan, new bus stops are proposed for City and UC transit buses, as shown on Figure 49 of the Specific Plan. In addition, information and/or incentive packages would be provided for transit ridership. Pages 3.7-18 and 3.7-19 of the Draft SEIR describe the potential for the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan to conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines, CCR Section 15064.3, Subdivision(b), which describes considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts using VMT as a metric. The UCP Update and VST Specific Plan would result in less - than-significant impact related to VMT because the project is designed to (1) encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation by providing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and (2) limit the number and length of vehicle trips by containing higher-density development and locating various land uses within closer proximity to one another.

The comment suggests that mitigation in the form of “greater commitments to deed restricted affordability” should be considered to reduce VMT. As explained above, there is no evidence that there is potential for greater VMT impacts than disclosed in the Draft SIER.

Response 6-10
The comment summarizes existing air quality conditions and suggests that effects related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and public health could be greater than disclosed in the Draft SEIR due to the perceived inaccuracies in the VMT analysis. However, as explained above in Responses 6-8 and 6-9, there is no evidence that the project would result in greater VMT than disclosed in the Draft SEIR. The methodology applied in the VMT analysis was appropriately informed by study of similar developments in proximity to university campuses and internal trip rates generated by published, industry standard sources, and was reviewed and approved by the City of Merced, County of Merced, and Caltrans staff who have technical training and regulatory responsibilities for these matters. Therefore, no changes have been made to the Draft SEIR in response to this comment.

Response 6-11
The comment suggests that the analysis prepared for the Draft SEIR fails to meet the direction provided by the California Supreme Court in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (referred to as the Friant Ranch Decision), which held that a nexus must be made between a project’s emissions of air pollution and adverse human health impacts. The comment disagrees with the decision to not attempt to estimate or quantify the project’s contribution of air pollutant to potential health effects, and cites a tool developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District . The citation provided in the comment directs the reader to an HRA conducted for a project located in the City of Burlingame.

Importantly, in the Friant Ranch Decision, the California Supreme Court considered the air quality analysis of the Friant Ranch Specific Plan as it pertained to the emissions of criteria air pollutants, not TACs. As discu ssed in response to Comment 5-4, due to the programmatic nature of the SEIR, an HRA was not prepared.

The Friant Ranch Court held that CEQA analyses should more robustly make the connection between a project’s emissions of criteria air pollutants to future adverse health impacts; however, the Court did not offer a tool or methodology for assessing these impacts. As stated in the Draft SEIR, the photochemical models available to estimate the project’s potential generation of ozone and PM

2.5 in the SJVAB are highly speculative, and due to a compounding of assumptions necessary to perform such modeling exercises yields results of low certainty. Moreover, the Draft SEIR was prepared to satisfy the requirements of CEQA Guidelines, CCR Section 15162 as subsequent analysis.

As discussed in Section 3.1, “Air Quality,” through the application of additional mitigation, the project would reduce the previously significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR . Because emissions would be 323
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-63 less, and no new impact was identified, the resulting health impacts from implementation of the UCP Update would be minimized by comparison to the 2001/2004 UCP EIR land uses.

Moreover, there is no available numerical threshold for assessing the significance of a potential health impact from criteria air pollution. Unlike TACs, for which there is no concentration considered safe for human exposure, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established concentration- based thresholds for exposure to criteria air pollutions in the form of the national ambient air quality standards and California ambient air quality standards. These standards were developed in light of ample scientific research that demonstrates that human exposure to criteria air pollution can be safe under certain concentrations for each pollutant.

As discussed on pages 3.1-12 through 3.1-14 of the Draft SEIR, SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds are tied to long-term regional air quality planning in the SJVAB. Projects that emit emissions below these thresholds would not conflict with SJVACPD’s long-term air quality plans to attain the NAAQS or the CAAQS, which are standards tied to human health. Therefore, projects generating emissions exceeding these thresholds could conceivably result in an adverse health effect while projects with emissions below would not. Therefore, where significant air quality impacts were identified, the correlation between the UCP Update’s emissions and future adverse health impacts were disclosed. Nevertheless, the application of Mitigation Measures 3.1-1a, 3.1-1b, 3.1-2a, and 3.1-2b would be sufficient to reduce impacts related to the emissions of criteria air pollutants to a less-than-significant level, thus avoiding the potential for a health impact to occur from the UCP Updates emissions alone.

The project would introduce new air pollution to the SJVAB that was previously evaluated as part of the cumulative impact analyses contained in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR; however, in a cumulative context, the degree that the project’s emissions would result in a singular adverse outcome is speculative. The adverse health outcomes from exposure to high concentrations of air pollution is dependent upon various factors including age, genetics, duration of exposure, and life-style choices (e.g., consuming alcohol, smoking cigarettes). These data points are generally unavailable to decision makers, such as the County. Therefore, the project’s individual emissions and any subsequent adverse health impacts cannot be quantified with certainty, and is considered a speculative exercise.

Because of the highly speculative nature of photochemical modeling, the fact that the UCP Update would result in fewer emissions than was previously analyzed in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR, and the lack of a well -substantiated threshold of significance for assessing such impacts, a quantitative analysis of the project’s adverse health impacts from exposure to criteria air pollutants was not performed. No further response is required.

Response 6-12
The comment suggests that Mitigation Measure 3.1-2b, “Engage in Regional Programs to Offset Project Emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, and PM10” would not be sufficient to reduce the project’s air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level because SJVAPCD’s guidelines for reducing emissions through a VERA from a project may be applied on a regional basis rather than at the local level. The requirement that the project proponent engage in the VERA is intended to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants, which, unlike TACs, are pollutants of regional concern. It is foreseeable that the funds provided to SJVAPCD through the VERA may be directed to projects within or outside of the County of Merced; however, as criteria air pollution is widely dispersed throughout air basins, and the formation of secondary pollutants such as ozone is dependent on a variety of factors including temperature, sunlight exposure, and the ratio of ROG and NO
X (precursor pollutants to ozone). The County cannot assure that the funds administered through the VERA would be applied within the County of Merced. Nevertheless, the beneficial effects of reducing regional sources of air pollution would be felt by the residents of the county given the regional nature of criteria air pollution. Therefore, the project’s contribution of regional air pollution would continue to be less than significant with mitigation as identified in the Draft SEIR.

Response 6-13
The comment summarizes the contents of Comments 6-1 through 6-12. Please see Responses 6-1 through 6-12, above, which demonstrate the adequacy of the analysis in this SEIR and address the fair housing concern. No further response is required.
324
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-64 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

325
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-65

326
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-66 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

327
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-67

328
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-68 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

329
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-69 Letter 7 Anchor Valley Partners
Sidhardha Lakireddy, Owner
June 12, 2023
Response 7-1
The comment identifies four pre-application annexation projects that were not included in the Draft SEIR’s cumulative project list: UC Villages, University Vista, Branford Point, and Yosemite Lake Estates. The comment recommends that the cumulative analysis be updated to include these projects.

