City Council/Public Finance and Economic Development Authority/Parking Authority
October 16, 2023

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF MERCED, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW #22-15, AN ADDENDUM
TO THE MERCED VISION 2030 GENERAL PLAN EIR,
FOR ANNEXATION/PREZONING APPLICATION #22-
01 FOR THE UC MERCED ANNEXATION,

GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST AND

SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF BELLEVUE AND LAKE
ROADS AS WELL AS THE 2-MILE SECTION OF

BELLEVUE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM THE

CURRENT MERCED CITY LIMITS AT G STREET TO

LAKE ROAD AND APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW #23-36 (CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION) FOR

THE APPROVAL OF THE MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF

MERCED AND THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA REGARDING ANNEXATION OF

AND THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES TO
THE UC MERCED CAMPUS, AMENDMENT #1 TO

THE PERMANENT FINANCING CAPITAL

FACILITIES FEE AGREEMENT, AND AMENDMENT
#1 TO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT

FUNDING AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, the City is processing an annexation/prezoning application for the UC Merced Campus, generally located at the northeast and southeast corners of Bellevue and Lake Roads, as well as the 2-mile section of Bellevue Road right-of- way from the existing City Limits at G Street to Lake Road, and being more particularly described in Exhibit A and shown on the map at Exhibit B, both attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, where an environmental review was required; and

WHEREAS, the City is entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) by and between the City of Merced and the Regents of the University of California Regarding Annexation of and the Provision of Public Services to the UC Merced Campus, Amendment #1 to the Permanent Financing Capital Facilities Fee Agreement, and Amendment #1 to the Transportation Improvement Funding Agreement all related to the annexation of the UC Merced Campus; and

ATTACHMENT 10

X:\LSR Projects\2023 - Pending LSRs\LSR 14243\Reso - Approving Env Review\Reso Approving Env Review-UC Merced Campus.docx

2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Merced held a noticed public hearing on October 4, 2023, regarding the proposed annexation, at which time all those interested in the matter were provided the opportunity to speak or provide written or oral testimony regarding the application; and

WHEREAS, after hearing all of the evidence and testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution #4124, attached hereto as Exhibit “C,” and incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council approve the Annexation/Prezoning Application #22-01 and Environmental Review #22-15 (Addendum to Merced Vision 2030 General Plan EIR); and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on October 16, 2023, regarding the proposed annexation, at which time all those interested in the matter were provided the opportunity to speak or to provide written or oral testimony regarding the application; and

WHEREAS, the City Council considered entering into the above described MOU and amendments to agreements on October 16, 2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MERCED AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

Based upon the evidence and testimony in the record at the City Council public hearing, the City Council exercising its independent judgment and review, hereby adopts and approves Environmental Review #22-15, an Addendum to the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan EIR at Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for Annexation/Prezoning Application #22-01 and Environmental Review #23-36, a Categorical Exemption, at Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference for the approval of the MOU and Amendments to Agreements.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

X:\LSR Projects\2023 - Pending LSRs\LSR 14243\Reso - Approving Env Review\Reso Approving Env Review-UC Merced Campus.docx

3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Merced at a regular meeting held on the ____ day of ______________ 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

APPROVED:

_________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:

STEPHANIE R. DIETZ, CITY CLERK

BY:______________________________
Assistant/Deputy City Clerk

(SEAL)

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________________
City Attorney Date

Annexation to City of Merced
1,138.91 Acres

That portion of Section 26, Section 27, Section 32, Section 33, Section 34 and Section 35 in Township 6 South, Range 14 East, and that portion of Section 2, Section 3, Section 4 and Section 5 in Township 7 South, Range 14 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the unincorporated area of the County of Merced, State of California, described as follows:

COMMENCING at the Southwest Corner of said Section 32; Thence along the South line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32, North 89°47’18” East for a distance of 55.01 feet to a point in the Bellevue Avenue Annexation per the document recorded in Volume 3612, at page 462 and per the document recorded in Volume 4089, at page 118, Merced County Records, said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
1) Thence along a line parallel with and distant 55.00 feet East of the West line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32, and along said Bellevue Avenue Annexation, North 00° 40' 29" East for a distance of 30.00 feet;

2) Thence along a line parallel with and distant 30.00 feet North of the South line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32, also being the South line of Lot 29 and Lot 30 of Map of the Lands of the Holland California Land Co. filed in Volume 2 of Plats, at page 14, Merced County Records, North 89° 47' 18" East for a distance of 2585.82 feet to the East line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32;

