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

CITY OF MERCED

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Merced Civic Center
678 W. 18th Street
Merced, CA 95340
File #: 23-1114 Meeting Date: 12/20/2023
Planning Commission Staff Report
Report Prepared by: Jonnie Lan, AICP, Principal Planner, Development Services Department SUBJECT: Annexation and Pre-zoning Application #23-03, General Plan Amendment #23-04, Establishment of Planned Development #80, Adoption of VST Specific Plan and Environmental Review #23-44 all initiated by the Virginia Smith Trust (VST), Property Owner. The application would involve the annexation of approximately 654 acres of land generally located at the northeast corner of Cardella and Lake Roads (4600 Lake Road), the Pre-zoning of the property as Planned Development (P-D) #80, the adoption of the VST Specific Plan, and an amendment to the text of the General Plan. This property is located at 4600 Lake Road (APNs 060-010-004 and 060-020-048) and is generally bounded by the University of California, Merced, Campus to the north, agriculturally zoned land in Merced County to the south, agriculturally zoned land in Merced County to the east, and Lake and Cardella Roads to the west **PUBLIC HEARING** ACTION PLANNING COMMISSION:

Recommendation to City Council
1) Annexation and Pre-zoning Application #23-03
2) General Plan Amendment #23-04
3) Establishment of Planned Development (P-D) #80
4) Adoption of the Virginia Smith Trust Specific Plan
5) Environmental Review #23-44
CITY COUNCIL:

Approve/Disapprove/Modify
1) Annexation and Pre-zoning Application #23-03
2) General Plan Amendment #23-04
3) Approval of Pre-Annexation Development Agreement
4) Establishment of Planned Development (P-D) #80
5) Adoption of the Virginia Smith Trust Specific Plan
6) Environmental Review #23-44

SUMMARY
This is a request to amend the General Plan land use designations for approximately 654 acres of CITY OF MERCED Page 1 of 3 Printed on 12/15/2023
powered by Legistar™ 1
File #: 23-1114 Meeting Date: 12/20/2023
land south of the University of California, Merced campus. This request also asks that you recommend to the City Council adoption of the Virginia Smith Trust (VST) Specific Plan, Annex and and Pre-zone the property in line with the new Specific Plan and General Plan designations, approve the accompanying environmental review which acknowledges and adopts the Environmental Impact Report prepared for and adopted by the County, and establish Planned Development (P-D) #80. The proposed land use changes would allow the development of university-supporting residential, mixed use and commercial projects, including a percentage of affordable housing, in areas not currently designated for such uses.

RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Annexation and Pre-zoning Application #23-03, General Plan Amendment #23-04, Establishment of Planned Development (P-D) #80 (including the adoption of Draft Planning Commission Resolution #4127 as Attachment A of Planning Commission Staff Report #23-1114), Adoption of the Virginia Smith Trust Specific Plan and Environmental Review #23-44 subject to the conditions and the findings/considerations (Exhibits A and B, respectively) of Draft Resolution #4127.

DISCUSSION
Project Description
This project is located at 4600 Lake Road (APNs 060-010-004 and 060-020-048) the northeast corner of Cardella and Lake Roads. The proposal is to develop 654 acres of non-prime agricultural land into a mixture of uses including 3,900 residential dwelling units, approximately 800,000 square feet of commercial/office space, 76 acres of parks and 25 acres of open space and trails.

Background
To support the children of Merced County, Virginia Smith gifted property to the County Office of Education through the creation of the Virginia Smith Trust (VST). The Trustees of the County Office of Education (MCOE) also oversee the assets of VST. Part of the property, to the north, was used for the University of California, Merced, campus with its large conservation easement. The proposed project being considered by the Planning Commission is located on two parcels to the south of the campus, currently being used for agricultural purposes.

The City of Merced, Merced County, UC Merced, and the Virginia Smith Trust have been engaged in land planning activities for many years. With the University of California Campus and subsequent University Community Plan (UCP), the agencies have been in partnership for almost 30 years. The UCP essentially covers the non-campus land area between Yosemite Ave, Lake Road, and the UC Merced campus. The UCP planning process started in 2000 and was approved in 2004. The UCP area is within the City’s General Plan Area, the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and has an approved EIR.

The intent with this property was to create a development that supported the University campus, its students and its faculty with housing, office and commercial uses.

With the commercialization of this land through thoughtful development, the VST will continue to fund CITY OF MERCED Page 2 of 3 Printed on 12/15/2023
powered by Legistar™ 2
File #: 23-1114 Meeting Date: 12/20/2023
college scholarships to graduates from high schools within Merced County.

The VST parcels were originally expected to develop in the County. However, the passage of Assembly Bill 3312 allows for the City of Merced to annex the UC Merced Campus. Because it will become contiguous to the City Limits, once the UC is annexed, the VST parcels will be eligible for potential subsequent annexation. Currently, the VST land is within the jurisdiction of Merced County.

The University of California, Merced, campus has submitted for the annexation of 1,134 acres, which includes the campus and connecting public right-of-way. Once this is approved, those properties that are adjacent will be eligible to be considered. Due to the fact the VST properties are adjacent to UC Merced, they will also be eligible.

The proponents are submitting for consideration so that their entitlement approvals will allow them to move quickly through the LAFCO process as soon as the UC has been annexed.

As mentioned, the applicants are submitting an annexation and pre-zoning application, a general plan amendment, to establish Planned Development (P-D) #80, to request adoption of the VST Specific Plan and to request adoption of Environmental Review #23-44 which adopts the analysis and mitigation found in the Environmental Impact Report previously adopted by the County of Merced.

At the Planning Commission meeting on December 6, 2023, Stephen Peck, AICP, and Steve Tietjen, Merced County Office of Education Superintendent, both presented this project to the Commission, in detail. At that time, those on the Commission who were present, were invited to ask questions.

However, since that presentation was for information only, staff clarified that the decision to approve the above entitlements would be made at the December 20, 2023, meeting. Staff requests that the Commission hold the Public Hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council, who then will take final action on the applications.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Planning Commission Resolution #4127
B. VST Location Map
C. VST Specific Plan
D. Figure 3.9 (existing)
E. Figure 3.9 (amended)
F. Appendix 3.10.1 (existing)
G. Appendix 3.10.1 (amended)
H. Community Benefits
I. VST Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
J. Presentation
CITY OF MERCED Page 3 of 3 Printed on 12/15/2023
powered by Legistar™ 3

CITY OF MERCED
Planning Commission
Resolution #4127
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission at its regular meeting of December 20, 2023, held a public hearing and considered Pending Annexation and Pre-zoning Application #23-03, General Plan Amendment #23-04, Adoption of the Virginia Smith Trust Specific Plan, and the Establishment of Planned Development (P-D) #80, initiated by the Virginia Smith Trust, property owners. This application involves the annexation of approximately 654 acres of land to the City of Merced, the Prezoning of the property as Planned Development (P-D) #80, an amendment to the text of the General Plan, the adoption of the VST Specific Plan, and the establishment of Planned Development (P-D) #80. The property site is generally located at the northeast corner of Cardella and Lake Roads with an address of 4600 Lake Road, and is more particularly described as those portions of Section 2 and Section 3, Township 7 South, Range 14 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian in the County of Merced, State of California also known as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 060-010-004 and 060-020-048; and,
WHEREAS, the Merced City Planning Commission concurs with Findings/Considerations A through I of Staff Report #23-1114 (Exhibit B); and, WHEREAS, after reviewing the City’s Draft Environmental Determination, and fully discussing all the issues, the Merced City Planning Commission does resolve to hereby recommend to City Council adoption of the Focus Subsequent Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2001021056 (certified 10/17/2023) and Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit C), and approval of Pending Annexation and Pre-zoning Applications #23-03 and General Plan Amendment #23-04 and Establishment of Planned Development (P-D) #80 and Adoption of the Virginia Smith Trust Specific Plan, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.

ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A
4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION # 4127

December 20, 2023
Upon motion by Commissioner ____________________, seconded by Commissioner____________________, and carried by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioner(s)
NOES: Commissioner(s)
ABSENT: Commissioner(s)
ABSTAIN: Commissioner(s)
Adopted this 20th day of December 2023
______________________________
Chairperson, Planning Commission of
the City of Merced, California
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Secretary
Attachment:

Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B – Findings
Exhibit C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 EXHIBIT A
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4127

Findings
Planning Commission Resolution #4127
Pending Annexation and Pre-zoning Application #23-03, General Plan Amendment #23-04, Establishment of Planned Development (P-D) #80, Adoption of VST Specific Plan and Environmental Review #23-44

1. All new construction within the annexation area shall comply with all standard Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act requirements as applied by the City Engineering, Building, Planning and Fire Departments.

2. All other applicable codes, ordinances, policies, etc. adopted by the State of California or City of Merced shall apply.

3. Approval of Annexation and Pre-zoning Application #23-03, General Plan Amendment #23-04, the Establishment of Planned Development (P-D) #80, VST Specific Plan, and the adoption of Environmental Review #23-44 is subject to the applicant's entering into a written (legislative action) agreement that they agree to all the conditions and shall pay all City and school district fees, taxes, public facilities fees, in lieu fees and/or assessments, in effect on the date of any subsequent subdivision and/or permit approval, any increase in those fees, taxes, or assessments, and any new fees, taxes, or assessments, which are in effect at the time the building permits are issued, which may include public facilities impact fees, a regional traffic impact fee, law, etc.

Payment shall be made for each phase at the time of building permit issuance for such phase unless an Ordinance or other requirement of the City requires payment of such fees, taxes, and or assessments at an earlier or subsequent time. Said agreement to be approved by the City Council prior to the adoption of the ordinance, resolution, or minute action.

4. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by the City), and hold harmless the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and any officers, officials, employees, or agents thereof, from any and all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, or judgments against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, and any officers, officials, employees, or agents thereof to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body, including actions approved by the 6 EXHIBIT A
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4127

voters of the City, concerning the project and the approvals granted herein. Furthermore, developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend (with counsel selected by the City), and hold harmless the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, against any and all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, or judgments against any governmental entity in which developer/applicant’s project is subject to that other governmental entity’s approval and a condition of such approval is that the City indemnify and defend such governmental entity. City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, the developer/applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, officials, employees, or agents.

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

The following conditions apply to new construction within the annexation area:

6. Community Facilities District (CFD) formation is required for annual operating costs for police and fire services as well as storm drainage, public landscaping, public landscaping within State rights-of-way, street trees, street lights, parks and open space. CFD procedures shall be initiated before final map or first building permit approval.

Developer/Owner shall submit a request agreeing to such a procedure, waiving right to protest and post deposit as determined by the City Engineer or designee to be sufficient to cover procedure costs and maintenance costs expected prior to first assessments being received.

The following conditions apply to the future development at the property located at 4600 Lake Road:

7. All development shall be subject to the Mitigation Measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for The 7 EXHIBIT A
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4127

University Community Plan update and VST Specific Plan Project under Environmental Review #23-44.

8. All development within the VST Specific Plan area shall comply with all requirements of the VST Specific plan.

9. Site Plan Review is required prior to construction of commercial, mixed use, office, or multi-family uses. At the time of project evaluation, if the Site Plan Review Committee deems that an increase in traffic or decrease in parking will create negative impacts, if necessary, the Committee may require additional documentation or studies to provide additional analysis to mitigate any issues.

10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall work with the Merced County Transit Authority (aka: The Bus) to determine if a bus stop is needed at this location. If a bus stop is required, the stop shall be in an area to allow the bus to move completely out of the travel lanes. The location of all bus stops shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer or designee.

11. The hours of construction activities that generate noise, when adjacent to housing and other “sensitive” uses shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

12. At the time of construction, all required public improvements shall be installed along the property frontage. This includes, but is not limited to, sidewalk, curb, gutter, streetlights, and street trees.

13. The development shall contribute its fair share toward road improvements as described in the Mitigation Monitoring program.

14. All construction shall comply with construction standards in accordance with the requirement for the City’s Storm Water Quality permit and storm sewer system standards.

15. All new utilities serving the site shall be installed underground.

16. All City sewer, water, and storm drain lines serving the site shall be extended across the full frontage of the property unless it is determined by the Public Works Director that these lines are not likely to be extended to serve any other property (consistent with the Merced Municipal Code).

17. All storm water shall be contained onsite and metered out to the City’s storm water system in accordance with City Standards.
8 EXHIBIT A
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4127

18. A minimum turning radius as required by the Fire Department for fire apparatus access must be provided throughout the project or as required.

19. The future commercial development shall provide pedestrian and bicycle access throughout per the VST Specific Plan. Safe connectivity throughout the site shall be provided by pedestrian pathways. Bicycle parking shall be provided as required by the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

20. The developer shall use proper dust control procedures during site development in accordance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District rules.

21. All landscaping shall comply with City Standards, the City’s Zoning Ordinance Section – Landscaping, and the Merced Municipal Code, in addition to all state-mandated conservation and drought restrictions. This shall include the use of xeriscape landscaping as appropriate.

22. Irrigation for all onsite landscaping shall be provided by a lowvolume system in accordance with the State’s Emergency Regulation for Statewide Urban Water Conservation or any other state or citymandated water regulations dealing with current drought conditions.

23. All landscaping in the public right-of-way shall comply with the most recently adopted water regulations by the State and City addressing water conservation measures.

24. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view. 9 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4127

Findings and Considerations
Planning Commission Resolution #4127
Pending Annexation and Pre-zoning Application #23-03, General Plan Amendment #23-04, Establishment of Planned Development (P-D) #80, and Adoption of the VST Specific Plan
FINDINGS/CONSIDERATIONS:

Changes to the text of the General Plan
A) Amend Policy UE-1.4b as follows (note underlined text is new text and strikethrough text is deleted text):

The City accepts the University Community Plan adopted by Merced County on December 21, 2004, October 17, 2023, as a general conceptual framework for the planning of the University Community.

The City also accepts the VST Specific Plan adopted by Merced County on October 17, 2023, as the design framework and program for the VST Property, including the development standards, land use diagram, circulation diagram, development plan, lot sizes and standards, and recreation, open space and park standards. These documents and plans were developed through a collaborative effort with UC Merced, the City, and the County, in conformance with the City’s policies for the area, including annexation to the City.
• That existing plan can be used as foundation work for further planning for the area, with the City as lead agency in the planning progress. • If a special planning process or framework is used for the development of the University Community, the costs of that planning process shall be borne by the applicants and developers, not by Merced residents.

The City should revise all of its various planning documents to accommodate the incorporation of the University Community into the City of Merced. These include not only the General Plan, but also plans for wastewater treatment, water, storm drainage, parks, fire protection, and other services.

Amend Figure 3.9 of Chapter 3 – Land Use to accurately reflect the modified boundaries of the University Community Plan
Figure 3.9 of the General Plan at Attachment D would be modified to match the boundary of the adopted University Community Plan as shown at Attachment E.
10 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4127

Add Policy L-3.8 as follows:

L-3.8 Implement the 2023 UCP and VST Specific Plan as adopted by the County of Merced.

Amend Section 3.73 University Community Plan by adding the following to the end of this section after “2009 Revisions” on page 3-71:

After the 2009 amendments the University Community Plan was further amended. The amendments included substantial revisions to the UCP policies text to reflect the current regulatory conditions, annexation the City of Merced as the preferred form of development, reduction of the planning area from 2,133 acres to 1,841 acres to include only those areas outside of the boundaries of the LRDP(and subject to local land use regulations), modification of the land use program to reduce the number for dwelling units from 11,616 to 9,680), a reduction of the amount of commercial development from 2,022,900 square feet to 1,246,150 square feet, and a modification of the circulation diagram. The modification of the circulation diagram included changes to the alignment of Campus Parkway. A revised land use diagram was also adopted and is included in Appendix 3.10.1. A Specific Plan was developed for the Virginia Smith Trust (VST) property concurrent with the update of the UCP.

Delete illustrations and figures for the UCP in Appendix 3.10.1 on pages 3-86 through 3-89 (Attachment F) and replace with Figures 3 and 4 of the VST Specific Plan (Attachment G).

General Plan Compliance and Policies Related to This Application B) The proposed annexation complies with the General Plan designation of University Community Plan (UCP) for the site. General Plan Policy UE1.3 and Implementing Action 1.3.g requires that annexation requests be evaluated against certain criteria. Below is an evaluation of the proposed annexation against those criteria:

Criteria 1
Is the area contiguous to the Current City Limits and within the City’s Specific Urban Development Plan (SUDP)/Sphere of Influence (SOI)? Do the annexed lands form a logical and efficient City limit and include older areas where appropriate to minimize the formation of unincorporated peninsulas?
Evaluation
After the UC Merced annexation is completed, and at the time the 11 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4127

application for annexation is submitted to LAFCO, this site will be contiguous to the existing City Limits to the north (see map at Attachment A). After the annexation of the University of California, Merced, campus, the annexation of the proposed project site would logically begin the physical connection of what will become a University Village to the south of the UC Merced Campus.

Criteria 2
Is the proposed development consistent with the land use classification on the General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure 3.1)?
Evaluation
The proposed project site land use designations are consistent with the land use classification of the University Community Plan and with the proposed changes to the General Plan text and diagrams as described in Finding A above. The VST Specific Plan is a subset of the larger University Community Plan that provides support for the University campus, students, employees, and faculty by creating a university village to house, recreate and entertain those associated with the UC. This project will implement that objective of the plan.

Criteria 3
Can the proposed development be served by the City water, sewer, storm drainage, fire and police protection, parks, and street systems to meet acceptable standards and service levels without requiring improvements and additional costs to the City beyond which the developer will consent to provide or mitigate?
Evaluation
The University is being served by the City of Merced through a service agreement. Once the UC annexes followed by the VST annexation, those services can be extended without burden to the City’s financial health.

All new development within the annexation area would be required to annex into the City’s Community Facilities District (CFD) for services which would cover the costs of Police and Fire protection. Public Facilities Impact Fees would also be paid that would help fund future police and fire stations, parks, and street improvements. Requirements to annex to the CFD and pay the PFFP impact fees are listed as conditions of approval in the Planning Commission Resolution at Attachment A. 12 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4127

Criteria 4
Will this annexation result in the premature conversion of prime agricultural land as defined in the Important Farmland Map of the State Mapping and Monitoring Program? If so, are there alternative locations where this development could take place without converting prime soils? Evaluation
Though parts of the annexation area are listed as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, the proposed development is planned to provide higher density, which will minimize the encroachment overall into local prime farmlands. Converting these lands to support the UC will help minimize vehicle trips and provide opportunities for healthy activity with plans for open space and parks. The conversion of farmland was evaluated as part of the FSEIR at Attachment I
Criteria 5
Will a non-agricultural use create conflict with adjacent or nearby agricultural uses? If so, how can these conflicts be mitigated? Evaluation
The proposed development would not create barriers to the use of nearby agricultural lands.

Criteria 6
Does the annexation area help the City reach one of the following goals? Does annexation of the area bring the City closer to annexation of the UC Merced campus and University Community?
Does the area contain significant amounts of job-generating land uses, such as industrial, commercial, office, and business/research and development parks?
Does the project provide key infrastructure facilities or other desirable amenities such as the extension of major roads, utility trunk lines, parks, and recreational facilities, etc.?
13 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4127

Evaluation
The proposed annexation area is within the University Community Plan.

This annexation will not be possible until the UC Merced campus is annexed. Although this annexation does not bring the City closer to annexing the UC Campus it does start the process of annexation of the University Community Plan.

The land uses proposed in this project area will contain land uses that support the University such as residential, commercial, office, and mixed use. Due to that, there will be many opportunities for economic growth and job generation. The project provides key infrastructure facilities or other desirable amenities such as the extension of major roads, utility trunk lines, parks, and recreational facilities. The VST Specific Plan provides linkages between the University Campus and this property to create opportunities for residents and staff to traverse between the school and the uses to the south eventually built on the VST site. The design also provides continued connections for roadways and utilities.

Community Benefits
C) The VST annexation is the first step in the development of this area.

Once the area begins development, there will be significant community benefits as a result of this development. These benefits include affordable housing, providing incentives to workers on the UC Campus, providing features that reduce environmental impacts, and providing ongoing funding for services and programs that further the Merced County Office of Education’s (MCOE) mission. The document provided at Attachment H provides more details on these benefits.

Zoning Code Compliance for the Planned Development Establishment D) Per Merced Municipal Code Section 20.20.20 (J) Planned Development (P-D) Zoning Districts, approval of an application for Planned Development Establishment or Revision with accompanying Preliminary Site Utilization Plan only if the following findings can be made:

1. The proposed development is consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan and community plan.
14 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4127

The proposed Planned Development Establishment would be consistent with the General Plan if General Plan Amendment #23-04 is approved.

2. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size and shape to accommodate proposed land uses.

The subject site is located at the northeast corner of Cardella and Lake Roads (Attachment B). The project proposes 654 acres of mixed-use development, including 4,000 dwelling units, approximately 800,000 square feet of commercial/office space, 76 acres of parks and 25 acres of open space and trails. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed land uses.

3. The site for the proposed development has adequate access considering the limitations of existing and planned streets and highways.

The proposal would have adequate access to existing and planned streets and highways.

4. Adequate public services exist or will be provided to serve the proposed development.

City utilities such was water and sewer main lines as well as storm drain lines would be extended to the project site with approval of the proposed annexation. These lines would be adequate to serve the project.

5. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property, will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character of the surrounding area, and will enhance the desirability of the area and have a beneficial effect.

There may be some temporary impacts such as vibration, noise, and dust during construction, but the proposed development would not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property, will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character of the surrounding area, and will enhance the desirability of the area and have a beneficial effect.

6. The proposed development carries out the intent of the Planned Development zoning district by providing a more efficient use of the land and an excellence of site design greater than that which could be achieved through the application of established zoning standards. 15 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4127

The proposed development provides efficient use of land. By creating the VST Specific Plan, the project proponents provided the vision and standards for optimizing the property, creating a sense of place, creating the foundation for mixed use and pedestrian scaled development and ultimately providing the village support needed for the existing university students and staff.

7. Each individual unit of the proposed development, in each phase as well as the total development, can exist as an independent unit capable of creating a good environment in the locality and being in any stage as desirable and stable as the total development.

The proposed development consists of a mixture of uses that mirror a similarity of design to the UC campus. Anything that is developed on this property, to the plan standards, can exist by itself and still benefit the community, especially the UC campus. Once anything is developed it could remain independent capable of creating a good environment in the locality and being in any stage as desirable and stable as the total development.

8. Any deviation from the standard ordinance requirements is warranted by the design and additional amenities incorporated in the development plan, which offer certain unusual redeeming features to compensate for any deviations that may be permitted.

As shown in VST Specific Plan at Attachment C of Planning Commission Staff Report #23-1114, the proposal includes walking and bike trails connecting the future development with the UC campus. There are also development standards that will create architectural interest not required in standard zoning. A mixed-use development, planned as part of the land use vision, will provide the extension of visual interest and optimal pedestrian and bike friendly environment as currently experienced on the campus to the north.

9. The principles incorporated in the proposed development plan indicate certain unique or unusual features, which could not otherwise be achieved under the other zoning district.

The proposed use would allow development of the entire parcel, in a way that is directly linked and supportive to the University of California, Merced campus. The design provides physical pedestrian and bicycle linkages that will promote healthy transportation options and get people out of their car. The mixed-use design and variety of 16 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4127

housing types proposed throughout the development will provide direct support to the UC students, employees and faculty and create a village as is in the original plans for the site.

Specific Plan
E) The proposal includes a specific plan as shown at Attachment C. The VST Specific Plan is an update of the University Community Plan previously adopted by the County of Merced. The original plan had a vision which supported the University of California campus with a village-like development of mixed-use, walking and bike trails and a variety of housing styles. The VST Specific Plan contains similar requirements. The goal is to support the University campus in the same way as originally planned.

The standards of the Specific Plan will be incorporated into the standards for Planned Development (P-D) #80. The “Regulatory and Design Framework” section of the VST Specific Plan defines the standards for development within the specific plan area. All projects within the area will be measured against these standards to ensure compliance with the Specific Plan. In order to ensure this compliance, Condition #8 was added which requires Site Plan Review for all commercial, mixed-use, multi-family, or office uses within the plan area. Single-family development would also be required to comply with all requirements for setbacks and design standards as outlined in the specific plan but would not be subject to Site Plan Review.

Traffic/Circulation
F) An environmental study was conducted that assessed the projected traffic counts and traffic impacts to the area based on the proposed land uses.

This traffic study can be found within Attachment D. The development shall contribute its fair share toward road improvements as described within the Mitigation Monitoring Program in Resolution #4127 Exhibit C.

Parking
G) The annexation does not directly produce a need for parking. However, the subsequent development would require parking to serve the future uses on the site. Parking requirements would be evaluated at the Site 17 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4127

Plan Review and/or Building Permit phase of development. It could also be reviewed as each project within the plan area is specifically entitled.

Land Use
H) The subject site is located at the northeast corner of Cardella and Lake Roads (Attachment B). The project proposes 654 acres of mixed-use development, including 4,000 dwelling units, approximately 800,000 square feet of commercial/office space, 76 acres of parks and 25 acres of open space and trails. The land use map for this development is shown as Attachment B or within the Specific Plan (Attachment C).

Site Plan
I) As described in Finding E above, a condition has been added to require a Site Plan Review Permit for all commercial, mixed-use, office, and multi-family development within the plan area. Each development shall be evaluated to ensure compliance with the requirements of the VST Specific Plan. At the time of project evaluation, if the Site Plan Review Committee deems that an increase in traffic or decrease in parking will create negative impacts, the Committee may require additional documentation or studies to provide additional analysis to mitigate any issues.

Neighborhood Impact/Interface
J) The proposed project does not include any uses that would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the immediate area or the city as a whole. Implementation of the conditions of approval and adherence to all applicable Building Codes, Fire Codes, and City Standards would prevent the project from having any detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the neighboring properties as well as the City as a whole. There may be some temporary impacts such as vibration, noise, and dust during construction, but the proposed development would not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property long term, will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character of the surrounding area, and will enhance the desirability of the area and have a beneficial effect.
18 EXHIBIT B
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4127

Pre-Annexation Development Agreement
K) Section 20.86.150 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a property owner to enter into a Pre-Annexation Development Agreement prior to annexation. This agreement shall not become operative unless annexation proceedings are completed by the Local Agency Formation commission (LAFCO). There is no requirement for staff to bring it to the Planning Commission. However, a Draft Pre-Annexation Development Agreement will be provided to, reviewed by, and approved by the City Council prior to their decision. The Pre-annexation Development Agreement is only with the owner of the vacant land and binds the owner and their successors to certain conditions and requirements related to the development of the land.

Environmental Clearance
L) Planning staff has conducted an environmental review of the project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Focus Subsequent Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2001021056 (certified 10/17/2023) was prepared, and a Statement of Overriding Consideration with a Mitigation Monitoring Program is being recommended. This environmental document is provided at Attachment I.
19 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

Tiffany Ho
Merced County Planning Department
July 28, 2023

EXHIBIT C
OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #4127
20 2

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

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

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

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

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

1.4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table....................................................6 21 3
List of Abbreviations
AAQA Ambient Air Quality Analysis
BESD Banta Elementary School District
BMP best management practice
CALGreen State Building Energy Efficiency Standards
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
City City of Merced
CNEL community noise equivalent level
County County of Merced
dBA A-weighted decibel
ESA federal Endangered Species Act
ghg greenhouse gas
lb/day pounds per day
Ldn day-night average noise level
Leq energy-equivalent noise level
MMRP mitigation monitoring and reporting program
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NAHC Native American Heritage Center
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Eliminate System
22 4
PCC Public Contract Code
PRC Public Resources Code
RWQCB regional water quality control board
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SWPPP storm water pollution prevention plan
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Valley CAN Valley Clean Air Now
VELB valley elderberry longhorn beetle
VERA Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
ZNE zero net energy

23 5

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

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

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

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

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

The County adopted an MMRP as part of the 2001/2004 UCP EIR approvals and those mitigation measures are incorporated herein by this reference. This MMRP is focused specifically on the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan 24 6
Project. Where mitigation measures applicable to the Project remain the same as those adopted in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR, the title, “Adopted Mitigation Measure,” is used as the mitigation measure was “adopted” as part of the 2001/2004 UCP EIR; where mitigation measures would be modified or eliminated from those identified in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR, the title, “Modified Mitigation Measure,” is used; and where new mitigation measures were developed for the modified Phase 2 Project, the title, “New Mitigation Measure,” is used.

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

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

1.4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table
Table 1, which identifies the mitigation measures applicable to the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Project, includes the table columns identified and described below:
 Impact: This column presents all the impacts disclosed in the SEIR for which mitigation was identified.  Mitigation Measure: This column presents all the mitigation measures identified in the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Project SEIR, each of which has been adopted and incorporated into the project.  Action(s): For every mitigation measure, one or more actions are described. The actions delineate the means by which the mitigation measures will be implemented and, in some instances, the criteria for determining whether a measure has been successfully implemented. Where mitigation measures are particularly detailed, the action may refer back to the measure.
 Implementing Party: This column identifies the entity responsible for undertaking the required action.  Timing: Implementation of the action must occur before or during some part of project approval, project design, or project construction or on an ongoing basis. This column identifies the timing for implementation of each mitigation measure.
 Completion of Implementation: The County is responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures are successfully implemented with respect to work implemented within the County’s jurisdiction. The “Completion of Implementation” column is to be used by the County to indicate when implementation of a mitigation measure has been completed. The County, at its discretion, may delegate implementation responsibility or portions thereof to qualified consultants or contractors. Upon annexation, the County’s responsibility to ensure that the mitigation measures are successfully implemented will be transferred to the City of Merced. The “Completion of Implementation” column is to be used by the City to indicate when implementation of a mitigation measure has been completed.
25 7
Table 1 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Air Quality
Impact 3.1.1:

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

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

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

Project applicant,
construction
contractor,

SJVAPCD
During
preparation of
the EIR for UCP
South
Confirm that construction
equipment measures are
implemented
County of
Merced
Before grading
1 The County’s obligation to implement or confirm that implementation has been satisfied will transfer to the City of Merced upon annexation. 26 8
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
contract the project applicant establishes with its construction contractors. The applicant shall demonstrate its plan to fulfill the requirements of this measure in a report or in project improvement plan details submitted to the discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County) prior to the use of any off-road, diesel-powered construction equipment.

New Mitigation Measure 3.1-1b: Preparation of an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (UCP South only)
SJVACPD recommends that construction and operational emissions that exceed 100 lb/day prepare an AAQA to assess whether a project would violate an AAQS. Prior to the approval of a Final Map, the project applicant shall prepare a project-level analysis of emissions for development in the UCP area that is subject to SJVAPCD oversight to confirm whether the particular land use development would result in emissions that exceed this 100 lb/day screening criterion. In cases where a project’s construction activity would generate emissions above this screening criterion (i.e., 100 lb/day) s, the project applicant shall prepare an AAQA. If, following the preparation of an AAQA, emissions are found to contribute to an exceedance of an AAQS, the project applicant shall either implement additional emission reduction measures as part of the project or, once all feasible on-site reduction measures have been exhausted, engage in regional programs that serve to reduce air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley. An example of a potential program includes the Valley Clean Air Now (Valley CAN)
organization, which improves public health through investments in vehicle repair and replacement programs. Emissions reduction programs must demonstrate a quantifiable reduction and must be located within the SJVAB so air pollution reductions are realized in the basin. Alternatively, if regional air pollution reduction programs are unavailable, the project applicant may enter into a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) with SJVAPCD to reduce emissions to below 100 lb/day for any pollutant that exceeds the screening criteria. If conditions warrant participation in a VERA, the VERA shall demonstrate a pound-for-pound reduction in emissions 27 9
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
that exceed 100 lb/day through a process that funds and implements emissions reduction projects within the SJVAB. The types of emission reduction projects that could be funded include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as well pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of old farm tractors. If a VERA is found to be required to meet thresholds, and the applicant elects to enter into one, the project applicant shall 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.

Impact 3.1-2:

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

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

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before building
permit issuance
Preparation of air quality
assessment to determine
whether any SJVAPCD annual
mass emissions thresholds are
exceeded.

Project applicant,

SJVAPCD
Before building
permit issuance
28 10
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
throughout the site plan. Specific calming measures and locations shall be identified by a qualified transportation specialist.
 Electric water heaters in all residences (no gas storage tank heaters).
 Electric heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units in residences (no gas units).
 Meet Tier 2 electric vehicle charging standards of the most recent version of Part 11 of the Title 24 California Building Code (CalGreen Code) for all land use types.
 Restrict idling times for heavy heavy duty trucks accessing the project site to 3 minutes or less through the signage indicating that idling must be limited to this duration.
 Plant vegetation throughout the project site near areas of high pollution generation (e.g., heavily traveled roadways, sites of truck idling) to reduce the dispersion of air pollutants.  Apply for grant funding through SJVAPCD’s Bikeway Incentive Program, which offers funding for Class I, Class II, and Class III bicycle paths for projects within the SJVAB.

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 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 29 11
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
VERA to ensure that feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce emissions to a less-than-significant level consistent with the direction given in SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. As allowed by SJVAPCD, the project applicant shall be provided the opportunity to 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.

Biological
Resources
Impact 3.2-1:

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

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

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

Collection of shining navarretia
seeds within UCP area.

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before
construction
Pre-construction surveys of
special-status species.

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before
construction
30 12
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
clay flats in grassland). Seeds shall be dispersed only within suitable habitats where shining navarretia does not currently occur to avoid impacts on the genetic composition of existing populations.

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

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

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

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

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before
construction
31 13
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
will be determined by the qualified biologist or botanist and will be large enough to avoid direct or indirect impacts on the plant.  If special-status plans are found during special-status plant surveys and cannot be avoided, the project applicant shall, in consultation with CDFW or USFWS as appropriate depending on species status, develop and implement a site-specific mitigation strategy to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat or individuals.

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

Mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum, preserving and enhancing existing populations, establishing populations through seed collection or transplantation from the site that is to be affected, and/or restoring or creating habitat in sufficient quantities to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat or individuals. Purchase of credits from an agency-mitigation bank that contains the affected species may also be used to offset loss of occupied habitat. Potential mitigation sites could include suitable locations within or outside of the UCP area or VST Specific Plan area. Habitat and individual plants lost shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio, considering acreage as well as function and value. Success criteria for preserved and
compensatory populations will include:
 The extent of occupied area and plant density (number of plants per unit area) in compensatory populations will be equal to or greater than the affected occupied habitat.  Compensatory and preserved populations will be selfproducing. Populations will be considered self-producing when:
 plants reestablish annually for a minimum of five years with no human intervention such as supplemental seeding; and
32 14
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
 reestablished and preserved habitats contain an occupied area and flower density comparable to existing occupied habitat areas in similar habitat types in the project vicinity.

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

Impact 3.2-2:

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

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

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

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

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

Preservation of offsite foraging
habitat for Swainson’s hawk
Project applicant,
construction
contractor, CDFW
Before
construction
Pre-construction surveys to
identify active raptor nests.

Consultation with CDFW and
USFWS if any are located
Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before
construction
Pre-construction surveys to
identify San Joaquin kit fox. If
any are located, implementation
of June 1999 Standardized
Recommendations for
Protection of the San Joaquin Kit
Fox Prior to or During Ground
Disturbance
Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before
construction
33 15
no active raptor nests are identified within 1,000 feet of the construction site, no further mitigation would be necessary.

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

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

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

Project applicant,
construction
contractor, CDFW
Before
construction
34 16
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Permit that allows handling of amphibians will relocate individual adults, tadpoles, or eggs to nearby suitable habitat with prior approval of CDFW. The qualified biologist will also be present during initial ground disturbance activities and will inspect the project site in the UCP area before initiation of project activities.

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

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

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before
construction
35 17
handling of reptiles will be present during initial ground disturbance activities and will inspect the project site before initiation of project activities. If western pond turtles are detected, the qualified biologist will move the turtles downstream and out of harm’s way.