Annexation is the process of amending political boundaries. On July 6, 2021, t he City Council approved a new pre- application process for annexations that includes early consultation with the City Council and Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission staff to provide early guidance on annexation requests. The City’s pre-application process includes a discussion with the applicant and City staff at a regularly scheduled Development Review meeting and a regularly scheduled City Council meeting to guide the development of an application. Pre-application approval does not establish a schedule for subsequent annexation application, commit the app licant to any specific development in the area, if annexed, nor presuppose Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission approval of the application.

For the purpose of the CEQA evaluation, the County must establish the existing, or baseline, conditions used to measure the measure the magnitude of the environmental effects anticipated from project implementation. This “snapshot” occurs early in the environmental review process, typically coinciding with release on the NOP. At this same time, the lead agency identifies reasonably foreseeable projects to include in the cumulative analysis. The County is not obligated to undergo continual updates of the setting information throughout the review process, particularly in the absence of compelling evidence that the changed condition would substantially alter the conclusions in the analysis.

The California Supreme Court identifies multiple Court of Appeals decisions upholding the principle that the existing physical conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published is the typical baseline condition. (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 320 -321.) Separately, the California Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to give lead agencies significant discretion in determining the appropriate baseline conditions, “an agency enjoys the discretion to decide, in the first instance, exactly how the existing physical conditions without the project can most realistically be measured.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th, 310, 329.) Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a)), the City and County established a n environmental baseline of the conditions that existed at the time the NOP was published. Consistent with Communities for a Better Environment, it well within the City and County’s discretion to proceed based on that baseline and not adjust the baseline in response to changes that occurred (additional annexation applications) after the SEIR’s analysis commenced.

The City and the County provided lists of reasonably foreseeable projects to include in the cumulative condition that were considered reasonably foreseeable at the time that the NOP for this SEIR was prepared (January 2022). The environmental conditions that existed when the NOP was published are the baseline conditions against which environmental impacts were assessed. As defined in Section 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR with other projects resulting in related impacts. In January of 2022, none of the projects listed in this comment had released an NOP. The pre-annexation hearings for the referenced projects occurred after the release of the NOP in late 2022 and early 2023; and, even if the pre-annexation approvals had been approved prior to release of the NOP that would not be sufficient to constitute reasonably foreseeable projects by the City. The analysis in Chapter 3 of the Draft SEIR provides a complete evaluation of the project’s potential contribution to significant cumulative effects based on Table 3-2 in the Draft SEIR, which includes 56 cumulative projects.

Based on the status of the projects at the time that environmental assessment began, these projects were not identified as reasonably foreseeable by the City and the County. The County is not required to speculate about the effects of future development that has not been sufficiently defined at the time of the NOP . Further, the comment 330
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-70 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR does not identify any potential for the four listed projects to either result in a new adverse cumulative condition not considered in the Draft SEIR or to substantially change the contribution of the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan to a cumulative impact. No revisions have been made to the Draft SEIR in response to this comment.

Response 7-2
The comment identifies incorrect figure references, inconsistencies in the descriptions of circulation system improvements, and safety concerns related to a proposed roundabout at the Lake/Bellevue intersection as illustrated in the Circulation Framework section of the VST Specific Plan (Appendix B to the Draft SEIR). The comment is specific to the details of the proposed VST Specific Plan. Minor revisions to figure nu mbering and labels have been made in the VST Specific Plan in response to this comment.

The Lake/Bellevue intersection is not part of the VST Specific Plan and is not being undertaken by the applicant. A safety and traffic operations analysis will be performed by UC Merced and/or the City of Merced when the intersection is planned to be improved. The roundabouts in the VST Specific Plan have been designed by a registered civil engineer in conformance with all applicable AASHTO, Caltrans Highway Design Manu al, County, and City standards. County and City staff, and the project’s traffic impact analysis , determined that there were no safety issues associated with the usage of roundabouts for intersection control as proposed in the VST Specific Plan . CEQA requires that traffic safety impacts be considered in the EIR, and a determination was made in the Draft EIR that the project does not generate any safety impacts by using roundabouts in lieu of signalized intersections. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions in the Draft SEIR and does not raise a significant environmental issue requiring a response. Based on subsequent discussions with the commenter, minor revis ions have been made in the VST Specific Plan graphics that address these concerns. These revisions do not affect the analysis in the Draft SEIR.

Response 7-3
The comment indicates that projects, such as UC Villages, were not included in the 2042 horizon year analysis for the project and suggests that the Traffic Impact Study should be revised to provide additional details about the cumulative development assumed for the future traffic operations analysis.

As indicated in Response 7-1, the County worked with the City of Merced to identify reasonably foreseeab le projects to include in the analysis of future conditions, based available data at the time the NOP for this SEIR was prepared (January 2022). The environmental conditions that existed when the NOP was published are the baseline conditions against which environmental impacts assessed. (14 CCR § 15125(a).) The traffic analysis modeled the traffic effects of projects that were large and close to the project site as distinct projects based on current development plans at the time of the study. The traffic effects of cumulative projects that were smaller and/or farther away from the proje ct site were incorporated into an overall annual percentage growth rate that was applied to existing traffic. The comment does not provide evidence that additional detail is necessary to support the conclusions in the TIS . The study was reviewed by Merced County Department of Public Works and subsequently approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development on March 22, 2022.

Notably, although the VST TIS that provides analysis of traffic operations (e.g., intersection and freeway level of service [LOS] analysis for the project) is attached as Appendix E to the Draft SEIR, impacts to traffic operations are not within the scope of the impact analysis. As explained in the Draft SEIR (page 3.7-1), pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 743, PRC Section 21099, and CCR Section 15064.3(a), generally, VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts and a project’s effect on automobile delay shall no longer constitute a significant impact under CEQA.

Therefore, the transportation analysis evaluates impacts using VMT and does not include LOS analysis. LOS analysis was provided for informational purposes.

Information regarding the project’s VMT impacts is included as Appendix H to the Draft SEIR. The Vehicle Mile Traveled Analysis was prepared by VRPA Technologies, a transportation planning firm based in Fresno, California that was founded in 1988 and has completed over 1,000 successful transportation planning/modeling, environmental, air quality planning, engineering and Intelligent Transportation Systems projects. 331
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-71 The cumulative analysis approach for VMT is different than that applied in the TIS . According to statewide guidance in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2018), the VMT impacts of projects are determined by efficiency metrics and, therefore, cumulative projects do not affect the VMT analysis of the subject project. According to OPR, “a project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans has no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact .” This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions in the Draft SEIR and does not raise a significant environmental issue requiring further response.

Response 7-4
The comment quotes the VMT Analysis included as Appendix H to the Draft SEIR. In this methodology discussion, the technical report (which was initiated in 2020 and finalized with the Draft SEIR in the spring of 2023) explains that “VMT analysis guidelines prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR 2018, “OPR”) were used as the basis of analysis” because neither the County nor the City had adopted alternative VMT analysis thresholds.

