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 facility. The Draft SEIR did 279
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 flooding 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 280
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 CCR 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. 281
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-27 282
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-28 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 2-29 284
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-30 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 285
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-31 286
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-32 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 287
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-33 288
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-34 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 2-35 290
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-36 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 2-37 292
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-38 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 2-39 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 achieved through application of the measure.
The 2001/2004 UCP EIR previously evaluated and confirmed that the UCP would generate less than significant construction-related PM10 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 be 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 294
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. As 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 through 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 295
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 assessing 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 based on the proximity of TAC-generating construction activity to off-site sensitive receptors, the number and types of dieselpowered 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 required 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 (PM10) 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 296
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. These 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 mobilesource 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 the 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. 297
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 criterion (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 dieselfueled trucks idling within 100 feet of a restricted area, defined to include residential 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 298
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 299
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 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.
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 would 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 more 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. No 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 300
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 with 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. 301
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-47 302
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-48 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 303
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-49 304
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-50 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 305
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-51 306
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-52 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 307
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-53 308
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-54 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 2-55 310
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 highincome 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 environment. 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. 311
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 nonprofit. 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 residential 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 312
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 citywide 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 313
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.
314
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 development 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 30 315
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 this 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, 316
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 lessthan-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 discussed 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 PM2.5 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 317
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 NOX (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.
318
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-64 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 319
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-65 320
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-66 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 321
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-67 322
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-68 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 323
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, the City Council approved a new preapplication 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 applicant 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 an 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 324
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 numbering 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 Manual, 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 revisions 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 foreseeable 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 project 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. 325
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 service 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 OPR for VMT analysis based on statewide guidance. The CSTDM is a comprehensive, well-researched, and well326 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 327
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. 328
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-74 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR This page intentionally left blank.
329
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 privatelyowned 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 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.
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 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. 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 Cardella 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 330
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:
331
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, NOX, 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 longterm operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors.
The UCP Update and VST Specific Plan
would generate emissions of ROG,
NOX, 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 NOX, 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 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.
LTS SU
332
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 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.
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, NOX, and CO emissions that exceed
SJVAPCD’s CEQA annual mass emissions thresholds of
significance.
333
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 effect at the time of UCP adoption, recommended that the UCP and university annex to the City for development, the 334
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, groundwater 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 EIR2009 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 LRDP 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. 335
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. 336
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.
337
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
338
Ascent Environmental Revisions to the Draft SEIR
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 3-11
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.
339
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
340
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
341
Ascent Environmental Revisions to the Draft SEIR
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 3-15
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.
342
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 offers funding for Class I, Class II, and Class III bicycle paths for projects within the SJVAB. 343
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 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 mitigation has been identified to reduce emissions to a less-thansignificant 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.
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, NOx, and CO emissions that exceed SJVAPCD’s CEQA annual mass emissions 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
344
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
345
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
346
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.
347
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 Project, 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 Bicycle 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. 348
References Ascent Environmental
Merced County
4-2 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR This page intentionally left blank.
349
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 350
Report Preparers Ascent Environmental
Merced County
5-2 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR This page intentionally left blank.
351
FOR THE VIRGINIA SMITH TRUST:
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
City of Merced Planning Commission
December 20, 2023
Jonnie Lan, AICP, Principal Planner
Attachment E
DRAFT
352
Project Location VST
Project
Location
DRAFT
353
Collaboration
Background
• City, County and community
collaborated between 1995 and 2005 to
plan a true “University Community” to
support the staff and students.
• UC, University Community and VST
properties to be planned as an
integrated unit.
• Original plan approved in 2005, with
EIR.
• City 2030 General Plan recognizes the
UCP as the development plan for the
area.
• UCP area added to City SOI/SUDP
• UCP Amendment concurrent with VST
Specific Plan.
DRAFT
354
9,680 Total Dwelling Units
1,264,200 SF total Retail/Office
…The UCP Project: An Overview
DRAFT
355
15-Year Buildout
…The VST Project: Phasing and Buildout.
3,860 Dwelling Units
856,200 Retail/Office
DRAFT
356
Elements of the
Project
VST Specific Plan
Planned Development
EIR
Development Agreement
General Plan Amendments
Annexation
VST Specific Plan and Establish Planned Development
• Land Use Plan and Framework
• Land Uses
• Affordable Housing (above City requirements)
• Project Phasing
• Regulatory and Design Framework
• Building setbacks, massing and architecture
• Public art and signage
• Drainage
• Energy and water conservation
• Circulation Framework
• Special street sections; city standards
• Active transportation; bike paths and ped paths
• Campus Parkway; location and width
• Infrastructure
• Water, sewer and drainage master plans
• Park facilities above City standards
• Financing, Services and Governance
• Public services
• Special park and traffic fees
• City fees for all other facilities
• Community Facilities District
• Plan Administration
DRAFT
357
…The Project: Town Center. A Place for Commerce, Housing and a Gathering Place for Neighbors. Mixed use housing.
DRAFT
358
Elements of the
Project
UCP Update
VST Specific Plan
Planned Development
EIR
Development Agreement
General Plan Amendments
Annexation
Environmental Impact Report
• CEQA Complete. City shifted to Lead Agency since
project EIR was approved by County, but now proposed
to be developed in the City.
• “Subsequent EIR” to 2004/2006 UCP EIR
• Compares impacts from 2004/2006 project that
were originally disclosed in 2004/2006 to those from
the proposed UCP Amendment and VST Specific Plan
• CEQA Findings
• No new significant impacts
• Many impacts much less intensive, or now less than
significant
• Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) below OPR thresholds
• Significant Greenhouse Gas emissions impacts for
UCP; less than significant for VST with VST’s energy
features
• Bio impacts already mitigated
• Net groundwater use below Groundwater
Sustainability Plan (GSP) thresholds; adequate City
water supply
• Adequate City wastewater collection and treatment
capacity; no new projects needed support VST
project
DRAFT
359
Elements of the
Project
VST Specific Plan
Planned Development
EIR
Development Agreement
General Plan Amendments
Annexation
• Development Agreement
• Locks in entitlements and performance standards
• Specifies financial obligations of City and VST
• Creates authority and obligation for special impact
fees and development requirements (Campus
Parkway)
• Will be evaluated and approved by the City Council
• City General Plan Amendments
• Minor only. General Plan recognizes UCP as the
development guide for the area.
• Urban Expansion policies consider UCP site as a
priority area for annexation and development
• Annexation
• AB 3312 permits annexation once UC Merced is
annexed
• Expected in 1st quarter of 2024, following UC
Merced annexation
DRAFT
360
Thank You
DRAFT
Questions?
361