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

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

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before
construction
36 18
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
for bumble bees, and with approval from CDFW to conduct focused surveys of suitable habitat within the project site in the UCP area. Because a survey protocol for this species has not been established, survey methods will be developed and
approved in consultation with CDFW, and will generally include but not be limited to the following elements (included in survey protocols for other bumble bee species in the United States [USFWS 2018]):
 Surveys will be conducted during the active flight season (typically March through September).
 Surveys will be conducted by walking transects through suitable habitat, or by surveying a minimum of one personhour per 3 acres of suitable habitat without transects.  Bumble bees within the project site will be identified through passive, non-lethal methods (e.g., visual surveys using binoculars, photographic documentation), as approved by CDFW.
 If crotch bumble bees are detected during focused
surveys, the survey results will be submitted to the
discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County) and CDFW. The project applicant will consult with CDFW to determine whether there are additional
avoidance measures available that would reduce the
likelihood of injury or mortality of crotch bumble bee. The project applicant will consult with CDFW to determine
whether authorization for take of crotch bumble bees
would be required by obtaining an incidental take permit pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 2081. If required, the project applicant will implement measures required under the permit which may include
compensatory mitigation to fully mitigate impacts on
crotch bumble bee.

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

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

Establishment of avoidance
measures
Project applicant,
construction
contractor.

County of
Merced
Before
construction
37 19
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
 If no crotch bumble bees are detected during focused
surveys, the survey results will be submitted to the
discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County). The project applicant will consult with CDFW to determine whether the negative survey results are
sufficient to conclude that crotch bumble bees (including underground overwintering and nesting colonies) are
absent from the project site, and that authorization for take of crotch bumble bees would not be required. If
CDFW concurs, then further mitigation would not be
required.

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

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

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
During
construction
38 20
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
flight (typically through August). Project activities will not occur within this buffer until after the roosts are unoccupied.  If roosts of western red bat are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats will be excluded from the roosting site before the tree, building, or other roost structure is removed.

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

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

A qualified biologist will conduct focused breeding and nonbreeding season surveys for burrowing owls in areas of habitat suitable for the species identified during the reconnaissance-level survey (e.g., grassland, agricultural land) on and within 1,640 feet (500 meters) of the UCP area. Surveys will be conducted before the start of project 39 21
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
activities and in accordance with Appendix D of the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012; CDFW Staff Report).  If no occupied burrows are found, the qualified biologist will submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County), and no further mitigation will be required.
 If an active burrow is found within 1,640 feet of pending construction activities that would occur during the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31), a minimum protection buffer of 164 feet (50 meters) shall be established and maintained around the occupied burrow throughout construction. The protection buffer may be adjusted if, in consultation with CDFW, a qualified biologist determines that an alternative buffer will not disturb burrowing owl use of the burrow because of particular site features or other buffering measures. If occupied burrows are present that cannot be avoided or adequately protected with a nodisturbance buffer, a burrowing owl exclusion plan will be developed, as described in Appendix E of the CDFW Staff Report.

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

The exclusion plan will include a compensatory habitat mitigation plan (see below).
 If an active burrow is found during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows will not be disturbed and will be provided with a protective buffer at a minimum of 164 feet unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive means that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg laying, or (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. The size of the buffer may be adjusted depending on the time of year and level of disturbance as outlined in the CDFW Staff Report. The size of the buffer may be reduced if a broad-scale, long-term, monitoring program acceptable to CDFW is implemented so that burrowing owls are not adversely affected. Once the fledglings are capable of independent survival, 40 22
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
the owls can be evicted, and the burrow can be destroyed per the terms of a CDFW-approved burrowing owl exclusion plan
developed in accordance with Appendix E of CDFW Staff Report.  If burrowing owls are evicted from burrows and the burrows are destroyed by implementation of project activities, the project applicant will mitigate the loss of occupied habitat in accordance with guidance provided in the CDFW Staff Report, which states that permanent impacts on nesting, occupied and satellite burrows, and burrowing owl habitat (i.e., grassland habitat with suitable burrows) will be mitigated such that habitat acreage and number of burrows are replaced through permanent
conservation of comparable or better habitat with similar vegetation communities and burrowing mammals (e.g., ground squirrels) present to provide for nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal. The project applicant will retain a qualified biologist to develop a burrowing owl mitigation and management plan that incorporates the following goals and standards:
 Mitigation lands will be selected based on comparison of the habitat lost to the compensatory habitat, including type and structure of habitat, disturbance levels, potential for conflicts with humans, pets, and other wildlife, density of burrowing owls, and relative importance of the habitat to the species throughout its range.
 If feasible, mitigation lands will be provided adjacent or proximate to the project site so that displaced owls can relocate with reduced risk of injury or mortality. Feasibility of providing mitigation adjacent or proximate to the project site depends on availability of sufficient habitat to support displaced owls that may be preserved in perpetuity.
 If habitat suitable for burrowing owl is not available for conservation adjacent or proximate to the project site, mitigation lands can be secured offsite and will aim to consolidate and enlarge conservation areas outside of
planned development areas and within foraging distance of 41 23
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
other conservation lands. Mitigation may also be
accomplished through purchase of mitigation credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank, if available. Alternative mitigation sites and acreages may also be determined in consultation with CDFW.

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

Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and
Climate Change

Impact 3.4-1:

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

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

Project applicant Before building
permits are
issued and/or
before approval
of improvement
plans
42 24
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
 Demonstrate consistency with OPR’s SB 743 regional VMT standards (i.e., residential projects meeting a 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita, office projects meeting a 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee, and retail projects attaining a no net increase in existing VMT)
 If the aforementioned project design features cannot be incorporated into the project’s design, the applicant shall include other relevant project design characteristics such that any additional emissions generated from natural gas, insufficient EV charging, or excessive VMT can be fully offset. Examples of measures that could be applied to individual projects in UCP South include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Implementation of a solid waste diversion program.
 Exceedance of the most recent version of Part 6 of the Title 24 California Building Code (California Energy Code).
 Use of low-flow appliances.
 Use of energy star appliances.

Implementation of ZNE buildings.

Impact 3.4-3:

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

Implementation of design
features during building
construction
Project applicant Before building
permit is issued
Hydrology and
Water Quality
43 25
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Impact 3.5-3:

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

Implementation of altered
channel cross section of Fairfield
Canal
Project applicant
with oversight
from MID,
subject to
approval from
City of Merced or
Merced County
Before
infrastructure
improvements
Impact 3.5-5:

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

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

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

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

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

In light of changes to the cumulative condition and current regulations, Adopted Mitigation Measures 4.8-15 and 4.8-16 are no None N/A N/A
44 26
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Hydrology and
Flooding
longer applicable or required to address the cumulative impacts of the UCP Update. The mitigation requirement would be removed as follows:

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

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

Noise and
Vibration
Impact 3.6-1:

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

Construction equipment must
comply with noise control
program
Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before ground
disturbance
45 27
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Generated Noise
Levels
 All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with exhaust mufflers and air-inlet silencers where appropriate, in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification.
 Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arc-welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment.  All mobile or fixed noise producing equipment used on the project, that is regulated for noise output by local, state or federal agency, shall comply with such regulation while engaged in project-related activities.
 Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment, where practicable.
 Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive receptors.
 The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells shall be for safety warning purposes only. No project-related public address loudspeaker, two-way radio, or music system shall be audible at any adjacent noise-sensitive receptor except for emergency use.

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

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

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

Implementation of noise control
features on certain equipment
Project applicant,
construction
contractor
Before ground
disturbance
46 28
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
10:00 p.m., weekdays and Saturday, and prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, except for emergency work.  Requiring that all construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or stationary, be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers.
 All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise-reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’
recommendations. Equipment engine shrouds shall be closed during equipment operation.
 Requiring that construction vehicle staging areas be located as far as practical from existing residential uses
 Requiring that construction vehicle trips be routed as far as practical from existing residential uses
 Construction equipment with back-up alarms shall be equipped with either audible self-adjusting backup alarms or alarms that only sound when an object is detected. Self-adjusting backup alarms shall automatically adjust to 5 dB over the surrounding background levels. All non-self-adjusting backup alarms shall be set to the lowest setting required to be audible above the surrounding noise levels.
 Locate any trailers and materials used during construction capable of breaking the line of sight between the noise-sensitive receptors and construction-noise generating equipment such that they would serve as noise barriers in order to protect noisesensitive receptors from noise generated by off-site construction activity.
 For construction occurring within 600 feet of an existing noise sensitive receptor, install temporary noise curtains as close as possible to the noise-generating activity such that the curtains obstruct the direct line of sight between the noise-generating construction activity and the nearby sensitive receptors.

Temporary noise curtains shall consist of durable, flexible composite material featuring a noise barrier layer bounded to 47 29
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
sound-absorptive material on one side. The noise barrier layer shall consist of rugged, impervious, material with a surface weight of at least one pound per square foot.
 Noise-reducing enclosures and techniques shall be used around stationary noise-generating equipment (e.g., concrete mixers, generators, compressors).
 Operate heavy-duty construction equipment at the lowest operating power possible.

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

Impact 3.6-2:

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

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

These noise reduction features shall include structure design and layout, site planning, and other measures; block walls and barriers Design of new land uses to
prevent excessive noise near
noise-sensitive receptors
Project applicant,
County of
Merced
Prior to Project
approval
48 30
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
(including berms) shall only be used where such measures are deemed infeasible or ineffective.

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

Impact 3.6-3:

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

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

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

Project applicant Prior to Project
approval
Impact 3.6-4:

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

Implementation of vibration
reduction measures,
Project applicant,
construction
contractor.

During
construction.
49 31
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
New Mitigation Measure 3.6-4: Amend the UCP to Include
Provisions for Potential Vibration-Inducing Activities
The County of Merced shall include the following policy in the UCP Update:
 Policy N.X: Construction Vibration. All potential vibrationinducing activities shall comply with the following measures, setback distances, precautions, monitoring programs, and alternative methods to traditional construction activities:
 Ground vibration-producing activities, such as pile driving and blasting, shall be limited to the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and shall not occur on
weekends and holidays consistent with County of Merced
Municipal Code Section 10.60.040.
 If pile driving is used and would occur within 630 feet of existing residential receptors, pile holes shall be predrilled to the maximum feasible depth to reduce the number of blows required to seat a pile.
 All construction equipment on construction sites shall be operated as far away from vibration-sensitive sites as
reasonably possible.
 Earthmoving and ground-impacting operations shall be phased so as not to occur simultaneously in areas close to sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. The total vibration level produced could be significantly less when each vibration source is operated at separate times.
 Minimum setback requirements for different types of ground vibration producing activities (e.g., pile driving and blasting) for the purpose of preventing negative human response shall be established based on the specific nature of the vibration producing activity (e.g., type and duration of pile driving), local soil conditions, and the type of sensitive receptor.

Established setback requirements (i.e., 630 feet) can be breached only if a project-specific, site-specific, technically adequate ground vibration study indicates that the buildings 50 32
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
would not be exposed to ground vibration levels in excess of 70 VdB, and ground vibration measurements performed
during the construction activity confirm that the buildings are not being exposed to levels in excess of 70 VdB.
 All vibration-inducing activity within the distance parameters described above shall be monitored and documented for
ground vibration noise and vibration noise levels at the nearest sensitive land use and associated recorded data submitted to the County of Merced so as not to exceed 70 Vdb.

Alternatives to traditional pile driving (e.g., sonic pile driving, jetting, cast-in-place or auger cast piles, nondisplacement piles, pile cushioning, torque or hydraulic piles) shall be considered and implemented where feasible to reduce vibration levels.
51 33
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Impact 3.6-5:

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

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

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

County of
Merced
Before
construction.
52 34
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
agency, shall comply with such regulation while engaged with project-related activities.
 Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment, where practicable.
 Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noisesensitive receptors.  The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. No project-related public address loudspeaker, two-way radio, or music system shall be audible at any adjacent noise-sensitive receptor except for emergency use.
 The erection of temporary noise barriers will be considered where project activity is unavoidably close to noise-sensitive receptors.

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

Implementation of noise
attenuation measures.

Project applicant,
construction
contractor
During
construction
Transportation
53 35
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Impact 3.7-1:

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

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

Merced County
and City of
Merced
During Project
operation
Impact 3.7-3:

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

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

Merced County
and City of
Merced
During Project
operation
54 36
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
Impact 3.7-5:

Cumulative
Transportation
Impacts
Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.14-7(a): UCP development shall contribute its fair share toward the following Tier road improvements which are shown in Figure 4.14-3 [in the 2001/2004 UCP EIR]:
 Highway 59, widen to 4 lanes, Yosemite Avenue to Bellevue Road  Highway 59, new segment between Highway 99 and 140
 Yosemite Avenue, extend from R Street to Highway 59
 Yosemite Avenue, widen to 4 lanes, Campus Parkway to G Street  Bellevue Road, widen to 6 lanes, Highway 59 to Campus Parkway  R Street, extend from Yosemite Avenue to Bellevue Road  Parsons Avenue/Gardner Avenue, extend and widen to 4 lanes, Childs Avenue to Bellevue Road
 Highway 59, new alignment along Mission Avenue
 Mission Avenue, widen to 4 lanes, Highway 99 to Highway 59  Childs Avenue, widen to 4 lanes, Campus Parkway to Highway 59 Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.14-7(b): For development through year 2025, UCP development shall only contribute its fair share toward the following Tier road improvements, which are shown on Figure 4.14-4:
 Yosemite Avenue, extend from R Street to Highway 59
 Yosemite Avenue, widen to 4 lanes, Campus Parkway to G Street  R Street, extend from Yosemite Avenue to Belleview Avenue  Parsons Avenue/Gardner Avenue, extend and widen to 4 lanes, Childs Avenue to Bellevue Road
Contribution of fair share road
improvements
Project applicant Before
construction
55 37
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing
Party1 Timing Completion of Implementation
 Bellevue Road, widen to 4 lanes, Highway 59 to Campus Parkway Adopted Mitigation Measure 4.14-7(c): For development through Year 2015, the County shall analyze the expected future operations of the Lake/Yosemite intersection at the following milestone points:
(1) determination of conceptual alignment for Campus Parkway, (2) preparation of the Geometric Approval Drawings for Campus Parkway, and (3) each October, beginning in the opening year of the UC Merced Campus. If any of these analyses determine that the Lake/Yosemite intersection will operate at unacceptable LOS, the proposed UCP shall contribute its fair share toward the cost of any improvements deemed necessary at the intersection. Monitoring of the Lake/Yosemite intersection shall end upon completion of the Campus Park extension from Yosemite Avenue to Belleview Road.

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

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

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

Establishing proper rights of way
and access for identified routes.

County of
Merced, City of
Merced
Before
construction
56 Attachment
B
57 Adopted:

October 17, 2023
Attachment C
Adopted
Specific Plan
Virginia Smith Trust
UCP Village No.1 and UCP Village No. 2
58 59
County of Merced VST Project Team
Mark Hendrickson, Assistant County CEO
Steve Maxey, Director
Tiffany Ho, Deputy Director
Project Developer Virginia Smith Trust
Merced, California
Planning and Management Peck Planning and Development, LLC Morro Bay, California
City of Merced Architecture RRM Design Group
San Luis Obispo, California
Stephanie Dietz, City Manager
Scott McBride, Development Services
Kim Espinosa, Development Services
Michael Beltran, Engineering
Ken Elwin, Public Works
UC Merced
Phil Woods, Planning
Maggie Saunders, Real Estate
Virginia Smith Board of Trustees
Dr. Steve M. Tietjen, Superintendent
Geneva Brett, Trustee
Chris Chavez, Trustee
Dennis Hanks, Trustee
Fred Honore’, Trustee
Frank Fagundes, Trustee
Tim Razarri, Trustee
Engineering
Water and Wastewater
Master Planning
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Biology
Noise and Acoustics
Finance and Economics
Air Quality
Traffic and VMT
Environmental/CEQA
Phase 1/Hazards
Survey
Water and Hydrology
Legal
RRM Design Group
San Luis Obispo, California
MKN Associates
Fresno, California
Natural Investigations Company
Sacramento, California
Kleinfelder, Inc.

Fresno, California
Live Oak Associates, Inc.

Oakhurst, California
Ascent Environmental, Inc
Sacramento, California
Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Morro Bay, California
Ascent Environmental, Inc
Sacramento, Cal
VRPA Technologies, Inc.

Fresno, California
Ascent Environmental, Inc.

Sacramento, California
Provost and Prichard Consulting Group
Merced, California
Odell Engineering and Survey
Modesto, California
Water and Land Solutions
Merced, California
Buchalter
San Francisco, California
60 61
Table of Contents
Volume I: Specific Plan
Introduction........................................................................................................3 Project Entitlements and Process.............................................................................................................3 Special Project Design Features................................................................................................................4 Plan Format and Content....................................................................................7 Format and Content..................................................................................................................................7 Project Overview ..............................................................................................13 Introduction and Project Features..........................................................................................................13 Sustainable Energy Features...................................................................................................................16 Sustainable Open Space and Agriculture................................................................................................17 A Complete “Linked” Community...........................................................................................................18 A Diverse Range of Housing Opportunities.............................................................................................18 Environmental Setting and Background Information.............................................................................19 Biological Resources...............................................................................................................................19 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................................................20 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................................................20 Agricultural Resources and Preservation...............................................................................................20 Groundwater..........................................................................................................................................20 Land Use Plan and Framework..........................................................................23 Land Use..................................................................................................................................................23 Residential Land Uses ............................................................................................................................23 Low Density Residential (R-1) .........................................................................................................23 Medium Density Residential (R-2) ..................................................................................................23 Medium High Density Residential (R-3)..........................................................................................24 High Density Residential (R-4).........................................................................................................24 Town Center Mixed Use Residential (C-MUR)................................................................................25 Commercial Land Uses...........................................................................................................................25 Neighborhood Commercial (CR-Neighborhood) ............................................................................26 Community Commercial (CR-Community)......................................................................................26 Village Center Mixed Use................................................................................................................29 Public and Institutional Land Uses.........................................................................................................29 Parks and Recreation .............................................................................................................................30 Housing Affordability ..............................................................................................................................35 Workforce Housing Incentive Program...........................................................................................36 Self-Help Housing Program.............................................................................................................36 UC Workers First.............................................................................................................................36 62 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan ii
October 17, 2023
Multifamily Construction Program .................................................................................................37 Project Phasing........................................................................................................................................37 Regulatory and Design Framework ...................................................................41 Site Planning and Organization...............................................................................................................41

1.0 Building Orientation and Setbacks...................................................................................................41

2.0 Pedestrian Activity Areas.................................................................................................................49

3.0 Parking..............................................................................................................................................54

4.0 Outdoor Use Areas...........................................................................................................................55

5.0 Screening..........................................................................................................................................55

6.0 Preservation of Views and Scenic Resources...................................................................................55

7.0 Architecture .....................................................................................................................................59 Architectural Character...................................................................................................................59 Scale and Massing...........................................................................................................................68 Building Heights..............................................................................................................................69 Architectural Façade and Treatment..............................................................................................69 Materials and Colors.......................................................................................................................69

8.0 Landscape.........................................................................................................................................70 Planting Concept.............................................................................................................................70

9.0 Buildings, Signs and Lighting ............................................................................................................74 Buildings..........................................................................................................................................74 Signs................................................................................................................................................74 Lighting............................................................................................................................................74

10. Public Art..........................................................................................................................................77 MID History .....................................................................................................................................77 Virginia Smith Memorial .................................................................................................................77 VST Trust Founders.........................................................................................................................77 UC Merced ......................................................................................................................................78 Cultural History-Native Americans..................................................................................................78

11.0 Drainage.........................................................................................................................................78

12.0 Fencing ...........................................................................................................................................80

13.0 Energy Conservation, Energy Production and Water Conservation..............................................84 Energy Conservation.......................................................................................................................84 Onsite Energy Production ...............................................................................................................87 Water Conservation........................................................................................................................88 Circulation Framework......................................................................................91 Project Circulation Features....................................................................................................................91 Overall Circulation Plan and Street Sections ..........................................................................................91 Bicycle Plan ...........................................................................................................................................104 Campus Parkway...................................................................................................................................104 Lake Road..............................................................................................................................................105 Offsite Circulation Impacts....................................................................................................................105 63 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan iii
October 17, 2023
Transit ...................................................................................................................................................105 Infrastructure/Public Facilities Framework .....................................................111 Domestic Water....................................................................................................................................111 Sanitary Sewer ......................................................................................................................................113 Dry Utilities ...........................................................................................................................................113 Storm water, Hydrology and LID Compliance.......................................................................................113 Financing, Services and Governance ...............................................................117 Financing Public Facilities .....................................................................................................................117 Other Financing Mechanisms ...............................................................................................................121 Private Financing..................................................................................................................................121 Impact Fees/In-Kind Improvements ....................................................................................................121 Grants...................................................................................................................................................121 Special Assessment District (1991, 1913, 1915 ACI)............................................................................122 Mello-Roos Community Facilities. Districts .........................................................................................122 Landscaping and Lighting Districts.......................................................................................................123 Traffic Impact Fee .................................................................................................................................124 Park Impact Fee ....................................................................................................................................125 Other Impact Fees.................................................................................................................................125 Plan for Services....................................................................................................................................133 Police Services......................................................................................................................................133 Fire Services .........................................................................................................................................134 Storm Drainage ....................................................................................................................................135 Wastewater Collection and Treatment................................................................................................136 Water ...................................................................................................................................................137 Parks Maintenance ..............................................................................................................................138 Public Works ........................................................................................................................................139 General Government ...........................................................................................................................139 Library, Healthcare and Justice Administration (County) ....................................................................139 Schools.................................................................................................................................................140 Plan Administration........................................................................................143 Review and Permitting..........................................................................................................................143 Specific Plan Authority and Adoption...................................................................................................143 Environmental Review..........................................................................................................................144 Annexation............................................................................................................................................144 Development Review Process...............................................................................................................145 Zoning Boundaries and Subdivisions ...................................................................................................145 Architectural Review............................................................................................................................145 Building Permits...................................................................................................................................145 Phasing..................................................................................................................................................145 64 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan iv
October 17, 2023
Construction and Maintenance of Required Improvements................................................................146 Amendments to the Specific Plan.........................................................................................................146 Interpretations.....................................................................................................................................146 Adjustments.........................................................................................................................................146 Amendments........................................................................................................................................147 Minor amendments......................................................................................................................147 Major amendments ......................................................................................................................147 Development Plan 11”x17”
Appendices
Volume II: Appendices A-F
A—UCP Conformity Analysis
B—Storm Water Plan
C—Water Supply Assessment
D—Water Master Plan
E—Sewer Master Plan
F—Traffic Impact Analysis and VMT Analysis
Volume III: Appendices G-N
G—Biological Reconnaissance Study
H—Wetland Study
I—Cultural Resources Assessment
J—Phase 1 Environmental Assessment
K—Soils and Geology
L—Parks Master Plan
M—Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
N—Traffic Impact Fee Fair Share Analysis
65 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan v
October 17, 2023
List of Tables
Table 1: Specific Plan Development Summary ............................................................................................5 Table 2: Project Buildout by Phase .............................................................................................................39 Table 3: Commercial Design Standards ......................................................................................................45 Table 4: Specific Plan Street Design Dimensions......................................................................................102 Table 5: Specific Plan Street Design Features..........................................................................................103 Table 6: Financing Responsibility for Specific Plan Improvements..........................................................118 Table 7: Specific Plan Service and Maintenance Responsibilities............................................................119 Table 8: CFD Services Cost and Estimated Assessments..........................................................................123 Table 9: Net Allocation of Traffic Improvement Costs to Specific Plan ...................................................127 Table 10: Allocation of TIF to Agencies.....................................................................................................128 Table 11: Transportation Impact Fee per Unit.........................................................................................129 Table 12: Community Park Fee Costs.......................................................................................................130 Table 13: Specific Plan Park Acquisition and Development Fee ..............................................................131 Table 14: Impact Fees Applicable to Specific Plan...................................................................................132 List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location.........................................................................................................................14 Figure 2: Project Vicinity ..........................................................................................................................15 Figure 3: Land Use and Circulation Map ..................................................................................................27 Figure 4: Location of Parks.......................................................................................................................32 Figure 5: Community Recreation Center..................................................................................................33 Figure 6: Sports Park ................................................................................................................................34 Figure 7: Project Phasing..........................................................................................................................40 Figure 8: R-2 and R-1-5 Cluster Unit Development Standards.................................................................42 Figure 9: R-1 Development Standards.......................................................................................................43 Figure 10: R-3/R-4 Development Standards..............................................................................................44 Figure 11: Riparian Channel Setbacks and Fencing....................................................................................48 Figure 12: Ag Buffer Setbacks....................................................................................................................50 Figure 13: Roundabout Design...................................................................................................................52 Figure 14: UC Merced Entry Roundabout..................................................................................................52 Figure 15: Parklettes, Bulbouts and Curb Extensions................................................................................53 Figure 16: Location of Entry Monuments and Themed Roundabouts.......................................................57 Figure 17: Neighborhood and Commercial Signage ..................................................................................58 Figure 18: R-1 and R-2 Neighborhood Streetscape ...................................................................................60 Figure 19: Agrarian Architectural Style ......................................................................................................60 Figure 20: Bungalow Architectural Style....................................................................................................61 Figure 21: Craftsman Architectural Style ...................................................................................................61 66 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan vi
October 17, 2023
Figure 22: Contemporary/Mid-Century Modern Architectural Style ........................................................62 Figure 23: Spanish Mission Architectural Style..........................................................................................62 Figure 24: Contemporary Prairie Architectural Style.................................................................................63 Figure 25: Architectural Style Neighborhoods...........................................................................................67 Figure 26: Front Yard Landscaping Option 1..............................................................................................72 Figure 27: Front Yard Landscaping Option 2..............................................................................................72 Figure 28: Front Yard Landscaping Option 3..............................................................................................73 Figure 29: Front Yard Landscaping Option 4..............................................................................................73 Figure 30: Front Yard Landscaping Option 5..............................................................................................74 Figure 31: Fencing at Open Space..............................................................................................................81 Figure 32: Front Yard Fence Options .........................................................................................................82 Figure 33: Privacy Fence Options...............................................................................................................82 Figure 34: Creek Corridor Fence Options...................................................................................................83 Figure 35: Overall Circulation Plan and Key Map.......................................................................................92 Figure 36: Virginia Smith Parkway .............................................................................................................93 Figure 37: Lake Road..................................................................................................................................94 Figure 38: Campus Parkway (“Urban Expressway”)...................................................................................94 Figure 39: University Avenue .....................................................................................................................95 Figure 40: Section 1 and 2 of Main/Center Street.....................................................................................96 Figure 41: Sections 3 and 4 of Main/Center Street....................................................................................97 Figure 42: Main/Center South of Virginia Smith Parkway .........................................................................98 Figure 43: Meyers Gate Road.....................................................................................................................99 Figure 44: Cardella Road ..........................................................................................................................100 Figure 45: Local Roads..............................................................................................................................101 Figure 46: Campus Parkway Overview and Yosemite to Cardella ...........................................................106 Figure 47: Campus Parkway Cardella to Bellevue....................................................................................107 Figure 48: Campus Parkway Lake Road South of Meyers Gate Detail.....................................................108 Figure 49: Transit Stops............................................................................................................................109 Figure 50: Water Master Plan..................................................................................................................112 Figure 51: Sewer Master Plan ..................................................................................................................114 Figure 52: Storm Drainage Master Plan...................................................................................................115 Figure 53: Offsite Intersections................................................................................................................126 67 Forward and Acknowledgements
The following project is named for Virginia Smith, the benefactor who provided a land grant to the Merced County Office of Education (MCOE) Board of Trustees to provide scholarships to the children of Merced County. Virginia Smith and her brother Cyril Smith bequeathed more than 9,000 acres to provide scholarships for students attending four-year universities. The gift was made in 1971 and by 1975 the first scholarships were issued. To date, more than $4,000,000 in scholarships have been awarded to 4,000 students in Merced County. This land gift was used to attract UC Merced to the community, and was one of three elements that comprised the “Merced Promise” that was made to the UC Regents. Implementation of this Specific Plan and the development of the property will expand the scholarship endowment twenty-five-fold, and is the final element of that promise.

Several Merced County Superintendents of Schools and many Merced County Office of Education (MCOE) Board members have had a part in growing the dream of a more robust scholarship fund during the past 47 years. William Stockard, Ron Tiffee, Dr. Lee Andersen, Dr. Steve Gomes and Dr. Steve Tietjen have all been stewards of the land and advocates for the expansion of scholarships as they served as the elected Merced County Superintendent of Schools.

Key MCOE Board members and community members also have contributed many hours of their own time during the past 47 years as the Trust has flourished and successfully drawn the 10th UC Campus to Merced County. Merced County students owe a debt of gratitude to the following people who advocated at the local and state level to make the dream of the UC campus in Merced County a reality. The list of community leaders is not intended to be exhaustive, but to recognize the efforts of key community members who were strong advocates for the Virginia Smith Trust. They include: Tony Allegretti, Geneva Brett, Barron Brouillette, Jesse Brown, Judy Campbell, Christopher Chavez, Robert Carpenter, Kathleen Crookham, Jim Cunningham, Ben Duran, James Edmonson, Frank Fagundes, John Fowler, Dennis Hanks, Sarah Hanks, Fred Honere’, Betty George, Rodney La Salle, Jim Lindsey, Wayne Maynard, Stan Mollart, Larry Morse Jr., Don Ohlinger, Dwight Oliver, Tim O’Neill, Cathy Paskin, Jerri Randrup, Ken Riggs, Joe Rivero Jr., Kenneth Robbins, Grey Roberts, Larry Salinas, Craig Smith, Robert Smith, Ralph Temple, Steve Wainwright, Elizabeth Wallace, Hub Walsh, and Roger Wood.

Special thanks and acknowledgements to Assemblyman Adam Gray who supported infrastructure improvements, special legislation, and was a tireless champion to complete the “Merced Promise”, as well as the successful location of the University of California campus in Merced.

Dr. Steve M. Tietjen, Superintendent
Merced County Office of Education
and Virginia Smith Trust Executive Director
68 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan
2 October 17, 2023
69 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 3
October 17, 2023
Introduction
Project Entitlements and Process
The Specific Plan for UCP Villages No. 1 and No. 2 was initiated by Merced County Board of Supervisors on March 2, 2021. The Specific Plan includes a description of the overall land use plan and site design to provide 3,860 residential land uses with varying densities, with supporting commercial uses.

Table 1 provides a summary of project’s land uses. The Specific Plan is based on the Amended University Community Plan (UCP) and is intended to satisfy the UCP’s requirement for a specific plan for each “village” within the UCP. Although City of Merced Urban Expansion policies have always encouraged development of the UCP properties as part of the City, when the UCP was formulated between 2005 and 2009, development of the VST site was contemplated to most likely occur in the County, and the UCP therefore provides for many features and conditions that would establish a “new town” for the UCP properties, including the UC campus, and the VST and Hunt properties. 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 eventually annex to the City, or be effectively served by City infrastructure and services.

Since the original adoption of the UCP, many factors have changed, including substantial new development in North Merced, and planning and proposed development for the Bellevue Road corridor in the Bellevue Master Plan. As part of the North Merced Annexation Study, the City prioritized development in North Merced at Bellevue and G Streets, and properties immediately adjacent to the UC Merced campus, including VST. The City has recently reviewed development in North Merced and considers annexation of UC Merced as a priority, and the annexation and development of properties adjacent to UC Merced to be a priority, and the City Council approved proceeding with pre-annexation activities and tasks for the VST property on November 15, 2021. The City has approved the annexation of UC Merced; subsequent to that annexation, VST may annex to the City.

Although annexation to the City of Merced is contemplated for the VST in the near term, its basic entitlements are being conducted and completed in the County because of the extension community planning work conducted for the UCP, and the extensive environmental documentation that has been completed for that area, and the VST property in particular. The entitlement activities in the County include amendment of the UCP, development of this specific plan, coordination of transportation planning work, and other matters. In the interest of cooperation between the City, County, UC and LAFCo, the City and County have each adopted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) so that the City can have a substantive role in the development of the Specific Plan, the consideration of environmental factors, infrastructure financing techniques, and to ensure compatibility with the City General Plan.

The County Board of Supervisors adopted this MOU on June 8, 2021, and the Merced City Council approved the MOU on June 7, 2021. The expectation and plan is for the project’s environmental document and entitlements to adequately cover the annexation of the entire project site by the City immediately after annexation of UC Merced.

Because the planning and environmental components of the project are intended to apply to the entitlements established in the County and related City entitlements, the project demonstrates 70 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 4
October 17, 2023
compliance with the UCP, as amended, the County General Plan, as amended, and County development regulations; and, demonstrates compliance with the City General Plan (including special Urban Growth policies related to the development of UCP properties), development regulations, and housing regulations (including the City’s Inclusionary Housing requirements).

Special Project Design Features
Following the guidance in the UCP, many “green” design features are included in the Plan:

1. Building energy efficiency standards that will enable the project to comply with the “net zero” energy requirements that will likely be in the 2025 building code, and the 2022 CalGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 requirements. The Plan includes a requirement for onsite generation of 100 percent of the residential electrical demand through onsite photovoltaic solar generation (“Solar PV”). This standard applies to all residential buildings in the Plan area. Compliance would be through a combination of solar canopies, roof-top solar panels, and solar shingles, as provided in the Design Framework. Single family units must provide adequate roof area for the required area for the solar array (equivalent of 275-300 square feet per unit of tilted south-facing roof area). R-3, R-4 and Town Center use will have EV charging stations at a rate specified in the design guidelines. The Project also includes a requirement that all residential units be “electric-only”, making it Merced County’s first low carbon development.

2. Transit usage would be encouraged by designation of transit stops, plus information and/or incentive packages for transit ridership.

3. To comply with and exceed the 2022 building code, there are special energy-saving design requirements. Special design requirements include the use of Advanced Framing/Engineering (wider stud placement for decrease in transmission loss and reduction in required framing lumber), Quality Insulation Installation (QII) to minimize envelope and duct seal energy losses, Compact Plumbing to minimize plumbing runs and distance between hot water taps and water heaters, and usage of EPA WaterSense fixtures to reduce indoor water usage.

4. Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. These features include narrower vehicle lanes and wider bike lanes on internal streets. Local road vehicle lanes have been narrowed to 11 feet in conformance with City General Plan requirements while bicycle lanes have been widened to a full 8-foot buffered bike lane standard. These buffered bike lanes occur on all internal collector, arterial and expressway streets. Special at-grade “speed tables”, bulbouts and curb extensions, and textured pedestrian street crossings have also been included. These provide for the traffic calming and a continuous walking experience. Finally, pedestrian through connections have been specified along and between residential blocks.

This results in a pedestrian intersection density of over 500 intersections per square mile, well in excess of the standard established by LEED and the Smart Growth Coalition. 71 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 5
October 17, 2023
Table 1: Specific Plan Development Summary
Item/Issue Project Feature
Residential Uses
Residential: Acreage 440 acres
Residential: Units 3,857 units
Mix of Units 1,277 R-1 units
480 R-2 units
504 R-3 units
1,484 R-4 units
108 Village Commercial Mixed Use
Commercial Uses
Neighborhood 7.2 Acres (104,500 s.f.)
Community 12 Acres (175,000 s.f.)
Village Mixed Use 24.8 Acres (582,500 s.f.)
Potential Uses Local uses
Open Space & Parks
Open Space: Acreage 15.5 Acres
Parks: Acreage 97.8 Acres
Parks: Number 2 Community Parks
39 Pocket and Miniparks
1 Community Recreation Center
1 Regional Sports Park
72 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan
6 October 17, 2023
73 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 7
October 17, 2023
Plan Format and Content
Format and Content
The Specific Plan was developed to guide the development of UCP Villages No. 1 and No. 2 (the Virginia Smith property) located in the University Community Plan Area in Merced County. The Specific Plan includes sections on the environmental setting, a description of the land use, circulation and regulatory requirements for the property, background information on the property and the project, Land Use, Design, Circulation, Infrastructure, Fiscal and Economic Issues, and Administration policies, regulations and strategies. The 2005 University Community Plan (UCP) provides for the development for the project, and the project complies with the requirements of the UCP as amended. A detailed UCP conformity analysis was prepared for the Specific Plan and is included in Appendix A. Actual development of properties subject to the UCP are to be authorized based on individual specific plans for each property or collection of properties, and this Specific Plan satisfies the requirements for the 654-acre VST property.