The Draft SEIR includes additional information about the use of the OPR thresholds. As explained therein :

For the purposes of the analysis herein, VMT is expressed by dividing the net VMT by the sum of residents, visitors, and employees (referred to as service population). The VMT per service population metric is a transportation efficiency metric that is used to identify potential impacts associated with implementation of the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan. This methodology provides a framework for analyses that is based on appropriate, adopted State guidance updated to reflect conditions in the city and county. It should be noted that the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) adopted the VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines in November 2022, subsequent to initiation and completion of the VMT analysis for this project. However, because this guidance was not available at the time the VMT analysis was conducted it is not utilized herein. The VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines provide a regional guide and recommend the use of the MCAG Travel Demand Model (TDM) for VMT analysis purposes. For land use plans, the existing regional average VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and/or VMT per servi ce population is recommended as the threshold of significance. The MCAG guidelines set forth an assessment methodology that differs from the approach applied in this analysis and it would not be appropriate to apply the MCAG thresholds to the modeled VMT and evaluation of effects in this section.

For informational purposes, a comparison of the methodology used to analyze project VMT and that provided in the MCAG guidelines are detailed below:
 MCAG’s VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines state that mixed-use projects can be evaluated by analyzing each project land use type separately while taking credit for internal trips. Both components of the project (i.e., the UCP Update and the VST Specific Plan) include a mix of land use types, and the VMT analysis has followed this guidance by analyzing the residential and employment uses of the project separately.
 The 2001/2004 UCP EIR was certified under CEQA. The MCAG VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines state that projects that were previously approved do not need to conduct a VMT analysis if the land uses are consistent; however, it does not provide guidance on how to analyze previously approved projects that include changes in land use. The project would reduce development in the project area, including a reduction of the number of total dwellings units from 11,700 to 9,700 and a reduction of commercial/office spaces from 2,023,000 square feet to 1,257,000 square feet (see Table 2-1).  As described previously, the MCAG VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines recommend that project VMT is determined based on the MCAG TDM. The MCAG TDM only includes trips contained within Merced County, with estimates for external travel based on the California Household Travel Survey and does not include trips originating or ending outside of the county (such as commuter trips from cities within Madera, Fresno, or Stanislaus Counties). The VMT analysis for the project was based on the California Statewide Transportation Demand Model (CSTDM), which is supported by O PR for VMT analysis based on statewide guidance. The CSTDM is a comprehensive, well -researched, and well- 332
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-72 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR documented model that identifies traffic patterns associated with all existing developments, including traffic within and between counties. Additionally, OPR recommends that thresholds based on “…a per capita or per employee VMT that is fifteen percent below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold” (OPR 2018: 10). Therefore, the use of these thresholds based on the CSTDM is considered the most appropriate methodology for analyzing VMT of the project.

The VMT analysis for the project is consistent with MCAG’s VMT Thresholds and Implementation Guidelines other than the differences described above. The VMT analysis for the project is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, OPR’s Technical Advisory, and the proposed methodology prepared by VRPA in November 2020 which was reviewed and approved by the City, County, and Caltrans.

As noted in the comment, Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) developed VMT thresholds in 2022.

As indicated at the website linked in the comment:

Each lead agency should consult with CEQA experts and legal counsel regarding local CEQA practices and updates to local policies. These documents provide guidance but are not legal documents or legal interpretations of the law.

The Draft SEIR (page 3.7-8) explains:

When the County conducted the VMT analysis, the County, City, and regional transportation agencies had yet to adopt VMT guidelines and thresholds to meet the State requirements set by SB 743 and address CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. Therefore, in the absence of adopted guidelines and thresholds of significance, the VMT analysis herein relies on the guidance provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 and the OPR Technical Advisory (OPR 2018).

Therefore, the MCAG VMT thresholds were adopted by MCAG after the NOP for this SEIR was released and analysis had begun. The thresholds were adopted by the City and County in April and May of 2023, respectively. The Draft SEIR for the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan was released in April of 2023 and was prepared prior to adoption of the MCAG thresholds. Nonetheless, the Draft SEIR includes a discussion of the most appropriate thresholds for evaluation of a community plan and a comparison to the MCAG guidelines to disclose the effect of the alternative threshold on the analysis. For the reasons provided above, it is not required, necessary, or appropriate to revise the VMT Analysis to reflect the MCAG thresholds. No revisions to the Draft SEIR or technical appendices have been made in response to this comment.

Response 7-5
The comment notes that the Merced Wastewater Collection System Analysis 2021 Update (Appendix J to the Draft SEIR) updated wastewater projections based upon the City’s list of planned and approved projects available at that time.

Identifying this data as “old information,” the comment suggests that the Merced Wastewater Collection System Analysis 2021 Update should be revised to include the annexation pre-application projects referenced in Comment 7-1.

The Merced Wastewater Collection System Analysis 2021 Update was prepared based on reasonably available data and appropriately reflects the baseline conditions. These baseline conditions include the approved and pending projects identified by the City, full buildout of UC Merced to 25,000 students (above the “official” estimate of 15,000), and buildout of all properties in the North Merced Sewer Assessment District in accordance with CEQA’s requirements. Further update of the City’s Wastewater Collection System Analysis is not required to evaluate the effects of the proposed UCP Update and VST Specific Plan. As indicated in the Draft SEIR (page 3.8 -22), the City has indicated that the report provides a reasonable worst case assumption for the purpose of the EIR analysis. No revisions have been made to the Draft EIR in response to this comment.

Response 7-6
The comment is related to specific data presented in the Merced Wastewater Collection System Analysis 2021 Update (Appendix J to the Draft SEIR). The comment requests clarification regarding the purpose of providing existing and estimated flows from UC Merced in the text that are substantially less than the Bellevue Road (from UC Merced to 333
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-73 west of Golf Road) design flows shown in Table 2. The comment also indicates concurrence with the design flows estimated in the report.

As indicated in the Merced Wastewater Collection System Analysis 2021 Update, there is evidence that actual wastewater generation rates are less than those that the City typically assumes for design purposes. The assumptions in the modeling of the existing condition were not changed in the analysis, although “MKN and Stantec have reached consensus that an appropriate value for existing residential wastewater flows is 60- 65 gpd.” The design flows, therefore, “likely overstate wastewater flows” because they are based on the established rate of 85 gpcd for existing residential units. This is illustrated by the disparity between measured existing flows from UC Merced and modeled existing design flows noted in the comment.

This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions in the Draft SEIR and does not raise a significant environmental issue requiring further response.

334
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-74 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR This page intentionally left blank.

335
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 3-1 3 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SEIR
This chapter presents specific text changes made to the Draft SEIR since its publication and public review. The changes are presented in the order in which they appear in the original Draft SEIR and are identified by the Draft SEIR page number. Text deletions are shown in double strikethrough, and text additions are shown in double underline.