3) Thence along a line parallel with and distant 30.00 feet North of the South line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 32, North 89° 48' 14" East for a distance of 2610.96 feet to the West line of Parcel 1 of the Parcel Map filed in Book 13, at Page 12, Merced County Records;

4) Thence along the East line of Parcel 1 of the Parcel Map filed in Book 13, at Page 12, Merced County Records, North 00° 28' 00" East for a distance of 42.98 feet;

5) Thence South 89°32’0” East a distance of 60.00 feet to the West line of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map filed in Book 40, at Page 4, Merced County Records.

6) Thence along a non-tangent curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 25.00 feet, with a radial bearing of North 89°32’0” West, through a central angle of 90°39’20” for an arc distance of 39.56 feet to the South line of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map filed in Book 40, at Page 4, Merced County Records

ATTACHMENT A

7) Thence along the south line of Parcel 1 of the Parcel Map recorded in Book 40 of Parcel Maps, at Page 4, Merced County Records, North 89° 48' 40" East for a distance of 204.97 feet to the southeast corner of Parcel 1 of the Parcel Map recorded in Book 40 of Parcel Maps, at Page 4, Merced County Records;

8) Thence along the East line of Parcel 1 of the Parcel Map recorded in Book 40 of Parcel Maps, at Page 4, North 00° 28' 22" East for a distance of 10.00 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 6 of Major Subdivision No. 00007 West Hills Estates recorded in Volume 59, of Official Plats, at Pages 22-23, Merced County Records,

9) Thence along the south line of Lot 6 and Lot 7 of Major Subdivision No. 00007 West Hills Estates recorded in Volume 59, of Official Plats, at Pages 22-23, Merced County Records, North 89° 48' 40" East for a distance of 442.60 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 7 of Major Subdivision No. 00007 West Hills Estates per the Map recorded in Book 59 of Official Plats, at Page 22-23, Merced County Records;

10) Thence along the northwest line of Parcel A of Parcel Map filed in Volume 33 of Parcel Maps, at Pages 46–47, Merced County Records, South 32° 04' 18" West for a distance of

20.10 feet to the southwest corner of Parcel A of Parcel Map filed in Volume 33 of Parcel Maps, at Pages 46–47, Merced County Records;

11) Thence along a line parallel with and distant 40.00 feet North of the South line of said Section 33, also being the South line of Parcel A, Parcel B, and Parcel C of map recorded in Volume 33 of Parcel Maps, at Pages 46–47, Merced County Records, North 89° 48' 40" East for a distance of 628.11 feet to the southeast corner of Parcel C of the Parcel Map recorded in Volume 33 of Parcel Maps, at Pages 46-47, Merced County Records;

12) Thence along the west line of Lot 26 of Map of the Lands of the Holland California Land Co. filed in Volume 2 of Plats, at page 14, Merced County Records, South 00° 30' 22" West for a distance of 10.00 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 26 of Map of the Lands of the Holland California Land Co. filed in Volume 2 of Plats, at page 14, Merced County Records;

13) Thence along a line parallel with and distant 30.00 feet North of the South line of said Section 33, also being the Southerly line of Parcel 1 of map filed in Book 48 of Parcel Maps, at Page 28, Merced County Records, North 89° 48' 40" East for a distance of 3831.70 feet;

14) Thence North 45° 28' 02" East for a distance of 143.03 feet to the Easterly line of Parcel 1 of map filed in Book 48 of Parcel Maps, at Page 28, Merced County Records;

15) Thence along a line parallel with and distant 30.00 feet West of the East line of said Section 33, also being the East line of Parcel 1 of map filed in Book 48 of Parcel Maps, at

Northwesterly line of Parcel 1 of the Parcel Map for Merced Community Golf Association, recorded in Book 83 of Parcel Maps, at Pages 9-12, Merced County Records, and its Southwesterly projection;

16) Thence along the Northwesterly line of Parcel 1 of the Parcel Map for Merced Community Golf Association, recorded in Book 83 of Parcel Maps, at Pages 9-12, Merced County Records, and its Southwesterly projection, North 55° 13' 20" East for a distance of 280.40 feet to an angle point in said line;

17) Thence continuing along the Northwest line of Parcel 1 of said Parcel Map for Merced Community Golf Association, North 72° 47' 08" East for a distance of 822.84 feet to an angle point in said line;