The Project includes a number of other entitlements related to this Specific Plan, including several General Plan elements, amendments to the UCP to update that document, a vesting tentative subdivision map, a large-lot “conveyance map”, a parcel map, a development agreement, and a preannexation development agreement. While the project will be entitled in the County, it is expected that the project will be annexed to the City after completion of the Specific Plan and EIR. The development regulations contained herein will pass through to and be implemented by the City after annexation.

This Specific Plan begins with a Project Overview followed by a Land Use Plan and Framework that includes the planned land use pattern, proposed development densities in each subarea on the project site and development phasing. Also incorporated into the Land Use Framework is a classification system that clearly identifies uses allowed in each subarea, and “performance standards” for each site and subarea. Other key elements of the Land Use Framework are general site planning and development standards that specify the requirements for all development and land uses regardless of the applicable land-use designation, including sensitive resources, site access requirements, energy efficiency, fences, walls, hedges, buffers, and other screening; noise regulations, outdoor lighting standards, related performance standards (e.g., air quality, glare, vibration, etc.) and undergrounding of utilities. The Land Use Framework also includes the planned housing mix within the area that is in keeping with the General Plan, UCP, the County Housing Element, the City’s Housing Element, and City RHNA Housing Production policies for the inclusion of various types of housing in larger development projects. The Land Use Framework includes a Development Plan which shows a precise development plan for the project site that represents implementation of the policies and regulations in the Specific Plan. The intent of the Development Plan is to provide guidance on the implementation of the policies and regulations in the UCP and the Specific Plan, and to demonstrate conformity of the various subdivision and parcel maps with the Specific Plan. It is conceivable that other precise plans may be consistent with the UCP and the Specific Plan, and the Plan Administration section of the Specific Plan provides for consideration of other development plans.
74 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 8
October 17, 2023
The Specific Plan includes a Regulatory and Design Framework that provides detailed design guidelines to be used as the Plan is implemented. The purpose of these guidelines is to establish the expected level of design quality within the area while still allowing project flexibility and innovation. The objective of this framework is not to dictate a specific design but to establish design expectations that can be implemented as various project components are planned for implementation. The Design Framework is intended to provide guidance on the integration of the site-specific features such as building architecture, with area-wide elements such as streetscape, recreation and open spaces, resources and architecture into the overall project design. The Design Framework also has standards that define the overall character of the streetscape. As individual projects are brought forward for implementation, they will be reviewed by the City staff, the VST Design Review Committee, and the City’s design review advisory bodies for conformity with this plan.

The Circulation Framework of the Specific Plan includes the planned circulation system elements, design standards, and circulation system phasing. The Circulation Framework describes the location of major facilities in or adjacent to the Project including Campus Parkway, connector roads to UC Merced (as described in the university’s Long Range Development Plan), special street widths and amenities. The Circulation Framework also addresses parking and loading standards, if different than standard City requirements, transit needs, and non-vehicular modes of circulation such as pedestrians and bicycles.

The Specific Plan includes an Infrastructure/Public Facilities Framework that covers water, sewer, storm drainage, electricity, natural gas, and communications). For infrastructure, the framework addresses the planned onsite and offsite trunk infrastructure system improvements and system phasing necessary to support implementation of the land-use plan and financing mechanisms to implement planned facilities.

The Specific Plan also includes a Financing, Services and Governance Framework that describes how the infrastructure and improvements in the development are to be financed and maintained, and by whom; a fiscal projection of the revenues from the project and the projected net fiscal impact of the project to the City; and, a description of any special financing mechanisms associated with the project including the Specific Plan Traffic Impact Fee, Specific Plan Parks and Recreation Fee, and the intended use of public facility reimbursement agreements for project infrastructure. This section also includes a plan for services as required by Merced County LAFCo for annexations.

Finally, the Specific Plan includes a Plan Administration Framework that describes the process for amending the specific plan, and the discretionary processes for each phase and type of development. This section of the Specific Plan describes what kinds of actions are administrative in nature and that can be made City or County management staff (City Manager, Public Works Director, City Engineer, Director of Development Services, etc.), those that are interpretive or quasi-judicial and require advisory body review (Planning Commission), and those that are major and/or legislative in nature and require approval of the legislative body (Board of Supervisors and/or City Council.

The UCP and General Plan set out special planning and development objectives for the property.

This Plan includes features responsive to these UCP requirements. The project also addresses needed 75 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 9
October 17, 2023
modifications to the UCP to reflect and be consistent with the changes in the County General Plan and UC Merced’s Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) that have occurred since the adoption of the original UCP. The LRDP has been changed substantially since the adoption of the UCP and there is a need to modify land uses on the project site to reflect current market conditions, revised growth conditions for the university, and the most current version of the UC Merced LRDP. The plan also includes special policies and development regulations that are recommended in the Draft EIR, and the plan should be considered a “mitigated plan”. These policies are highlighted in bold and include a mitigation measure reference number. The actions associated with the approval and implementation of the Specific Plan for the project site include:

1. Amendment of the Land Use Diagram and tables for the UCP to eliminate properties that are contained in the LRDP (since that document takes regulatory precedence over the UCP), and to decrease the development assumed to occur in the LRDP area, to decrease the overall amount of development assumed for the UCP, and to increase the amount of development prescribed for the VST property. As originally approved, the UCP was to contain 11,616 dwelling units and 2.02 million square feet of commercial, office and industrial building area. As now proposed, the UCP Update have 9,680 dwelling units and 1.25 million square feet of commercial, office and industrial building area. While the total development in the UCP will decrease, there will be an increase in the amount of development allocated to the VST property. The number of dwelling units on the VST/UCP North property will increase from 2,417 to 3,857, and there will be an increase in the amount of commercial, office and industrial building area from 147,100 square feet to 862,000 square feet. The balance of the UCP will have the same development capacity and general arrangement of land uses as described in the 2005 UCP.

2. Modification of various portions of the Merced County General Plan, including amending Table LU-2 for consistency with densities and product types proposed for VST; amending the Merced City Planning Area map/graphic to correctly show the SOI and UCP boundary; amending the General Plan Urban Community—University Community map/graphic to correctly show the UCP boundary (with the LRDP properties deleted) and VST specific plan land uses; amending and modifying Circulation Element Table CIR-1 to provide for an “Urban Expressway” section of Campus Parkway north of Yosemite which provides for 100’ to 110’ of rights of way, intersection spacing no more frequently than ¼ mile, four (4) through lanes, limited direct access to major activity centers with auxiliary/frontage lanes, and vehicle speeds of 35 miles per hour and a minimum 500’ centerline radius (as approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 8, 2021); amendment of General Plan Circulation Element Policy CIR-1.5 to specify an intersection operational standard of LOS of “D” in urban areas; amendment of Circulation Element Page CIR-13 to include a “Class IV” protected bike lane, as provided for in the VST Specific Plan and Caltrans Design Guidelines; and miscellaneous changes to maps and figures to correspond to the UCP Update.

3. Inclusion of an affordable housing strategy as required by the UCP and the City RHNA Production Plan. The project proposes 500 deed restricted units, approximately 13 percent of the total units. This is set forth in the Land Use Framework section of this Specific Plan. 76 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 10
October 17, 2023

4. Provision of a Development Agreement for the project that will describe the project, legally establish the specific design regulations for the project site, describe the infrastructure obligations of the project and the methods and timing of reimbursements for portions of the infrastructure that is above the project’s fair share, legally establish the transportation impact fees for the project described in the Infrastructure/Public Facilities Framework section of this Specific Plan, and other matters.

5. Establishment of special design regulations and plans for internal and external pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to the City’s circulation network, and to the university, in conformance with the City and County’s Bicycle Transportation Plans.

6. Provision of water and wastewater infrastructure needs as detailed in the City’s Water and Wastewater Master Plans. This may include funding and/or construction of a wastewater lift station and force main.

7. Inclusion of special energy and Greenhouse Gas reduction strategies and standards.

8. An architectural design that relates to the pastoral character of the area and preserves views of agrarian landscapes.

9. Provision of neighborhood parks, active recreation areas, and open spaces amenities that meet and exceed the requirements of the County and City Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan.

There are several supporting documents associated with the Specific Plan. Those include the following:

1. Amended UCP and UCP Conformity Analysis. This document is provided in Appendix A and includes an analysis of each of the UCP and General Plan policies. This document includes the Amended UCP including goals, policies, objectives, standards and guidelines for conservation and open space, design, circulation, infrastructure, and financing associated with implementation of the project. The amended UCP is also included in Appendix A.

2. Storm Water Control Plan. This document is included in the submittal for the Vesting Tentative Map and demonstrates compliance of the Project with the County’s grading and drainage regulations and the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (“Water Board”) “MS4” Low Impact Development (LID) regulations. Wherever feasible the project uses decentralized storm water quality treatment facilities in conjunction with parks, open space and landscaping. The use of large storage basins and “deep dark” drainage basins has been avoided. A drainage report is also included which demonstrates that the hydrology for the project site complies with state and local regulations, including pre-development runoff and flooding, post-development runoff and flooding, and compliance with various City, State and Federal drainage regulations. This is included in Appendix B.

3. Water Supply Assessment. An SB610/AB211 Water Supply Assessment was prepared for the project to demonstrate the adequacy of water supplies for the project. This report demon77 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 11
October 17, 2023
strates that there is adequate water to serve the project. Contributing to this conclusion is a reduction in onsite water use from the current 2,950 Acre-Fee (AF) used by existing agricultural operations to approximately 1,250 AF per year once the site is converted to urban uses. The Water Supply Assessment is provided in Appendix C. An assessment of the adequacy of the hydraulics of water supply (fire flow, pressure, domestic flow) was also conducted and is provided in Appendix D.

4. Wastewater Master Plan and Sewer Service Assessment. The project conducted a comprehensive, multi-scenario study of the adequacy of the City’s sewer collection system necessary to support the project. It considered the information from the City’s draft Sewer Collection Plan, flow rates from UC Merced (which share collection path with the project), monitoring of sewage flow rates from the newer subdivisions in the City to establish a statistically valid baseline for new development projects in the City, and potential short term improvements to accommodate future flows. The wastewater master plan and sewer assessment are included in Appendix E.

5. Environmental Technical Studies. Various environmental technical studies (in addition to those above) have been prepared that have informed the Development Plan development of the plan. These documents have included:
a. Traffic Impact Analysis, VMT Report, and offsite improvements. (Appendix F) b. Biological Reconnaissance Study (Appendix G)
c. Wetlands Study and Delineation (Appendix H)
d. Cultural Resources Evaluation and Inventory (Appendix I) e. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix J)
f. Geotechnical Report (Appendix K)

6. Additional Planning Documents
a. Parks Master Plan (Appendix L)
b. Subdivision Map (Appendix M)
c. Specific Plan traffic Fee, park Fee, traffic fair share and fiscal impact calculations (Appendix N) 78 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 12
October 17, 2023
79 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 13
October 17, 2023
Project Overview
Introduction and Project Features
The site is composed of approximately 654 contiguous acres at the northeast corner of Lake Road and Cardella Avenue. It is comprised of Assessor’s Parcel No.: 60-020-47 and APN: 60-020-04 (See Figures 1 and 2). The site slopes from the northeast to southwest, although there are localized undulations. It is diagonally bisected by a drainage that is colloquially referred to as Merced Irrigation District’s Fairfield Canal which conveys irrigation water from Lake Yosemite to agricultural users.

The land has a special and storied history. The land was first acquired by Cyril Smith as part of a 16,000-acre acquisition in the low foothills east of Merced to support his family’s sheep herding business. The land was later inherited by Virginia Smith and her brother Cyril after the passing of their father, Elmer. Virginia and Cyril had led comfortable but not extravagant lives and were known to champion worthy causes. Their wills created parallel scholarship trusts to benefit graduates from high schools in the City of Merced. The will named the Merced County Board of Education as the administrator of the trust. In 2023 all high schools in Merced County were determined by the Probate Court to be eligible for Smith Trust scholarships.

The Virginia Smith Trust was formally established on September 9, 1975 and the Board of Education faithfully administered the trust’s assets according to Virginia’s intent. During the early 1980’s the concept of a tenth campus of the University of California was being discussed by the Regents of the University of California. Leaders on the Board of Education, along with local leaders, began working to use the land bequeathed by Virginia Smith to attract the new UC to Merced. A citizens committee was formed that included MCOE Board members, the Mayor of Merced, two members of the county Board of Supervisors, members of the Chamber of Commerce and other community leaders. In June 1987, the trust board decided to sell 3,000 acres to a separate foundation that would in turn donate 2,000 acres to the university and develop the other 1,000 acres to offset the cost of the donation.

In July 1990 Merced became one of eight locations chosen by the UC Regents for further study for the tenth UC campus, and the field was eventually narrowed to three sites, one each in Merced, Madera and Fresno counties. When advocates from the several finalist communities made their final appeals to the UC Regents, the Merced contingent emphasized that they had presented the only signed agreement to donate land, had greater assurances of water supply, an assurance that the university would be part of a master planned community to complement the new campus, and a “promise” 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 California higher education. The Regents agreed and designated Merced and the Virginia Smith property as the site for the university. The final entitlement and sale of the remaining 654 acres of Virginia’s original 3,000 acres that is the subject of this Specific Plan will complete the last piece of the “Merced Promise” made to the Regents and will expand the reach of the Smith Scholarship countywide.
80 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 14
October 17, 2023
Figure 1: Project Location
81 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 15
October 17, 2023
Figure 2: Project Vicinity
82 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 16
October 17, 2023
Sustainable Energy Features
As envisioned by the 2004 Adopted UCP, the
project was to be a model for sustainable development practices. Its design and the Specific Plan have been inspired by the U.S. Green Building Council’s
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for
Neighborhood Development (“LEED-ND”), and the
City and County Climate Action Plans. Just a few of
the features include:

1. Compliance with the City’s Climate Action
Plan, CalGreen and other requirements
for passive solar design for building orientation, south glazing and thermal mass.

2. Use of pervious paving and materials as an alternative to hardscape.

3. Compliance with GreenPoint rated- single family, GreenPoint-multifamily and CalGreen checklists.

4. High-efficiency Energy Star fixtures, appliances and features. All-electric appliances for residential uses in conformance with the State’s “Zero Carbon” strategies, and the most recent CARP Scoping Plan.

5. Single family detached residential buildings that are more efficient than the 2022 California Energy Efficiency (“Title 24”) standards, and multifamily residential and non-residential structures that are at least 10 percent more energy efficient than the 2022 Title 24 standards. Energy efficiency standards also apply to non-residential structures.

6. Alternative energy systems (photovoltaic solar, wind, etc.) capable of delivering 100 percent of the energy demand for the residential units in the project. The project will require that the project be “Net Zero” with all the units with rooftop or solar canopy PV systems that provide at least 100 percent of the unit’s electrical energy demand or equivalent energy saving improvements.

7. Shared Mobility strategies are included to reduce the necessity for additional vehicles for each family, including participation in UC Merced’s ZipCar car sharing program. Car sharing, sharing and/or transit will be provided in the development.

8. Building design standards intended to exceed the 2022 “Net Zero” building codes. To meet and exceed the current 2022 building code, there are design requirements for the usage of Advanced Framing and more energy efficient wall, floor and ceiling assemblies, Quality Insulation Installations, and Compact Plumbing. Advanced Framing/Engineering involves wider stud placement to decrease transmission loss and reduction in required framing lumber.

Quality Insulation Installation (QII) will minimize heating and cooling losses, compact plumb83 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 17
October 17, 2023
ing to minimize plumbing runs and distance between hot water taps and water heaters, and usage of EPA WaterSense fixtures to reduce indoor water usage.

9. Compliance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) optional mitigation measures. These include such features as Walkable Streets and dense bike path network, transit improvements, traffic calming, dense pattern of pedestrian and bike circulation improvements, water conservation strategies, EV charging stations in common areas, affordable housing, mixed use developments, and car/ridesharing. Project features include Transit Enhancements (SJVAPCD Table 4), VMT reduction strategies (SJVPAPCD Table 5), Pedestrian Enhancements (SJVAPCD Table 6), Bicycle Enhancements (SVAPCD Table 7), Ridesharing (SJVAPCD Table 8), Shuttle Services and Transit (SJVAPCD Table 10), Parking Strategies (SJVAPCD Table 11), including reduced parking in mixed use locations, and placement of higher density units nearest the mixed use village center, Transit Access (SJVAPCD Table 12), and Passive Solar strategies (SJVAPCD Table 14),

10. Compliance with SJVAPCD’s “Additional Mitigation Measures” as described in the Land Use Framework.

11. Compliance with the City’s Climate Action Plan.

12. Project features and measures to reduce average daily potable water usage by at least 25 percent below the community’s current residential water demand per unit. Existing residential water use in the City is reported by the State Department of Water Resources to be approximately 130 gallons per day per person (GPCD). Project residential water usage is estimated to be 100 GPCD because of water efficiency features, and more limited onsite landscaping.

Sustainable Open Space and Agriculture
The project will include improvements to the existing riparian corridors for habitat, drainage and pedestrian and bicycle paths. Onsite open space will be provided along the perimeter of the site (and contribute to the required buffers to adjacent ag land). The Fairfield Canal will have adjacent jogging paths that will be integrated with onsite bike and pedestrian paths, resulting in over five miles of total onsite bike and pedestrian trails. These trails will be connected to the UC trails, and to the Lake Yosemite Trail system, resulting in 25 miles of trails.

Progressive storm-water treatment and management improvements will also be used to further the community’s Low Impact Development goals
through the usage of bio-retention swales, runoff
treatment and filtration, permeable paving and pavement systems, water retention gardens and other integrated treatment detention/retention systems.

These facilities will also have the added benefit of
providing open-space and aesthetic value. These improvements will also solve storm-water issues associ84 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 18
October 17, 2023
ated with upstream and adjacent properties.

A Complete “Linked” Community
The area surrounding the UC currently has few neighborhood services, facilities and resources.

As a consequence, the project site will provide a comprehensive range of services such as day care, drug stores, restaurants, schools, an upscale convenience store, a bank, medical and/or dental services, personal-care services, and full-service supermarket within biking or walking distance of the University, and 3,860 onsite residential units. An integrated web of pedestrian and bicycle pathways will be developed along the public street system, dedicated pedestrian pathways, and riparian bike paths. As envisioned in the UCP, the university and UCP will be an integrated community that includes close-by employment and adequate commercial services to meet the needs of the residents and university community.

To establish these needed services and facilities, the VST project will include two small 3.5- to 4.0- acre convenience commercial centers, a 12.5-acre
community shopping center, a mixed use Village Center for offices, personal services, and mixed use residential; pocket and neighborhood parks that are within no more than two blocks of any residential unit, and eight mini-parks within one-eighth mile of residential
units, a community recreation center, and a sports
park; a K-8 elementary school, and a Charter “Scholars” School. The Village Center will have plaza areas for public gatherings, parking to be shared between residential and Village Commercial uses, and areas for a trailhead that is connected by local, community and regional roadways, bike trails, pedestrian linkages and transit. More than just an area for daily shopping and convenience goods, the Village Center will serve as a community gathering place, a transit hub and a location for occasional community events and gatherings. Fully improved transit, trolley, school bus and van pool stops will also be included throughout the site.

The ”links” in the Specific Plan community also include high speed broadband internet. The Specific Plan community will include fiber optic infrastructure, and high-speed community Wi-Fi. It is expected that over two-thirds of the community will be remote workers, hybrid workers, students and others who will rely on connectivity to the rest of the world. It will be a “Gigabit Community” that will support residents’ need for work, play, and connectivity.

A Diverse Range of Housing Opportunities
The project will include a wide range of housing across the economic and socio-economic spectrum. It will also be characterized by styles that have the detailing and architectural authenticity for which
Merced is known, with a wide enough range in styles
to create neighborhood identities and avoid monotony and repetition. There will be areas for traditional single-family units of varying sizes ranging from “es85 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 19
October 17, 2023
tate” custom home lots of 12,000 SF to 20,000 SF; 7,000-10,000 SF “move-up” sized lots; 4,500 Sf to 5,500 SF lots for entry level housing; and smaller lots (3,500 SF to 4,500 SF) for R-2 single family detached units in a pocket or cluster configuration. Attached single family cluster units will be provided adjacent to the Village Center. Higher density multifamily units will be provided for students and families.

In particular, the project will provide housing that will appeal to the community’s “workforce” housing needs with unit sizes, pricing and amenities for UC Merced staff and instructors, for small families, professionals, retirees, “empty nesters” and larger families. The project will provide a substantial number of housing units that are affordable to families with Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, Moderate and “workforce” incomes (80-160 percent of County median family income). The project includes smaller unit sizes (“Pocket Cottages” of 1,000 SF to 1,200 SF) in the R-2 area to widen the socioeconomic base of that area and to offer a lower market rate price point. Within the R-2 area unit sizes range from approximately 1,000 SF to 2,100 SF. The R-3 area includes unit sizes ranging from 700 square foot studio units to 1,750 square foot family townhomes. The R-4 multifamily units will offer smaller studios ranging in size from 550 square foot rental units to 1,150 square foot two-bedroom, two-bathroom units for larger families. Through a combination of market rate housing and deed restricted housing, the project will provide 100 (2.6%) deed restricted units for Extremely Low Income Households, 125 (3.2%) deed restricted units for Very Low Income Households, 1,029 (25%) units for Lower Income Household (including 175 deed-restricted units for rental and homebuyer programs), 1,920 (50%) units for Moderate Income Households (including 100 deed restricted ownership program units), and 733 (20%) units for Above Moderate Income Households. Overall, the project will provide 500 (13% of total) deed restricted units in the development.

The project’s architectural styles will be respectful of local traditions and culture, while meeting present-day lifestyle needs. Anticipated architectural
styles are expected to include highly detailed Agrarian/Ranch, Bungalow, Spanish Mission, Craftsman Bungalows, and Contemporary/Mid-Century Modern.

Neighborhoods will be organized around the project’s
open-space features with a neighborhood park, pocket
park or open-space amenity within walking distance.

Public buildings, park structures and structures in civic meeting places will use an agricultural theme, such as modern or contemporary barn architecture.

Environmental Setting and Background Information
Biological Resources
In conjunction with the development of UC Merced, the project was evaluated for biological resources. The property has completely mitigated onsite impacts to wetlands and fairy shrimp through offsite conservation easements, in compliance with its approved 401 and 404 permits. 86 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 20
October 17, 2023
Air Quality
Long- term air-quality impacts were found to be mitigable, and consistent with the local Climate Action Plans. According to the report on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the project is expected to generate 4.9 vehicles miles per day per person from residential uses, compared to the 15.9 miles per capita per day in the County and the 9.9 vehicle miles per person per day average in the City of Merced. Similarly, the non-residential components are expected to generate 12.5 vehicle miles per day per employee compared to the 40.5 vehicle miles per employee per day in the County and the 37.9 vehicle miles per day per employee rate in the City. The principal feature contributing to this reduction is the project’s location next to the university, but the project design and its features contribute to that as well. Features that attain and reduce those rates are described in the Specific Plan, including car sharing, bike sharing, enhanced transit, extensive bike and pedestrian connections and improvements, school bus service, and other features.

There are design requirements to increase the energy efficiency of single family residential units (R-1 and R-2) by at least 15 percent above 2022 Title 24 standards, and for non-residential and multifamily residential units (NC, R-3 and R-4) to exceed the 2022 standards by at least 10 percent. These improvements will be from the usage of Advanced Framing and more energy efficient wall, floor and ceiling assemblies, Quality Insulation Installations, and Compact Plumbing. Standards are also set for the minimum amount of Solar PV for each building type, for adequate roof area for the solar arrays, and for the placement of solar canopies in common parking lots of multifamily and non-residential areas.

Based on these requirements and the other measures it is expected that Greenhouse Gas and ROG emissions associated with building energy use will be reduced between 50 and 75 percent. Combined with the 25 percent reduction in VMT, air quality impacts associated with the project will be reduced 35 percent to 40 percent.

Cultural Resources
Implementation of the project would entail ground disturbance associated with infrastructure development and construction of new structures, access roads and underground utilities could have an impact on known or unknown cultural resources. A survey of the site was conducted in 2021 by Natural Investigations, Inc. and concluded there were no potential cultural resources of concern.

Agricultural Resources and Preservation
Pending development, the site is under active agricultural production. The project has integrated a number of policies and strategies, including implementation of 200-foot ag buffers to any project habitable structure per the Merced County Zoning Code Update.

Groundwater
Development in the Central Valley will be subject to special restrictions to balance the sustainable yield of the groundwater basin with actual annual extractions. Since the project will be annexed to the City of Merced, it is expected that provisions of the requirements of the Merced Irrigation-Urban Groundwater Sustainability Agency sustainability plan will apply to the project. Although that plan has not been finalized, nor approved by the State Department of Water Resources, it is expected that groundwater extraction will be limited to approximately two-acre feet per year per acre over the entire project site, or an amount equal to two acre feet across the City of Merced’s urbanized area. As identi87 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 21
October 17, 2023
fied in the Water Supply Assessment in Appendix C and elsewhere in this Specific Plan, the full development of the project would not be inconsistent with this requirement. 88 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 22
October 17, 2023
89 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 23
October 17, 2023
Land Use Plan and Framework
Land Use
The Project includes a land use plan which designates 410 acres of residential land uses, 113.3 acres of open space and parks (including 78 acres for parks), 19 acres for a K-8 elementary school, 44 acres for commercial development, and 79 acres for project roads and other improvements (see Table 2 and Figure 3). This would allow for the development of approximately 3,857 residential units (not including allowed density bonus units) and 862,000 square feet (SF) of commercial buildings. Low, medium, medium-high, and high density residential developments would be constructed along planned collector and residential roadways. A community recreation center would be included, along with 39 miniparks and pocket parks, two community parks (one for each development phase) and a 36-acre regional sports park. The Land Use Plan for the project is shown in Figure 3, and the Development Plan for the project is shown in Figure 4. As noted earlier, the Development Plan provides a precise plan level of detail representing how the policies and regulations relating to the physical design of the community would apply.

Residential Land Uses
Low Density Residential (R-1)
The Low Density Residential (R-1) designation for the project is for single family detached units.

Densities include R-1 Low (Estate Residential, 12,500
SF minimum lot size); R-1 Low Medium (7,000 SF
minimum lot size), R-1 Medium (4,500 SF minimum
lot size), and R-1 Medium-Cluster (4,500 SF minimum
lot size in a cluster configuration with shared driveways). At buildout, it is expected that there will be 148 R-1 Low Density Residential dwelling units on 59
acres; 357 R-1 Low Medium units on 84 acres; 693 R-1 Medium units on 116 acres; and 79 R-1 Medium Cluster units on 12.6 acres. All but the cluster units would be configured as units with front- or sideloaded garages. Average dwelling unit sizes are expected to range from 3,750 SF for the R-1 Low units to 1,900 SF for the R-1 Medium Cluster units. Potential unit sizes will range from 1,000 square feet to 4,500 square feet. The Development Plan shows the intended layout of each of the R-1 neighborhoods.

Medium Density Residential (R-2)
The Medium Density Residential (R-2) designation in the project will be primarily 4-pack and 6- pack cluster units that will accommodate small lot detached single-family units. Total R-2 development is projected to be approximately 480 units on 55 acres,
with maximum potential development of 12 units per
net acre. The R-2 units may be in several different
90 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 24
October 17, 2023
configurations, and development shall comply with the design standards in the Specific Plan. The R-2 small lot “Pocket Cottage” concept has been included to address the need for smaller unit sizes in a single family detached format, and these units are intended to range in size from 1,000 square feet to 2,100 square feet and include more limited parking. The R-2 portions of the project will be oriented to provide small-lot moderate income and “work force” housing with housing sizes and corresponding initial sales prices aimed at those families with incomes equal to 80 percent to 160 percent of Area Median Family income. These units will also be used for the project’s Sweat Equity Housing Program. These units also lend themselves well to a “Build to Rent” or “Build for Rent” program where single family detached units are first constructed with the intent to rent them. They are efficient and can be managed
effectively as individual or multiple 4-pack, 6-pack or 8-pack units. Because of their special configuration,
these units will be used as liners for major project
streets, including Virginia Smith Parkway and
Cardella Street, and as cluster units around parks.

They can side or front on to these roads without the
need for individual driveways from those roads, and
can be configured to minimize any vehicle related
noise impacts. They therefore provide a public street frontage that is not dominated by garages, and avoids the need for block walls or other solutions where units “back on” to local streets.

Medium High Density Residential (R-3)
The Medium High Density Residential (R-3)
land use designation is for townhomes, lower density
stacked flat apartments, and condominiums arranged
around a central amenity or open space at a density
between 15 and 20 dwelling units per net acre. The
R-3 portion of the project is expected to yield approximately 504 dwelling units on 31 acres, and may include up to 20 units per acre. Unit sizes will range from a 900 square foot for-sale and for-rent studios
up to 1,800 square foot 3-bedroom 3-bath units. These units are assumed to be divided equally between for-sale and for rent units. These units are located adjacent to the Village Center.

High Density Residential (R-4)
High Density Residential (R-4) residential land
uses will include stacked flat apartments, arranged
around or associated with a central amenity or open
space. The R-4 portion of the project is expected to
yield approximately 1,488 dwelling units on 53 acres,
and are expected to be split 60% (894 units) for student rentals averaging 850 SF per 4 student beds, and 40% (594) for non-student units for university families, 91 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 25
October 17, 2023
staff and instructors. Unit sizes will range from 750 square feet to 1,250 square feet. These units are assumed to be rentals. These units are located along Meyers Gate Road to locate them as close to the university as possible and to reserve the area south of Virginia Smith Parkway principally for owneroccupied units. Sites for 325 of these units will be contributed to a local non-profit housing provider to provide deed restricted housing for Low, Very Low and Extremely Low Income families.

Town Center Mixed Use Residential (C-MUR)
The Town Center Mixed Use Residential (CMUR) land use includes 108 stacked flat apartments, in second and third floors above the Village Center
commercial district along Center Street. The density
of these units is up to 35 units per net acre. Units will typically have access to roof-top gardens and patios
with “green roofs” used to provide stormwater management and localized cooling for the warm Merced summers. The average size of these units is expected to be between 450 SF and 900 SF, and be principally for rent but with some ownership units through the usage of condominium or “three dimensional” subdivision maps. The architectural design of these buildings will be consistent with the “Contemporary Prairie” design vernacular for the Town Center buildings, retail commercial buildings, and public buildings. This vernacular blend the modern and contemporary elements of the UC Campus, newer downtown buildings, and the rich, natural material finishes and designs of buildings in Yosemite National Park.

Parking for these units is at a reduced rate of 1 covered space per unit (shared with commercial uses during the daytime) because of their limited size and bedroom count, and location in a vertically mixed uses setting. This land use is most similar to the City’s Village Core Residential General Plan Land Use, and the Downtown Core zone.

Commercial Land Uses
The project includes community and neighborhood scale commercial retail uses, a mixed use district and a mixed use area for services and office uses.

The commercial, service and office uses have been
scaled and distributed so that they only meet the
needs of the population in the Specific Plan area, the
university’s students, staff and instructors, and the
northern half of the UCP South portion of the UC. In
total, there is 862,000 square feet of commercial space which is expected to provide 50,000 square feet for a
full line grocery store, plus two smaller neighborhood
convenience grocery stores; 300,000 square feet of general retail; 50,000 square feet for personal services; 300,000 square feet of office space (including approximately 75,000 square feet for medical office uses); 75,000 square feet for eating and drinking places; and, 87,000 square feet of other non-residential uses such as hotels, research and development space, and other uses. These uses are intended to be 92 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 26
October 17, 2023
provided incrementally. There is a known demand for convenience commercial uses and Phase 1A of the project will include a small 3.5-acre to 5-acre commercial center that will include a gas station, smaller limited line grocery store, eating and drinking places and general retail. Longer term, the Community Commercial center will be provided Phase 1D, and the Village Center Mixed Use Commercial area will be developed in Phase 1C. Finally, a convenience commercial center will be developed east of the Fairfield Canal to service Phase 2 of the project. Because of its proximity to the university, it is expected that there will be limited demand for the research and development and business park uses that were originally contemplated for the UCP North portion UCP Plan Area.

Neighborhood Commercial (CR-Neighborhood)
Two Neighborhood Commercial (CRNeighborhood) sites are planned, one in Phase 1A at the northeast corner of Campus Parkway and Virginia
Smith Parkway, and a second in Phase 2 along Virginia
Smith Parkway. These sites are intended to provide
neighborhood and convenience level commercial
goods and services within walking distance of any of
the project’s neighborhoods. Both are located along
commuter routes to provide convenience and accessibility. This land use is comparable to the “retail” land use category in the UCP, but is smaller in scale and focused on meeting the needs of travelers along the adjacent streets and residents within a one-quarter mile radius. It is also comparable to the City of Merced’s CN-Neighborhood Commercial General Plan land use category, with the exception that these uses are limited to five acres in size.

Community Commercial (CR-Community)
A Community Commercial (CR-Community) site
is proposed on Cardella between Center Street and
Golden Bobcat Road. This is a 12-15 acre site which is
planned to be anchored by a 40,000 to 60,000 full line
grocery store, a drug store, eating and drinking places, a gas station, fast food uses, and general retail. This
land use is comparable to the “retail” land use category in the UCP, but focused in size, scale and location to
serve the weekly shopping needs of the VST Specific Plan area and the northern portion of the UCP South. It is also comparable the City of Merced’s C-SC-Shopping Center Commercial land use zone category, with the exception that the CR-Community zone provides for a broader range of uses since alternative shopping opportunities are limited in the vicinity. Regional scale uses similar to those intended for the city’s Regional/Central land use zone are not encouraged in this zone so as not to compete with Downtown Merced, or the regional commercial uses planned for Gateways Regional Commercial Center at Campus Parkway and Highway 99.
93 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 27
October 17, 2023
Figure 3: Land Use and Circulation Map
94 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 28
October 17, 2023
Figure 4: Development Plan
95 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 29
October 17, 2023
Village Center Mixed Use
The plan includes several commercial zones in
the Village Center along Center Street, including Village Center-Mixed Use (VC-MU) and Village Center-Mixed
Use/Offices (VC-MUS). The entire Village Center Mixed
Use portion of the project is intended to have many of
the following features of desirable urban and suburban
central districts: 1) smaller retailers; 2) diversity of services; 3) eating and drinking areas, including outdoor eating and drinking areas in sidewalk cafes and parklettes; and, 4) adequate parking and circulation, but the buildings are set to the front property lines and the parking and support functions are from rear parking lots and service areas. The VC-MU use areas are similar to the City of Merced’s Downtown Core Zone. The VC-MUS area is similar to the City of Merced’s Downtown Office and Business Park land use zones. In the VC-MUS land use area, it is expected that there will primarily be employment generating uses such as professional offices, medical offices, hotels and lodging, limited research and development, and the proposed University Charter School.

Public and Institutional Land Uses
As required by the UCP, the project site includes an elementary (K-8) public school site, plus an MCOE “Scholars Academy” university prep school. Other schools to serve the project area and UCP south are provided in UCP South, including an additional elementary (K-8) school, a middle school and a high school. The project site’s K-8 site is adequately sized for up to 950 students, and the MCOE Charter school that can accommodate 300 additional students. The project also includes a public safety site for a police substation and a fully staffed two-engine fire crew. The public safety site is located in Phase 1A. The K-8 school site is located in Phase 1E, and the University Prep charter school is located in Phase 1C.

Certain open space areas are designed for Conservation/Open Space including the Fairfield Canal and the Cottonwood Creek corridors. These areas will be used as open space amenities for the project and will include jogging trails, exercise locations, and public viewpoints. 96 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 30
October 17, 2023
Parks and Recreation
Parks and recreation are important functions
and amenities for any master plan community. Within the VST Specific Plan there is a total of 73.2 acres of public and private park space, 20 acres of space for
active recreation in the various Linear Parks, and 4.8
acres of active park areas in the various schools, for a total of 98 acres of parks. This provides parks at a
rate of 8.8 acres per 1,000 residents, 75% higher than
the 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents rate prescribed by
the City of Merced and the UCP. These facilities are
to be provided in a mix of linear parks, a sports park, neighborhood parks, mini-parks, and pocket parks
and community gardens, with at least half of that
provided neighborhood, community and sports park.