The information contained within this chapter clarifies and expands on information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation.

Revisions to the Executive Summary
In response to a comment on the Draft SEIR, the following text in the second paragraph on page ES-1 of the Draft SEIR has been revised as follows to correct an error in the description of the UCP area:

Merced County (hereinafter County) completed an extensive community planning process for the University Community Plan (UCP), including certification of an EIR, in 2004. As previously analyzed, the UCP consisted of a community plan for a 2,133-acre area that encompassed the UCP North (land that was previously owned by University Community Land Company) and UCP South (land that was previously and is currently privately- owned by LHW Farms LLC)UC Merced campus and the UCP area. As originally conceived, the UCP was to be physically intertwined and abutting the UC Merced campus center so that there would be a seamless transition between the campus to the supporting community area. The Adopted UCP established goals and policies for development of a community to support the UC Merced campus, and included con ceptual land use, circulation, parks, and public facility plans for the area. In total, the Adopted UCP contemplated the development of 11,616 dwelling units and 2,022,900 square feet (sq ft) of commercial area.

In response to comments on the Draft SEIR, the following text in the third paragraph on page ES-1 of the Draft SEIR has been revised as follows to clarify which EIR the subsequent CEQA analyses in the Draft SEIR is based upon:

A program EIR was certified with adoption of the UCP in 2001 and a supplemental EIR, which focused on hydrology and water quality, was certified in 2004 (referred to collectively herein as the 2001/2004 UCP EIR; State Clearinghouse No. 2001021056). Due to the proposed modifications to the Adopted UCP, the County has determined that preparation of a subsequent EIR (SEIR) to the 2001/2004 UCP EIR is appropriate, per the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. This SEIR provides programmatic analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with future development that could result from implementation of the UCP Update and project-level analysis of the VST Specific Plan within the UCP area.

In response to a comment on the Draft SEIR, the following text in the fifth paragraph on page ES-1 of the Draft SEIR has been revised as follows to remove reference to the “UC Merced Expansi on Area”:

The UCP area is located in unincorporated Merced County, northeast of the city of Merced and within the City’s sphere of influence. The UCP area is bounded by Lake Road on the west, UC Merced property (specifically the proposed UC Merced Campus Expansion Area) on the north, the Orchard Drive alignment (north of Cardella Road) and the Fairfield Canal (south of Cardella Road) on the east, and Yosemite Avenue on the south. As currently proposed, the UCP area would be divided by an extension of Cardel la Road; the land north of Cardella Road to UC Merced would be the “UCP North” area and would contain the VST plan area, and the land south of Cardella Road to Yosemite Avenue would remain in the portion of the UCP area referred to as the “UCP South” area.

In response to a comment on the Draft SEIR, the following text in the first paragraph on page ES-2 of the Draft SEIR has been revised as follows to correct an error in the number of residential units that would potentially be developed under the VST Specific Plan:
…expected market conditions, while preserving the basic components of the UCP: commercial uses, the town center concept, and relatively high-density housing. The specific plan revises density and intensity of these uses compared to what was previously proposed. The specific plan includes a description of the overall land 336
Revisions to the Draft SEIR Ascent Environmental
Merced County
3-2 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR use plan and site design to provide 3,8573,950 residential units at varying densities and supporting commercial uses. It also adjusts timing and phasing for installation of parks and public services to appropriately meet demand. Transportation facilities, including roads and bike paths, would be reconfigured in the VST Specific Plan to better serve the VST plan area and existing and planned surrounding land uses.

Also, with the passage of AB 3312, VST is now seeking annexation into the City of Merced.

The text in Table ES-1 on pages ES-8 and ES-9 is revised as follows:
337
Ascent Environmental Revisions to the Draft SEIR
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 3-3 Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Adopted Mitigation Measures New Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation
2001/2004 UCP
EIR Significance
after Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Impact 3.1-2: Long-Term, Operational
(Regional) Emissions of Criteria Air
Pollutants and Precursors
The 2001/2004 UCP EIR evaluated the
generation of long-term regional
emissions of criteria air pollutants and
ozone precursors and determined that
emissions of ROG, NO
X, and CO would
exceed SJVACPD’s thresholds of
significance. Since certification of the
2001/2004 UCP EIR, SJVACPD has
issued new guidance and thresholds
of significance for determining long-
term operational emissions of criteria
air pollutants and ozone precursors.

The UCP Update and VST Specific Plan
would generate emissions of ROG,
NO
X, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in
exceedance of SJVAPCD’s operational
thresholds of significance, consistent
with the findings of the 2001/2004
UCP EIR. However, the UCP Update
would result in fewer total emissions
of NO
X, ROG, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 and
greater total CO emissions as
compared to the Adopted UCP (Table

4.3.6 of the 2001/2004 UCP EIR).

Therefore, this impact would be less
severe than the impact identified in
the 2001/2004 UCP EIR. This impact
would be less than significant with
mitigation.

S Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.3 -4
(a) Outdoor electrical outlets shall
be installed in the front and
backyards of all housing units.
(b) Use solar or low emission water
heaters.
(c) Orient buildings to take
advantage of solar heating and
natural cooling and use passive
solar design.
(d) Increase wall and attic insulation.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a: Implement On-Site Project Design Features to Reduce Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants (UCP South)
Prior to the issuance of any development permits, the project applicant shall Implement the following measures to reduce the project’s emissions:
 Use low-VOC (50–100 grams per liter) paint for external residential applications on all construction drawings for review and approval by staff of the discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County).
 Incorporate traffic calming measures including marked crosswalks, count-down signal timers, curb extensions,
speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, roundabouts, and on -street parking throughout the site plan. Specific calming measures and locations shall be identified by a qualified
transportation specialist.
 Electric water heaters in all residences (no gas storage tank heaters).
 Electric heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units in residences (no gas units).
 Meet Tier 2 electric vehicle charging standards of the most recent version of Part 11 of the Title 24 California Building Code (CalGreen Code) for all land use types.
 Restrict idling times for heavy heavy duty trucks accessing the project site to 3 minutes or less through the signage indicating that idling must be limited to this duration.  Plant vegetation throughout the project site near areas of high pollution generation (e.g., heavily traveled roadways, sites of truck idling) to reduce the dispersio n of air pollutants.
 Apply for grant funding through SJVAPCD’s Bikeway
Incentive Program, which offers funding for Class I, Class II, and Class III bicycle paths for projects within the SJVAB.