18) Thence continuing along the Northwest line of Parcel 1 of said Parcel Map for Merced Community Golf Association, North 54° 05' 29" East for a distance of 159.14 feet to an angle point in said line;

19) Thence continuing along the Northwest line of Parcel 1 of said Parcel Map for Merced Community Golf Association, North 35° 48' 14" East for a distance of 372.64 feet to an angle point in said line;

20) Thence continuing along the Northwest line of Parcel 1 of said Parcel Map for Merced Community Golf Association, North 48° 18' 27" East for a distance of 373.03 feet to an angle point in said line;

21) Thence continuing along the Northwest line of Parcel 1 of said Parcel Map for Merced Community Golf Association, South 41° 40' 41" East for a distance of 52.28 feet to an angle point in said line;

22) Thence continuing along the Northwest line of Parcel 1 of said Parcel Map for Merced Community Golf Association, North 48° 59' 58" East for a distance of 199.98 feet to the Southwest corner of Parcel 2 of said Parcel Map for Merced Community Golf Association;

23) Thence along the Northwest line of Parcel 2 of said Parcel Map for Merced Community Golf Association, North 48° 59' 58" East for a distance of 871.57 feet to an angle point in said line;

24) Thence continuing along the Northwest line of Parcel 2 of said Parcel Map for Merced Community Golf Association, North 46° 18' 27" East for a distance of 148.02 feet to an angle point in said line;

25) Thence continuing along the Northwest line of Parcel 2 of said Parcel Map for Merced Community Golf Association, North 46° 47' 26" East for a distance of 3454.78 feet to an angle point in said line;

26) Thence leaving the Northwest line of Parcel 2 of said Parcel Map for Merced Community Golf Association along a random line, North 43° 10' 33" East for a distance of 481.83 feet;

27) Thence, North 52° 51' 29" East for a distance of 335.51 feet;

28) Thence, South 89° 57' 48" East for a distance of 1613.68 feet;

29) Thence, South 00° 01' 44" West for a distance of 4591.29 feet;

30) Thence, South 37° 50' 27" East for a distance of 1194.20 feet;

31) Thence, South 00° 12' 02" West for a distance of 1016.85 feet;

32) Thence, South 12° 50' 00" West for a distance of 341.52 feet;

33) Thence Southeasterly along a non-tangent curve, concave Southwesterly, with a radial bearing North 14°13’46” East, having a radius of 4060.00 feet, through a central angle of 21° 36' 44” for an arc distance of 1531.46 feet;

34) Thence Easterly along a reverse curve, concave Northerly, with a radial bearing of South 35°50’30” West, having a radius of 260.00 feet, through a central angle of 97° 24' 41" for an arc distance of 442.04 feet;

35) Thence Easterly along a reverse curve, concave Southerly, with a radial bearing of North 61°34’10” West, having a radius of 550.00 feet, through a central angle of 98° 21' 49" for an arc distance of 944.22 feet to the East line of Adjusted Parcel 1 per Deed 2016- 035817;

36) Thence along the East line of Adjusted Parcel 1 per Deed 2016-035817, South 00° 44' 23" West for a distance of 706.97 feet to the Southeast corner of Adjusted Parcel 1 of Property Line Adjustment No. 16014 as shown on that certain Record of Survey recorded in Book 60 of Surveys, at Pages 22-23, Merced County Records;

37) Thence along the South line of said Adjusted Parcel 1, North 89° 48' 29" West for a distance of 3593.12 feet to an angle point in said line;

38) Thence continuing along the South line of said Adjusted Parcel 1, South 60° 39' 23" West for a distance of 206.92 feet to an angle point in said line;

39) Thence continuing along the South line of said Adjusted Parcel 1, South 89° 24' 25" West for a distance of 1764.31 feet to an angle point in said line;

40) Thence continuing along the South line of said Adjusted Parcel 1, South 00° 11' 31" West for a distance of 129.31 feet to an angle point in said line;

41) Thence continuing along the South line of said Adjusted Parcel 1 and its Westerly projection, North 89° 48' 29" West for a distance of 5064.82 feet to a point on the East line of the Remainder Parcel in Parcel Map filed in Volume 79, at Page 10, Merced County Records;