These main facilities are to be located within one-half to one mile of the serviced population, and the miniparks are to be located no more than 500 feet from any residential unit. Figure 5 shows the overall distribution of parks in the project. Appendix L shows the detailed Parks Master Plan and park development
matrix.

One of the key features of the project is a
community recreation area that includes a 6.6-acre
community facility that includes a 12,000 square foot
clubhouse and recreation center, two community
swimming pools, tot lots, areas for court games, and
a structure for a farmers’ market. It is centrally located next to the Village Center and will function as the community gathering place and social focal point. Community recreation and social programming will be provided through onsite staff. This facility will be limited to Specific Plan residents only and will be supported by a Master Homeowners Association. Figure 5 shows an illustration of the features in the community recreation center.

The project has an extensive system of linear
parks that total 19.8 acres. These linear parks connect the various major destinations in the project, and serve as locations for low impact development
storm water management, recreation and trails, and
visual relief and aesthetics along two-mile length of
Virginia Smith Parkway and connect the sports park,
Village Center, Community Park, shopping areas, and
97 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 31
October 17, 2023
project school sites. Combined with the linear park areas in the project there are over five miles of onsite trails and paths for active recreation.

There are thirty-nine mini-parks and pocket parks in the project totaling 17.2 acres. These parks are located in each residential neighborhood and development (including individual apartment projects) will also serve the neighborhoods. Each will be one-half to 2.5 acres in size and provide facilities such as community gardens, tot lots, passive play areas, BBQ and picnic areas, basketball courts, community gardens, dog park, and landscaping. These will serve residents within a two-block radius and fill the few “gaps” in the coverage for the neighborhood park facilities. The mini-parks will be phased with adjacent residential development to provide park facilities for future residents near their homes.

Finally, the project includes a 34-acre community sports park with soccer fields, court game areas, baseball fields adjacent to the Fairfield Canal. The community sports park will be developed in phases with 10 acres initially development in Phase 1 (Phase 1E portion of the project), and the balance in Phase 2. Figure 6 shows an illustration of the planned sports park. 98 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 32
October 17, 2023
Figure 4: Location of Parks
99 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 33
October 17, 2023
Figure 5: Community Recreation Center
100
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 34
October 17, 2023
Figure 6: Sports Park

101
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 35
October 17, 2023
Housing Affordability
There is an intentional mix of residential densities in the project to address the housing needs of the UC staff, students and instructors, as well as the
community at large. The planned housing includes a
range of larger R-1 lot sizes, R-2 “four-packs”, “sixpacks” and cluster units, and R-3 and R-4 multifamily dwellings, with an emphasis on smaller lot, higher
density units. The project also includes mixed
use/live-work units in the Village Center to address
the needs of those who want a more “urban” residential setting. Because of the location next to the university, the High Density (R-4), Medium High Density (R-3) and Town Center Mixed Use Residential (C-MUR) represent over half of the residential units. These units are provided at densities ranging from 20 units to the acre to 35 units to the acre in a mix of student housing (900 units) and housing for university families and staff (1,200 units). These densities are important since the State Department of Housing and Community Development, (California Government Code Section 65583.2) and the City and County Housing Elements consider parcels and areas which allow at least 20 units per net acre to be suitable and available for Low and Very Low Income Housing by virtue of lower lot costs, lower improvement costs and economies of scale for development.

Medium Density R-2 and R-1-5 “Cluster” units
provide 559 (15 percent) of the total units. These
types of units provide opportunities for small-lot
workforce housing at densities from 8 to 12 units per
net acre on smaller lots, but with detached single
family homes. The R-2 units are often referred to as
“Pocket Cottage” units and meet the needs of young
professionals, empty nesters and young families.

They are smaller in scale and have floor plans ranging from 1,000 to 2,100 square feet in 2BR/2B and 3BR/2B configurations with private patios and a shared front yard area. These units are also well suited for single family build to rent projects since they can be effectively managed as clustered units, rather than for scattered lots. The R-2 and R-1-5 Cluster units can provide a substantial contribution towards the need for market rate “workforce” housing and housing for moderate income (80-160 percent of local median family income) families. The R-2 single family units are located where there are streetscape benefits (functionally and aesthetically) resulting from few driveway cuts and orientation to open space.

For example, houses could have front doors facing main public streets such as Virginia Smith Parkway and Cardella Road, but access points will be limited to intersecting public streets, or through rear or side common driveways. Other front access points may be on side streets or from the internal, shared front yards in the cluster.
102
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 36
October 17, 2023
R-1 Single-family units of densities ranging from 3.25 to 6.5 units per net acre comprise approximately one-third of the total units (1,280 units). Lot sizes for the R-1 single-family units are planned to range from a low of 5,000 SF to a high of 22,500 square feet. These units are intended to address the needs of the university staff and instructors and support housing housings sizes in the 1,800 square foot the 5,000 square foot range. According to the recent salary survey for UC Merced there are 1,100 positions (staff and instructors) out of the 1,500 total positions whose projected household incomes would qualify them for R-1 Single Family units in the project.

In addition to providing a range of housing types that match up with the needs of UC Merced and the community in general, the project has developed several programs to encourage affordability.

These programs are also intended to comply with the County Housing Element, the City Housing Element and the City of Merced’s recently adopted RHNA Unit Production Policy. Programs include a Workforce Housing Incentive Program; a Self-Help Housing Program; a “UC Workers First” incentive program to encourage university staff and instructors to locate in the project (and possibly increase the share of staff residing in the City); an Affordable Multifamily Construction Program to provide sites for Low, Very Low and Extremely Low income families; and, an owner-occupancy requirement for the R-1 units and portions of the R-2 areas of the project. These programs are described briefly below:

Workforce Housing Incentive Program
This program will provide 150 units at initial prices affordable to low and moderate income (80%-120% of AMI) based on lender underwriting criteria for insurance, Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) interest rates, common area charges, etc. The program includes a $5,000 down payment assistance through an equity sharing program where buyer will fully vest after 10 years, and progressively gain a greater share of the equity in years 1-9. This program applies to 7.5% of the R-1 and R-2 housing stock and results in 50 enforceably restricted Low Income units and 100 enforceably restricted Moderate Income housing units. In total, 152 Low and Moderate Income units would be enforceably restricted for affordability.

Self-Help Housing Program
This program would provide improved housing sites on R-2 cluster lots for self-build, sweat equity program. Buyers would build units according to standards and specs provided by VST builders. This would provide 25 units for Very Low and Low Income households that would have affordability covenants.

UC Workers First
Preference for purchasing and renting will be provided to UC staff, students and instructors to fulfill the commitment in the UCP that the specific plan be socially and economically integrated with the university. A preference list will be developed for each project and housing types for UC staff, students and instructors to encourage locating in the development to realize reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled and synergy between UC and UC community. This program is expected to capture 50% of staff and 25% of students. For sale builders will provide a $5,000 incentive toward price reductions, option allowances, or an allowance for closing costs, at the discretion of builder. This program is expected to benefit 50 Lower Income households, 550 Moderate Income households, and 200 Above Moderate Income households. 103
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 37
October 17, 2023
Multifamily Construction Program
The Multifamily Construction Program will provide 10.7 acres of improved R-4 sites that are adequate for up to 300 dwelling units, with sites for at least 200 units in Phases 1A through 1E and 100 units in Phase 2. These sites will be provided to affordable housing providers and will be developed with a combination of market rate units, and at least 100 units for Extremely Low Income households, 100 units for Very Low Income Households, 100 units for Low Income Households, and 75 units for Moderate Income households. This program would also include construction of 25 Very Low Income units in the Mixed Use Town Center area. In total this program will result in 400 units that will be enforceably restricted.

Project Phasing
Figure 7 shows the phasing of the project and the land uses. This phasing is primarily determined by the required location of sewer, water and circulation facilities, existing road improvements, and site topography, the need to balance the mix of land uses, and to ensure that the current agricultural areas in the project can be farmed for the longest time period. The project is comprised of the following major phases and sub-phases. Table 2 shows the buildout of the project according to each phase and sub-phase.

Phase 1 includes the portion of the property between Lake Road, Meyers Gate Road, Cardella and the Fairfield Canal, and, in total, would include 2,541 dwelling units, 807,500 sq. ft. of commercial space, 49 acres for parks, a public elementary (K-8) school, and a MCOE Scholars Academy magnet school. This portion of the project is further divided into five subphases as shown in Figure 7.

Phase 1A of the project includes a mix of 841 residential units, including 43 low density/large lot units, 66 R-1-5 cluster units, 36 R-2 cluster units, and 696 multifamily units (comprised of 418 student apartments and 278 market rate/family apartment units). Phase 1A also includes a 50,000 square foot Village Commercial site at Campus Parkway and Virginia Smith Parkway, and the northerly portion of Campus Parkway. The infrastructure improvements for Phase 1A are anticipated to begin in early 2025 and be complete by the end of 2025 or early 2026. These improvements would include the offsite sewer and water connections, initial improvements to Lake Road along the Phase 1A frontage, and construction of in-tract improvements within Phase 1A. Construction of the residential units would begin in early 2026 and be completed in late 2028. This phase includes a range of housing types, but with a heavy focus on higher density (R-4) housing, including student housing to address the current shortage of multifamily housing in the community. The Village Commercial portion of Phase 1A would likely include a gas station, small grocer, retail shops, services and restaurants. Nearly 5.3 acres of public parks are included in Phase 1A (including a mix of linear parks, private parks in apartment complexes and public parks).

Phase 1A would also include a site for a combined fire station and police substation on Virginia Smith Parkway just east of Campus Parkway; actual construction and staffing will be determined by the City of Merced based on service needs. Phase 1A will also include a water well on the project site that will be located in the Community Recreation Center in Phase 1D, as well as connection of the onsite water system to the water main at Bellevue and Lake Road (and the intertie to City Well No. 17 at UC Merced).

Phase 1A will also include construction of the onsite sewer collection and pump station at the corner of Cardella and Lake Road, and the offsite force main to the Bellevue Road sewer trunk line. 104
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 38
October 17, 2023
Phase 1B includes three R-1 housing types and infrastructure improvements would be expected to start in early to mid-2026 and be completed by late 2026. This phase is comprised of 20 Low Density/Large Lot units, 49 R-1-7 units, and 157 R-1-5 units. Construction of the 226 R-1 residential units would begin in late 2026 and be complete in early 2029, although it is conceivable that Phase 1B could be developed concurrent with Phase 1A since the residential product types are complementary. This phase does not include commercial development or multifamily units. Phase 1B includes 7.6 acres of public parks. Phase 1B would include the completion of the onsite portion of Campus Parkway and completion of the northerly two-thirds of Cardella Road between Lake Road and Golden Bobcat Drive.

Phase 1C includes the bulk of the Village Center Mixed Use portion of the project, the multifamily area surrounding it (R-3 townhomes and condominiums and the R-4 apartments), and the MCOE Scholar’s Academy. Building construction would likely be completed by 2031. Residential development projected for this phase includes 992 units of primarily higher-density development including 64 R-2 Cluster units along the Virginia Smith Parkway frontage, 364 R-3 townhomes and condominiums, 456 R4 apartment units (including 274 student apartments and 182 family and market apartments), and 108 Town Center Mixed Use residential units on the second and third floors above ground floor retail and office space. This phase includes approximately 550,000 sq. ft. of commercial development, primarily associated with the Center Street/Village Center area, including retail/mixed use and hotel/office. It is possible that Phase 1C and Phase 1D could be developed concurrently because of the different product types in each subphase. No public parks are included in this phase, although 5.8 acres of private park are included to be located in the multifamily developments. Necessary infrastructure to support development in Phase 1C includes backbone roadway network and utility improvements within the subphase.

This subphase would also include the construction of the offsite traffic signals at Lake Road/Virginia Smith Parkway and Lake Road/Meyers Gate Road.

Phase 1D includes the development of 141 R-1-5 and 24 R-2 cluster dwelling units, the community recreation center, and the community shopping center. It is anticipated that the infrastructure improvements could begin as soon as 2027 and are projected to be complete by 2028. Construction of the residential and commercial buildings could start in early 2029 and be completed by early 2032. It is possible that Phase 1C and Phase 1D could be developed concurrently because of the different product types in each subphase. The Community Commercial site is located at the northwest corner of Cardell Road and Center Street and is planned to include 175,000 sq. ft. of commercial development including a major grocery store, general merchandise stores, restaurants, a drug store and retail mixed use. Phase 1D also includes 32,500 sq. ft. of additional Village Center Commercial space that would complete the development of all four corners of Virginia Smith Parkway and Center Street with Village Commercial uses. Phase 1D includes 7.3 acres of public park and 1.4 acres of linear park. A traffic signal is also projected to be constructed at Lake Road/Cardella Road to support the Community Commercial center.

Phase 1E includes an elementary school and the portion of the community sports park east of the Fairfield Canal, and 186 R-1 units and 131 R-2 cluster residential units. The elementary school would be constructed by Weaver Union School District, and the precise timing is unknown. The infrastructure improvements for Phase 1E would be started in early 2030 with completion expected in early 2031.

Construction of the residential and commercial building is projected to start in 2031 and be completed in early 2034. No commercial development is identified in Phase 1E. Over 4.5 acres of linear parks and 105
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 39
October 17, 2023

15.5 acres of public parks are included in this phase. The elementary school would also add 4.8 acres of park facilities.

Phase 2 of the project has been conceptually planned to ensure connectivity to Phase 1 and to provide land uses that complement uses in Phase 1. Overall, Phase 2 is planned to include 1,316 dwelling units, including 615 R-1 units of various densities, 225 R-2 Cluster units, 140 R-3 units and 336 R-4 units. Phase 2 would include approximately 45.6 acres for parks, including the bulk of the regional sports park on the east side of the Fairfield Canal, and a small 54,500 sq. ft. neighborhood shopping center.

Table 2: Project Buildout by Phase
Development Per Phase
Land Use Type
Phase 1 Phase 2 Total
Phase
1A
Phase
1B
Phase
1C
Phase
1D
Phase
1E
Total
Phase 1
Residential (Units)
R-1 109 226 -- 141 186 662 615 1,277
R-2 36 — 64 24 131 255 225 480
R-3 — — 364 — — 364 140 504
R-4 696 — 456 — — 1,152 336 1,488
Mixed Use — — 108 — — 108 — 108
Total Residential (Units) 841 226 992 165 317 2,541 1,316 3,857 Commercial (SF)
Retail Mixed/Town Center) — — 275,000 32,500 — 307,500 — 307,500 Hotel/Office — — 275,000 — — 275,000 — 275,000
Neighborhood Commercial 50,000 — — — — 50,000 54,500 104,500 Community Commercial — — — 175,000 — 175,000 — 175,000
Total Commercial (SF) 50,000 — 550,000 207,500 — 807,500 54,500 862,000 Parks (Acres)
Linear Parks 1.23 4.16 1.40 4.50 11.29 8.47 19.76
Public Parks 2.14 3.48 7.30 15.50 28.42 34.79 63.21
School Parks 4.82 4.82 4.82
Private Parks 1.88 5.79 7.67 2.36 10.03
Total Parks (Acres) 5.25 7.64 5.79 8.70 24.82 52.20 45.62 97.82 Public Facilities (Acres)
Backbone Roads 10.58 6.52 12.92 6.17 6.17 42.36 27.46 69.82 Water 1.50 4.20 5.70 9.84 15.54
Other 7.50 7.5 7.5 15.0
Schools 4.40 14.89 19.29 19.29
Total Public Facilities (Acres) 19.58 10.72 17.32 6.17 21.06 74.85 44.80 119.65 Affordable Housing
Workforce Housing Program 25 25 25 75 75 150
Self Help Housing Program 13 12 25 25
Multifamily New Construction 100 125 225 100 325
Total Affordable Housing Units 125 13 175 37 325 175 500 (Units counts do not include permitted density
bonuses for qualified projects.)
106
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 40
October 17, 2023
Figure 7: Project Phasing
107
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 41
October 17, 2023
Regulatory and Design Framework
This section includes design standards and guidelines for the project. These standards are intended to implement the policies and regulations in the Amended University Community Plan. They are also intended to replace and supersede equivalent regulations the County Zoning Ordinance and the City of Merced Zoning Ordinance, and to implement the goals and polices of the Merced County General Plan, the Amended University Community Plan, and the goals and policies in the City of Merced General Plan applicable to the UCP area in general and the VST specific plan area in particular. Where specific design standards and guidelines are set forth within these guidelines, they shall be used; where there are design requirements and regulations in the City Zoning Ordinance and/or the County Zoning Ordinance that are not in this document, those provisions shall apply.

As used herein, Standards define actions or requirements that must be fulfilled by new development. Alternatively, Guidelines refer to methods or approaches that may be used to achieve a stated goal but to provide some flexibility and allow for interpretation depending upon specific conditions as to how they are satisfied. Collectively, the standards and guidelines incorporated herein are meant to guide implementation of the vision intended for the project.

Site Planning and Organization

1.0 Building Orientation and Setbacks
Pedestrian interaction for the project is encouraged through the thoughtful placement and orientation of residential and commercial structures. Porches will be incorporated on street-facing residential units to provide opportunities for everyday neighborhood interaction. Residential units fronting onto east-west Collector and Arterial streets such as Virginia Smith Parkway, Cardella Road and Meyers Gate Road will have limited or no direct vehicle access points to preserve the residential streetscape without having the interruption of driveways and vehicle maneuvering. Where R-2 Cluster, R-1-5 Cluster, R-3 and R-4 units are adjacent to these roads (front on, side-on or back on), designs shall avoid the usage of block walls or fences as transitions or barriers. R-1 units that are adjacent to collectors or arterials may use fences or walls, but the wall treatments and landscaping should de-emphasize the walls or fences.

1.1 Residential building setbacks shall conform to the development standards set forth in Figures 8 through 10. Along the Residential Collectors at least 75 percent of the units shall be two stories in height.

1.3 Buildings located within the Village Commercial Town Center shall have street yard setbacks of zero feet and be developed in accordance with the development standards in Table 3.
108
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 42
October 17, 2023
Figure 8: R-2 and R-1-5 Cluster Unit Development Standards 109
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 43
October 17, 2023
Figure 9: R-1 Development Standards
110
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 44
October 17, 2023
Figure 10: R-3/R-4 Development Standards
111
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 45
October 17, 2023
Table 3: Commercial Design Standards
Neighborhood
Commercial
Community
Commercial
Village Center/
Mixed Use
Village Center
Mixed
Use/Offices
CRNeighborhoodCR-Community VC/MU VC/MUS
Building Setback
Front (minimum)
Public Street
1st Floor 10' 20' 0' 10'
2nd Floor 10' 20' 0' 10'
3rd Floor NA NA 7.5' 15'
Front (maximum)1
Public Street
1st Floor NA NA 5' NA
2nd Floor NA NA 5' NA
3rd Floor NA NA 12.5 NA
Rear
Residential 35' 40' 35' 25'
Non-Residential 10' 10' 10' 5'
Side
Public Street 15' 15' 5' 10'
Residential 10 10 5' 5'
Non-Residential 5' 5' 5' 5'
Landscaping
Public Street
Minimum 10' 15' 7.5' 10'
Minimum Average 15' 20' 10' 15'
Residential 10' 15' 5' 10'
Non-Residential 5' 10' 5' 5'
Adjacent Sidewalk
Main Street NA 5' 15' 15'
Other Streets 5' 5' 7.5 5'
Parkway Landscaping 7’ 7’ 7’ 7’
Building Height 35' 35' 45' 45'
1 Maximum setback permitted for no more than 25% of street frontage. 112
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 46
October 17, 2023

1.4 Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial buildings shall be sited to address adjacent streets with the main building facades oriented primarily towards Cardella Road (for Community Commercial buildings) and to Virginia Smith Parkway for Neighborhood Commercial buildings and be developed in accordance with the development standards in Table 3. Commercial buildings may be oriented to adjacent major streets (Campus Parkway and Center Street) and a manner consistent with the Development Plan.

1.5 Neighborhood Commercial buildings facing streets shall incorporate horizontal and vertical building wall articulation through the use of wall plane offsets and other features which articulate walls such as recessed windows and entries, second floor setbacks, and awnings and canopies. There shall also be regular pedestrian and bicycle access points along the public street frontage no less frequently than every 100 feet, with access points every 75 feet preferred.

1.6 Residential buildings along Meyers Gate Road, Virginia Smith Parkway, and Cardella shall be oriented to the street with front doors or porches fronting on the street. Dwellings along those streets and the principal north-side streets in the project (including, but not limited to Campus Parkway, Golden Bobcat, Center Street and Kibby Road) shall only have access from the side or rear and there shall be no direct individual driveway access to these roadways. Pedestrian and bicycle access to those roads should be provided through side-on cul de sacs and/or pedestrian walk throughs or other means.

1.7 Residential buildings on lots adjacent to greenbelt areas, e.g., Fairfield Canal and Cottonwood Creek, open spaces, neighborhood parks, and linear parks, shall be oriented with front doors and porches, or secondary patios and yards fronting on the greenbelt area. Such units shall have vehicular access from the side or rear and there shall be no direct individual driveway access to and from the open space.

1.8 Within R-3 and R-4 residential zones,
parking shall be utilized as a buffer to
more intense land uses, and buildings
shall be set back no less than 75 feet,
with the intervening area comprised
of parking areas with solar canopies
for energy generation and sound attenuation. To ensure noise compatibility with adjoining uses, sleeping and living areas should be oriented
away from any existing or future noise sources.

1.9 Buildings and improvements adjacent to the Fairfield Canal and Cottonwood Creek shall have adequate setbacks to ensure adequate fill and cut slopes, and transition area as shown in Figure 11. Within the structural influence area of the Fairfield Canal, the set113 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 47
October 17, 2023
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 setback to the nearest structure. A Wood Frame Hog Wire fence or a Metal Rail Horse Panel fence, as illustrated in Figure 34 with a wildlife passage, shall be provided along these corridors to discourage pedestrians and trespassing.

1.10 Buildings and improvements adjacent to Cottonwood Creek shall provide for a 50-foot wide flow area, a 25’ transitional and planting area, plus a 20 foot setback to any buildings, as illustrated in Figure 20 of the UCP.

1.11 In order to improve the visual quality of the streetscape in the R-1 and R-2 zones, every third house should include a variation to the front yard setback of at least five feet.

1.12 Front yard setback variations for houses in the R-1 and R-2 zones should not be less than two to five feet, with a minimum street yard of ten (10) feet.

1.13 Buildings should be sited, and rooflines designed to take advantage of solar access for each unit to the greatest extent possible.

1.14 Where applicable, residential units should be oriented to front or side onto parks and open spaces to provide safety and maximize visibility of the park, where appropriate.

Fencing types and landscaping palettes shall be used to reinforce the connectivity of the dwelling units to the open space and park areas.

1.15 Attached residential units should be designed and detailed to correlate to neighboring single-family detached and/or attached homes. The architecture should incorporate the best features of the neighboring units.

1.16 Pedestrian linkages to nearby neighborhoods and commercial services should be provided within all zones.

1.17 Setbacks are required to permanent agricultural uses per County Zoning Ordinance

18.10.040, including UC Merced Experimental Farm. These areas exist along the northeastern, eastern and southeastern edges of the project site. Figure 12 demonstrates how these areas shall be developed to comply with this standard.

1.18 Buildings and noise generating appliances and activities shall be set back, designed and constructed so that new noise-generating land uses in a manner that does not cause excessive exterior or interior noise for noise-sensitive land uses on any location of nearby residential properties. The exterior noise standard for noise-sensitive land uses is of 60 dBA Ldn and the interior noise standard for residential structures and other noise-sensitive land uses is 45 dB Ldn; provided, however, that residential uses within and immediate adjacent to the Village Center shall be considered commercial mixed uses for the purposes of determining noise compatibility. Additionally, exterior 114
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 48
October 17, 2023
stationary source noise standards for noise-sensitive land uses are 60 dB Leq between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00p.m. and 45 dB Leq and 50 Lmax between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. shall not be exceeded by stationary noise generating land uses at any existing or planned residential land use. Noise reduction features shall be included in the design of any land use that has noise sources affecting residential land uses. These noise reduction features shall include structure design including sealed load docks and layout, site planning, and other measures; block walls and barriers (including berms) shall only be used where such measures are deemed infeasible or ineffective. (MM 3.6-2).

1.19 Loading docks shall be located and designed such that noise generated by activity at the loading dock would not exceed the City’s stationary noise source criteria (i.e., exterior noise levels of 55 dB Leq between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00p.m. and 45 dB Leq and 50 Lmax between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.) at any existing noise sensitive receptor. As part of the design-build process for uses that include loading docks, a specialized noise study will be completed to evaluate the specific design and ensure compliance with City of Merced noise standards. Reduction of loading dock noise can be achieved by locating loading docks as far away as possible from noise sensitive land uses, constructing noise barriers between loading docks and noise-sensitive land uses, or using buildings and topographic features to provide acoustic shielding for noise-sensitive land uses. Final design, location, and orientation shall be dictated by findings in the noise study. (MM 3.6-2).

Figure 11: Riparian Channel Setbacks and Fencing
115
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 49
October 17, 2023

2.0 Pedestrian Activity Areas
Neighborhood parks, open space trails, linear parks, and plazas in the Village Center comprise the primary pedestrian activity areas within the project. These areas are envisioned to encourage healthy, active lifestyles within individual neighborhoods while also providing a location for ongoing neighborhood social events.

2.1 Reserved.

2.2 The Village Commercial plazas shall
be a minimum size of 5,750 sq. ft.
each. These plazas shall provide for
outdoor seating and eating places,
public gathers and enhanced landscaping.

2.3 Mini Parks and Pocket Parks shall be
provided within or adjacent to each
individual neighborhood as delineated in the development plan and parks master plan. These parks shall
be provided in accordance with the
approved master plan, and programmed in accordance with the amenities shown in the parks matrix in Appendix L. These park facilities are provided in excess of the City of Merced’s requirements for neighborhood and community parks. Neighborhood and community parks shall be provided at a rate no less than five acres per thousand population. 116
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 50
October 17, 2023
Figure 12: Ag Buffer Setbacks
117
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 51
October 17, 2023

2.4 Each neighborhood adjacent to open space areas should provide convenient access to the Cottonwood Creek corridor, Linear Park along Virginia Smith Parkway and the Fairfield Canal open space.

2.5 The character of Center Street in the Village Commercial area should provide a pedestrian-friendly environment with accessible sidewalks, bulbouts, parkway landscaping, street trees, limited driveway access points, and reduced front building setbacks.

2.6 Roundabouts, bulbouts, and decorative paving should be incorporated at primary intersections locations and within subdivisions to enhance pedestrian access and provide traffic calming. Roundabouts shall provide decorative landscaping, including trees that provide for monumentation and reference points within the project, as shown on Figure

13. The Campus Parkway roundabouts at University and Campus Parkway will provide a transition from the project to UC Merced and shall provide thematic improvements such as those illustrated on Figure 14. At-grade crossing, curb extensions and bulbouts shall be used on local and minor streets no less frequently than one every 500 feet to ensure that traffic speeds along longer stretches of local streets are limited to 25 miles per hour or less. Figure 15 shows examples of the use of these features.

2.7 Each park and park facility shall have amenities as provided in the Parks Matrix provided in Appendix L. The parks should be designed to provide neighborhood recreation needs including a mix of passive and active areas that foster social interaction and healthy lifestyles. These include a skate park, dog park, court games, jogging track, community meeting pavilion and other uses illustrated in the Park Master Plan in Appendix L.

2.8 Neighborhood Park facilities may include informal turf areas, bocce ball courts, children’s play areas, group barbeque areas, group picnic facilities and shade structures, clubhouse, pool, pedestrian and bicycle trails, and community gardens.

2.9 Programming of the Neighborhood Park may include shared facilities or related uses with on-site agricultural production such as outdoor learning areas, picnic, farming and cooking demonstrations, and a farm stand.

2.10 The plaza located within the Village Center should incorporate ample seating, trash receptacles, bicycle racks, a central organizing feature, unique landscaping, and pervious hardscape.
118
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 52
October 17, 2023
Figure 13: Roundabout Design
Figure 14: UC Merced Entry Roundabout
119
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 53
October 17, 2023
Figure 15: Parklettes, Bulbouts and Curb Extensions
120
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 54
October 17, 2023

3.0 Parking
Parking is an economically essential component of all planned land uses within the project. Parking can also provide a buffer between abutting land uses, public streets, and commercial parking areas to ensure the promotion of the high-quality environment envisioned for the development. Parking requirements for specific land uses shall be in conformance with the City of Merced Parking standards found within Chapter 17.16.060 of the City of Merced Municipal Code, except for those situations described below.

3.1 In the R-1-5 Cluster and the R-2 Cluster portions, parking shall be provided with at least one covered space per unit, with on street or onsite parking for at least two guest parking spaces per 6-pack or 4-pack cluster.

3.2 Parking in the Village Center shall recognize the pedestrian oriented nature of the zone district, the necessity for adequate parking for commercial uses, and adequate parking for Village Center Mixed Use Residential uses. Parking is to be provided at a rate of at least one space per 500 square feet of commercial floor area, plus one space per residential unit. Parking will be provided in a combination of on street diagonal and parallel parking spaces as illustrated on the Development Plan (estimated to be 100 spaces), and 1,175 onsite parking spaces located behind the structures.

3.3 Parking for the project’s neighborhood and pocket parks shall be provided through onstreet parking on the adjacent local street, and shared parking with adjacent commercial and residential uses. the Town Center commercial area. The Community Recreation Center and the Regional Sports Park are intended to draw from the entire project area and beyond and shall provide onsite, off-street parking at a rate of 10 spaces per acre of park area. These parking lots shall provide for bicycle storage, staging areas, and special event parking.

3.3 Reserved.

3.4 Parking shall be designed and sited to minimize and buffer noise from adjacent commercial land uses.

3.5 A ten-foot minimum landscape buffer shall be provided on the Neighborhood Commercial properties adjacent to the R-1 Residential zone and the Neighborhood Commercial Town Center.

3.6 Parking around the perimeter of the R-4 units shall be carports for added noise mitigation and visual screening.

3.7 All common parking lots shall have solar canopies to produce energy and to provide shade and noise attenuation.

3.9 All parking lots in the R-3, R-4 and NC zones and in public parks shall provide EV charging receptacles and stations at the rate specified for CalGreen Tier 1. 121
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 55
October 17, 2023

4.0 Outdoor Use Areas
The primary outdoor use areas in the project are the linear park and the water way corridors.

These areas shall be integrated into the overall design and be accessible to adjacent residential neighborhoods. The intent of the Linear Park is to provide for passive low impact drainage, and to provide a pedestrian corridor that links Cottonwood Creek, the Fairfield Canal, open space and setback corridors along the eastern portions of the project, and offsite trails planned for UC Merced.

5.0 Screening
Service, storage areas, trash and recycling collection areas, and utilities associated with planned project land uses will be properly screened to minimize visual impact and promote the natural, unobstructed open space views.

6.0 Preservation of Views and Scenic Resources

6.1 Views from the Road. There are no designated scenic corridors in the vicinity of the project, but the site topography, rising from west to east provides the opportunity for opens spaces and homesites and roadways with long vistas. Permanent open spaces to the east also provide visual relief. In order to preserve and enhance these vistas, the project is laid out in an east-west pattern with Virginia Smith Parkway providing a scenic landscaped corridor. To enhance vistas and open space views, north-streets adjacent to open spaces such as Cottonwood Creek and Fairfield Canal provide occasional views of these areas.

6.2 Gateways. The site is a gateway to UC
Merced. Special landscape treatments
are provided along Meyers Gate Road
to emphasize this transition, and the
roadways that continue between the
two properties Campus Parkway, University, Golden Bobcat and Center street have been designed to have the
same street crosse section or a compatible street cross section with that contained in the UC Merced Long Range Development Plan. A special gateway roundabout is also provided at Campus Parkway and Meyers Gate Road and University and Meyers Gate Road. Figure 16 shows the location of the themed roundabouts.

6.3 Entry monuments and treatments shall
be provided at key intersections to
identify project neighborhoods and facilities such as the Sports Park, Community Recreation Center, Village Community Center, and other destinations in the project. Entry monumentation should reflect the design themes 122
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 56
October 17, 2023
represented in the Village Community Center, including signage background composed of weathered and decorative one-quarter inch Corten metal panels with rough-edged quarried (locally if possible) natural stone for monuments with warm brown/tan tones (as approved) to complement the metal components of the monument. The outline of the stone monument shall be organic with roughened edges that conform around the metalwork, as illustrated in Figure 17. Figure 16 shows the location of the entry monuments.

6.4 Signage. In addition to the gateway treatments prescribed above, the project will also have entry monumentation at the project entries at Meyers Gate Road, Virginia Smith Parkway and Cardella Road on Lake Road, and at the entries to the various neighborhoods, apartment complexes and communities in the project. Project and neighborhood entry signage, and monument signs for commercial developments shall be consistent with that of the roundabout signs and entry monuments, as illustrated in Figure 17, and as described above in 6.2.
123
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 57
October 17, 2023
Figure 16: Location of Entry Monuments and Themed Roundabouts 124
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 58
October 17, 2023
Figure 17: Neighborhood and Commercial Signage
125
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 59
October 17, 2023

7.0 Architecture
Architectural Character

7.1 The architectural character of the project is to be representative of the heritage associated with the area, and architectural styles typically found within the city. A contextually appropriate selection of architectural styles aids in defining the context of the site from the rural character along the eastern property line to the more modern and contemporary character of the university to the north. A list of permitted architectural styles appropriate for each land use within the project has been provided to ensure consistency with the overall project vision.

7.1.1 There is no specific uniform architectural style for the residential portions of the project and each project should include a blend of at least three of the five architectural styles illustrated in Figures 19 through 23. The Craftsman style is considered a foundational style for the R-1-5, R-1-7 and R-2 single family residential neighborhoods because of its significance for local iconic architecture like the Ahwahnee Hotel, the style of neighborhoods in and around Downtown Merced, and because of its simplicity and economy. This style should be used in each neighborhood. The R-1-12.5 larger lot portion of the project is considered to be a custom home or semi-custom home area, and no specific architectural style is prescribed; however, houses in that area should match the detailing, finishes, and authenticity illustrated in Figures 18 through 23 below. Authenticity and execution are most important, and excessive detailing, and limited execution (one sided architecture) should be avoided. Because of the strong contemporary and modern architectural elements on the UC Merced campus, the multifamily units and commercial structures that front on Meyers Gate Road should be based on contemporary, modern or prairie architectural styles.

7.1.2 The architectural style for the Village Commercial, Community Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial and public buildings shall be a Contemporary Prairie style as illustrated in Figure 24.
126
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 60
October 17, 2023
Figure 19: Agrarian Architectural Style
Figure 18: R-1 and R-2 Neighborhood Streetscape
127
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 61
October 17, 2023
Figure 20: Bungalow Architectural Style
Figure 21: Craftsman Architectural Style

128
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 62
October 17, 2023
Figure 22: Contemporary/Mid-Century Modern Architectural Style Figure 23: Spanish Mission Architectural Style
129
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 63
October 17, 2023
Figure 24: Contemporary Prairie Architectural Style
130
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 64
October 17, 2023

7.1.3 In order to create some individualism and interest, the project is broken down in neighborhoods shown on Figure 25. Within each neighborhood or enclave, there shall be a dominant and subordinate architectural style. The percentage proportions of architectural styles within an R-2 zone adjacent to an adjacent single family neighborhood may be the same as the single family neighborhood, and the R-2 units facing the single family neighborhood shall have similar and compatible architectural styles to those of the single family neighborhood.

Otherwise, interior R-2 units are encouraged to be of the same architectural style.
a. Neighborhood Area 1--Multifamily: This neighborhood is comprised of the R-3 and R-4 areas between Meyers Gate Road and Virginia Smith Parkway.