LTS SU
338
Revisions to the Draft SEIR Ascent Environmental
Merced County
3-4 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Adopted Mitigation Measures New Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation
2001/2004 UCP
EIR Significance
after Mitigation
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Mitigation Measure 3.1-2b: Engage in Regional Programs to Offset Project Emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, and PM10 (UCP South and VST Specific Plan) UCP South
Once the on-site reduction measures listed above under
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a have been incorporated, an air quality assessment shall be prepared to determine whether any SJVAPCD annual mass emissions thresholds are exceeded. If no thresholds are exceeded, no further action is necessary. If one or more thresholds are exceeded, prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy grading permits for the first phase of development, the project applicant shall enter into a VERA through coordination with SJVAPCD to reduce emissions to meet SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds for any pollutant that exceeds their respective threshold. The project applicant shall engage in a discussion with SJVAPCD prior to the adoption of the VERA to ensure that feasible m itigation has been identified to reduce emissions to a less -than-significant level consistent with the direction given in SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI.

As allowed by SJVAPCD, the project applicant shall be provided the opportunity to perform an additional quantificati on of the project’s operational emissions following the implementation of the proposed measures listed above under Mitigation Measure

3.1-2a to estimate the TPY needed to reduce emissions to meet SJVAPCD’s annual thresholds of significance.

VST Specific Plan
A project-level evaluation of potential emissions has been performed for the VST Specific Plan. Based on SJVAPCD’s guidance, various project design features have been
incorporated into the design of the VST Specific Plan to reduce emissions, such as transportation management strategies and the elimination of onsite natural gas infrastructure for residential land uses. Based on this data (see Table 3.1 -13), the applicant shall enter into a VERA with SJVAPCD to fully compensate for ROG, NO
X, and CO emissions that exceed
SJVAPCD’s CEQA annual mass emissions thresholds of
significance.
339
Ascent Environmental Revisions to the Draft SEIR
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 3-5 Revisions to Chapter 1, “Introduction”
In response to a comment on the Draft SEIR, the following text in the fourth paragraph on page 1-3 has been revised as follows to remove reference to the “UC Merced Expansion Area”:

The UCP area is located in unincorporated Merced County, northeast of the City of Merced, south of UC Merced, and within the City’s sphere of influence (SOI). The proposed UCP Update area encompasses 1,841 acres and includes two properties: the Hunt and VST properties. The Hunt property, referred to as UCP South in the Adopted UCP, includes approximately 1,187 acres of land south of UC Merced. The Hunt property is generally bounded by Lake Road on the west, Cardella Road to the north, Fairfield Canal to the east, and Yosemite Road to the south. The VST property, which is the subject of the VST Specific Plan, encompasses the remaining 654 acres of the proposed UCP area. The VST Specific Plan area is bounded generally by Lake Road on the west, UC Merced property (specifically the proposed UC Merced Campus Expansion Area) to the north, Cardella Road on the south, and the Orchard Drive alignment on the east.

Revisions to Chapter 2, “Project Description”
In response to a comment on the Draft SEIR, the following text in the third paragraph on page 2-1 has been revised as follows to remove reference to the “UC Merced Expansion Area”:

The UCP area is located in unincorporated Merced County, northeast of the city of Merced and within the City’s sphere of influence (SOI) (Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). The UCP area is bounded by Lake Road on the west, UC Merced property (specifically the proposed UC Merced Campus Expansion Area) on the north, the Orchard Drive alignment (north of Cardella Road) and the Fairfield Canal (south of Cardella Road) on the east, and Yosemite Avenue on the south (Figure 2-2). The UCP area would be divided by an extension of Cardella Road; the land north of Cardella Road to UC Merced (previously referred to as the “UCP North”) would encompass the VST plan area, and the land south of Cardella Road to Yosemite Avenue would remain in the portion of the UCP area referred to as the “UCP South” area.

In response to a comment on the Draft SEIR, the following text in the first paragraph on page 2-5 of the Draft SEIR has been revised as follows to correct an error in the description of the UCP area:

The Adopted UCP covers a 2,133-acre area that includes the UC Merced campus, the UCLC property (also referred to as the “UCP North” portion of the Adopted UCP), and the UCP South (see Figure 2-2). As originally conceived, the UCP North was to be physically intertwined and abutting the UC Merced campus center so that there would be a seamless transition between the campus to the supporting community area.

The Adopted UCP established goals and policies for development of a community to support the UC Merced campus, and included conceptual land use, circulation, parks, and public facility plans for the area. In total, the Adopted UCP contemplated the development of 11,616 dwelling units and 2,022,900 square feet (sq ft) of commercial area. The UCP North portion of the Adopted UCP, in which the VST plan area is located, is approved for 5,793 dwelling units and 1,632,900 sq ft of commercial and office space. The balance of the planned units was allocated to the UCP South area.

In response to a comment on the Draft SEIR, the following text in the first paragraph on page 2-5 of the Draft SEIR has been revised as follows to correct an error in the adoption date of UC Merced’s first Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) and subsequent LRDP amendments:

The Adopted UCP was a cooperative effort of the City, County, state, and numerous local stakeholders. It was intended to be an area plan or community plan to address a specific geographic area of the county and to be a strategic plan for development of the UCP area. The Adopted UCP predated followed the adoption of the UC’s first LRDP in 2002 and set the stage for the modification of City and County planning documents, as well as the development of the UC’s first and subsequent LRDPs amendments between 2009 and 2020.

When the UCP was formulated, the UCP properties were somewhat remote from the City of Merced, and it was not considered possible that the properties could immediately annex to the City or be effectively served by City infrastructure and services. Although the City’s 2015 General Plan (1997), which was in effe ct at the time of UCP adoption, recommended that the UCP and university annex to the City for development, the 340
Revisions to the Draft SEIR Ascent Environmental
Merced County
3-6 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR UCP did not contemplate annexation of the property to the City. Annexation of the UCP area was not permissible pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 because the plan area was not contiguous with the incorporated city.

In response to a comment on the Draft SEIR, the following text in the fourth paragraph on page 2-5 of the Draft SEIR has been revised as follows to acknowledge the LRDP as a land use plan and policy document rather than a set of regulations:

Changes to the Adopted UCP would revise the extent of the UCP area to reflect existing land ownership (deleting the areas that are exclusively owned by the State of California and subject to LRDP land use plans and policiesregulations), conform to current development regulations, modify and adopt a revised land use plan and circulation plan for the amended UCP area, amend and modify the policies of the Adopted UCP to conform with changing development regulations, and include new development policies that have been developed subsequent to the Adopted UCP (such as mitigation measures in the joint EIR/Environmental Impact Statement for the LRDP [referred to herein as the “2009 LRDP EIR”] that apply to the UCP area, and to bring the UCP into alignment with the 2020 LRDP). Policy changes to the UCP are summarized in Appendix C. Many policies have been rendered moot by new local or state regulations, or changes in local and state regulations, that have achieved the purposes of the policy. For example, current California Energy Code, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), and other regulations meet or exceed the 2004 UCP requirements for energy conservation. By way of further examples, water conservation, stormwater management, and effluent generation are all more heavily regulated under state and local regulations than by the Adopted UCP. The City and County have also adopted new general plans, grou ndwater plans, and other documents to which the UCP area is subject that meet or exceed the Adopted UCP policies. Finally, because it is now envisioned that the property would be annexed to the City before any development occurs, many of the policies related to establishment of new utility districts and “governance” provisions are no longer necessary.

