Adopted
Specific Plan
Virginia Smith Trust
UCP Village No.1 and UCP Village No. 2
Adopted:
October 17, 2023
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
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 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 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 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
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 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 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
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan
2 October 17, 2023
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 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.
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
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan
6 October 17, 2023
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.
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 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.
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 demon- 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) UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 12
October 17, 2023
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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 14
October 17, 2023
Figure 1: Project Location
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 15
October 17, 2023
Figure 2: Project Vicinity
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 plumb- 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 associ- 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 “es-
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.
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 identi- 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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 22
October 17, 2023
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
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, 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 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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 27
October 17, 2023
Figure 3: Land Use and Circulation Map
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 28
October 17, 2023
Figure 4: Development Plan
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.
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
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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 32
October 17, 2023
Figure 4: Location of Parks
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 33
October 17, 2023
Figure 5: Community Recreation Center
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 34
October 17, 2023
Figure 6: Sports Park
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.
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.
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.
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 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.)
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 40
October 17, 2023
Figure 7: Project Phasing
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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 42
October 17, 2023
Figure 8: R-2 and R-1-5 Cluster Unit Development Standards UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 43
October 17, 2023
Figure 9: R-1 Development Standards
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 44
October 17, 2023
Figure 10: R-3/R-4 Development Standards
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.
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 set- 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 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
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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 50
October 17, 2023
Figure 12: Ag Buffer Setbacks
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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 52
October 17, 2023
Figure 13: Roundabout Design
Figure 14: UC Merced Entry Roundabout
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 53
October 17, 2023
Figure 15: Parklettes, Bulbouts and Curb Extensions
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.
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 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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 57
October 17, 2023
Figure 16: Location of Entry Monuments and Themed Roundabouts UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 58
October 17, 2023
Figure 17: Neighborhood and Commercial Signage
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.
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
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 61
October 17, 2023
Figure 20: Bungalow Architectural Style
Figure 21: Craftsman Architectural Style
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
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 63
October 17, 2023
Figure 24: Contemporary Prairie Architectural Style
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 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.
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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 67
October 17, 2023
Figure 25: Architectural Style Neighborhoods
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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
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 ap- 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.
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.
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)
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.
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 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.
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
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 82
October 17, 2023
Figure 32: Front Yard Fence Options
Figure 33: Privacy Fence Options
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 83
October 17, 2023
Figure 34: Creek Corridor Fence Options
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:
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.
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, 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 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.
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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 90
October 17, 2023
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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 92
October 17, 2023
Figure 35: Overall Circulation Plan and Key Map
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 93
October 17, 2023
Figure 36: Virginia Smith Parkway
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 94
October 17, 2023
Figure 37: Lake Road
Figure 38: Campus Parkway (“Urban Expressway”)
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 95
October 17, 2023
Figure 39: University Avenue
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 96
October 17, 2023
Figure 40: Section 1 and 2 of Main/Center Street
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 97
October 17, 2023
Figure 41: Sections 3 and 4 of Main/Center Street
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 98
October 17, 2023
Figure 42: Main/Center South of Virginia Smith Parkway
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 99
October 17, 2023
Figure 43: Meyers Gate Road
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 100
October 17, 2023
Figure 44: Cardella Road
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 101
October 17, 2023
Figure 45: Local Roads
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 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
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.
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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 106
October 17, 2023
Figure 46: Campus Parkway Overview and Yosemite to Cardella UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 107
October 17, 2023
Figure 47: Campus Parkway Cardella to Bellevue
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 108
October 17, 2023
Figure 48: Campus Parkway Lake Road South of Meyers Gate Detail UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 109
October 17, 2023
Figure 49: Transit Stops
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 110
October 17, 2023
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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 112
October 17, 2023
Figure 50: Water Master Plan
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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 114
October 17, 2023
Figure 51: Sewer Master Plan
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 115
October 17, 2023
Figure 52: Storm Drainage Master Plan
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 116
October 17, 2023
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 con- 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
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
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.
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 Develop- 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.
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, 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, ap- 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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 126
October 17, 2023
Figure 53: Offsite Intersections
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 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 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
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 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
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 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.
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 includ- 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 Ordi- 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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
UCP Village 1 and 2 Specific Plan 142
October 17, 2023
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 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.
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 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 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.