Because of the strong contemporary and modern architectural elements on the UC Merced campus, each R-3 and R-4 project should be either contemporary style, modern architectural style or Contemporary Prairie architectural style. b. Neighborhood Area 2—Village Center: The Village Center is located along Center Street between Meyers Gate Road and Virginia Smith Parkway. The architectural style for these buildings shall be Contemporary Prairie as illustrated on Figure 24. The upper floor offices (where present) shall have balconies and usable second floor outdoor spaces. Upper floor residential units shall have outdoor patios, and the roof shall have covered decks and “green roofs” for storm water management.
c. Neighborhood Area 3—Neighborhood and Community Commercial: The architecture for the anchor tenants and in-line shop buildings shall be Contemporary Prairie as illustrated on Figure 24. The execution of this shall allow for trade dress and architectural details that are associated with major and junior anchor tenants. Pad uses and out parcels shall not have a specific architectural them and may use standard plans and trade dress, subject to faithful execution of the details.
d. Neighborhood 4—R-2 Cluster and R-1-5 Cluster. The architectural style within an R-2 or R-1-5 Cluster zone shall be compatible with that of the adjacent single family neighborhood, and the R-2 units facing the single family neighborhood shall be similar and compatible with the dominant architectural style for the single family neighborhood. Otherwise, interior R-2 units are encouraged to be of the same architectural style, preferably craftsman or bungalow.
e. Neighborhood 5—R-1-12.5. The R-1-12.5 larger lot portions of the project are considered to be a custom home or semi-custom home area, and no 131
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 65
October 17, 2023
specific architectural style is prescribed; however, houses in that area should match the detailing, finishes, and authenticity illustrated in Figures 18 through 24. Authenticity and execution is most important, and excessive detailing, and limited execution (one sided architecture) should be avoided. f. Neighborhood 6—Phase 1B Single Family. This area is comprised of the R1-5 and R-1-7 portions of the project between Virginia Smith Parkway, Cardella Road, Lake Road and Golden Bobcat Road. Within this area, 60% of units shall be designed with Agrarian style architecture. The remaining 40% of units shall be divided into 10% increments between the other allowed residential architectural styles. Any fraction of a number over a half shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number with any remaining balance placed in an architecture style of choice.
g. Neighborhood 7—Phase 1D Single Family. This area is comprised of the R1-5 and R-7 portions of the project in Phase 1D. Because of their adjacency to the Village Center Commercial area, 60% of all units shall be designed with Contemporary style architecture. The remaining 40% of units shall be divided into 10% increments between the other allowed residential architectural styles. Any fraction of a number over a half shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number with any remaining balance placed in an architecture style of choice. h. Neighborhood 8—Phase 1E Single Family. This neighborhood is located in Phase 1E south of Virginia Smith Parkway between the elementary school west of Kibby Road and the Fairfield Canal. Within this area, 60% of all units shall be designed with the California Bungalow or the Craftsman style architecture. The remaining 40% of units shall be divided into 10% increments between the other allowed residential architectural styles. Any fraction of a number over a half shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number with any remaining balance placed in an architecture style of choice. This area also has direct access to the Fairfield Canal corridor and the parks along the corridor. Dwelling units and their outdoor activity areas should be oriented towards the open space amenities and units should not back on to these spaces unless a lower horizontal fence is utilized.
i. Neighborhood 9—Phase 2A Single Family. This area is located east of the Fairfield Canal, north and south of the Virginia Smith Parkway alignment, and west of the most westerly north street. This area is located adjacent to permanent agricultural areas and open space and the most appropriate mix of styles is agrarian. Within this area 60% of units shall be designed with Agrarian style architecture. The remaining 40% of units shall be divided between Bungalow and Craftsman. 132
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 66
October 17, 2023
j. Neighborhood 10—Phase 2B Single Family. This area is located east of Neighborhood 9 and west of the R-1-12.5 area on the eastern property line.

This area has a high concentration of R-2 units surrounding a neighborhood park. Many of the local streets are continuation of streets in Neighborhood 9 and the dominant architecture style should be consistent and compatible with the guidelines and requirements for that area. Within this area 60% of units shall be designed with Agrarian style architecture, with the remaining units shall be divided between the other architectural styles. k. Neighborhood 11—Phase 2C Single Family. This single family area is located adjacent to an R-1-12.5 enclave, and an R-3 development. Owing to the contemporary and modern architectural styles for the R-3 areas, this neighborhood should have an emphasis on Contemporary and Agrarian styles.

Within this area, 40% of all units shall be designed with the Contemporary style, 20 percent shall be Agrarian, and the balance shall be comprised of the remaining architectural styles.

7.1.4 Reserved.

7.1.5 Buildings in the R-1 zone shall be designed with a proportional yet mixed use of at least three of the allowed residential architectural styles, in accordance with

7.1.3. 7.1.6 Porches shall have a minimum depth of six (6) feet.

7.1.9 Residences shall have entries that front onto the street except for residences configured in a parking court within R-2 zones. Where possible, these interior R2 units shall have frontage treatments onto adjacent parks or open spaces. Units that are adjacent to the parkway commons in Neighborhood Area 2 shall have frontage treatments along that parkway and the interior motor court/common driveway.

7.1.10 Buildings within R-3 and R-4 zones shall have covered porches, entries, or walkways that front onto the street.

7.1.11 Residential elevations within the R-1 and R-2 zones should not be repeated more frequently than every fourth house. This variation may be achieved by not repeating both a color scheme and an elevation style. Setbacks should have minor variances (3-5 feet) to ensure a variety in the streetscape and elevation pattern.

7.1.12 Residences within the R-1 zones should incorporate a covered front porch.

7.1.13 Residences within the R-2 zone that front collector or local residential roads should include a porch.
133
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 67
October 17, 2023
Figure 25: Architectural Style Neighborhoods
134
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 68
October 17, 2023
Scale and Massing

7.2 The pedestrian character of the project will be reflected through appropriately scaled buildings and landscaping.

7.2.1 To avoid garage-dominated streets, a portion of the house or porch within the front and street-side R-1 Residential Zone shall be at least five (5) feet in front of the garage.

7.2.2 Variation in front yard setbacks, lot widths, and one and two-story homes should be used to create a diversity of architectural massing.

7.2.3 In order to ensure that the building height and setbacks are appropriate to the street context, building heights along the street frontage shall be one foot in height for each 1.5 feet in distance from the building setback to the street centerline.

7.2.4 Massing design should include variation in the wall plane (projection and recess), variation in wall height, and rooflines at different levels.

7.2.5. Portions of the upper story of a two-story home should be stepped back in order to reduce the scale of the façade that faces the street and to break up the overall massing. This can be achieved with a porch covering a minimum of 40% of the front facade.

7.2.6 Architectural elements that add visual interest, scale, and character to the neighborhood, such as recessed or projecting balconies, verandas, or porches should be included within building designs.

7.2.7. A variety of roof planes and pitches, porches, overhangs, and accent details should be incorporated into residential designs to increase the visual quality and character of a building, while reducing the bulk and size of the structure.

7.2.8. Garages should be recessed behind the home’s main façade to minimize the visual impact of the garage door and parking apron from the street.

7.2.9. Garages located in parking court configurations should be recessed in order to increase the prominence of the main entry.

7.2.10 Building lengths should not exceed 40’ in one direction without a change in direction, roof alignment, wall off set or elevation change. Building design shall incorporate varied projections and recesses, such as bay windows, dormers, porches, etc. Elements such as these will create visual interest and should respond to existing site conditions on each particular home site.

7.2.11 “Four-sided” architecture is required where all building faces have some form of public visibility, especially on corner lots. All structures are to be designed and built with the same material palette on all sides that are visible from the street. 135
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 69
October 17, 2023
Abrupt changes in material from one elevation or building face to another is not permitted, giving equal attention to the sides and rear elevations as is given to the street side elevation.

7.2.12 The use of porches, patios, terraces and decks in building design is encouraged to create a strong relationship between indoor and outdoor areas as well as creating a sense of community. Porches, verandas, colonnades, terraces and patios for climate control and outdoor living and circulation shall be designed as integral elements of the building and site. Houses on corner lots (including those with side elevations adjacent to alleys) shall incorporate front and side elements in the building design. The minimum depth of porches shall be six feet.

Materials of these elements shall match or compliment those of the main structure.

Building Heights

7.3 Building heights for R-1 and R-2 residential structures are expected to be up to two stories. Multifamily units are expected to range from two to five stories, subject to setback requirements. Commercial structures in the Neighborhood and Community Commercial areas are to be two stories, with buildings in the Village Center expected to be up to three stories to accommodate second story office uses, and/or second and third story residential uses as shown in the Development Plan. Village Commercial uses along Meyers Gate Road may be up to four stories to match the probable scale of the adjacent R-4 units. Building heights for each zoning category are shown in Figures 8 through 11 and Table 3.

Architectural Façade and Treatment

7.4 Facades and architectural treatments of buildings within the project are designed as a collection of high quality, individual neighborhoods comprised of individually articulated and highly detailed structures. To meet this high standard of quality, full articulation of building facades and use of architecturally compatible treatments will be utilized consistently throughout the development. Entries should be enhanced to reflect the architectural style and details of the building.

Materials and Colors

7.5 Materials considered appropriate for the project are those that have generally stood the test of time such as stone, brick, wood, glass, plaster, and metal. Each development may choose to express its unique identity through material and color selection, as long as they are compatible with the overall character of the area.

7.5.1 Exterior walls and finishes should reflect a logical and appropriate combination of colors, textures and forms to complement the surrounding landscape and architecture. Exterior walls of all buildings shall use a maximum of four materials with one being dominant over the others in a logical structural relationship.

When a change in materials occurs, a clear break in the surface plane should be seen. Materials should be consistently applied to all elevations of the structure.

Materials should wrap around entire rooms, volumes, or whatever is a visual 136
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 70
October 17, 2023
break, not merely a few feet, when visible to the street. Wall to window proportions must comply with appropriate styles to avoid large areas of blank wall when visible from the street. All building facades must include a significant degree of texture such as that provided by the use of shingles, shiplap, board and batten, stone and brick. The VST Architectural Review Board shall approve all materials. Stucco may be used as appropriate to the chosen style, and must be done in conjunction with another material. Frequent control joints, significant textural qualities and color variations are required.

7.5.2 Roof tiles and colors consistent with the architectural style of the house should be incorporated. Roofing colors should be soft earth tones. Where solar shingles are used to comply with solar energy requirements in this plan, they shall be integrated so that they are part of the architectural character.

8.0 Landscape
Planting Concept

8.1 Landscaping for the project is to reflect both the natural and agricultural landscapes of the area. Natural landscape patterns have been integrated within the Cottonwood Creek and Fairfield Canal corridors and within Conservation/Open Space areas. Agricultural landscape patterns have been incorporated along Virginia Smith Parkway.

8.1.1 Trees and the overall planting scheme for public streets shall be consistent with those shown in Figures 36 through Figure 45, respectively. Residential Collectors and local streets shall have a single street tree species for continuity. A different street tree species unique to each neighborhood should be utilized to provide a layer of consistency and individuality for that neighborhood.

8.1.2 Within the Village Commercial Center along Center Street, there shall be a consistent planting of trees in sidewalk tree wells no less frequently than one tree per 50 feet, and in medians in no less frequently than one tree per 40 feet.

Along 225 feet of the eastern and western approaches and within 100 feet of the southern approach to the intersection of Virginia Smith Parkway and Center Street (the entry to the Village Commercial District), there shall be 10-foot parkway strips on each side of the approach road and a 13-foot landscape median. Within these areas, trees shall be planted at one tree per 30 feet, as shown in the Development Plan.

8.1.3 Shrubs, perennials, and ground cover planted outside of residential zones within the project shall be in conformance with the Development Plan.

8.1.4 Trees, shrubs, perennials, and ground cover planted within the residential portions of the project and shall be chosen from the City’s approved Street Tree Master List.

8.1.5 Trees, shrubs, and plants chosen to be planted along the Cottonwood Creek and Fairfield Canal corridors shall utilize native, locally procured varietals. 137
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 71
October 17, 2023

8.1.6 Plants and shrubs shall be low water using and shall comply with City water efficient landscape requirements.

8.1.7 Turf shall not be located within front yards of residential zones, except for use as a color or texture accent. Figures 26 through 30 provide illustrations of acceptable forms of landscaping to comply with water conservation requirements and this landscaping requirement.

8.1.8 To reduce the potential for noise, dust and pesticide drift, the project shall include dense hedgerows of trees and landscaping in between any offsite noise source, or any permanent agriculture uses.
138
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 72
October 17, 2023
Figure 26: Front Yard Landscaping Option 1
Figure 27: Front Yard Landscaping Option 2
139
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 73
October 17, 2023
Figure 28: Front Yard Landscaping Option 3
Figure 29: Front Yard Landscaping Option 4
140
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 74
October 17, 2023
Figure 30: Front Yard Landscaping Option 5

9.0 Buildings, Signs and Lighting
Buildings

9.1 Buildings placed throughout the project will be rooted in the surrounding landscape and natural open spaces through the incorporation of contextual landscaping. Landscaping will soften building edges at the ground plane and provide attractive plantings to support the planned environment of the project.

Signs

9.2 9.2.1 Gateway and entry signs shall be installed and consistent with Section 6.3 of these guidelines above.

9.2.2 All signage within the project shall comply with the City of Merced standards for building signs contained in its Sign Regulations for applicable Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, and Conservation/Open Space land uses. Such regulations shall comply unless regulations and standards in this specific plan provide otherwise, in which case, the Specific Plan standards shall apply.

Lighting

9.3 Lighting for residential, commercial, and open space uses shall provide adequate illumination levels to aid in the transitioning of urban to rural uses while also providing an ap141 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 75
October 17, 2023
propriate illumination level to address public safety concerns. Lighting shall comply with standards from the International Dark Sky Association, as described below. Planned lighting is intended to maintain the current low lighting levels that distinctly differentiate between existing urban and rural land uses within the area.

9.3.1 Reserved.

9.3.2 Reserved.

9.3.3 All exterior lighting within the project shall be compatible with and complement the architectural styles and landscape designs proposed.

9.3.4 Exterior lighting fixtures shall be properly shielded to minimize light overflow and glare onto adjacent properties.

9.3.5 Trail and walking pathway lighting shall be appropriately scaled to the pedestrian. Additional overhead park lighting may be utilized in areas where pedestrian safety is a concern.

9.3.6 Lighting fixtures shall be energy efficient in accordance with the latest version of the California Energy Standards (Title 24).

9.3.7 All project lighting shall comply with the International Dark Sky Associations guidelines as follows:
a. Outdoor lighting shall be directed downward and away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. b. No lighting on private property shall produce an illumination level greater than two maintained horizontal foot-candles at grade on any property within a residential zoning district except on the site of the light source. c. The maximum light intensity on a residential site shall not exceed a maintained value of 10 foot-candles, when measured at finished grade. d. The maximum light intensity on a nonresidential site, except auto sales lots and sports fields, shall not exceed a maintained value of 10 foot-candles, when measured at finished grade.
e. The maximum light intensity on an auto sales lot shall not exceed a maintained value of 40 foot-candles, when measured at finished grade. f. The maximum light intensity on a sports field shall not exceed a maintained value of 50 foot-candles, when measured three feet above grade. Baseball field lighting and lighting for other recreational uses may be increased to a maintained value of 100 foot-candles with approval of the Director of Development Services. 142
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 76
October 17, 2023
g. Outdoor lighting shall be completely turned off or significantly dimmed at the close of business hours unless lighting is essential for security or safety (e.g., illumination of parking areas and plazas).
h. Outdoor lighting shall not blink, flash, or rotate.

I. Outdoor flood light projection above the horizontal plane is prohibited, unless deemed necessary for public safety purposes. j. Outdoor sports fields shall not be illuminated after 11:00 p.m. except to conclude a scheduled recreational or sporting event in progress prior to 11:00 p.m.
k. Outdoor lighting fixtures, including lighting for outdoor recreational facilities, shall be cutoff fixtures designed and installed so that no emitted light will break a horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the fixture. Cutoff fixtures must be installed using a horizontal lamp position. Lighting fixtures should be of a design that complements building design and landscaping, and may require architectural review. l. Outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded or recessed. m. Lighting fixtures shall be appropriate in height, intensity, and scale to the use they are serving. Parking lot lights shall not exceed a height of 21 feet, and wall-mounted lights shall not exceed a height of 15 feet, from the adjacent grade to the bottom of the fixture. The VST Architectural Review Committee can approve an exception to these height standards based on specific extenuating circumstances. n. All luminaries mounted on the under surface of service station canopies shall be fully shielded and utilize flush-mounted canopy fixtures with flat lenses. o. Search lights, laser source lights, or any similar high-intensity light shall be prohibited, except, in emergencies, by police and/or fire personnel, or at their direction, or for purposes of gathering meteorological data. Exceptions may be granted in conjunction with approved temporary lighting.

9.3.8 All exterior building lights facing Cottonwood Creek and the Fairfield Canal shall be hooded to prevent light spillover into those corridors. All residential street lights over 10 feet in height shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the top of the creek bank and hooded and/or directed away from the creek. Any night lighting adjacent to the creek (e.g., walkway lights) shall be of low voltage and hooded downward. Artificial light levels within 20 feet of the top of the creek bank shall not exceed 1-foot candle or the lowest level of illumination found to be feasible by the City.
143
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 77
October 17, 2023

10. Public Art
In order to provide enrichment, historical context, and to honor the efforts of important citizens of the community who managed the Virginia Smith Trust, various forms of public art are intended to be incorporated as a central organizing element within the project. Installations will reflect the agrarian history and context of the area as a sheep grazing area by Cyril Smith Sr., unique agricultural features of the area, installations that honor the citizens and community leaders who facilitated the location of UC Merced in the community, and the educational support legacy.

MID History

10.1 In order to provide historical context an interpretative trail shall be provided along a path comprised of the Virginia Smith Parkway, the west side of the Fairfield Canal, and a perimeter loop around the Phase 2 portion of the project site that abuts the adjacent agricultural area. Within this loop there shall be interpretative stations that identify the history of the Merced Irrigation District, sources of water and mechanical means of conveyance, and the role of MID in the settlement of Merced County. The Developer shall work with the Merced County Historical Society and Merced Irrigation District to ensure an appropriate and accurate representation.

Virginia Smith Memorial

10.2 In order to honor and acknowledge the endowment provided by Virginia Smith and Cyrill Smith, an historical display shall be provided in the Community Recreation Center Park of their lives and contributions. A “scholar’s wall” shall be provided nearby that identifies those who have received scholarships. The roundabout at Virginia Smith Parkway and Campus Parkway shall also contain monumentation and public art associated with the Smith family. A themed fountain or light sculpture shall also be provided in the roundabout at Virginia Smith Parkway and Center Street which shall recognize the results of the ongoing gift of scholarships from the trust; in some artistic way the artwork shall represent the number of scholarships awarded from the trust and have the ability to be update from year to year. The Developer shall work with the Merced County Office of Education and the Virginia Smith Trust to ensure an appropriate representation.

VST Trust Founders

10.3 In order to honor and acknowledge the efforts of significant community members who have administered the Virginia Smith Trust, public parks shall be named in their honor and historical information provided about their lives, their public service and their contribution to the trust. The initial list of such parks is below. Additional parks namings may be made in consultation with the Merced County Office of Education and the Virginia Smith Trust. a. Park A4 (Phase 1A Pocket Park)
b. Park A7 (Phase 1A Pocket Park)
c. Park B1 (Phase 1B Cottonwood Creek Park)
d. Park B2 (Phase 1B Pocket Park)
144
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 78
October 17, 2023
e. Park B3 (Phase 1B Pocket Park)
f. Park B4 (Phase 1B Pocket Park)
g. Park B6 (Phase 1B Pocket Park)
h. Park D1 (Community Recreation Center)
i. Park D3 (Phase 1D Pocket Park)
j. Park D4 (Phase 1D Pocket Park)
k. Park E1 (Phase 1E Fairfield Canal Park)
l. Park E3 (Phase 1E Outdoor Activity Park with Amphitheater) m. Park A2 (Community Sports Park)
n. Park C3 (Phase 2C Neighborhood Park)
UC Merced

10.4 In order to provide a thematic connection to UC Merced, there shall be public art at intersections and roundabouts that provide access to the UC Merced at Meyers Gate Road. These intersections, as identified on Figure 16, include Meyers Gate Road at Campus Parkway and University.

Cultural History-Native Americans

10.5 In order to honor and acknowledge the previous occupation of the region by the North Valley Yokut, Ohlone and Mi-Wuk tribes, and the importance of the Native American community in the San Joaquin Valley and Sierra Nevada, a commemorative installation shall be placed in one of the project parks or open space. The Developer shall work with the California Indian Education Association, UC Merced, and local tribal representatives to determine an appropriate location for and content in the installation.

11.0 Drainage
Drainage features of the Project are intended to meet the City, County and Regional Water Control Board’s Low Impact Development Post Construction Requirements. The performance of designed detention basins and permeable surfaces integrated throughout the project ensure on-site detention of the project’s share of stormwater runoff while ensuring the safety of adjacent property.

11.1 Each commercial development is required to use pervious material such as pavers or pervious concrete on at least 10
percent of its paved area in areas that
will intercept flows from onsite hardscape to reduce runoff.

11.2 Landscaped drainage swales shall be included along Virginia Smith Parkway and along the frontage of commercial properties to facilitate drainage from adjacent property.
145
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 79
October 17, 2023

11.3 Commercial parcels outside of the Village Center shall have onsite landscape setback areas (“bioswales”) for stormwater collection disposal and treatment, with adequate capacity to accommodate a 2-year design storm. This will normally accommodate 90 percent of the average annual runoff. To supplement this system, the project will be serviced by a system of linear parks, storm water treatment basins, and storm water detention basins fed by overflows from the bioswales, and direct street drainage.

11.4 Small surface treatment basins are
preferred along with underground detention basins shall be used in conjunction with community parks to the maximum extent feasible. Usage of
large drainage basins is prohibited.

Open surface storage is permitted in
bioswales along project arterials or
collectors.

11.5 The storm drainage system shall be
designed to the City or Merced standards.

11.6 To ensure re-use of stormwater and groundwater recharge, storm water basins shall be developed adjacent to the Fairfield Canal and Cottonwood Creek. Stormwater shall be discharged to the canal as permitted by MID, and all discharges shall conform with City MS4 standards.

11.7 Rainwater and stormwater management shall be in conformance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Low Impact Development standards. Such standards call for the detention/retention and treatment of the 95th percentile storm event. Treatment will be in decentralized filtration basins, bioswales, underground artificial or natural cisterns, and other approved strategies. The tentative subdivision map in Appendix M and shows the locations and extent of these basins.

11.8 Greenroofs shall be used on the
roofs of the Village Commercial center to manage storm water and to provide rooftop landscaping and
cooling for the Village Commercial
Mixed Use residences.

11.9 The altered alignment and cross
section of the MID Fairfield Canal
shall be subject to approval by the Merced Irrigation District. Prior to initiation of infrastructure improvements for Phase 2 of the VST Specific Plan, the project applicant or subsequent developer shall submit evidence to the discretionary land use authority (City of Merced or Merced County) that: 1) the proposed modification of the Fairfield 146
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 80
October 17, 2023
Canal is designed such that no change would occur in the hydraulic flow rates and velocities of the canal, and, 2) necessary permits have been obtained from MID.

Specific features that can be incorporated into the design to effectively control flowrate and velocity include (but are not limited to) adjusting the channel cross section, use of construction material that has higher roughness coefficient (i.e., river rock, rip rap, gabions), incorporating roughness baffles, and energy dissipaters at the downstream end of the canal. (MM 3.5-3)

12.0 Fencing
Fencing planned for the project will add to visual quality and character of the overall development, while providing security and privacy. In addition to the existing City fencing requirements, the following standards and guidelines apply to all residential lots within the project in order to maintain and emphasis views of Tank Farm Creek.

12.1 Residential lots adjacent to Cottonwood Creek, the Fairfield Canal, parks, open spaces, or walking pathway shall use open fencing types like those illustrated in Figure 31 and Figure 34.

12.2 Where front year privacy fences are used, they shall conform to the City’s height limitations and shall be designed in accordance with the Front Yard fence options shown in Figure 32.

12.3 Rear and side full height privacy fences shall be in accordance with the Privacy fencing options shown in Figure 33.

12.4 For security and wildlife migration purposes, fences shall be constructed along the edges of Cottonwood Creek and the Fairfield Canal and shall be the Wood Frame Hog Wire, Metal Rail Horse Panel or the Wood Frame Hog Wire style (or equal) illustrated in Figure 34. 147
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 81
October 17, 2023
Special Fence Treatment
Locations (Typ)
Minimum 4-foot high solid
screen with open lattice above
Figure 31: Fencing at Open Space
148
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 82
October 17, 2023
Figure 32: Front Yard Fence Options
Figure 33: Privacy Fence Options
149
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 83
October 17, 2023
Figure 34: Creek Corridor Fence Options
150
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 84
October 17, 2023

13.0 Energy Conservation, Energy Production and Water Conservation Energy Conservation

13.1 In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provide savings for project residents, and reduce the need for offsite energy sources, the project will integrate special energy conservation and production features. All residential units shall be all-electric, with natural gas infrastructure extended only to non-residential uses. The cumulative effect of these code modifications will be the reduction of greenhouse emissions from building sources (non-mobile or indirect sources) by 50 percent, and annual energy cost savings to homeowners of $1,000 to $1,500. The additional features and mitigations described here are estimated to reduce total vehicle miles travelled by 25 percent, and shift an additional 25 percent of trips from fueled vehicle trips to EV trips, bikes and pedestrians.

A total of 50 percent reduction on gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles miles is conservatively estimated resulting in a 35-45 percent overall reduction in GHG emissions. The energy sources for the project are estimated to be 95% carbon free, in conformance with California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan and “High Electrification” strategy. If necessary, the City shall adopt the necessary amendments to the City’s building code to implement the inclusion of CalGreen Non-Mandatory Energy Code features and Tier 1 and Tier requirements specified herein.

The overall intent of the recommendations, standards and guidelines below is to implement CalGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 requirements in the project. These changes anticipate likely California energy code changes in 2025. When combined with the requirements for Solar PV in Section 13.2 below, it is expected that the structures will meet the California Energy Commission’s Energy Design Rating criteria for Time Dependent Value (“TDV”) Zero Net Energy. The energy conservation measures described below are those which have a demonstrable positive benefit to cost ratio.

13.1.1 All buildings and structures shall meet the 2022 “Net Zero” energy conservation standards adopted by the State of California, and CalGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 requirements.

13.1.2 Energy conservation measures should give priority to the thoughtful design of structures to take advantage of passive cooling and heating, including cross ventilation, solar exposure, solar thermal massing strategies.

13.1.3 Building and structures shall use high-performance Advance Framing (AF) and/or Structurally Insulated Panel (SIP) techniques, where technically feasible, to reduce the amount of framing lumber and the heating and cooling loss associated with frequent framing intervals. Advanced framing techniques qualify as Reduced Thermal Bridging under section 4.4.5 of the Energy Star Thermal Enclosure System Rater Checklist (ver. 3, rev. 5). Advance Framing techniques may include, but are not limited to the following:
151
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 85
October 17, 2023
a. Increased framing member spacing, typically to 24 inches on center, effectively trimming the number of required studs by about one-third. Perimeter walls may be built with 2x6 wood framing spaced 24 inches on center have deeper, wider insulation cavities than conventional 2x4 framing spaced 16 inches on center, thereby increasing the amount of insulation inside the wall to at least R-20 and improving the whole-wall R-value. b. Use of insulated corners to eliminate the isolated cavity found in conventional three- or four-stud corners, making it easier to install insulation and providing for more cavity insulation space. Advanced framing wall corners can include insulated three-stud corners or two-stud corner junctions with ladder blocking, drywall clips, or an alternative means of supporting interior or exterior finish.
c. Advanced framing ladder junctions should be used at wall intersections with 2x blocking at 24-inch on center vertical spacing. This method requires less than 6 feet of blocking material in a typical 8-foot tall wall. In conventional walls, interior wall intersections include a stud at each side of the intersecting wall, which can require as much as 16 feet of stud lumber plus additional blocking material.
d. Advanced framing headers offer increased energy efficiency by replacing framing materials with space for cavity insulation inside the header. Advanced framing headers are sized for the loads they carry. Wood structural panel box headers are another option to consider that maximize the insulatable cavity while providing the structural support via the wood structural panels that are already used on the exterior of the building.

13.1.4 Quality Insulation Installation (“QII”) shall be used per California Energy Commission standards and Insulation Stage Checklists to ensure high performing insulation systems. QII ensures that insulation is installed properly in floors, walls, and roofs/ceilings to maximize the thermal benefit of insulation. Depending on the type of insulation used, QII can be simple to implement for only the additional cost of HERS verification. Batt insulation may require an increase in installation time over standard practice because batts may need to be cut to fit around penetrations and special joists.

13.1.5 Compact Plumbing (“CP”) strategies shall be used to reduce water and water heating waste. These will include reducing the total run from the water heating unit to the hot water dispensing appliances, “demand” recirculating hot water systems, back-to-back and stacked plumbing fixtures, and other techniques. 152
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 86
October 17, 2023

13.1.6 The buildings and structures in the project shall provide for indoor water use that is at least 25 percent below current citywide average, and outdoor water use that is 30 percent below the City of Merced average, to achieve a targeted average usage of 100 gallons per day per capita. WaterSense fixtures, or their equivalent, shall be used for all appliances, and all appliances shall comply with CalGreen standards for water use efficiency.

13.1.7 Passive solar strategies shall be used in all buildings to the greatest degree practicable. At least 75 percent of the structures in a neighborhood should have the longer roof line axis within 15 degrees of east-west. Buildings should be designed to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows (passive solar design). Roofing materials shall be used which have a solar reflectance value meeting the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling needs.

13.1.8 City infrastructure should utilize strategies and improvements to conserve energy. These include: 1) usage of roundabouts where possible to avoid the usage of electrically powered traffic signals; 2) usage of high-efficiency LED street lights; 3) usage of high-efficiency LED traffic signals. Where traffic signals are modified as part of this project, signal heads with low-efficiency incandescent fixtures shall be modified to have high efficiency LED fixtures, where possible; 4) bus stops shall include PV systems to support the power requirements; and, 5) street lighting, park lighting and area lighting shall be designed to limit errant light.

13.1.9 Design plans for units shall provide for the use of battery powered or electric landscape maintenance equipment for new development. At least one exterior convenience outlet shall be provided for each yard area that requires regular maintenance. Two outdoor outlets shall also be provided for any private outdoor activity/patio areas.

13.1.10 Each dwelling unit shall be designed to provide a convenient storage area for bicycles that is easily accessible. This may include storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks / lockers to service the residential units, or front porch bike lockers.

13.1.11 Residences shall use all-electric appliances.

13.1.12 To encourage the use of electric vehicles, private residential garages shall be equipped with a dedicated 240V/40A circuit or outlet for electrical vehicle charging in conformance with the California Green Building Code and the National Electrical Code. Residences with common parking areas such as the R-3, 153
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 87
October 17, 2023
R-4 and Neighborhood Commercial areas shall be equipped with electric vehicle charging receptacles and stations in conformance with CalGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards.

Onsite Energy Production

13.2 Solar PV systems shall be included on all residential structures and buildings sufficient to produce 100 percent of the projected electrical demand for the type of building unit (but not including electrical demand for EV charging stations). This may be provided through a combination of solar canopies for R-3, R-4, Neighborhood Commercial/Town Center and public park uses, rooftop[ solar panels, solar shingles and other methods.

Guidelines for specific unit types and land uses are as follows:

13.2.1 R-1 Single Family. These uses should provide between 350 and 400 square feet of equivalent south-facing tilted total solar panel surface area per dwelling unit to generate at least 10,000 kWh per year, or as may be calculated in the energy analysis for the structure.

13.2.2 R-2 Cluster Single Family. These uses should provide between 325 and 375 square feet of equivalent south-facing tilted total solar panel surface area per dwelling unit (to generate at least 7,800 kWh per year, or as may be calculated in the energy analysis for the structure. Because of the orientation of these uses from a common driveway from an east-west street, care should be taken to orient the longer roof along the east-west axis where possible. There are limited opportunities for solar canopies in guest parking areas, except where these spaces are used for car sharing stations.

13.2.3 R-3 Units. These uses should provide 275 and 325 square feet of equivalent south-facing tilted total solar panel surface area per dwelling unit to generate at least 7,500 kWh per year, or as may be calculated in the energy analysis for the structure. Solar canopies in guest parking spaces may provide the predominant share of the total requirement of 7,500-8,000 square feet of total solar array area, and the solar canopies are the preferred method of achieving this objective because of the required orientation of these uses, and the sensitive architectural setting. Where possible, units should provide rooftop solar water heating units. Surface material and finish shall be non-glare for airport compatibility.

13.2.4 R-4 Apartment Units. To the extent feasible, these uses should provide 175 to 225 square feet of equivalent south-facing tilted total solar panel surface area per dwelling unit to generate at least 5,000 kWh per year, or as may be calculated in the energy analysis for the structure. Solar canopies in guest parking spaces may provide all or the predominant share of the total requirement of 17,750 square feet of total solar array area, and the solar canopies are the preferred method of achieving this objective because of the required orientation of these 154
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 88
October 17, 2023
uses, and the sensitive architectural setting. Where possible, these units should provide solar water heating units or pre-heating units. These solar canopies are to be located around the perimeter of the site along the west and north boundaries so that they function as noise attenuation barriers as well.

13.2.5 If necessary, the City shall adopt the necessary amendments to the City’s building code to implement the inclusion of Non-Mandatory Energy Code features and Tier 1 and Tier requirements specified herein

13.2.6 For commercial buildings larger than 5,000 SF, solar PV shall be installed to provide a minimum of 25 percent of the electrical requirement for the structure, if feasible based on roof area and building constraints.

Water Conservation

13.3 Water is a valuable resource. It provides irrigation water for Merced County’s farms and potable water for its residents. The state has provided various mandates for conservation by water efficient landscaping, requirements for efficient plumbing fixtures, and the requirement for projects to not use groundwater in excess of the safe yield of the local groundwater aquifer. The buildings, structures and public improvements in the project are intended to comply with the draft groundwater sustainability plan for the Merced Irrigation-Urban Groundwater Sustainability Agency requirement that municipal and agricultural properties not use more groundwater than their pro rata share of the safe yield, which is projected to be 1,300 acre-feet per year. The project will result in water use that is at least 25 percent below the current citywide average, with resulting water use equal to approximately 100 gallons per capita per day compared the City’s overall usage of 127.5 gallons per capita per day. Overall, total project water use will be 1,550 acrefeet (AF) per year equivalent of approximately 2.37 feet per acre. Considering water that is returned to the groundwater aquifer from the wastewater treatment plant, the net impact of the project on groundwater (assuming no city surface water supplies) would be less than 1,000 AF/Year and approximately 1.3 feet per acre. The project shall conform to the following:

13.3.1 WaterSense fixtures, or their equivalent, shall be used for all appliances, and all appliances shall comply with CalGreen standards for water use efficiency.

13.3.2 Project shall comply with California CalGreen Code.

13.3.3 Compact Plumbing strategies shall be used to reduce water and water heating waste. These will include reducing the total run from the water heating unit to the hot water dispensing appliances, “demand” recirculating hot water systems, back-to-back and stacked plumbing fixtures, and other techniques. 155
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 89
October 17, 2023

13.3.4 Turf shall not be permitted for individual yard landscaping in large uniform areas, but it may be used as an accent to an otherwise low water using landscape theme. Landscape plans shall be developed which require lower water usage, and which require lower maintenance. Landscape plans shall reflect the local climate zones and local plant material. Figures 26 through 30 show examples of acceptable usage of turf in yard landscaping. Turf may be used where it is associated with a common open space, parkways, sports field or other common area, especially where an alternative material is not available or appropriate.

Where feasible, these areas will be irrigated with recycled water supplies.

13.3.5 Landscape and irrigation plans should use drip irrigation systems to the extent feasible, and general broadcast irrigation is discouraged. Individual irrigation system shall also use moisture sensors and rain sensors to eliminate unnecessary irrigation.