In response to a comment on the Draft SEIR, the following text in the first paragraph on page 2-7 of the Draft SEIR has been revised as follows to provide the correct title for the joint CEQA and NEPA document that evaluated the UC Merced campus and UCP area. Similar references to the 2009 LRDP EIR appear on pages 1-9, 2-5, 3.1-33, 3.2-17, 3.5- 19, and 4-5 of the Draft SEIR. For the sake of brevity, all instances of this document title in the Draft SEIR are modified in the same way, although these duplicate revisions are not repeated herein.

In 2009, the UC Regents adopted a land use plan for an 815-acre campus located north of the VST plan area.

The LRDP established a UCP North area within the existing Adopted UCP that included the VST plan area.

The 2009 LRDP modified the planned development area designated in the Adopted UCP to include 177 additional acres east of the Fairfield Canal (and a concurrent reduction of acreage north of the Le Grand Canal). The UC Regents evaluated the UCP North area as part of the 2009 LRDP EIR 2009 UC Merced and UCP EIS/EIR. The southern boundary of the UCP North area analyzed in the 2009 LRDP is Cardella Road, which is coterminous with the southern boundary of the VST Specific Plan (Figure 2-4).

The text in the second paragraph on page 2-7 has also been revised as follows to make a correction to the area covered by the Section 404 permit and to correct the reference to the 2017 LR DP amendment:

Based on the 2009 LRDP EIR2009 UC Merced and UCP EIS/EIR, the university and VST jointly completed Section 7 consultation with USFWS in furtherance of a biological opinion. UC and VST obtained certain permits and authorizations, including a Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and a Section 404 permit for the UC Merced campus and UCP Northareas covered by the 2009 LRDP. The UC Regents approved amendments to the LRDP in May 2013, July 2016, and April 2017. The 2017 LRDP amendment was primarily focused on dissolving the UCLC and changing the ownership areas for VST and the university so that VST is now the exclusive owner of the VST plan area, and UC Merced is the exclusive owner of the UCP area north of Meyers Gate Road. 341
Ascent Environmental Revisions to the Draft SEIR
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 3-7 The text in the third paragraph on page 2-7 has been revised to make a correction to the UC Merced enrollment projection:

In March 2020, the UC Regents approved the 2020 LRDP (and certified the EIR), which superseded the 2009 LRDP. This new LRDP for UC Merced substantially modified enrollment projections (reducing the enrollment projection for the next phase of campus development through 2030buildout enrollment from 25,000 to 15,00017,500 students) and modified (and in some cases eliminated) the land uses and development planned for much of the former UCP North area. As a result, the 2020 LRDP plans for the development of 179 acres of the UCP North portion of UCP area, which is now owned by UC Merced, but does not include the VST plan area. The 2020 LRDP also includes additional land south of the original campus to Meyers Gate Road as part of the instructional area of the campus, revises the 2009 LRDP land use diagram to cover the revised campus site, allows for a more compact and sustainable development within the revised campus area, and provides for more flexibility in the siting of future development.

The text in the fourth paragraph on page 2-7 has been revised to make a correction to a referenced document:

The 2020 LRDP will guide development of the campus through 2030 and provides an updated land use diagram that delineates campus land uses and identifies new development goals and implementation strategies. It also plans for the addition of up to 1.8 million sq ft of building space to serve the projected enrollment level of 15,000 students by 2030. In addition, the 2020 LRDP EIR presents updated information on the projected impacts on water and wastewater treatment, the extent of development, and the anticipated numbers of on-campus students and staff based on the 15-year operating history of the university.

The description of high-density residential units on page 2-20 of the Draft SEIR has been revised as follows to update the number of deed-restricted units:

High Density Residential (R-4) residential land uses would include stacked flat apartments arranged around or associated with a central amenity or open space. The R-4 portion of the VST Specific Plan is planned to have a density of up to 36 units per net acre and is expected to yield approximately 1,488 dwelling units on 53 acres. The units are expected to be split 60 percent (894 units) for student rentals averaging 850 sq ft per four student beds, and 40 percent (594) for nonstudent units for university families, staff, and instructors. Unit sizes would range from 750 sq ft to 1,250 sq ft. These units would be located along Meyers Gate Road to place them as close to the university as possible and to reserve the area south of Virginia Smith Parkway principally for owner-occupied units. Sites for 200 325 of these units would be contributed to a local nonprofit housing provider to provide deed-restricted housing for low-, very low–, and extremely low– income families.

In response to a comment on the Draft SEIR, Figure 2-7 on page 2-21 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to clarify the area that is included within the VST Specific Plan. The revised figure follows.

342
Revisions to the Draft SEIR Ascent Environmental
Merced County
3-8 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR This page intentionally left blank.
343
Ascent Environmental Revisions to the Draft SEIR
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 3-9

Source: Image provided by Peck Planning and Development, Virginia Smith Trust Land Plan in 2022.

Figure 2-7 VST Specific Plan Land Use Diagram
344
Ascent Environmental Revisions to the Draft SEIR
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 3-11

Page 2 ends

required to support the VST Specific Plan:

The traffic study (VRPA 2020) also identified the following off-site improvements that may be addressed through the payment of citywide impact fees, special specific plan impact fees, or by direct improvement and construction.
• Snelling Highway/Bellevue Road: Install a traffic signal. • G Street/Bellevue Road: Widen the northbound approach to add one right turn lane and widen the eastbound approach to add one through lane and one right turn lane. • G Street/Cardella Road: Widen the northbound approach to add one through lane; widen the southbound approach to add one through lane; and restripe the eastbound approach to one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane.
• Snelling Highway/Yosemite Avenue: Provide westbound right overlap phasing. • G Street/Yosemite Avenue: Provide northbound right overlap phasing; widen the eastbound approach to add one through lane and one right turn lane; widen the westbound approach to add one left turn lane. • Gardner Avenue/Yosemite Avenue: Install a traffic signal; widen the northbound approach to add one left turn lane; restripe the southbound approach to add one left turn lane; widen the westbound approach add one left turn lane and one through lane.
• Snelling Highway/Olive Avenue: Widen the northbound approach to add one through lane; widen the southbound approach to add one through lane and one right turn lane; widen the westbound approach to add one left turn lane.
• R Street/Olive Avenue: Widen the northbound approach to add one left turn lane and one right turn lane; widen the westbound approach add one left turn lane. • M Street/Olive Avenue: Widen the northbound approach to add one right turn lane; widen the southbound approach add one left turn and one right turn lane; widen the westbound approach to add one right turn lane.
• G Street/Olive Avenue: Provide southbound right overlap phasing; widen the eastbound approach add one left turn lane; widen the westbound approach to add one right turn lane. • Snelling Highway/16th Street: Install a traffic signal; widen the southbound approach to add one right turn lane.
• Martin Luther King Jr/SR 99 NB Ramps: Install a traffic signal. • McKee Road/Yosemite Avenue: widen the eastbound approach to two through lanes and add one right turn lane, and widen the westbound approach to two left turn lanes and two through lanes and one right turn lane.

