Merced County supervisors signed off on the concept for a massive development
that planners said was critical to the new University of California, Merced,
campus.
Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to approve the University Community Plan,
amending the county's general plan to allow 11,600 homes on 2,100 acres on
agricultural land.
Supervisors also voted unanimously to certify the plan's 1,900-page environmental
impact report, which describes how the large development would affect its
surrounding areas.
"It's been a long road," Supervisor Jerry O'Banion said, minutes before
the board voted. "We've spent more time on this project than any other since
I've been on the Board of Supervisors."
Lindsay Desrochers, vice chancellor of UC Merced, said UC officials were
counting on supervisors approving the new community to house the population
expected to accompany the university.
The community, between Lake Road and the Le Grand and Fairfield canals, is
expected to house about 30,000 people.
"We feel wonderful about it," Desrochers said. "We feel the Board of
Supervisors did a very comprehensive job.
p>
"It's great to have this partnership with local government and to make sure
the university is established the right way."
The general plan amendment doesn't give anyone permission to build, and to
date, specific details of the development haven't been planned. A UC Merced
spokeswoman said it could be five years before houses are ready to occupy.
But the next step of the process is to plan how each portion of the community
will be built, which segment is built first and how those specific plans
would affect the environment.
"What we're doing today is very preliminary," Supervisor Mike Nelson
said.
It took UC Merced planners three years to hammer out the details of the
University Community Plan, and still, most everyone agrees not all questions
have been answered.
Supervisors, farm advocates and environmentalists all voiced concerns Tuesday
about Merced's water supply, and whether there will be enough water for the
new community.
County and UC planners said water will become a bigger issue when developers
ask supervisors to approve the community's specific plans. State laws would
require developers to prove the availability of water for their projects
before they could build.
"It's still not finished," Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Deidre Kelsey
said of the planning process. "It's still one of these things that's got a
ways to go."
The University Community Plan and its final EIR were made available for
public review the week before Thanksgiving.
The Planning Commission put its stamp of approval on the plan and EIR at its
Dec. 1 meeting. However, several audience members at that meeting voiced
concerns about the plans.
Elementary and secondary school officials worried the community's population
would overwhelm Merced school districts.
Meanwhile, representatives of the Merced County Farm Bureau and the Merced
Chapter of California Women for Agriculture criticized the community plan
because it didn't require developers to make up for lost farmland.
The next week, supervisors responded. They added one section that requires
developers to pay in-lieu fees to buy conservation land elsewhere -- enough
to replace every acre of ag land destroyed by their project.
The board also added language requiring developers to work with school
districts to make sure the university community doesn't outgrow existing
schools.
Merced County Farm Bureau Executive Director Diana Westmoreland Pedrozo
praised the ag mitigation Tuesday but said it won't bring back any land
lost in development.
"Where do you draw the line on what's next and what happens?" she said.
Supervisor Kathleen Crookham said county planners tried to
compromise but knew they couldn't meet everyone's needs. Crookham said
the community's north-south layout -- not east-west along Bellevue Road,
as farm bureau officials advocated -- will better serve the university.
"What I hope is coming out of here is a cohesive community," she said.
At each meeting someone spoke against the proposed community, while
others also spoke in its favor.
Sharon Hunt Dicker, representing Hunt Farms, one of the community's
landowners, said she's eager to see the community be developed.
"We're really pleased the county finally has this resolution and is going
forward with this great new area," she said.