13.3.6 If necessary, the City shall adopt the necessary amendments to the City’s building code to implement the inclusion of CalGreen Non-Mandatory Energy Code features and Tier 1 and Tier 2 requirements specified herein. 156
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 90
October 17, 2023
157
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 91
October 17, 2023
Circulation Framework
Project Circulation Features
There are five principal circulation features
for the site: 1) the construction of Campus Parkway
through the site as part of “Phase 3” of Campus Parkway from Yosemite Avenue to Bellevue Road; 2) constructing Class I and Class IV “buffered” bike lanes through the project site and the Class I Bike Path
along Lake Road; 3) the extension of Meyers Gate
Road, Virginia Smith Parkway and Cardella Road easterly from Lake Road as the principal circulation spines; 4) development of a continuous off-street recreational bike and pedestrian path along the Virginia Smith linear park, the Fairfield Canal riparian corridor, the perimeter of Phase 2, and connections to the planned UC Merced trail system; and, 5) development of north-south streets that support the development of the balance of the University Community Plan (UCP) plan area, and that connect to the north-south circulation elements designated in the UC Merced Long Range Development Plan.

Overall Circulation Plan and Street Sections
Figure 35 shows the overall circulation system, location of various bikeways, and a key map for the illustrated street sections. Figures 36 through 45 show the street sections that are to be used for the project. Table 4 shows the dimensions of the roadways and Table 5 shows the roadway features.

The project’s proximity to UC Merced provides an opportunity to encourage greater usage of pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation. Pedestrian circulation will be accommodated by street design standards that include sidewalks on both sides of the street for most classifications of streets within developed areas, and off-street, multi-use paths along streets adjacent to open space areas, and network of multi-use, and Class IV buffered and protected bicycle facilities that will connect to the street system within the UCP and LRDP areas. The specific plan proposes a comprehensive system of on-street and off-street bicycle facilities in and around the project site. The circulation plan illustrates off-street Class I multi-use paths that parallel creeks and riparian corridors such as Cottonwood Creek and the Fairfield Canal, and off-street paths adjacent to streets and on-street bicycle lanes. 158
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 92
October 17, 2023
Figure 35: Overall Circulation Plan and Key Map
159
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 93
October 17, 2023
Figure 36: Virginia Smith Parkway
160
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 94
October 17, 2023
Figure 37: Lake Road
Figure 38: Campus Parkway (“Urban Expressway”)
161
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 95
October 17, 2023
Figure 39: University Avenue
162
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 96
October 17, 2023
Figure 40: Section 1 and 2 of Main/Center Street
163
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 97
October 17, 2023
Figure 41: Sections 3 and 4 of Main/Center Street
164
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 98
October 17, 2023
Figure 42: Main/Center South of Virginia Smith Parkway
165
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 99
October 17, 2023
Figure 43: Meyers Gate Road
166
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 100
October 17, 2023
Figure 44: Cardella Road
167
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 101
October 17, 2023
Figure 45: Local Roads
168
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 102
October 17, 2023
Table 4: Specific Plan Street Design Dimensions
Roadway Location Classification Proposed Direct
Access Limits
Right of
Way
Lane
Widths
Landscape
Parkway
Curb and
Gutter
On-Street
Parking Median Bike Lanes Sidewalk
Campus Parkway Limited Access Expressway-4 Lane Yes 107 13 7 2 15 12 5University Avenue North of Campus Parkway Collector Yes 79 13 7 2 13 12 5 Kibby Road Parkway Collector 77 12 7 2 13 6 5Golden Bobcat Parkway Collector 77 12 7 2 13 6 5Dunn Road West of Main Street Arterial 103 13 7 2 13 6 5Dunn Road East of Main Street Collector 79 13 7 2 13 6 5 Virginia Smith Parkway East of Lake Road Parkway Collector Yes 77 11 6 2 13 6 5Local Streets R-1-12.5/R-1-7 Local No 60 11 6 2 8 6Local Streets R-1-5/R-2 Local No 56 10 0 2 9 6Lake Road Project Limits Limited Access Collector Yes 80 12 8 2 13 6Center Street North of VS Parkway (C-MUR Zone) Collector No 97 12 2 16.5 16 10 Center Street North of VS Parkway (C-MU Zone) Collector No 97 12 10.5 2 6 16 16Center Street VS Parkway to Dunn Road Arterial 97 12 7 2 13 6 5Center Street South of Dunn Road Parkway Collector 77 12 7 2 13 6 5Cardella West of Main Street Arterial 103 12.5 7 2 13 12 5 Cardella East of Main Street Collector Yes 78 12.5 7 2 13 6 5Meyers Gate Road East of Lake Road Collector Yes 83 15 7 2 13 6 5 169
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 103
October 17, 2023
Roadway Location Classification 2 Lanes 4 Lanes
On-Street
Parking Class I Class II Class III Class IV
Campus Parkway Limited Access Expressway-4 Lane X X
University Avenue North of Campus Parkway Collector X XKibby Road Parkway Collector X Golden Bobcat Parkway Collector XDunn Road West of Main Street ArterialDunn Road East of Main Street Collector Virginia Smith Parkway East of Lake Road Parkway Collector X X XLocal Streets R-1-12.5/R-1-7 Local X X X Local Streets R-1-5/R-2 Local X X XLake Road Project Limits Limited Access Collector X X X Center Street North of VS Parkway (C-MUR Zone) Collector X X XCenter Street North of VS Parkway (C-MU Zone) CollectorCenter Street VS Parkway to Dunn Road Arterial Center Street South of Dunn Road Parkway CollectorCardella West of Main Street Arterial X X Cardella East of Main Street Collector X XMeyers Gate Road East of Lake Road Collector X X Table 5: Specific Plan Street Design Features
170
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 104
October 17, 2023
Bicycle Plan
Class I bicycle paths and Class IV bicycle lanes within the specific plan will be constructed, signed and marked to meet or exceed the minimum standards established by the California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual and City design standards. Class I paths are to be a minimum of 12 feet in width with two-foot shoulders, except in hillside areas where grading would cause visual impacts or along creeks where space is limited. Class II, where used, are to be at least to be 8-foot “buffered” lanes. The project also makes extensive usage of “Class IV” protected bike lanes.

Campus Parkway
An important linkage in the regional transportation system is Campus Parkway. Phases 1 and 2 of Campus Parkway have been completed between State Highway 99 and Yosemite Avenue, and the remaining Phase will extend it north to Bellevue. The County, City and UC Merced have reviewed alternatives for the alignment of this roadway and have adopted the alignment and details represented in Figure 46 (Overview and Yosemite to Cardella), Figure 47 (Cardella to Bellevue) and Figure 48 (Lake Road detail south of Meyers Gate Road). County Circulation Element Table CIR-1 currently does not provide for an “urban” section of Campus Parkway. The Circulation Element is proposed to be amended so that Phase 3 of Campus Parkway in the UCP and in the Specific Plan would have 100’ to 125’ feet of rights of way, intersection spacing no more frequently than ¼ mile, four (4) through lanes, direct access limited to major activity centers with auxiliary/frontage lanes, and a maximum vehicle design speeds of 35 miles per hour with a 500’ centerline radius. A special cross section (Figure 38) has been adopted for Campus Parkway through the UCP to recognize that it is an “Urban Expressway” that needs to perform the function of efficiently conveying traffic from Highway 99 to UC Merced, and be sensitive to the urban context and development in the UCP. To achieve both objectives, access is limited to Campus Parkway from intervening east-west public roads, and from and to major activity areas such as shopping centers. Direct access from residential subdivisions is not permitted. The traffic study conducted for the project indicated that four way stops, or traffic signals were warranted at the Campus Parkway intersections of Meyers Gate Road, Virginia Smith Parkway and Cardella Road. Roundabouts are proposed as the most appropriate and safest form of such control to facilitate smooth flow of traffic, moderate speeds through the project, and to provide opportunities for landscaping and public art.

Arterial, Collector and Local streets planned for the project are shown in Figure 35 and are described in Table 4 and Table 5. These roadways function to collect traffic from local streets and fronting property and then channel the traffic to arterial streets. Collector streets have fewer limitations on intersections and driveways than higher order streets. These roads are to have design speeds that do not exceed 30 miles per hour, the maximum centerline radius of 350 feet. Where the traffic study indicated a need for a four way stop or traffic signal, roundabouts are proposed as the most appropriate and safest form of such control to facilitate smooth flow of traffic, moderate speeds through the project, and to provide opportunities for landscaping and public art. 171
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 105
October 17, 2023
Lake Road
Lake Road was given special consideration in the planning process. Currently, it acts as the primary north-south collector access road to UC Merced and northeast Merced in general. During the planning for Campus Parkway, it was acknowledged that there would need to be a plan for some form of “traffic calming” to shift the existing and future through traffic from Lake Road to Campus Parkway, while preserving access to residential properties along Lake Road. Figure 48 shows a potential location for such traffic calming or access limitations. The precise form and timing of these improvements has not been determined, and would most likely occur concurrent with the planning and development of UCP South property. Lake Road will also serve as the principal access point for the project in the conceivable future until Phase 3 of Campus Parkway is completed. Based on the assumption that Campus Parkway would be completed prior to Phase 2 of the project, but not prior to Phase 1 of the project, the traffic study has recommended traffic signals at Meyers Gate Road, Virginia Smith Parkway and Cardella Road. Development of the project will also require the reconfiguration of the 80 feet of Lake Road right of way as shown in Figure 37 so that there are two through lanes of traffic, a landscaped median (for protected left turn movements and a visual and noise buffer to residences to the west), and relocation of the Lake Road Class I bike path. Figure 47 and Figure 47 show potential roundabouts along Lake Road/Campus Parkway at Mandeville Road and Bellevue Road. The precise form of this intersection control has not been determined and is subject to further study, and implementation by others and they are not part of the VST Specific Plan.

Offsite Circulation Impacts
According to the traffic Study in Appendix F, certain onsite and offsite improvements are needed to accommodate project traffic. Chapters 3 and 4, respectively, of the traffic study identify the improvements that are needed in the Near Term to support Phase 1 of the project, and those that are required at full buildout. Appendix F shows the offsite improvements that are needed at full buildout.

The project will complete the onsite improvements and those along its Lake Road frontage, and pay a special traffic impact fee to fund its fair share of offsite improvements. Appendix F includes the traffic study and the improvements recommended for each phase of development. Tables 9 and 10 of this Specific Plan shows the proposed VST traffic impact fee, with Table 9 showing the supporting information for the derivation of that fee, including the allocation of funding responsibilities indicated in the various agreements between UC Merced and the City of Merced, and UC Merced and the County of Merced.

Transit
Transit is also an important element of the transportation system. UC Merced, the City of Merced and Merced County Transit operate bus service to and from the university. Bus stops have been planned as part of the circulation system and those locations are shown on Figure 49. 172
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 106
October 17, 2023
Figure 46: Campus Parkway Overview and Yosemite to Cardella 173
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 107
October 17, 2023
Figure 47: Campus Parkway Cardella to Bellevue
174
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 108
October 17, 2023
Figure 48: Campus Parkway Lake Road South of Meyers Gate Detail 175
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 109
October 17, 2023
Figure 49: Transit Stops
176
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 110
October 17, 2023
177
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 111
October 17, 2023
Infrastructure/Public Facilities Framework
Domestic Water
The main water facilities slated to serve the site consist of the existing City municipal well located on the UC Merced campus, an 16-inch main in Lake Road to be extended by the project from the Bellevue/Lake Road intersection to the project, an onsite municipal well to be developed in Phase 1A of the project (and to be located in the Community Recreation Center in Phase 1D), and looped water mains on the site ranging in size from 8” to 12”. The system was sized and planned based on the City of Merced’s Water Master Plan criteria to ensure adequate domestic and fire flows. The water master plan study prepared for the project determined that a pressure sustaining valve is necessary to create a separate pressure zone for the UC Merced and UCP area because of local topography. The water master plan study for the project is contained in Appendix D. Main lines within the project will be looped through the individual phases to provide required flows and redundancy. Figure 50 shows the planned onsite and offsite water system improvements.

The project proposes several features that meet and exceed the current State and City water conservation and management regulations. Development in the Project area is to be designed so that the projected annual residential water consumption for the project is 25 percent less than the city’s current average daily residential per-person water consumption (estimated by the State Department of Water Resources to be 127.5 gallons per day per person), to achieve an average water consumption rate of 100 gallons per day per capita. To meet this goal, Section 13.3 of the specific plan sets forth design requirements including the limited usage of turf for individual yard landscaping, which require lower water usage, usage of drip irrigation systems with rain and moisture sensors, plumbing fixtures that comply with EPA “WaterSense” standards and to CalGreen flow standards, and the usage of “Compact Plumbing” strategies.

The site currently uses approximately 2,950 acre-feet of ground water per year from local irrigation wells. The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the project (Appendix C) estimated that the water usage on the site is approximately 100 gallons per day per person (including commercial demand and public park demand) compared to the current average citywide usage of 127.5 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Total estimated water usage for the project at full buildout is 1,550 AF/Year; with the return of 300 AF of water to groundwater basin at the treatment plant, the net water usage is 1,250 AF. The Water Supply Assessment determined that there are adequate water supplies in the City; the onsite well is needed for higher fire flows associated with the elementary school, and to provide redundancy for the UC Merced well.
178
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 112
October 17, 2023
Figure 50: Water Master Plan
179
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 113
October 17, 2023
Sanitary Sewer
The property, as with all properties in the UCP and UC Merced, lies the farthest upstream from the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant and the sewer collection system. Any flows from the UCP and UC Merced travel the entire length of the collection system. As part of the analysis for the project, several sewer studies were conducted, including modelling the city’s network of collection facilities and conducting flow monitoring at Merced’s newest developments to properly calibrate the model. The study (Appendix E) determined that there is adequate existing treatment capacity and adequate existing collection capacity to support the full buildout of the project. The long term plan for the collection system serving the site is a trunk line in Cardella which connects to the G Street trunk line. These improvements are not planned for construction during the buildout of the project between 2025 and 2040, and the plan for the project is to collect project sewage at the intersection of Cardella and Lake and to convey it via an 8-inch force main to the 21-inch Bellevue Road gravity trunk line. The onsite system will be designed to switch to gravity flow to the Cardella trunk line when it is eventually constructed. Figure 51 shows the planned onsite and offsite sewer system improvements.

Dry Utilities
PG&E will provide underground extensions from existing facilities. Final requirements need to be confirmed with PG&E. The project is also intended to be a “5G” and “Gigabit” community through the use of high speed wireless and fiber optic broadband service.

Storm water, Hydrology and LID Compliance
The project falls under the Low Impact Development requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s “MS4” Post Construction Requirements. A drainage study has been prepared to analyze the project’s conformance with the Water Board and City of Merced. Stormwater treatment and retention is planned for runoff from the new impervious areas associated with this project. Runoff from these areas will be directed to vegetated facilities that are intended to retain and infiltrate the runoff from events up to the 95th percentile 24-hour rainfall event. For larger events, these vegetated facilities will overflow into standpipes that connect to storm drain conveyance pipes that discharge to Tank Farm Creek. Drainage for the planned development is shown in Figure 52. 180
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 114
October 17, 2023
Figure 51: Sewer Master Plan
181
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 115
October 17, 2023
Figure 52: Storm Drainage Master Plan
182
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 116
October 17, 2023
183
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 117
October 17, 2023
Financing, Services and Governance
This chapter summarizes the infrastructure financing and maintenance responsibilities for the various public facilities and public services. The facilities covered by this financing plan include onsite improvements, common onsite “backbone” improvements including water production and distribution, waste water collection and treatment, storm drainage collection and storage, onsite dry utilities, streets and roads, public and private parks (including the private Community Recreation Center), road edge amenities including bike paths and parkway landscaping, public safety services, and general public services to support the project. It also addresses the maintenance of common areas such as shared drives and access roads serving multiple “cluster” lots and the Village Center. The intent of this section is to satisfy the requirement contained in UCP Implementation policies IMP 2.5 through IMP 2.9, and IMP 3.1 through IMP 3.11.

Financing Public Facilities
Financing responsibilities for on and offsite improvements are shown in Table 6. The responsibility for ongoing services and maintenance of the various improvements is shown in Table 7. Of particular note are the circulation, water and sewer improvements. The financing for these facilities is based on the following assumptions and findings:
a. Two lanes of Campus Parkway, the rights of way, engineering, and entitlement would be financed and constructed by the County of Merced on the UCP South/Hunt property and UC Merced property (to a point 750 south of Bellevue) with State grant funds prior to or concurrent with Phases 1A of the project. The Specific Plan would the entire section of Campus Park in Phase 1A during that development phase, plus two through lanes in Phase 1B, and the three roundabouts on the VST property.
b. Financing for Campus Parkway, Bellevue Road, Lake Road and others would be in accordance with City’s Public Facility Financing, and the transportation improvements and funding agreements between UC Merced and the City and the County. These agreements call for specific fractions of these expenses to be allocated to and paid by UC Merced. The timing of the improvements would be in accordance with the agreements. The Specific Plan ad hoc Traffic Fee would pay for VST’s share of area traffic improvements.
c. Additional financing for area (City and County) roadway improvements would be through an Ad Hoc Specific Plan Transportation Impact Fee. These fees will replace the traffic portion of the Citywide Public Facility Financing Plan (PFFP) fees. The revenue from these fees will cover the cost to provide future improvements to various intersections and streets identified in the traffic study as shown in Appendix F, and to pay for the project’s fair share of road segment improvements identified in the City’s 2021 PFFP Fee Study. The facilities and improvements to be funded from these fees are identified in Appendix F and Appendix N, and shown in Figure 53. The Ad Hoc Specific Plan Traffic Fee for each land use is shown in Table 11. These fees will be paid into the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee fund and improvements made as the City deems necessary.

Table 10 shows how the Ad Hoc Specific Plan Traffic Fees are to be distributed to pay for con184 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 118
October 17, 2023
tributed right of way, and improvements.
d. Roadway improvements needed for the project would be those that identified in the traffic impact analysis prepared for the project and contained in Appendix F. The project’s fair share of those improvements is indicated in Appendix F and Appendix N.

Table 6: Financing Responsibility for Specific Plan Improvements Specific
Plan
Impact Fee
City PFFP
Fee
City Utility
Fees
Developer
and/or
Builder
School
Impact
Fees
County CFD
Reimburse
able?
Offsites
Water
16" Connection to Bellevue/Lake X Yes
Pressure Sustaing Valve X Yes
Sewer
Pump Station X X Yes
Force Main X X Yes
Gravity Lines X Yes
Dry Utilities X No
City Public Works X
City Information Technology X
Streets and Roads
Offsite Street Segments X No
Offsite Street Intersections X No
Lake/Meyers Gate Road Signal X No
Lake/Virginia Smith Parkway Signal X No
Lake/Cardell Signal X No
Lake Road (Project Frontage) X No
Campus Parkway (Offsite) X No
Onsites
Parks
Mini and Pocket Parks X No
Neighborhood Parks X Yes
Community Parks X Yes
Sports Park X O Yes
Linear Parks X Yes
Community Recreation Center X O Yes
Grading X No
Public Safety Site and Improvements X O Yes
Public Elementary School X Yes
Sewer Collection X No
Water Well X Yes
Storm Drainage X No
Dry Utilities X No
Onsite Streets and Roads X No
Landscaping and Signage X No
185
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 119
October 17, 2023
Table 7: Specific Plan Service and Maintenance Responsibilities Master
HOA
SubHOA/POACity Lot
Owner
County Public
Utility
CFD Enterprise
or Utility
Other
City
Parks and Landscaping
Public Parks X
Private Parks X X
Onsite Landscaping X X
Bulbouts, Curb Extensions, Parklettes X
Landscaped Parkways and Medians X
Bioswales/Linear Parks X
Community Recreation Center X
Regional Sports Park X
Project Landscaping X X
Subdivision Improvements
Public Roadways X
Curb, Gutter and Sidewalks X
Landscape Parkways and Sidewalks X
Street Lights X
Traffic Signals X
Roundabout X
Private Roadways X X
Sewer
Pump Station and Force Main Operation X
Sewer Collection Lines and Mains X
Sewer Laterals to Individual Parcels X
Sewer Lines in Alley Easement Areas X
Public Safety
Police X X
Fire and Emergency Medical Services X X
Water
Distribution and Transmission Lines
Water Well
Water Laterals X
Mail Box Kiosks X X
Storm Drainage Lines in Street ROW X
Storm Drainage Ponds X
Project Signage and Entry Monuments X X
Community Signage and Entry Monuments X
Utilities (gas, electric, cable, telephone) X
186
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 120
October 17, 2023
e. The project would have 100 percent responsibility for the reconstruction of Lake Road across the project’s frontage, and the intersection improvements at Lake/Cardella, Lake/Virginia Smith Parkway and Lake/Meyers Gate Road. The project would have 100 percent responsibility for construction of roadways in the specific plan area, except for the portions of Campus Parkway as noted above.
f. The project would fund the offsite water and sewer extensions to serve it, the sewer pump station and force mains. The City of Merced would construct the domestic water well during Phase 1A. Certain portions of these improvements are master plan improvements and are reimburseable through City impact fee credits or direct cash reimbursements. These improvements are intended to include the 16” water main, onsite 12” loop water mains, and gravity portions that can be used by other properties. A definitive list of these improvements will be identified in the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement with the City of Merced. g. The project will dedicate a 0.6-acre improved lot to the City for construction of a police substation and fire station in the location identified in the Development Plan. The value of the property is reimburseable through police and fire Public Facility Fee credits or direct cash reimbursements. The definitive method of reimbursement will be identified in the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement with the City of Merced. h. The project is providing a higher level of park facilities than provided for in the UCP or City policies and regulations. Since the Specific Plan will be developed over time, by multiple builders in multiple development phases, an Ad Hoc Specific Plan Park Acquisition and Development Fee has been established for developments in the project. The Ad Hoc Specific Plan Park Acquisition and Development Fee for each land use is shown in Table 13. These fees will replace the Park Fee portion of the Citywide PFFP fees and be held in a separate trust account for the exclusive benefit of park projects in the Specific Plan.
i. Except for the Specific Plan Ad Hoc Transportation Impact Fee and Specific Plan Park Fees identified above, the project will pay City PFFP fees adopted by the City of Merced, as shown in Table

14. j. The City has established Community Facilities District (CFD) 2003-2 to fund certain public services and infrastructure maintenance, including but not limited to, public safety services (e.g., police and fire protection), landscape maintenance, park maintenance, parkway maintenance, flood control services and facility maintenance, road maintenance, street lighting, traffic signal operations and maintenance, and other services authorized pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Act”), including costs of personnel and equipment replacement and maintenance. The project will participate in the City’s standard CFD. 187
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 121
October 17, 2023
Other Financing Mechanisms
Private Financing
Many of the proposed improvements can be financed through conventional mechanisms, including private financing where the developer or builder finances improvements with private equity and debt sources, pursuant to bonded subdivision improvement agreements. Privately financed or developer financed infrastructure improvements can also involve reimbursement agreements for capacity that is beyond a project’s fair share pursuant to County ordinances and the California Government Code.

Another form of private financing is the use of Property Owner’s Associations (POA) for commercial developments, and homeowner’s associations (HOA) for residential projects. HOA’s are expected to be used for R-3 projects, especially where there is some element of for-sale units, and for projects that have private streets and improvements (although none are planned at this time). A Master HOA will be used to operate and maintain the Community Recreation Center and common amenities, and the areas subject to the Master HOA will be the R-1, R-2, R-3, Village Residential Mixed Use, and possibly the R-4 properties. As the name implies, a Master HOA is used in master planned communities that may include homes, commercial, retail and community facilities. The California Department of Real Estate defines them as developments consisting of 500 or more separate residential interests managed by a community association (Cal. Code Regs. §2792.32(a)). Within a master plan community that is governed by a master HOA there may also be smaller sub-associations with their own governing documents. Members pay two sets of membership dues, one set to the master association and one to the sub-association (if a subassociation exists). Sub-associations can be set up as standalone associations with their own CC&Rs or as areas within an association that receive and pay for special benefits. Typically, the master association maintains the common public cand private facilities that are not maintained in other ways. Subassociations maintain the amenities within their own developments. From a practical matter, nonresidential properties are rarely placed into Master HOAs because of the facilities maintained, and because of Department of Real Estate rules favoring control of these entities by residents and homeowners.

Impact Fees/In-Kind Improvements
Special impact fees may be adopted for this specific project or Countywide and levied against new development at the permit stage to offset the costs of a wide variety of public facilities and infrastructure improvements. Passage of AB 1600 refined conditions for the imposition of impact fees, which have long been permitted under California law. Impact Fees must have a clear relationship to the need created by the project and the actual cost of the improvements and cannot be used to upgrade ser-vices to existing development. In some cases, right of way dedications may serve in-lieu of payment of money. Impact fees or mitigation fees adopted for a specific project must be “strictly proportional” to the project’s impact. For the Specific Plan special impact fees will be adopted for traffic and parks. Ad Hoc fees have been established for Parks and Traffic; otherwise, standard Citywide PFFP fees and water and sewer fees apply to the project.

Grants
There are a number of grant programs administered through State agencies which are designed to stimulate economic development within smaller cities and rural counties. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, administered through the State Housing and Community Develop188 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 122
October 17, 2023
ment Department, provides eligible jurisdictions with funding commitments for project specific business and development loans or for public infrastructure grants. CDBG funds can be used in a variety of ways to fill gaps in project financing, including construction loans, land acquisition loans, loans for privately owned on-site improvements and grants for publicly owned off-site improvements. For the purposes of the Specific Plan, it is assumed that there would be no grant funding of improvements or services.

Special Assessment District (1991, 1913, 1915 ACI)
California law provides procedures to levy assessments against benefitting properties and the issuance of tax exempt bonds to finance public facilities and infrastructure improvements. The assessments are fixed dollar amounts and may be prepaid. Only improvements with property-specific benefits (e.g., roads, water and sewer improvements) may be financed with this financial mechanism. No special assessment districts are proposed. CFDs (described below) will be used for any infrastructure that requires bond financing.

Mello-Roos Community Facilities. Districts
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows for the creation of a special district authorized to levy a special tax and issue tax exempt bonds to finance public facilities and services. A Community Facilities District (CFD) may be initiated by the legislative body or by property owner petition and must be approved by a 2/3 majority of either properly owners or registered voters (assuming more than 12 registered voters live in the area). This type of levy will create a tax lien against the property.

Taxes are collected annually with property taxes and may be prepaid if prepayment provisions are specified in the tax formula. It is not required that the tax he apportioned on the basis of benefit. Because of this, Mello-Roos levies may be used to fund improvements of general benefit, such as police and fire, parks and libraries. The City has formed Community Facilities Districts and the project will be annexed to one of the existing districts or a new district formed for the Specific Plan.

The project will participate in City CFD 2003-2 or form a special purpose CFD) consistent with the City’s practice of covering the cost of any negative fiscal impact, public safety services (e.g., police and fire protection), landscape maintenance, park maintenance, parkway maintenance, flood control services and facility maintenance, street lighting, and traffic control (signals and roundabouts) operations and maintenance. Table 8 shows the expected revenue from such a CFD at each major phase and subphase of development. Total annual revenues in Phase 1 are estimated to be $2.27 million, and $3.9 million at buildout. The maximum supplemental tax rate is estimated to be 0.27% of initial property values, less than the 0.50% guideline that has been adopted by the City of Merced. These estimates will be finalized and broken down by development sub-phase once final specific service quantities are established. 189
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 123
October 17, 2023
Table 8: CFD Services Cost and Estimated Assessments
Phase 1 Phase 2 Total
Residential Units 2,541 1,316 3,857
Population 7,265 3,844 11,109
Employees (@ 0.462) 1,258 85 1,343
Service Population 8,523 3,928 12,452
Commercial Units (KSF) 807.50 54.50 862.00
Residential Built Value $ 1,002,600,397 $ 610,058,794 $ 1,612,659,191 Commercial Built Value $ 222,062,500 $ 14,987,500 $ 237,050,000 Total Built Value $ 1,224,662,897 $ 625,046,294 $ 1,849,709,191 Subdivision Maintenance $ 470,380 $ 586,781 $ 1,057,162 Parks $ 309,494 $ 378,863 $ 688,357
Trails $ 49,179 $ 36,895 $ 86,075
Fire Services $ 438,750 $ 172,675 $ 611,425
Police Services $ 710,075 $ 271,375 $ 981,450
Administration 5% $ 98,894 $ 72,329 $ 171,223
Contingency and Reserve @ 10% $ 197,788 $ 144,659 $ 342,447 Total $ 2,274,560 $ 1,663,578 $ 3,938,138
Rate per Total Value 0.19% 0.27% 0.21%
Allocated to Commercial per Service Pop $ 282,714 $ 26,962 $ 309,676 Allocated to Residential $ 1,991,846 $ 1,636,616 $ 3,628,462 Residential Tax Rate 0.199% 0.268% 0.225%
Residential Rate/Capita/Year $ 274.16 $ 425.81 $ 326.63 Rate per Housing Type
R-1 Low (12,500) 877.30 1,362.58 $ 1,045.20
R-1 Low-Medium (7000) 877.30 1,362.58 $ 1,045.20
R-1 Medium (5000) 877.30 1,362.58 $ 1,045.20
R-1 Medium (5000, Cluster/Alley) 877.30 1,362.58 $ 1,045.20 R-2 (Cluster) 877.30 1,362.58 $ 1,045.20
R-3 For Sale 548.31 851.61 $ 653.25
R-3 For Rent 548.31 851.61 $ 653.25
R-4 Student (60%) 1,096.62 1,703.22 $ 1,306.50
R-4 Market (40%) 548.31 851.61 $ 653.25
Town Center Mixed Use 548.31 851.61 $ 653.25
Rate per Commercial SF $ 0.35 $ 0.49 $ 0.36
Landscaping and Lighting Districts
Installation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping and lighting can be provided for through annual assessments on benefitting properties under a Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD). LLDs may also provide for construction and maintenance of associated features, including gutters, curbs, walls, 190
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 124
October 17, 2023
sidewalks or paving and irrigation or drainage facilities. Usage of a CFD is considered a more appropriate means for maintaining roads, landscaping and other facilities covered by LLD enabling statutes.

Fiscal Impact Projections
The project must be fiscally positive to be an economic asset to the County and the City. The City needs adequate revenues to provide the needed services on an ongoing basis. Demonstrating that the City is fiscally and physically able to provide services to the project is also a condition to annexation of the project to the City.

The fiscal impact of the project is based on the cost of infrastructure and services compared to the revenues that are potentially generated from the project from the community facilities district, sales taxes, property taxes (considering the tax sharing agreement developed by the City and County), motor vehicle “in lieu” revenues, and other revenue sources. Appendix N shows the projected annual property tax, sales tax, and hotel tax and other revenues associated with each phase of the project, as well as for the total buildout. Overall, as of 2022, it was estimated that at buildout, (and after annexation) the project will generate approximately $6.67 million per year to the City General Fund, plus annual CFD revenues of $3.9 million as shown in Table 8 for a total of $10.6 million per year. If the property is not annexed the County General Fund would receive $5.97 million per year. After annexation the County would receive $2.1 million per year.

As of 2022, the net costs of services in the City General Fund and the CFD funds are estimated to be $55.8 million, or approximately $538 per service population in the City. Service population in the City is defined as population plus 46.2% of employees in retail, office and industrial businesses. The project has a service population of 12,103 (11,106 residents plus 2,160 employees at 46.2%) and a projected General Fund and CFD services cost of $6.5 million. The net benefit to the City is estimated to be $3.8 million per year. The actual revenues and costs will depend on the timing of annexation and the actual buildout of the project, but this comparison demonstrates that the project has a net fiscal benefit to the City.

Traffic Impact Fee
The project’s fair share of intersection improvements and roadway segments impacted by the project will be paid for through an Ad Hoc Traffic Impact Fee adopted through this Specific Plan and a Development Agreement. These fees will cover the cost to provide future improvements to various intersections and streets identified in the traffic study and the EIR, to pay for the project’s fair share of road segment improvements identified in the City’s 2021 PFFP fee study. The facilities that need to be funded by the Project and that are included in the traffic fee program for the Project are detailed in Table 9. Intersections affected by the project are shown in Figure 53. The net allocation of the needed improvements to Specific Plan properties is based on the cost of the improvements, as provided in the engineer’s estimate, costs that have been allocated to others (UC Merced) by agreement, improvements to be funded by State and local grants (primarily Campus Parkway), the net amount allocated to City and Specific Plan properties, and the Specific Plan’s fair share of those improvements. As Table 9 shows, the total estimated costs of intersection improvements is $18.4 million, and the total cost of road widenings and improvements is $72.7 million, for a total improvement cost of $91.1 million. Of this amount, ap191 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 125
October 17, 2023
proximately $8.3 million is to come from State grant funds for Campus Parkway, and $13.3 million is to come from UC Merced under existing agreements with the City and County. The Specific Plan’s share of the balance is approximately $15.4 million. The Specific Plan will construct $7.9 of the improvements as an in-kind contribution, leaving a balance to be financed by the impact fee of approximately $7.5 million. Traffic fees for uses in the project are shown in Table 11. The detail and backup for these fees are provided in Table 9 and Appendix N. Fees will apply to the useful floor area of a building, including any conditioned storage areas, sales areas, support areas, etc. but not including any space that is only “shelled in” and does not have tenant improvements or isn’t otherwise authorized for occupancy by the Building Department. Once the traffic fee is finalized it will be converted to a fee per square foot of area in accordance with State Law.

Park Impact Fee
Funding for park improvements is planned to come from three different sources. First, subdividers and builders will construct the public mini-parks and pocket parks in their neighborhoods. These parks are logically part of the individual developments and will be used primarily by the occupants of the development. There are mini-parks and pocket parks located throughout the development and this approach is relatively equitable for the different builders and developers in the project. Second, private parks located in R-3 and R-4 areas will be constructed and operated by the builder of the development.

Third, the Linear Parks, trails, Sports Park, Community Recreation Center and other facilities that serve multiple neighborhoods will be funded from an Ad Hoc Specific Plan park acquisition and development fee. This fee will provide an allowance for land acquisition costs, engineering and design, construction, plus an allowance for the public art amenities and improvements identified in the Public Area section of the design guidelines. The costs to be funded from the Specific Plan Parks Acquisition and Development Fee are shown in Table 12, and the fee per unit of development is shown in Table 13 . Once the fee is finalized it will be converted to a fee per square foot of area in accordance with State Law.