In addition, Figure 2-9 on page 2-30 has been updated to identify the McKee Avenue/Yosemite Avenue intersection as a location for offsite improvements. The revised figure is provided on the following page.

The text in Figure 2-10 on page 2-33 of the Draft SEIR has been revised for improved legibility. The revised figure follows.
345
Revisions to the Draft SEIR Ascent Environmental
Merced County
3-12 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

Sources: Data downloaded from the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 2021 and the US Geological Survey in 2019; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 2-9 Off-Site Infrastructure
346
Ascent Environmental Revisions to the Draft SEIR
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 3-13

Source: Image provided by Peck Planning and Development in 2022.

Figure 2-10 Water Master Plan
347
Ascent Environmental Revisions to the Draft SEIR
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 3-15

Page 2 ends

required to support the VST Specific Plan.

5. Various traffic and circulation improvements, as described above:
• Snelling Highway/Bellevue Road
• G Street/Bellevue Road
• G Street/Cardella Road
• Snelling Highway/Yosemite Avenue
• G Street/Yosemite Avenue
• Gardner Avenue/Yosemite Avenue
• Snelling Highway/Olive Avenue
• R Street/Olive Avenue
• M Street/Olive Avenue
• G Street/Olive Avenue
• Snelling Highway/16th Street
• Martin Luther King Jr/SR 99 NB Ramps
• McKee Road/Yosemite Avenue
In response to a comment on the Draft SEIR, page 2-41 of the Draft SEIR has been revised as follows to correct an error related to project-related discretionary actions:

2.6 REQUIRED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The project includes a number of other entitlements related to adoption of the VST Specific Plan, including several General Plan elements, amendments to the UCP, rezoning, a vesting tentative subdivision map, a parcel map, a development agreement, and a pre-annexation agreement, annexation to the City of Merced, (potential) annexation to MID, and detachment of the VST Specific Plan portion of the UCP from the Merced Subbasin GSA area and attachment to the Merced Irrigation-Urban GSA. While the VST Specific Plan would be entitled by the County, the VST plan area would be annexed to the City after completion of the VST Specific Plan. The development regulations contained in the VST Specific Plan would pass through to and be implemented by the City after annexation.

In response to comments on the Draft SEIR, page 2-43 of the Draft SEIR has been revised as follows to identify additional responsible agencies with authority to issue project-related permits and approvals:

The proposed project would require the following discretionary approvals from other agencies for modifications to the Fairfield Canal:
• Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit (US Army Corps of Engineers), • Section 7 Biological Opinion (US Fish and Wildlife Service), • Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver or Issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board), and • MID authorization.
348
Revisions to the Draft SEIR Ascent Environmental
Merced County
3-16 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR The project also would require various ministerial grading permits, building permits, and certificates of occupancy.

The City of Merced would also be required to obtain the following permits for modifications to its water supply system to accommodate subsequent development under the proposed project:
• Water Supply Permit Amendment (State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water) for the operation of new water system components.

Revisions to Section 3.1, “Air Quality”
The following text has been added to page 3.1-5 of the Draft SEIR in Section 3.1.1, “Regulatory Setting,” following the bullet point that summarizes Rule 8021 and preceding the bullet point that summarizes Rule 9510:

Rule 9410—Employer Based Trip Reduction: The purpose of this rule is to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from private vehicles used by employees to commute to and from their worksites to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and particulate matter (PM) through the establishment of an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP). This rule applies to each employer in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin with at least 100 Eligible Employees at a worksite for at least 16 consecutive weeks during the employer’s previous fiscal year, that is located either incorporated or unincorporated areas of a county. The modified Phase 2 project includes commercial land uses that could generate employees to the degree that compliance with this rule would be required.

The language of Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a has been amended on page 3.1-34 as follows:

Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a: Implement On-Site Project Design Features to Reduce Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants (UCP South)
Prior to the issuance of any development permits, the project applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce the project’s emissions:
• Use low-VOC (50–100 grams per liter) paint for external residential applications on all construction drawings for review and approval by staff of the discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County).
• Incorporate traffic calming measures including marked crosswalks, count-down signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, roundabouts, and on-street parking throughout the site plan. Specific calming measures and locations shall be identified by a qualified transportation specialist. • Electric water heaters in all residences (no gas storage tank heaters). • Electric heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units in residences (no gas units). • Meet Tier 2 electric vehicle charging standards of the most recent version of Part 11 of the Title 24 California Building Code (CalGreen Code) for all land use types. • Restrict idling times for heavy heavy duty trucks accessing the project site to 3 minutes or less through the signage indicating that idling must be limited to this duration. • Plant vegetation throughout the project site near areas of high pollution generation (e.g., heavily traveled roadways, sites of truck idling) to reduce the dispersion of air pollutants. • Apply for grant funding through SJVAPCD’s Bikeway Incentive Program, which offer s funding for Class I, Class II, and Class III bicycle paths for projects within the SJVAB. 349
Ascent Environmental Revisions to the Draft SEIR
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 3-17 The language of Mitigation Measure 3.1-2b has been amended on page 3.1-35 as follows:

Mitigation Measure 3.1-2b: Engage in Regional Programs to Offset Project Emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, and PM10 (UCP South and VST Specific Plan)
UCP South
Once the on-site reduction measures listed above under Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a have been incorporated, an air quality assessment shall be prepared to determine whether any SJVAPC D annual mass emissions thresholds are exceeded. If no thresholds are exceeded, no further action is necessary. If one or more thresholds are exceeded, prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy grading permits for the first phase of development, the project applicant shall enter into a VERA through coordination with SJVAPCD to reduce emissions to meet SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds for any pollutant that exceeds their respective threshold. The project applicant shall engage in a discussion with SJVAPCD prior to the adoption of the VERA to ensure that feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce emissions to a less- than- significant level consistent with the direction given in SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. As allowed by SJVAPCD, the project applicant shall be provided the opportunity to perform an additional quantification of the project’s operational emissions following the implementation of the proposed measures listed above under Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a to estimate the TPY needed to reduce emissions to meet SJVAPCD’s annual thresholds of significance.

Revisions to Section 3.7, “Transportation and Circulation” The analysis of cumulative transportation impacts on pages 3.4-24 and 3.7-25 is amended as follows to provide greater consistency with Chapter 2.

UCP Update and VST Specific Plan
Buildout of the UCP would result in increased development of roadways and roadway improvements that would contribute to the cumulative transportation and circulation system in the region in the same manner described in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR. However, as explained above, pursuant to SB 743, PRC Section 21099, and CCR Section 15064.3(a), a project’s effect on automobile delay no longer constitutes a significant impact under CEQA. Therefore, this transportation analysis does not consider the potential for the UCP to contribute to a cumulative increase in congestion on local and regional roads as a significant and impact of the project.