Other Impact Fees
Developments in the project will pay the City’s adopted Fire, Police, Public Works and Information Technology Impact Fees. It will also pay the City’s established fees for Water Master Plan improvements, fees for Wastewater collection and wastewater treatment. Development Impact Fees applicable to the project (not including water and wastewater fees) are shown in Table 14. 192
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 126
October 17, 2023
Figure 53: Offsite Intersections
193
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 127
October 17, 2023
Table 9: Net Allocation of Traffic Improvement Costs to Specific Plan Improvement Estimated Cost Existing
Deficiency UC Merced County (CalTrans, Other) City TIF VST Fair Share Specific Plan Fair Share VST In-King/Build Allocated to Specific Plan Fee

1. Snelling Highway / Bellevue Road $ 1,415,497 No $ - $ - $ 380,769 13.30% $ 188,208 $ - $ 188,208

2. G Street / Bellevue Road $ 834,084 Yes $ - $ - $ 224,368 9.89% $ 82,517 $ - $ 82,517

3. Lake Road / Bellevue Road $ 1,973,316 No $ 1,973,316 $ - 0.00% $ - $ - $ -

4. G Street / Cardella Road $ 238,412 No $ - $ - $ 64,133 3.8% $ 9,087 $ - $ 9,087

5. Lake Road / Cardella Road $ 823,583 No $ - $ - 100.0% $ 823,583 $ 823,583 $ 0

6. Snelling Highway / Yosemite Avenue $ 765,656 Yes $ - $ - $ 205,961 6.13% $ 46,913 $ - $ 46,913

7. G Street / Yosemite Avenue $ 1,188,899 Yes $ - $ - $ 319,814 3.04% $ 36,160 $ - $ 36,160

8. Gardner Avenue / Yosemite Avenue $ 1,076,869 Yes $ - $ - $ 289,678 5.59% $ 60,184 $ - $ 60,184

9. McKee Road / Yosemite Avenue $ 1,180,401 No $ - $ - $ 317,528 8.08% $ 95,322 $ - $ 95,322

10. Lake Road / Yosemite Avenue $ 1,062,215 No $ 1,062,215 $ - 0.00% $ - $ - $ -

11. Snelling Highway / Olive Avenue $ 1,541,931 Yes $ - $ - $ 414,780 3.64% $ 56,075 $ - $ 56,075

12. R Street / Olive Avenue $ 613,692 Yes $ - $ - $ 165,083 1.14% $ 6,991 $ - $ 6,991

13. M Street / Olive Avenue $ - Yes $ - $ - $ - 1.14% $ - $ - $ -

14. G Street / Olive Avenue $ 547,162 Yes $ - $ - $ 147,187 2.02% $ 11,047 $ - $ 11,047

15. Snelling Highway / 16th Street $ 1,215,338 Yes $ - $ - $ 326,926 3.67% $ 44,620 $ - $ 44,620

16. Martin Luther King Jr / SR 99 NB Ramps $ 698,640 Yes $ - $ - $ 187,934 2.61% $ 18,258 $ - $ 18,258

17. G Street / SR 99 NB Off-Ramp $ 662,244 No $ - $ - $ 178,144 3.34% $ 22,095 $ - $ 22,095

18. Campus Pkwy/ Yosemite Avenue $ - No $ - $ - $ - 0.00% $ - $ - $ -

19. Campus Parkway / Olive Avenue $ - No $ - $ - $ - 0.00% $ - $ - $ -

20. Campus Parkway / Connector Road $ - No $ - $ - $ - 0.00% $ - $ - $ -

21. SR 140 / Connector Road $ - No $ - $ - $ - 0.00% $ - $ - $ -

22. Campus Parkway / Childs Avenue $ - No $ - $ - $ - 0.00% $ - $ - $ -

23. Campus Parkway / Gerard Avenue $ - No $ - $ - $ - 0.00% $ - $ - $ -

24. Campus Parkway / Coffee Street $ 733,057 No $ - $ - $ 197,192 7.59% $ 55,646 $ - $ 55,646

25. Sr 99 NB Ramps / Campus Parkway $ - No $ - $ - 0.00% $ - $ - $ - A. Meyers Gate Road / Lake Street $ 450,000 No $ - $ - 100.00% $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ - B. Meyers Gate Road / Campus Parkway $ 250,000 No $ - $ - 100.00% $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - C. Virginia Smith Parkway / Lake Road $ 350,000 No $ - $ - 100.00% $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ - D. Virginia Smith Parkway / Campus Parkway $ 250,000 No $ - $ - 100.00% $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - E. Virginia Smith Parkway / Golden Bobcat $ 125,000 No $ - $ - 100.00% $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ - F. Virginia Smith Parkway / Center Street $ 250,000 No $ - $ - 100.00% $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - G. Virginia Smith Parkway /Kibby Road $ 125,000 No $ - $ - 100.00% $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ - Subtotal-Intersections $ 18,370,996 $ 3,035,531 $ - $ 3,419,496 $ 0 $ 3,356,705 $ 2,623,583 $ 733,122 Segments
Bellevue Road--Snelling Hwy to G $ 11,118,202 No $ - $ - $ 2,990,796 18.22% $ 2,025,506 $ - $ 2,025,506 Bellevue Road--G to Bellevue $ 11,118,202 No $ 9,228,107 $ - $ 1,890,094 14.63% $ 1,626,542 $ - $ 1,626,542 Lake Road--Bellevue to Meyers Gate Road2 $ 500,000 No $ - $ 500,000 0.00% $ - $ - $ - Lake Road--Meyers Gate Road to Cardella $ 500,000 No $ - 100.00% $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - Lake Road--Cardella to Yosemite $ 500,000 No $ - $ - 0.00% $ - $ - $ - Yosemite--Campus Parkway to Lake $ 2,779,540 No $ - $ - $ 747,696 18.61% $ 517,281 $ - $ 517,281 Yosemite Avenue--Lake to Parsons $ 1,320,000 No $ - $ - $ 355,080 16.89% $ 222,910 $ - $ 222,910 Yosemite Avenue--Parsons to G Steet $ 1,320,000 No $ - $ - $ 355,080 9.53% $ 125,813 $ - $ 125,813 G Street--Bellevue to Cardella $ 13,728,000 No $ - $ - $ 3,692,832 6.77% $ 929,724 $ - $ 929,724 G Street--Cardella to Mercy $ 3,640,000 No $ - $ - $ 979,160 7.82% $ 284,583 $ - $ 284,583 Campus Parkway--Yosemite to Cardella1 $ 11,194,267 No $ 2,049,380 $ 5,393,089 18.65% $ 2,087,731 $ - Campus Parkway--Cardella to Meyers Gate1,5 $ 6,755,508 No $ 1,844,676 $ - 18.65% $ 1,259,902 $ 5,135,257 Campus Parkway--Meyers Gate to Bellevue1 $ 3,866,437 No $ 2,672,456 $ 2,395,810 18.65% $ 721,091 $ - Subtotal-Segments $ 68,340,155 $ 15,794,619 $ 8,288,900 $ 11,010,739 $ 10,301,082 $ 5,635,257 $ 5,732,358 Campus Parkway ROW Reimbursment 9.89% $ 1,076,900
Total $ 86,711,152 $ 18,830,150 $ 8,288,900 $ 14,430,235 $ 13,657,788 $ 8,258,840 $ 7,542,381 194
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 128
October 17, 2023
Table 10: Allocation of TIF to Agencies
Improvement
UC Merced for
VST/UCP Share
of Bellevue per
City Agreement
County of
Merced (VST
Share of
County
Improvement)
VST
(Dedicated or
Deferred R)W)
City of
Merced
Total

1. Snelling Highway / Bellevue Road $ - $ - $ - $ 188,208 $ 188,208

2. G Street / Bellevue Road $ - $ - $ - $ 82,517 $ 82,517

3. Lake Road / Bellevue Road $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

4. G Street / Cardella Road $ - $ - $ - $ 9,087 $ 9,087

5. Lake Road / Cardella Road $ - $ - $ - $ 0 $ 0

6. Snelling Highway / Yosemite Avenue $ - $ - $ - $ 46,913 $ 46,913

7. G Street / Yosemite Avenue $ - $ - $ - $ 36,160 $ 36,160

8. Gardner Avenue / Yosemite Avenue $ - $ - $ - $ 60,184 $ 60,184

9. McKee Road / Yosemite Avenue $ - $ - $ - $ 95,322 $ 95,322

10. Lake Road / Yosemite Avenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

11. Snelling Highway / Olive Avenue $ - $ - $ - $ 56,075 $ 56,075

12. R Street / Olive Avenue $ - $ - $ - $ 6,991 $ 6,991

13. M Street / Olive Avenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

14. G Street / Olive Avenue $ - $ - $ - $ 11,047 $ 11,047

15. Snelling Highway / 16th Street $ - $ - $ - $ 44,620 $ 44,620

16. Martin Luther King Jr / SR 99 NB Ramps $ - $ - $ - $ 18,258 $ 18,258

17. G Street / SR 99 NB Off-Ramp $ - $ - $ - $ 22,095 $ 22,095

18. Campus Pkwy/ Yosemite Avenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

19. Campus Parkway / Olive Avenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

20. Campus Parkway / Connector Road $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

21. SR 140 / Connector Road $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

22. Campus Parkway / Childs Avenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

23. Campus Parkway / Gerard Avenue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

24. Campus Parkway / Coffee Street $ - $ - $ - $ 55,646 $ 55,646

25. Sr 99 NB Ramps / Campus Parkway $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - A. Meyers Gate Road / Lake Street $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
B. Meyers Gate Road / Campus Parkway $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - C. Virginia Smith Parkway / Lake Road $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - D. Virginia Smith Parkway / Campus Parkway $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - E. Virginia Smith Parkway / Golden Bobcat $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - F. Virginia Smith Parkway / Center Street $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - G. Virginia Smith Parkway /Kibby Road $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal-Intersections $ - $ - $ - $ 733,122 $ 733,122
Bellevue Road--Snelling Hwy to G $ - $ - $ - $ 2,025,506 $ 2,025,506 Bellevue Road--G to Bellevue $ 1,626,542 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,626,542 Lake Road--Bellevue to Meyers Gate Road2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Lake Road--Meyers Gate Road to Cardella $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Lake Road--Cardella to Yosemite $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Yosemite--Campus Parkway to Lake $ - $ - $ - $ 517,281 $ 517,281 Yosemite Avenue--Lake to Parsons $ - $ - $ - $ 222,910 $ 222,910 Yosemite Avenue--Parsons to G Steet $ - $ - $ - $ 125,813 $ 125,813 G Street--Bellevue to Cardella $ - $ - $ - $ 929,724 $ 929,724 G Street--Cardella to Mercy $ - $ - $ - $ 284,583 $ 284,583 Campus Parkway--Yosemite to Cardella1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Campus Parkway--Cardella to Meyers Gate1,5 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Campus Parkway--Meyers Gate to Bellevue1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal-Segments $ 1,626,542 $ - $ 5,227,683 $ 5,732,358 Campus Parkway Right of Way $ 1,076,900 $ 1,076,900
Total $ 1,626,542 $ - $ 1,076,900 $ 5,960,806 $ 7,542,381 195
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 129
October 17, 2023
Table 11: Transportation Impact Fee per Unit
Land Use Type Unit Impact
Fee/Unit
Residential
R-1 Low (12,500) Dwelling Unit $1,279
R-1 Low-Medium (7000) Dwelling Unit $1,279
R-1 Medium (5,000) Dwelling Unit $1,279
R-1 Medium (5,000, Cluster/Alley) Dwelling Unit $1,279
R-2 (Cluster) Dwelling Unit $1,279
R-3 For Sale Dwelling Unit $1,279
R-3 For Rent Dwelling Unit $1,279
R-4 Student (60%) Dwelling Unit $1,279
R-4 Market (40%) Dwelling Unit $1,279
Town Center Mixed Use Dwelling Unit $593
Commercial
Retail Mixed (Main Street/Town Center) SF $3.95
Hotel/Office Rooms $1.68
NC/Retail SF $3.95
Community Commercial SF $3.95
Elementary School Students $326
Parks Acres $538
196
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 130
October 17, 2023
Table 12: Community Park Fee Costs
Park Acquisition and
Development Fee Acres
Acquisition Cost
@
Improvement
Cost
Engineering and
Design and
Inspection @
Total
$100,000 $ 275,000.00 17.5%
Community Recreation Center $ -
Property Acquisition 7.72 $ 772,000 $ 772,000
Park Area 4.50 $ 1,237,500 $ 216,563 $ 1,454,063
Clubhouse (12,500 SF) $ 2,812,500 $ 492,188 $ 3,304,688 Hardscape Amenities (Pool) $ 3,519,600 $ 615,930 $ 4,135,530 Other Structures (8,800 SF) $ 222,000 $ 38,850 $ 260,850 Parking (56,500 SF) $ 423,360 $ 74,088 $ 497,448
Street Frontages (1,100 LF) $ 247,500 $ 43,313 $ 290,813 Subtotal $ 772,000 $ 8,462,460 $ 1,480,931 $ 10,715,391 Community Parks $ - $ - $ -
Park D1 6.17 $ 617,000 $ 1,696,750 $ 296,931 $ 2,610,681 Park C3 6.42 $ 642,000 $ 1,765,500 $ 308,963 $ 2,716,463 Subtotal $ 1,259,000 $ 3,462,250 $ 605,894 $ 5,327,144
Neighborhood Park $ - $ - $ -
Park E1 1.91 $ 191,000 $ 525,250 $ 78,788 $ 795,038
Regional Sports Park
Property Acquisition 36.05 $ 3,605,000 $ 3,605,000
Park Area $ 2,134,068 $ 373,462 $ 2,507,530
Hardscape Amenities $ 123,750 $ 21,656 $ 145,406
Other Structures (7,500) $ 187,500 $ 32,813 $ 220,313
Parking (60,500 SF) $ 453,750 $ 79,406 $ 533,156
Street Frontages (1,100 LF) $ 247,500 $ 43,313 $ 290,813 Subtotal $ 3,605,000 $ 3,146,568 $ 550,649 $ 7,302,217
Linear Parks and Trails 18.50 $ 1,850,000 $ 1,387,500 $ 208,125 $ 3,445,625 Public Art and Amenities $ - $ 1,250,000 $ 187,500 $ 1,437,500 Total $ 7,677,000 $ 18,234,028 $ 3,111,886 $ 29,022,914 197
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 131
October 17, 2023
Table 13: Specific Plan Park Acquisition and Development Fee Land Use Unit Persons per
Household
Cost Per
Unit/Service
Population
Fee/Unit
Residential
R-1 Low (12,500) Dwelling 3.20 $ 2,603 $ 8,331
R-1 Low-Medium (7000) Dwelling 3.20 $ 2,603 $ 8,331
R-1 Medium (5000) Dwelling 3.20 $ 2,603 $ 8,331
R-1 Medium (5000, Cluster/Alley) Dwelling 3.20 $ 2,603 $ 8,331 R-2 (Cluster) Dwelling 3.20 $ 2,603 $ 8,331
R-3 For Sale Dwelling 2.00 $ 2,603 $ 5,207
R-3 For Rent Dwelling 2.00 $ 2,603 $ 5,207
R-4 Student (60%) Dwelling 2.00 $ 2,603 $ 5,207
R-4 Market (40%) Dwelling 2.00 $ 2,603 $ 5,207
Town Center Mixed Use Dwelling 1.50 $ 2,603 $ 3,905
10,075.80
Commercial Emp/SF Per SF
Retail Mixed (Main Street/Town Center) SF 0.0011 $ 2,603 $ 1.38 Hotel/Office SF 0.0011 $ 2,603 $ 1.38
NC/Retail SF 0.0011 $ 2,603 $ 1.38
Community Commercial SF 0.0011 $ 2,603 $ 1.38
198
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 132
October 17, 2023
Table 14: Impact Fees Applicable to Specific Plan
Land Use Type Unit Traffic Parks Fire Police Public
Works IT Total
Residential
R-1 Low (12,500) Dwelling Unit $ 1,261 $ 8,331 $ 1,658 $ 1,263 $ 190 $ 147 $ 12,850 R-1 Low-Medium (7000) Dwelling Unit $ 1,261 $ 8,331 $ 1,658 $ 1,263 $ 190 $ 147 $ 12,850 R-1 Medium Dwelling Unit $ 1,261 $ 8,331 $ 1,658 $ 1,263 $ 190 $ 147 $ 12,850 R-1 Medium Cluster Dwelling Unit $ 1,261 $ 8,331 $ 1,658 $ 1,263 $ 190 $ 147 $ 12,850 R-2 (Cluster) Dwelling Unit $ 1,261 $ 8,331 $ 1,658 $ 1,263 $ 190 $ 147 $ 12,850 R-3 For Sale Dwelling Unit $ 1,261 $ 5,207 $ 1,316 $ 1,003 $ 151 $ 117 $ 9,055 R-3 For Rent Dwelling Unit $ 1,261 $ 5,207 $ 1,316 $ 1,003 $ 151 $ 117 $ 9,055 R-4 Student (60%) Dwelling Unit $ 700 $ 5,207 $ 1,316 $ 1,003 $ 151 $ 117 $ 8,494 R-4 Market (40%) Dwelling Unit $ 1,261 $ 5,207 $ 1,316 $ 1,003 $ 151 $ 117 $ 9,055 Town Center Mixed Use Dwelling Unit $ 585 $ 3,905 $ 1,316 $ 1,003 $ 151 $ 117 $ 7,077 Commercial
Retail Mixed SF $ 3.89 $ 1.38 $ 1.30 $ 0.99 $ 0.15 $ 0.12 $ 7.83 Office SF $ 1.66 $ 1.38 $ 1.48 $ 1.13 $ 0.17 $ 0.13 $ 5.94 NC/Retail SF $ 3.89 $ 1.38 $ 1.30 $ 0.99 $ 0.15 $ 0.12 $ 7.83 Community Commercial SF $ 3.89 $ 1.38 $ 1.30 $ 0.99 $ 0.15 $ 0.12 $ 7.83 Elementary School Students $ 321 $ - $ 321
Parks Acres $ 530 $ - $ 530
Specific Plan Impact Fees City PFFP Development Impact Fees 199
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 133
October 17, 2023
Plan for Services
The VST project is anticipated to be annexed to the City of Merced, as contemplated by the Merced General Plan and the University Community Plan (UCP). City Urban Expansion Policy UE-1.4 states, among other matters, that “The University Community should be incorporated into the City of Merced, and should not be part of the unincorporated County, or a separate City.” The City’s Urban Expansion Element also considers the annexation of UC Merced and the University as two of the four areas that should be annexed to the City and developed in the short term. These areas, according to the City General Plan “… represent logical expansion areas for the City, primarily because they are adjacent to major road improvements (Merced-Atwater Expressway, Mission Avenue corridor, etc.), …[and] encompass areas needed for long-term commercial, industrial and residential development.” As planned, the City of Merced would be responsible for the provision of public safety services, road maintenance, storm drainage maintenance, parks programming and maintenance, development services including permit processing and code enforcement, general administration, provision of water and sewer utilities, and solid waste collection. The following sections address the plan for municipal services for the VST property. Table 6 identifies the responsibility for financing of the improvements of the Specific Plan, and Table 7 identifies the entities that are responsible for the maintenance of public and private improvements in the project.

The basis for this plan for services is the most recent version of LAFCo’s Municipal Service Review for the City of Merced (which includes the expansion of the City’s SUDP and SOI to include the UCP properties, including the VST property), the 2021 update to the city’s Public Facility Financing Plan (PFFP), the 2018 fire department services Standards of Coverage Assessment, and other City documents and sources.

LAFCo policies require that all public services shall be available to all annexed land in an efficient and orderly manner, and require that there shall be adequate governmental services for both existing and proposed land uses within the annexation territory, that there be a “plan for services”, including the sufficiency of revenue sources for those services, that there be timely availability of water supplies adequate for projected needs as specified in Section 56668(k) of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act of 2000, and that there be a demonstration that public services will not be provided to annexing territory to the detriment of territory already within the City. This Plan for Services addresses these questions and covers the physical availability of services and the sufficiency of financing for the services required to support the project.

Police Services
Police services are provided from a combination of police stations and substations and mobile police units. Patrol officers are assigned to one of the three patrol areas in order to best know their patrol area and the area’s residents. Officers in the patrol division are assigned to one of three shifts for each work day. The assignments are rotated every six months. The Investigations Unit was assigned over 3,300 cases in 2022 ranging from homicides to auto burglaries to rape to domestic violence. Officers were on the scene for over 70,000 incidents in 2022. Dispatch received and handled over 185,000 calls for service in 2022 that included calls to 911, police, fire, and ambulance requests. The Traffic Unit responded to over 2,500 collision incidents resulting in 673 injuries and 11 fatalities. 200
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 134
October 17, 2023
According to the City’s adopted Capital improvement Program, in order to service future expansions in the urban boundaries there will need to be the acquisition or construction of at least one new police station or substation. In addition, the current Central Station will need to be relocated or remodeled. The City estimates an increase in officer responses to incidents from nearly 65,000 in 2009 to over 135,000 annually by 2030. In order to accommodate such increases, additional officers, equipment and facilities will be added.

According to the 2021 update of the PFFP, the Police Department has 98 sworn officers to serve a Service Population of 120,715 (residents and employees), or 0.81 sworn officers for every 1,000 Service Population served. With the addition of 40,076 persons in Merced’s planning area to be served by 2040, the City will need 33 additional sworn officers to maintain the current level of service. Based on the Service Population estimate of 12,452 for the VST project, the project will require personnel and facilities necessary for 10 sworn officers and support staff.

In order to address the needs generated by the project, the VST project will participate in the City’s PFFP, and residential and non-residential units will pay impact fees to cover additional needs for buildings, equipment and vehicles totaling $5.2 million. The project will also have a Community Facilities District (CFD) that will include a component for police services. This amount is estimated to total approximately $1,000,000 per year according to estimates of CFD revenues in Table 8. Finally, the project will provide a site for a potential police substation adjacent to the fire station site recommended in the General Plan. As noted in the Fiscal Impact Projections for the Specific Plan, the project will be fiscally positive for the City of Merced, generating $3.8 million in General Fund revenues in excess of the $538 per Service Population service costs, and the project is therefore considered to be self-funding and fiscally self-sufficient.

Fire Services
The need for fire services and fire facilities is
a function of the number of business and residential
units, and the travel time and distance of these to
the nearest fire station. The location of the fire facilities serving a project is often more important than the size of staffing of any individual facility. Service levels are therefore measured in terms of total response times and travel times. The project site and the UC Merced campus are currently served by
County CDF Fire Station 85 located at McKee and El
Portal Road in east Merced, approximately 2.5 miles
(4 minutes) from the Project Site and 3 miles (4.5 minutes) from UC Merced. Upon annexation, the project site and UC Merced would be served by City Fire Station 55 located on Parsons and Silverado which is 2.4 miles (4 minutes) from the Project Site, and 3 miles (4.5 minutes) from UC Merced. Currently, the City has 5 fire stations for a service population of 120,715 residents and employees, or 1 fire station for every 24,143 persons served. Merced Fire Department (MFD) responds to emergency situations includ201 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 135
October 17, 2023
ing structure fires, wildfires, medical emergencies and hazardous materials incidents. The Safety Element of the City General Plan states that the Fire Department’s response objective is to arrive at the scene of an emergency within 4:00 to 6:00 minutes 90 percent of the time within the resource constraints of the City. This standard has been further clarified in the City fire master plan that the first-in travel time is to optimally be 4 minutes, with backup units available within 8 minutes travel time. According to Map 8 in the Standards of Coverage Assessment report, the southwestern portion of the project (Phase 1b) meets the 4-minute travel time from MFD Station 55, and the entire project is within 5- minutes travel time of Station 55 according to Map 9 of the Fire Department’s Standards of Coverage Assessment. Currently, the 90th percentile travel time to calls for service is greater than 4 minutes. Consequently, the City has been planning for the relocation of one of the current fire stations to a site north of Yosemite, or the construction of an additional station in the Bellevue Ranch area on Bellevue Between G Street and Golf Road. This new station would be 1.5 miles (2.5 minutes) from UC Merced and 2 miles (3 minutes) from the VST Project Site. Operational funding for this station has been secured, and development projects in north Merced have contributed development impact fees to aid in its construction. The construction of this station is identified in the City’s 2022-2023 Capital and Acquisitions Budget. Fire Department Administration personnel indicated that it is expected to be operational in 2026/2027. Once this station is operational, it would place all of UC Merced and all of Phase 1 of VST within a 4-minute travel distance.

To address the need for new facilities, the City’s PFFP provides financing for a new Training Facility and approximately 1.66 new fire stations. The funding plan includes the new Station 56 Bellevue Ranch fire station, which includes the costs of constructing and furnishing the station, as well as aerial ladder apparatus and other vehicles and equipment needed to operate the station, and Station 57 to be located in Phase 1A of VST, as recommended by the General Plan and shown in Figure 5.1 of the General Plan Public Services and Facilities Element. In consultation with the MFD, the site is located in the first phase of development on the north side of Virginia Smith Parkway one block east of Campus Parkway. This location will provide the widest access range with the ability to serve the entire UCP, the UC Merced property, and future development areas to the west of Lake Road. Based on the PFFP fire fees, the VST development site will contribute $6.9 million in construction costs to the new fire station from City PFFP fees over the buildout of the project (provided as a mix of the contributed site and fees), and approximate $600,000 per year towards MFD operations from the CFD, as shown in Table 8. Other projects in the vicinity including University Vista, University Village and UC Merced will also contribute additional PFFP fire station construction funds totaling approximately $5 million. Actual construction of the fire station would need to occur in Phase 1e in order to ensure that there is no degradation of response time below City standards. As noted in the Fiscal Impact Projections for the Specific Plan, the project will be fiscally positive for the City of Merced, generating $3.8 million in General Fund revenues in excess of service costs, and the project is therefore considered to be self-funding and fiscally selfsufficient.

Storm Drainage
The City’s Storm Drainage Master Plan (2002) does not address regional flood control issues such as Bear Creek and Black Rascal Creek and tributaries, which run through the City of Merced, or storm drainage requirements of the UC Merced campus, but the City’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordi202 UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 136
October 17, 2023
nance does address mitigation of potential flood impacts by restricting development in flood-prone areas. In order to manage storm drainage in developed areas, the City has adopted standards for storm drainage management. These standards are in conformance with the City’s State Water Resources Control Board MS4 Permit (Permit Number CA000004, Water Quality Order No. 2013-0001 DWQ). The General Permit requires regulated small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (“MS4s”) in urbanized areas, as well as small MS4s outside the urbanized areas that are designated by the permitting authority, to adopt regulations for the treatment and management of storm sewer flows that are discharged to waterways.

The project has designed and will construct the necessary facilities to manage storm drainage in conformance with City standards, including storm drainage conveyance, bioswales, treatment areas for surface runoff, detention, and discharge of water to area waterways within the MS4 Post Construction discharge limits. Funds for maintenance of the storm drain facilities will be provided in the CFD, as shown in Table 8.

Wastewater Collection and Treatment
There are two elements to the provision of wastewater services: collection and treatment. The City of Merced Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) is owned and operated by the City of Merced as part of a domestic wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system. The WWTF is currently designed to treat an average flow of 12 million gallons per day (MGD), and currently has average dry day flows equal to 7.0 MGD and average wet day flows of approximately 13.5 MGD. In 2006 an expansion of the plant to a hydraulic capacity of 20 MGD was evaluated and approved. An increase to 16 MGD is currently underway. Treated effluent is discharged into the Hartley Slough lateral and, depending on the season and irrigation requirements, to the off-site Wildlife Management Area and Land Application Area. These current improvements provide for effluent that meets Title 22 drinking water standards established by the California Code of Regulations. According to LAFCo’s MSR and the WWTP master plan, total capacity of the proposed expansion would be adequate to serve the projected 183,400 population buildout of the Sphere of Influence (SOI), including UC Merced and the University Community. The 16 MGD expansion is considered adequate to handle a total City population of approximately 200,000 based on current assumed sewer flow factors for future development (65 gpcd), and amount of capacity that can serve the existing population and businesses, and areas within the approved SUDP and SOI (including the UCP and project site). The 20 MGD WWTP expansion would be able to serve a population of between 225,000 and 250,000, assuming 65 gpcd for new development estimated in the City Wastewater Collection Master Plan, plus the existing usage of 10 MGD for the existing population.

Wastewater Services also include wastewater collection. The City has been undergoing an update to its Wastewater Collection Master Plan. The plan has demonstrated that wastewater flows are much lower than those originally estimated in previous master plans. The sewer master plan concluded that approximately 34,600 equivalent dwelling units (EDU) can be served by the existing sewerage system with minor upgrades and repairs. The VST project conducted an independent evaluation and a detailed analysis of the ability of the collection system to accommodate the VST project’s estimated daily flows of 0.7 MGD, and concluded that there is adequate existing capacity to do so. The Sewer Master Plan shows that the ultimate connection point for the VST project would be at Lake and Cardella, with a future gravity line in Cardella from Lake to G Street. For the foreseeable future, sewer collection 203
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 137
October 17, 2023
would be through a force main from Lake/Cardella to the 27-inch sewer trunk line in Bellevue Road.

Appendix E provides an analysis of the adequacy of the sewer collection system to serve the project and concludes that the existing system is adequate to service full buildout of committed/vested properties, all other properties in that are currently in the North Merced Sewer Assessment District, full development of UC Merced and the VST project. Funding for the operation and maintenance of the WWTP and the collection system would be from sewer utility fees. In order to fund its share of the WWTP and collection system infrastructure, the project would pay sewer connection fees. Total treatment plant connection fees are estimated to be $17.5 million, and total collection system charges paid by the project area estimated to be approximately $10.1 million. The project will be eligible for up to $1 million in sewer system reimbursements, leaving $9.1 million for its contribution to pay for existing sewer system improvements, for the $3.6 million cost of the future Cardella Trunk Line from Lake Road to G Street, and for the Buildout Improvements necessary to support growth beyond the 67,600 EDUs.

Water
The City has adopted and maintains an Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) in compliance with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) regulations. The purpose of UWMPs is to maintain efficient water usage, promote conservation, ensure future supply and provide a safeguard during drought conditions. The City has also adopted a Water Master Plan that prescribes the supply and backbone facilities necessary to provide water in the community. Finally, the project prepared an SB 611 Water Supply Assessment to determine if there were adequate water supplies for the project.

The City of Merced pumps, treats, and delivers potable groundwater to city residents, while the Merced Irrigation District (MID) provides irrigation water from surface and groundwater sources to a large portion of eastern Merced County south of the Merced River. The City water system also serves numerous unincorporated residential neighborhoods on the fringe of the City to the south and east which are within the current sphere of influence, and the community of “Celeste” which has approximately 50 connections located north of State Highway 140 and west of Kibby Road which is outside the present sphere.

The City’s water supply is exclusively from groundwater from the Merced Groundwater Basin, which lies within the larger San Joaquin Hydrologic Basin. The UWMP plans for surface supplies to supplement groundwater sources. The City currently utilizes 17 active well sites, with one additional under construction, 23 deep-well pumps and approximately 500 miles of distribution pipeline. Groundwater supplies currently supply the full capacity of 55,800 gallons per minute (gpm), or 1 million gallons a day (mgd). The City also maintains all fire hydrants, water meters, valves, fluoridation and chlorination injection systems, pump motors, electrical systems and two-300,000, one-400,000 and one-500,000 gallon above ground water storage tanks. The City is currently in discussion with the MID regarding water transfers, which could potentially reduce groundwater pumping and help the City achieve its conservation targets and compliance with State Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requirements.

The Water Supply Assessment for the project (Appendix C) concluded that water supplies were adequate. In order to address groundwater overdraft, the project is implementing a number of conservation measures including low-water use landscaping, Watersense Fixtures, and Compact Plumbing to reduce average daily water use to 100 gallons per capita per day, 25 percent below current city average 204
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 138
October 17, 2023
usage. Project water use for the site would be 1.4 million gallons per day, compared to current agricultural usage of 2.1 million gallons per day. Current agricultural usage is equal to 4.25 feet per farmed acre, and future project usage is equal to 2.4 feet per project acre. Current limitations in the Merced Irrigation District-Urban GSA is projected to be 2 feet per acre of groundwater use. City-MID transfers and onsite groundwater re-charge will bring the project into compliance with future GSA regulations.

Appendix D provides an analysis of the adequacy of the water distribution system to serve the project and concludes that the system is adequate to service full buildout of committed/vested properties, UC Merced and the VST project. A municipal water well would be provided in the first phase to provide for back-up and redundancy for the UC Merced well, and a looped system of 16”, 12” and 10” lines would be provided to ensure adequate domestic and fire flows. Funding for the operation and maintenance of the water system would be water utility fees. In order to fund its share of the water well and distribution system infrastructure, the project would pay City water fees totaling approximately $25 million. The project would construct offsite facilities such as the 16” distribution line in Lake Road from Cardella to Bellevue, and the onsite water well. Reimbursements would be provided for those facilities which are budgeted as part of the City’s water facilities fees.

Appendix D provides an analysis of the adequacy of the water distribution system to serve the project and concludes that the system is adequate to service full buildout of committed/vested properties, UC Merced and the VST project. A municipal water well would be provided in the first phase to provide for back-up and redundancy for the UC Merced well, and a looped system of 16”, 12” and 10” lines would be provided to ensure adequate domestic and fire flows. Funding for the operation and maintenance of the water system would be water utility fees. In order to fund its share of the water well and distribution system infrastructure, the project would pay City water fees totaling approximately $25 million. The project would construct offsite facilities such as the 16” distribution line in Lake Road from Cardella to Bellevue, and the onsite water well. Reimbursements would be provided for those facilities which are budgeted as part of the City’s water facilities fee.

Parks Maintenance
Park programming and maintenance is provided by the City of Merced Parks and Community Services Department. The department is also responsible for the development, maintenance and operation of open spaces and bikeways in the City. Currently, the City has over 300 acres of parkland and open space and approximately 17 miles of bikeways, according to the PFFP. The City of Merced’s General Plan dictates that the City provide 5 acres of developed neighborhood and community parks per 1,000 residents. Within the VST specific plan there is a total of 73.2 acres of public and private park space, 20 acres of space for active recreation in the various Linear Parks, and 4.8 acres of active park areas in the various schools, for a total of 98 acres of parks. This provides parks at a rate of 8.8 acres per 1,000 residents, 75% higher than the 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents rate prescribed by the City of Merced and the UCP. The Neighborhood and Community parks facilities are provided at a rate of 5.4 acres per 1,000 persons. These facilities are to be provided in a mix of linear parks, a sports park, neighborhood parks, mini-parks, and pocket parks and community gardens, with at least half of that provided in the form of neighborhood, community and sports parks. The project also includes a community recreation center with master plan amenities such as several swimming pools, a community 205
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 139
October 17, 2023
clubhouse and other facilities.

Development and financing of the parks construction will be from a Specific Plan Park and Recreation Fee as described in Table 11 and Table 12. Mini and Pocket parks located in each neighborhood would be the responsibility of the builder in that neighborhood, and the Community Recreation Center, Community and Neighborhood parks, the Regional Sports Park, Linear Parks and Trails, and Public Arts and Amenities would be funded from the Specific Plan Parks Fee. Maintenance will be provided from CFD revenues as shown in Table 8 with approximately $750,000 per year budgeted for the maintenance of public parks, trails and open space. The Community Recreation Center will be operated by the development’s Master Homeowners Association, assessments are estimated at $35 to $50 per month per dwelling unit.

Public Works
Various public works improvements exist to serve the project, including heavy equipment, road repair, solid water collection and other facilities. Participation in the PFFP will fund the needed expansion of the Corporation Yard, and solid waste fees will pay for needed collection vehicles and services.

Road maintenance will be provided through the CFD as shown in Table 8 as part of the “Subdivision Maintenance” category which includes public streets, parkway landscaping, street trees, curbs, gutter and sidewalks and street lights totaling $1.1 million per year. As noted in the Fiscal Impact Projections for the Specific Plan, the project will be fiscally positive for the City of Merced, generating $3.8 million in General Fund revenues in excess of service costs, and the project is therefore considered to be selffunding and fiscally self-sufficient.

General Government
The City of Merced would provide General Government services not identified above including administration and finance, planning and community development, and engineering. These services are provided either through user fees for services provided (in the case of engineering and planning), and General Fund allocations for general community revenues. Staff would need to increase incrementally as development occurs, but the project is projected to be fiscally positive for the City of Merced, generating $3.8 million in General Fund revenues in excess of service costs, providing the necessary sources of funding.

Library, Healthcare and Justice Administration (County) Several services now provided by the County will continue to be provided by the County, including Library, Justice Administration, County Health Services and Regional Roadways. The City and County have a tax sharing agreement which provides for adequate property tax and other revenues to provide these services. The agreement, entered into in 2016, provides that the City receive 100 percent of the County’s General Fund and Fire Fund shares of the 1% property taxes and the City reimbursing the County for its services through payment of 63 percent of the post-ERAF General Fund property tax collected from the annexed area. 206
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 140
October 17, 2023
Schools
The project site and the UCP areas overall are currently split between the Merced City School District and the Weaver School District for the provision of elementary school services. The dividing line between the two elementary districts is the Kibby Road alignment. The site is completely within the Merced Union High School District (MUHSD) and the Merced College District boundaries. Per the UCP, the project site includes an elementary school site; the balance of the UCP includes two more planned elementary school sites and a high school site. Pending development of the high school site, it is anticipated that the high school students would attend El Capitan High School, the nearest MUHSD campus.

According to student generation factors applicable to the project site, the VST project is expected to generate 454 K-6 students in Phase 1, and 796 K-6 students at total buildout. Middle school students are projected to be 119 in Phase 1 and 93 in Phase 2 for a total project enrollment of 212. The
total K-8 student generation is expected to be 900 to
1,100 students. High school enrollment is expected to
be 239 in Phase 1 and 186 in Phase 2 for a total of 425 at full buildout. A 17-acre site has been reserved by
MCOE for the construction of a K-8 school in Phase
1e. The project will pay school impact fees as adopted by the respective school districts.

The split of the elementary school district is considered problematic because each district would equally split the 900 to 1,100 K-8 students and neither district would have adequate enrollment to qualify a new school for funding if the division remains. It is most likely under this scenario that no school would be constructed and all of the project’s students would be bussed to other schools. According to the original and amended UCP, schools are to be provided within the development, act as centerpieces of the neighborhoods and community, and be functionally and socially integrated into the project.

Splitting the UCP between school districts would also not promote the community identity criteria established in the Education Code for district boundary formation, and would be inefficient for each district to administer as each current district would have to have duplicate maintenance facilities. The current split would also increase the bussing and transportation costs for each district since Specific Plan residents would have to be bussed to other schools indefinitely (or for a longer period of time) until onsite student generation and construction funding become adequate to justify construction of an onsite school.

The districts have different capacities and priorities for new school construction, and consolidation of the site and UCP into one elementary school district is being informally reviewed with the two school districts to assess which district is better able to service the project and to determine if the process described in Section 35700 of the California Education Code for transfer of area from one district to another should be initiated. This process involves a review by the Merced County Office of Education, the County Committee, notice to LAFCo, and public hearings and meetings, and findings by the designated County Committee and State Board of Education pursuant to Section 35753 of the California Education Code. 207
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 141
October 17, 2023
The project site will also include an MCOE
“Scholars Academy”. MCOE has purchased five
acres in Phase 1C on Meyers Gate Road just west of
Center Street to construct and operate a Scholar’s
Academy, which is a community initiated charter
school for grades TK-12 that offers instruction in a
personalized learning session with a certificated
teacher in a collaborative learning environment to
support career and college preparatory information
and guidance for a seamless transition into higher
education. The Scholar’s Academy’s curriculum is
aligned with the California Academic Content Standards and Frameworks, offers courses that are that meet the a-g UC/CSU requirements, offers leadership training and community service opportunities through the Merced Scholars Charter School Student Organization, offers community-based Career Technical Education hands-on training through the Merced County Regional Occupational Program, and is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and colleges (WASC). The site has the theoretical capacity to accommodate 300 to 400 pre-kindergarten to 8th grade students, onsite day care and other social support facilities, MCOE Early Education programs, and other programs. The Scholars Academy is not exclusively limited to VST project residents. As a charter school it must admit all students if there is capacity. However, it is intended to be principally focused to serve UC Merced staff and University Community residents. Because MCOE would be the Scholar’s Academy charter sponsor, it would use its own financial resources for construction and operation, and impact fees and ADA funds could not be used from either of the existing elementary school districts.

208
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 142
October 17, 2023
209
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 143
October 17, 2023
Plan Administration
California Planning and Zoning law requires that a specific plan identify a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects and financing measures necessary to carry out the plan. Necessary public works projects, design regulations, and financing measures have been identified in previous sections. This implementation portion of the plan includes a discussion of review and permitting procedures, subsequent discretionary projects, and plan administration.

Review and Permitting
Successful implementation requires cooperative action by the project sponsors, staff and others. Implementation concludes with the construction of public improvements and commercial buildings. The following provides an overview of the review and permitting procedures involved in Plan implementation:

1. Certification of the EIR for the Project.

2. Approval of the proposed General Plan Designation and Zoning for the project site.

3. Approval of the Specific Plan for the project and a Pre-Annexation Development Agreement with the City of Merced and a Development Agreement with the County of Merced (which will pass through to the City of Merced upon annexation).

4. Approval of a vesting tentative map for Phase 1 of the Specific Plan, plus approval of conveyance parcel maps for each project subphase.

It is intended that all discretionary entitlements for Phase 1 will be done concurrent with the adoption of the Specific Plan. Phase 2 is designed at a conceptual level and is covered programmatically in the environmental document. A vesting tentative map and subsequent CEQA document will be required for development of Phase 2. However, refinements of the design are to be expected and the amendment provisions of this Specific Plan provide for the Director of Development Services to find a project or specific development to be in conformance with this Specific Plan if the project complies with the Specific Plan and meets the following criteria: 1) changes in the phasing boundaries for parcel sizes are within 15 percent of the planned total square footage or number of units, as applicable; 2) changes in the configuration of the streets and right of way do not involve any offsite property, and alternate street design has the same lane configurations; 3) changes in the planned development intensity (as measured by the number of peak hour trips) is within 10 percent of that calculated in the final Traffic Study for the project; 4) other changes do not materially change the overall development of the site, incur additional financial obligations for the County; or, 5) the changes are administrative or ministerial in nature.

Specific Plan Authority and Adoption
Specific plans must comply with California Government Code Sections §65450 through §65457.

These provisions require that a Specific Plan be consistent with the adopted General Plan for the jurisdiction in which the specific plan area is located. In turn, all subsequent development proposals, such as 210
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 144
October 17, 2023
tentative subdivision maps, site plans, improvement plans, and all public works projects, must be consistent with the adopted specific plan.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section §65453, a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance. Past City practice has been to adopt a specific plan and certify the FEIR concurrently through a resolution. This practice is consistent with direction from State law where a plan adopted by resolution is primarily implemented by separately adopted ordinances and programs, such as the Development Agreement and Pre-Annexation Development Agreement, which is the case with this Specific Plan. In situations where the Specific Plan conflicts with the requirements of the City Municipal Code, the Specific Plan provisions shall take precedence. Where the Specific Plan is silent on a topic, the Municipal Code requirements remain in force.

Environmental Review
The Specific Plan addresses land uses, densities, and types of development proposed, as well as the streets and infrastructure anticipated to serve the area. It provides a detailed description of the project that was evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Specific Plan. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the FEIR has assessed the potential direct and indirect environmental effects associated with the land use program described in this specific plan.

Although the FEIR analysis is included in a separate document, the environmental review process has been an integral component of the planning process from the very beginning to ensure that the Specific Plan respects natural site constraints and minimizes environmental impacts. The FEIR addresses the development of the Specific Plan Area as a single project which is projected to be developed in increments over a period of several years. This approach enables the City to comprehensively evaluate the cumulative impacts of the Specific Plan and consider alternatives and mitigation measures prior to adoption of the Specific Plan.

Development within the Specific Plan area shall comply with all conditions of approval and mitigation measures identified in the certified Specific Plan FEIR (SCH Number 2001021056) and any subsequent CEQA document (e.g., Mitigated Negative Declaration, Subsequent EIR, or Supplemental EIR). The Specific Plan FEIR is intended to expedite the processing of future projects that are consistent with the Specific Plan. If, when considering subsequent development proposals, the City determines that the proposed development will not result in new effects or require additional mitigation, the City can approve the project without additional environmental review (California Government Code Section 65457 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15182). In addition, if there are significant changes proposed to the approved Specific Plan that the City concludes may result in new impacts, any additional environmental review need focus only on those specific areas or topics affected by the change.

Annexation
The Specific Plan area is currently under County of Merced (County) jurisdiction. Because of existing environmental documentation, the need to amend the University Community Plan, and other issues, the project will be initially entitled in the County and then annexed to the City. The Specific Plan area is not contiguous to the City limits, but can be annexed to the City of Merced once UC Merced is annexed under the provisions of AB 3312.
211
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 145
October 17, 2023
The Merced City Council on November 15, 2021 adopted a resolution consenting to the initiation of an annexation for the project site. The city is also undergoing environmental review of annexing UC Merced and they expect to have that complete in the third quarter of 2023. Following County action on project entitlements including adoption of the Specific Plan and certification of the FEIR, and subject to the annexation of UC Merced, the project will be submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the formal annexation review process. The City and County have a tax sharing in place to ensure that a proper plan of services is in place to guide orderly development of the annexed property.

Development Review Process
Zoning Boundaries and Subdivisions
The Specific Plan Area will be zoned consistent with the land uses identified by Figure 3, the Land Use Map. An “SP” overlay will be added to the zone category applied to each property indicating that it regulated by the Specific Plan. City zoning designations will take effect upon annexation. The designated residential zone boundaries may be adjusted slightly to reflect subdivision maps as they are approved if the Director of Development Services makes a finding that the adjustment is consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan.

The precise location of streets, utilities, and boundaries of development sites will be determined upon approval of tentative subdivision maps. With discretionary review or approval, changes may be made in the phasing boundaries or individual sub-phases if they are within 15 percent of the planned total square footage. Changes may also be made in the configuration of the streets and rights of way, and street location as long as the streets have the same lane configurations and operational functionality.

Architectural Review
Commercial, multifamily residential and single-family tract construction will undergo architectural review per City requirements. For projects subject to architectural review, the Director of Development Services may authorize application of the “minor or incidental” procedure to those projects meeting this Specific Plan’s design guidelines and standards.

Building Permits
The City building permit process of plan-check, inspection, and occupancy release will typically be the final and most detailed step in City review of private site development. Impact fees are due at the time building permits are issued.

Phasing
Figure 7 identifies the phases for the project. The Specific Plan identifies the improvements associated with each phase, and the Vesting Tentative Map indicates the infrastructure associated with each sub-phase, and the components of each sub-phase. These phases address goals to accommodate orderly development and provision of services. They represent a reasonable approach to extending services and infrastructure throughout the Specific Plan Area. Phases may be combined, or in some cases phases may be started out of sequence. This may be permitted provided the necessary infrastructure to serve the proposed development is already in place, or if the required infrastructure is constructed prior 212
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 146
October 17, 2023
to or concurrent with development, and that the phase is contiguous to an existing developed phase and the project otherwise complies with the requirements of the Specific Plan.

Construction and Maintenance of Required Improvements
Public facilities required to serve Specific Plan Area development will be funded as discussed in the Finance, Services and Governance section of this Specific Plan. Property in the Specific Plan Area that is annexed into the City will receive the same public services as other neighborhoods in the City, including police, fire, and street maintenance, as described in Chapter 7. Facilities such as utility lines, park components, and stormwater facilities will be constructed by the developers of the area, and dedicated to the City upon completion and inspection. Once public facilities are constructed and the dedication is accepted by the City, future maintenance will be managed in accordance with the provisions of this Specific Plan.

Amendments to the Specific Plan
It is the intent of this Specific Plan to present a comprehensive set of standards and guidelines for the development of the Specific Plan area. These standards and guidelines promote a high-quality development that allows for creativity and flexibility in the design process. However, changes in market conditions or developer interests may result in the need for amendments to the Specific Plan. Over time, various sections of this Specific Plan may need to be revised to respond to changing technical, environmental, and economic conditions.

This section addresses the process for amending the Specific Plan, acknowledging that there are a range of potential amendments, from minor interpretations, adjustments, and Minor Amendments that could be handled administratively, to more complex major amendments that require review by advisory bodies and legislative approval. Such amendments to the Specific Plan may be initiated by a developer or by the City, and shall not be inconsistent vested development rights contained in the Development Agreement and the Vesting Tentative Map.

Interpretations
Interpretations are judgments that evaluate whether a specific project feature or minor change is consistent with the intent and goals of the Specific Plan. These are generally limited to details where the features of the plan appear to conflict with other features in the plan, with adopted City policy, or with the requirements of other agencies. Interpretations may be necessary during discretionary development applications (such as subdivision map) or ministerial development applications (such as building permits).

Adjustments
Adjustments are minor changes to specific features of the Specific Plan that do not significantly alter the development type and still meet the intent of the Plan. The Specific Plan allows for anticipates the need for refinement of Plan features if any change is clearly consistent with the relevant goals, policies, programs, and standards. The City anticipates that street and pedestrian path locations may be slightly modified through approval of subdivision maps, and zoning boundaries may also be modified to match new property lines created through the subdivision process. The City anticipates the usage of 213
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 147
October 17, 2023
density bonuses on the project and considers them within the scope of development covered by the Specific Plan.

The Director of Development Services is responsible for interpretations and adjustments made relative to Specific Plan and conformance with the UCP policies and standards to insure consistency in implementation as development progresses. Decisions involving City facilities may be within the authority of the Public Works Director or the Utilities Director, who likewise would make the interpretation after consulting with any other affected departments.

Amendments
Amendments are changes to features of the plan involving difference in development type or capacity (including public facilities). Amendments typically involve a question of consistency with the original intent of the Specific Plan or with the General Plan. Major Amendments require a hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission, other advisory bodies, with final action to be taken by the City Council.

Minor amendments
Minor Amendments are modifications that are consistent with the goals and objectives of this Specific Plan and can be allowed at the discretion of the Director of Development Services. Minor amendments may or may not be subject to public hearings, depending on the magnitude of the proposed modifications and subject to the discretion of the Development Services Director. Typical minor amendments include: 1) changes in the phasing boundaries that are within 15 percent of the planned total square footage; 2) changes in the configuration of the streets and right of way not involving any offsite property, and which preserves the same lane configurations; 3) a change in the planned development intensity (as measured by the number of peak hour trips) that is within 15 percent of that calculated in the final Traffic Study for the project; and, 4) other changes that do not materially change the overall development of the site, incur additional financial obligations for the City, or which are considered administrative or ministerial in nature. Any increase in the number of units for the project associated with and resulting from the application of City standard density bonuses shall be considered an adjustment or a minor amendment.

Major amendments
Major Amendments to this Specific Plan require review by advisory bodies, including the Planning Commission, and final approval by the legislative body. Each body must hold at least one public hearing each to consider the proposal prior to making the final decision. At least 10 days prior to each of these hearings, public notice of the time and place of the hearing must be given in the manner prescribed by state law. Major Amendments shall be all of those actions other than interpretations, adjustments or minor amendments. Unless it is determined that an amendment will have no environmental impact that is not already covered by the applicable environmental document, an amendment to the Specific Plan will require added CEQA processing. Minor amendments may be processed with no additional environmental review, or an EIR Addendum. Major amendments to this Specific Plan may require an addendum or supplement to the Specific Plan EIR.
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
Merced Vision 2030 General Plan
Chapter 3--Land Use
Figure PROPOSED COMMUNITY PLANS 3.9
3-69
Attachment D
Existing Figure 3.9
234
Project Description Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-10 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Focused SEIR
Source: Data downloaded from Merced County in 2020.

Figure 2-5 2030 Merced County General Plan
Revised Figure 3.9
Attachment E
235
Merced Vision 2030 General Plan
Chapter 3--Land Use

3.10 APPENDIX

3.10.1 Conceptual Land Use Plans for Proposed Community Plans Note: Plans are included here for illustrative purposes only. No land use entitlements are granted by including these plans here.

University Community Plan (2004)
3-86
Attachment F
Existing Appendix 3.10.1 236
Merced Vision 2030 General Plan
Chapter 3--Land Use
Illustrative University Community Plan (2004)
Note: Plans are included here for illustrative purposes only. No land use entitlements are granted by including these plans here.
3-87
237
Merced Vision 2030 General Plan
Chapter 3--Land Use
UC Merced Campus & University Community North (2009)
Note: Plans are included here for illustrative purposes only. No land use entitlements are granted by including these plans here.
3-88
238
Merced Vision 2030 General Plan
Chapter 3--Land Use
University Community Plan – Community South
Note: Plans are included here for illustrative purposes only. No land use entitlements are granted by including these plans here.
3-89
239
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 27
October 17, 2023
Figure 3: Land Use and Circulation Map
Revised Appendix 3.10.1
Attachment G
240
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 28
October 17, 2023
Figure 4: Development Plan
241
Virginia Smith Trust Property
Community Benefits Proposal
The Virginia Smith Trust property, once developed, will result in significant community benefits in the form of a significant increase in the Smith Trust Scholarship fund(s). Those benefits are certainly enough to capture the imagination and support of the public and regulators. However, there are additional layers of community benefits that should be considered for the project at this time. These relate to affordable housing, providing incentives to workers on the UC Campus to cement the economic relationship between the VST and UC properties, providing features that reduce environmental impacts, and providing ongoing funding for services and programs that further MCOE’s mission.

Affordable Housing/UC Incentives
In the larger scheme, the housing stock in Merced is adequate and affordable. Prices are still somewhat depressed from over-supply and the effects to the Great Recession. Apartments provide an affordable alternative to home ownership. However, it is still believed that programs should be provided to create workforce housing, increase the supply of housing available to UC employees and students, and provide preferences and incentives for individuals who work on campus at UC Merced. There should also be owner-occupancy restrictions in the single-family detached units to eliminate or substantially reduce the potential for converting single family neighborhoods to tracts of investor-owned rental for students (Isla Vista), and a special Workforce Housing Incentive Program should be established (basically a first time homebuyers program) which will provide deed-restricted units for workforce housing eligible households (households earning 121-160% of the Area Median income). This workforce housing program seeks to target the Project to all UC employees, reduce the influence of investors in the limitation of housing choice and availability, provide a down payment assistance program for Workforce Income families, and provide a certain number of units that will be deed-restricted. Finally, VST and its builders will team up with affordable housing providers to provide lots for “sweat equity” self-help housing. The elements of the program are as follows:

1. Local Preference (“UC Workers First”). The UC and University Community Plan areas have been planned as an integrated unit for the last 25 years. The hope has always been that the UCP properties, including VST, would provide the residential and commercial support for UC’s students and staff. It is known that many of the UC’s staff live outside of the community and students are being accommodated inside the City at other locations. These commute trips result in an estimated 17.7 million vehicle miles (VMT) traveled each year by students and staff using passenger cars to and from the university. If VST can capture 35 percent of the current students, and 50% of the current staff, all vehicle trips will be shortened, and there will be a significant shift to non-vehicle modes of transportation resulting in a VMT reduction of approximately 9 million miles per year.

There are obvious benefits to in making sure that UC students and staff are significant elements of the VST project. Realizing the VMT reduction benefits will require incentives to lure existing staff Attachment H
Community Benefits 242
_______________________________
Virginia Smith Trust March 8, 2020
Community Benefits Plan Page 2 of 4
and students to the site. Incentives will be established to provide priority for existing UC staff and students as follows:
a. Each development phase of VST is to maintain the interest list and shall separate and prioritize names of local employees based on interest in product type. b. When product becomes available, usually 270-360 days prior to certificate of occupancy (assuming a 180-day construction period), the builder shall notify those UC staff of the opportunity to purchase a residence starting with the “top of the list.” Those individuals shall have approximately 60 days to get pre-qualified to purchase the residence and to provide the builder with proof that the individual is a UC employee (i.e. paycheck or bonafide offer of employment from a local employer.) c. If an individual fails to get pre-qualified or fails to provide the builder with proof of UC employment within the time periods above, then the builder may remove or put that name at the end of the interest list.
d. UC staff and employees shall be provided with an incentive package worth $5,000, including reductions off base price, option allowances, free bikes for transportation, allowance for closing costs, allowance for upgrades, or similar incentives at the discretion of the builder. This incentive would apply to all UC staff regardless of income.

2. Owner-Occupancy Restrictions. Establishing a stable and desirable neighborhood for UC staff will require some segmentation and separation of the student rentals and the ownership units. Builders will agree, with exceptions that are stipulated in the Development Agreement, to include restrictions in the purchase agreement and Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the single family detached units (R-1 and R-2) to restrict these units for owner-occupancy only for the first five years after sale. In the case of units with Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), the Principal Dwelling or the ADU will need to be occupied by the property owner. The final form of these agreements will be determined at the time of development of the first final map, and will provide for appropriate monitoring and enforcement.

3. Workforce Housing Incentive Program (WHIP). The project will provide ____ deed restricted units, to families in the Workforce Housing category, defined as household incomes of 121% to 160% of Area Median Income (AMI). This program would require that eligible households have incomes no greater than 160% of the then-current Area Median Income (AMI) (Currently estimated at $_____per year) and are income-certified by the local Housing Authority. Prices would be limited to no more than that required to achieve an Index of Affordability (“Index”) of 31 percent (cost of housing including mortgage principal, mortgage interest, taxes and insurance divided by 140% of AMI). The maximum purchase price would be equal to 5.65 times (140% of 4.05 multiplier) the median income for each household size. These units would have to be occupied by an income qualifying Workforce Housing household for a minimum of ten (10) years, with preference to UC staff if legally permitted. 243
_______________________________
Virginia Smith Trust March 8, 2020
Community Benefits Plan Page 3 of 4

4. Down Payment Assistance Program. The project would provide a matching down payment assistance (DPA) of five percent of the purchase price up to $5,000 as a “silent second” on the initial sale of the five percent of the R-1 and R-2 homes. These units would have to be occupied by a UC staff earning less than Countywide “Moderate Income Limit” for Merced County (currently at $77,750 or less per year per family), as determined by State HCD. These units would be occupied by a household for a minimum of ten (10) years; if resold within this ten-year period, the units would need to be sold to another income qualifying Workforce Housing buyer and the 10-year deed restriction would reset to 10 more years with the new buyer of the home. The DPA loan would be repaid upon sale of the unit or refinancing, and the proceeds would be placed in a revolving loan fund to assist future workforce, moderate, or lower income home buyers in the VST project. Unlike a reduction in price that would be captured by a future seller at the end of the affordability term, this assistance would continue throughout the life of the funds to assist buyers in the development.

5. Self Help Housing. Self-help housing projects are very common in the Central Valley. In contrast to other affordable housing programs, the homes are built under the mutual self-help method of construction where each family is required to contribute a minimum of 40 hours a week working on all the homes for a period of 9 to 12 months. Family hours can be provided by the owners-to-be, any household member 16 years of age or older and approved helpers. Together, families pour foundations, frame homes, install electrical wiring, hang doors and windows and even lay tile and paint.

These labor hours, or “sweat equity”, are used as the down payment on their new home, reducing costs for a new home they could otherwise not afford. The project sponsor assists each applicant/builder with securing the loans needed to build their home. Special financing from the U.S.

Department of Agriculture and the State of California makes these homes affordable.

Participants choose from standard floor plans. As it could be applied to the VST project, these floor plans would be established by a master builder with the same basic specifications and finish qualities of market rate homes that are constructed by a builder for the balance of the development.

The participating families not only work on their own home, but everyone works on every house in the building group and no one moves in until all houses are completed, creating a community bond. Self Help Enterprises, a local non-profit housing provider is currently developing a self-help project in Planada.

There are two product types that would adapt well to this model: the R-2 cluster and the R-1-5 cluster units. Both have “shared” front yards and share driveways that would be compatible with the way the self help housing in constructed. It is possible that a project could focus on and give priority to staff at UC. Qualifying families and participants must have good credit status, stable income from employment and other sources of income, income that does not exceed eligibility guidelines, ability and willingness to meet the labor requirement, and be a permanent resident and a U.S. citizen. These programs are normally focused on the “Lower Income” category, meaning they would focus on families with incomes between $32,500 and $42,500 per year. 244
_______________________________
Virginia Smith Trust March 8, 2020
Community Benefits Plan Page 4 of 4
Community Foundation Contribution
The proceeds from the sale of the property will establish a significant financial scholarship fund to assist college students from Merced. Professional educators know that success in high school, and subsequently in college, is determined by many factors that occur well before a child enters high school, including the availability of cultural enrichment programs, offerings for science, technology, engineering and math, exposure to the “outside world”, field trips to broaden students’ experience and expectations, and other factors. These activities, however, do not qualify for funding under the provisions of the Smith Trust. However, ongoing funding for improvements, services and programs that address this can be funded from a “Community Foundation” that has funding from a contribution from the sale and re-sale of properties in the project.

One example of this approach is the Clovis Community Foundation that was established by Wathen Castanos Homes. Wathen Castanos established a “Community Benefit Fee” in each of its subdivisions equal to 1/10th of 1% of the sales prices of every home sold or resold. The funds generated by the Community Benefit Fee are intended to create a perpetual source of income to benefit the community. The proceeds are distributed by the Foundation’s Board of Directors to the most deserving quality of life projects to enhance recreation, arts, and culture in the community. In almost every instance the money provided by the Foundation must be matched by the grantee. This ensures that the impact of the Community Benefit Fee is twice as impactful. In short, this program is a way for the builders and subsequent home buyers to reinvest in Clovis by "giving something back by paying it forward.” It has created a program that “keeps on giving” well after the completion of the project. Mark Keppler, Chairperson and Executive Director of the Clovis Community Foundation, was consulted in the development of this proposal, and is available to inform VST and the Foundation about organizational, legal and administrative features to set up the Community Benefit Fee.

In the spirit of the original intent of the trust to support educational success, VST could set up a Community Educational Enhancement Fee that would levy a percentage or fixed fee on property sales and resales (including residential and commercial property) equal to 0.25% of the sales price. Since the Merced County Office of Education Foundations programs and objectives align with this kind of activity, the MCOE Foundation could be used and a Foundation a sub-account setup to receive and expend the funds in a manner consistent with the intent of the program. A 0.25% contribution fee would generate approximately $150,000-$200,000 per year in the early years of the buildout of the project (2025-2030), with that increasing to over $500,000 per year after year 10 (2035). 245
FINAL
Focused Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
for the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan
State Clearinghouse No. 2001021056
Prepared for:

Merced County Community and
Economic Development Department
July 2023
Attachment D
246
FINAL
Focused Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
for the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan
State Clearinghouse No. 2001021056
Prepared for:

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

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

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

Jessica Babcock
Project Manager
916.842.3163
July 2023
20210141.01
247
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................... ii 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS .................................................................................................................................................2-1 3 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ..............................................................................................................................................3-1 4 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 5 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................................................................................................5-1 Figures
Figure 1-1 Regional Location..............................................................................................................................................................1-2 Figure 1-2 University Community Plan and Virginia Smith Trust Specific Plan Area ......................................................1-3 Tables
Table 2-1 List of Commenters...........................................................................................................................................................2-1 248
Acronyms and Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
Merced County
ii UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAQA ambient air quality analysis
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
County Merced County
CSTDM California Statewide Transportation Demand Model
Draft SEIR draft subsequent environmental impact report eTRIP Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan
Final SEIR final subsequent environmental impact report HHD heavy heavy-duty
HRA health risk assessment
ITP Incidental Take Permit
lb/day pound per day
LRDP Long Range Development Plan
MCAG Merced County Association of Governments
MID Merced Irrigation District
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
NOX oxides of nitrogen
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s
PM particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PRC Public Resources Code
ROG reactive organic gases
SB Senate Bill
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminants
TDM Travel Demand Model
TIS Transportation Impact Study
UC University of California
UCP University Community Plan
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
VST Virginia Smith Trust
249
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION
This final subsequent environmental impact report (Final SEIR) has been prepared by Merced County (hereinafter County), as lead agency, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15132). This Final SEIR contains responses to comments received on the draft subsequent environmental impact report (Draft SEIR) for the University Community Plan (UCP) Update and Virginia Smith Trust (VST) Specific Plan (collectively referred to herein as the “project”). The Final SEIR consists of the Draft SEIR and this document, which includes comments on the Draft SEIR, responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft SEIR.

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL

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

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

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The UCP area is located in unincorporated Merced County, northeast of the city of Merced and within the City’s sphere of influence (SOI) (Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2). The UCP area is bounded by Lake Road on the west, UC Merced property (specifically the proposed UC Merced Campus Expansion Area) on the north, the Orchard Drive alignment (north of Cardella Road) and the Fairfield Canal (south of Cardella Road) on the east, and Yosemite Avenue on the south (Figure 1-2). The UCP area would be divided by an extension of Cardella Road; the land north of Cardella Road to UC Merced (previously referred to as the “UCP North”) would encompass the VST plan area, and the land south of Cardella Road to Yosemite Avenue would remain in the portion of the UCP area referred to as the “UCP South” area. 250
Introduction Ascent Environmental
Merced County
1-2 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR Sources: Data downloaded from Merced County in 2020.

Figure 1-1 Regional Location
251
Ascent Environmental Introduction
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 1-3 Sources: Data downloaded from Merced County in 2020.

Figure 1-2 University Community Plan and Virginia Smith Trust Specific Plan Area 252
Introduction Ascent Environmental
Merced County
1-4 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

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

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

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

These objectives remain the overarching objectives of the UCP. In addition, the proposed project modifications and UCP amendments are intended to:
 amend the Adopted UCP boundaries to reflect existing land ownership;  reallocate the potential housing units attributed to land now owned exclusively by UC Merced to within the amended UCP boundaries without substantially changing the range of unit types;  improve consistency between County and City general plans, and with the UC Merced LRDP;  revise the Adopted UCP to conform to current development regulations;  update the Adopted UCP land use plan to be compatible with adjacent development; 253
Ascent Environmental Introduction
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 1-5  update the Adopted UCP circulation plan to be compatible with existing standards and plans for regional infrastructure, including Campus Parkway;
 update the phasing program to reflect current market conditions and changes to the UCP boundaries; and  develop a “university community” that meets the needs of UC’s staff and students, as currently projected, including providing a range of housing opportunities appropriate for the local demographics and lifestyles.

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

1.4 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE UCP Update and VST Specific Plan

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

1.4.2 Overview of the VST Specific Plan
The VST Specific Plan is intended to satisfy the requirement for a specific plan for each “village” within the UCP. The proposed VST Specific Plan re-envisions the portion of the UCP owned by VST so that it would be more responsive to expected market conditions, while preserving the basic components of the UCP: commercial uses, the town center 254
Introduction Ascent Environmental
Merced County
1-6 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR concept, and relatively high-density housing. The specific plan revises density and intensity of these uses compared to what was previously proposed. The specific plan includes a description of the overall land use plan and site design to provide 3,950 residential units at varying densities and supporting commercial uses. It also adjusts timing and phasing for installation of parks and public services to appropriately meet demand. Transportation facilities, including roads and bike paths, would be reconfigured in the VST Specific Plan to better serve the VST plan area and existing and planned surrounding land uses. Also, with the passage of AB 3312, VST is now seeking annexation into the City of Merced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 5, “List of Preparers,” identifies the lead agency contacts as well as the preparers of this Final SEIR. 255
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-1 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This chapter contains comments received during the public review period for the Draft SEIR. In conformance with Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, written responses are provided to comments on environmental issues received from reviewers of the Draft SEIR.

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

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

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

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

Video recording of the hearing is available online at https://www.countyofmerced.com/2229/Planning-CommissionMeetings. 256
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-2 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 257
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-3 258
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-4 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR Letter 1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Krista Tomlinson for Julie A. Vance, Regional Manager
June 7, 2023
Response 1-1
Following introductory remarks, the comment states that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) concurs with the biological resources-related analyses and mitigation measures proposed in the Draft SEIR. The comment states that all measures in the Draft SEIR should be carried forward into the Final SEIR and that the mitigation measures are sufficient to mitigate project-related impacts to listed species. In addition, the comment states that development on the project site may require an amendment to the University of California (UC) Merced’s Incidental Take Permit (ITP) (2081-2009-010-04).

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

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

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

This comment is noted and the applicant will be required to submit relevant information and pay applicable filing fees to CDFW in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. This comment is not related to the adequacy of the CEQA document; therefore, no revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary in response to this comment. 259
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-5 260
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-6 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 261
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-7 262
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-8 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR Letter 2 State Water Resources Control Board
Lori Schmitz, Environmental Scientist
June 19, 2023
Response 2-1
Following introductory remarks, the comment identifies the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW) as the agency responsible for issuing water supply permits pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The comment states that the City of Merced is required to apply for a water supply permit amendment for changes to a water supply source, storage, or treatment and for the operation of new water system components, pursuant to Waterworks Standards (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 22, Chapter 16 et. seq.) The VST Specific Plan area would be served by the City of Merced’s water supply infrastructure. A parcel is set aside for development of an onsite well that would be needed to meet City fire flow and peak demands and to provide redundancy for the UC Merced well. This SEIR includes a programmatic evaluation of the construction and operation of the new well. However, modification of the City’s water supply infrastructure would occur as a separate, subsequent action initiated by the City of Merced at the time such an action is proposed. As indicated in the Draft SEIR (page 3.8-21), the analysis assumes that the City would continue to construct required groundwater facilities in accordance with the City’s 2014 Water Master Plan and evaluated separately in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for City of Merced 2016 Water Master Plan Update (City of Merced 2017a).

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

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

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

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

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

The Draft SEIR evaluates the entire water supply system needed to support the VST Specific Plan, including the tie-in to the City well at UC Merced, the onsite well, the offsite connection line, and the onsite water lines. All other water system infrastructure necessary to serve reasonable build-out in the City of Merced’s planning area would undergo 263
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-9 their own individual CEQA review and would be implemented independent of the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response 2-7
The comment requests copies of the Draft and Final SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), comment letters received and lead agency responses, and Resolution or Board Minutes adopting the SEIR and MMRP in support of the City of Merced’s permit application. The County will inform the City of the specific information requested in conjunction with the City’s permit application to the SWRCB. It is anticipated that the City would pursue the appropriate Division of Drinking Water permits as a subsequent action if the County approves the proposed UCP 264
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-10 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR Update and VST Specific Plan. As a responsible agency under CEQA, it is expected that the City would consider the environmental effects of the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan, make appropriate findings, and file a separate Notice of Determination.

This comment is not related to the adequacy of the CEQA document. No revisions to the Draft SEIR are necessary in response to this comment.
265
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-11 266
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-12 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 267
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-13 268
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-14 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 269
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-15 Letter 3 University of California Merced
Phillip Woods, Director of Physical and Environmental Planning June 12, 2023
Response 3-1
The comment provides introductory remarks and suggests that development under the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan should be compatible with UC Merced’s campus development plans. This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions in the Draft SEIR and does not raise a significant environmental issue requiring a response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response 3-7
The comment requests that the adoption dates of the Adopted UCP and first UC Merced Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) presented on page 2-5 of the Draft SEIR be checked for accuracy. Page 2-5 of the Draft SEIR has been 270
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-16 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR revised accordingly to correct an error in the adoption date of UC Merced’s first LRDP and subsequent LRDP amendments (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response 3-13
The comment states that a reference to the “2020 LRDP” should be revised to the “2020 LRDP EIR.” Page 2-7 of the Draft SEIR has been revised accordingly to include the correct document reference (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”). This revision is made for the purposes of clarification and amplification of information in the Draft SEIR and does not constitute significant new information as described in CCR 15088.5; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.
271
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-17 Response 3-14
Chapter 2, “Project Description,” in the Draft SEIR lists 12 offsite roadway improvements that the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) identifies as necessary to support development of the project, which could be implemented through the “payment of citywide impact fees, special specific plan impact fees, or by direct improvement and construction” (Draft SEIR, page 2-29). These offsite improvements are considered a part of the project and the potential for physical environmental effects from implementing these improvements are evaluated throughout the Draft SEIR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This comment does not address the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions in the Draft SEIR and does not raise a significant environmental issue requiring a response. The comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration.
272
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-18 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR Response 3-16
The comment indicates that Figure 2-7 of the Draft SEIR, which presents the VST Specific Plan Land Use Diagram, maps open space lands that are part of the UC Merced campus. The comment suggests that the diagram “gives the appearance” that these areas are part of the VST Specific Plan area. For improved clarity, Figure 2-7 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to remove the referenced land use mapping for the area that is not part of the VST Specific Plan area (refer to Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft SEIR”).

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

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

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

Note, however, that the following figures in the VST Specific Plan have been updated in response to this comment:
 Figure 3 Land Use and Circulation Map
 Figure 7 Project Phasing
 Figure 25 Architectural Styles by Neighborhood
 Figure 35 Overall Circulation and Key Map
 Figure 49 Transit Stops
273
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-19 274
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-20 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 275
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-21 276
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-22 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 277
Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments
Merced County
UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR 2-23 Letter 4 Merced Irrigation District
Mike Morris LS, Survey Project Manager
June 12, 2023
Response 4-1
The comment states that eight Merced Irrigation District (MID) facilities would be impacted from development under the UCP Update and VST Specific Plan. These facilities are discussed in detail below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Lake Yosemite (un-gated overflow/spillway): As discussed on page 3.5-9 of the Draft SEIR, Lake Yosemite is located approximately 1 mile north of the UCP Update area. (See also Figure 2-2, “University Community Plan and Virginia Smith Trust Specific Plan Area” in the Draft SEIR.) The project would not involve modifications or disrupt access to MID facilities connected with Lake Yosemite. See also Response 4-3, which describes why overflowing flood waters from Lake Yosemite would not have potential to affect development within the UCP Update area. 278
Responses to Comments Ascent Environmental
Merced County
2-24 UCP Update and VST Specific Plan Subsequent Final EIR

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

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

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

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