Note, however, that the Financing, Services and Governance chapter of the VST Specific Plan includes a fair share analysis for impacted intersections and road segments. Tables 9 through 11 of the VST Specific Plan identify the VST share of improvements necessary to support the development of the VST Specific Plan.

Several of these offsite improvements are considered components of the project and their physical environmental effects have been evaluated throughout this SEIR. The contribution to these facilities is to comply with General Plan and UCP conformity. Those facilities are as follows:

Roadway Intersections
• Snelling Highway / Bellevue Road
• G Street / Bellevue Road
• Lake Road / Bellevue Road
350
Revisions to the Draft SEIR Ascent Environmental
Merced County
3-18 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR • G Street / Cardella Road
• Lake Road / Cardella Road
• Snelling Highway / Yosemite Avenue
• G Street / Yosemite Avenue
• Gardner Avenue / Yosemite Avenue
• McKee Road / Yosemite Avenue
• Lake Road / Yosemite Avenue
• Snelling Highway / Olive Avenue
• R Street / Olive Avenue
• M Street / Olive Avenue
• G Street / Olive Avenue
• Snelling Highway / 16th Street
• Martin Luther King Jr / SR 99 NB Ramps
• G Street / SR 99 NB Off-Ramp
• Campus Pkwy/ Yosemite Avenue
• Campus Parkway / Olive Avenue
• Campus Parkway / Connector Road
• SR 140 / Connector Road
• Campus Parkway / Childs Avenue
• Campus Parkway / Gerard Avenue
• Campus Parkway / Coffee Street
• Sr 99 NB Ramps / Campus Parkway
• Meyers Gate Road / Lake Street
• Meyers Gate Road / Campus Parkway
• Virginia Smith Parkway / Lake Road
• Virginia Smith Parkway / Campus Parkway
• Virginia Smith Parkway / Golden Bobcat
• Virginia Smith Parkway / Center Street
• Virginia Smith Parkway /Kibby Road
Roadway Segments
• Bellevue Road--Snelling Hwy to G
• Bellevue Road--G to Lake
• Lake Road--Bellevue to Meyers Gate Road2
• Lake Road--Meyers Gate Road to Cardella
• Lake Road--Cardella to Yosemite
351
Ascent Environmental Revisions to the Draft SEIR
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 3-19 • Yosemite--Campus Parkway to Lake
• Yosemite Avenue--Lake to Parsons
• Yosemite Avenue--Parsons to G Steet
• G Street--Bellevue to Cardella
• G Street--Cardella to Mercy
• Campus Parkway--Yosemite to Cardella1
• Campus Parkway--Cardella to Meyers Gate1,5
• Campus Parkway--Meyers Gate to Bellevue1

352
Revisions to the Draft SEIR Ascent Environmental
Merced County
3-20 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR This page intentionally left blank.

353

Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 4-1 4 REFERENCES
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018 (April). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA. Available: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf.

City of Merced. 2017a (January). Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for City of Merced 2016 Water Master Plan Update. Prepared by AECOM. Available: https://www.cityofmerced.org/home/showpublisheddocument/ 7548/637701617245330000. Accessed January 2023.
———. 2017b (December). City of Merced Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Available:
https://www.cityofmerced.org/home/showpublisheddocument/8632/637354170547800000. Accessed December 21, 2021.

Live Oak Associates, Inc. 2022. Biological Constraints Analysis, Virginia Smith Trust Intersections Pr oject, Merced, CA.

MCAG. See Merced County Association of Governments.

Merced County. 2004. University Community Plan. Adopted December 21, 2004. Resolution 2004 2004 -239.

Merced County Association of Governments. 2008 (October). Merced County Regional Bic ycle Transportation Plan.

Available: https://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/finalregbp.pdf?1383107255.

MKN. 2021 (November). Virginia Smith Trust Development: Senate Bill 610 Water Supply Assessment (Administrative Draft). Fresno, CA.

OPR. See California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

354
References Ascent Environmental
Merced County
4-2 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR This page intentionally left blank.
355

Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 5-1 5 REPORT PREPARERS
Merced County (Lead Agency)
Steve Maxey ............................................................................................................................................................................. Planning Director Tiffany Ho ............................................................................................................................................................ Deputy Director of Planning City of Merced (Responsible Agency)
Scott McBride ................................................................................................................................................ Development Services Director Ascent Environmental, Inc. (CEQA Compliance)
Michael J. Parker, AICP ........................................................................................................................................................................... Principal Jessica Babcock......................................................................................................................................................................... Project Manager Nicole Greenfield .................................................................................................................................................. Assistant Project Manager Brian Perry .............................................................................................................................................................................. Graphics Specialist Michele Mattei ................................................................................................................................................................... Publishing Specialist Virginia Smith Trust (Applicant)
Stephen J, Peck, AICP .................................................................................................................... Peck Planning and Development, LLC

356
Report Preparers Ascent Environmental
Merced County
5-2 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR This page intentionally left blank.
357
Consider Pre-Annexation and Development
Agreement by and Between the City of Merced
and the Virginia Smith Trust (VST)
City of Merced Planning Commission
January 3, 2024
Jonnie Lan, AICP, Principal Planner
Attachment G
358
For
Annexation and Pre-zoning Application #23-03,
General Plan Amendment #23-04,
Adoption of VST Specific Plan,
Establishment of Planned Development (P-D) #80,
and
Environmental Review #23-44
City of Merced Planning Commission
January 3, 2024
Jonnie Lan, AICP, Principal Planner
359
Project Location
VST
Project
Location
360
…The UCP Project: An Overview 361
…The VST Project: Phasing and Buildout. 362
Background
• December 20, 2023, Planning
Commission heard, and
recommended approval of the
aforementioned entitlements
related to VST
• A Pre-annexation
Development Agreement is
required for the Annexation.
• The Development Agreement
was not placed on the agenda
• As mentioned last meeting, it
is here before you tonight
363
Pre
-
annexation
Development
Agreement
• Locks in entitlements,
timelines and performance
standards
• Specifies financial obligations
of City and VST
• Creates authority and
obligation for special impact
fees and development
requirements
364
Pre
-
annexation
Development
Agreement Specifically
Contains:
• a description of the project and
location
• project development parameters
• applicable city, state and federal laws,
uniform codes and standard
specifications
• financial commitments of the city and
VST
• VST project facility and infrastructure
obligations
• permits and approvals
• the mitigation monitoring and
reporting program
365
Planning
Commission
Action
Recommend approval to the City Council:

1. Environmental Review #23-44 (Acting as
a Responsible Agency):
a) the Final FSEIR, State Clearinghouse
No. SCH #2001021056
b) the Findings Required by CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091
c) The Proposed Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program
d) Statement of Overriding
Considerations

1. Pre-Annexation Development Agreement
by and between the City of Merced and
Virginia Smith Trust (VST)
366
Thank You
Questions?
367

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

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