42) Thence along the East line of the Remainder Parcel in Parcel Map filed in Volume 79, at

and the East line of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map filed in Volume 2, at page 15, and the East line of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map filed in Volume 26, at page 39, and the East line of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map filed in Volume 20, at page 13, Merced County Records, North 01° 06' 01" East for a distance of 1377.03 feet to the northeasterly corner of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map filed in Volume 26, at page 39, Merced County Records;

43) Thence along the northerly line of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map filed in Volume 26, at page 39, Merced County Records, South 89°35’26” West a distance of 17.00 feet to the southeast corner of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map filed in Book 53, at pages 12-13, Merced County Records;

44) Thence along a line parallel with and distant 47.00 feet West of the East section line of Section 4, also being the East line of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel map filed in Book 53, at pages 12-13, Merced County Records North 01°06’01” East a distance of 329.98

feet to the northeast corner of Parcel 1 of Parcel map filed in Book 53, at pages 12-13, Merced County Records;

45) Thence along the South line of Parcel 2 of Parcel map filed in Volume 26, at page 39, Merced County Records, North 89°35’26” East, a distance of 17.00 feet to the southeast corner of Parcel 2 of Parcel map filed in Volume 26, at page 39, Merced County Records;

46) Thence along a line parallel and distant 30.00 feet west of east section line of Section 4, also being the east line of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel map filed in Volume 26, at page 39, Merced County Records, North 01°06’01” East a distance of 861.16 feet, to the northeast corner of Parcel 1 of Parcel map filed in Volume 26, at page 39, Merced County Records;

47) Thence along a line parallel with and distant 40.00 feet South of the South line of said Section 33, also being the North line of Parcel 1 of Parcel map filed in Volume 26, at page 39, the North line of Parcel 3 of Parcel map filed in Book 20, at page 13, North line of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map filed in Book 22, at Page 24, the North line of Parcel A and Parcel B of Parcel Map filed in Book 29, at page 39, the North line of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map filed in Book 17, at Page 31, the North line of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map filed in Book 39, at Page 49, the North line Parcel 1, Parcel 2, Parcel 3, and Parcel 4 of Parcel Map filed in Book 16, at Page 15, Merced County Records, South 89° 48' 40" West for a distance of 2610.44 feet to the West line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 4, also being the northwest corner of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map filed in Book 16, at

48) Thence along the West line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 4, also being the northerly projection of the West line of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map filed in Book 16, at Page 15, Merced County Records, North 00° 00' 00" East for a distance of 10.00 feet to a point

30.00 feet south of the North Quarter Corner of Section 4 on the West line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4;

49) Thence along a line parallel with and distant 30.00 feet South of the South line of said Section 33, South 89° 48' 40" West for a distance of 2640.98 feet to the West line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 4;

50) Thence along a line parallel with and distant 30.00 feet South of the South line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 32, South 89° 48' 14" West for a distance of 2641.11 feet to the West line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 5, also being the northerly prolongation of the East line of Parcel 2 of the Parcel Map filed in Book 69 of Parcel Maps, at Pages 4-5, Merced County Records;

51) Thence, along the northerly prolongation of the East line of Parcel 2 of the Parcel Map filed in Book 69, at Pages 4-5, Merced County Records, South 00° 46' 05" West for a distance of 17.00 feet to the northeast corner of Parcel 2 of the Parcel Map filed in Book 69, at Pages 4-5, Merced County Records;

52) Thence along a line parallel with and distant 47.00 feet South of the South line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32, also being the North Line of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of the Parcel Map filed in Book 69, at Pages 4-5, Merced County Records, South 89° 47' 18" West for a distance of 660.20 feet to the northwest corner of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map filed in Book 69, at Pages 4-5, Merced County Records;

53) Thence along the East line of Parcel 1 of Parcel map filed in Book 45, at page 16, Merced County Records, North 00° 45' 16" East for a distance of 17.00 feet to the northeast corner of Parcel 1 of Parcel map filed in Book 45, at page 16, Merced County Records;

54) Thence along a line parallel with and distant 30.00 feet South of the South line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32, also being the north line of Parcel 1 of Parcel map filed in Book 45, at page 16, Merced County Records South 89° 47' 18" West for a distance of 1925.55 feet to the northwest corner of Parcel 1 of Parcel map filed in Book 45, at page 16, Merced County Records, being on the boundary of said Bellevue Avenue Annexation;

55) Thence along a line parallel with and distant 55.00 feet East of the West line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 5, and also being along the boundary of said Bellevue Avenue Annexation, North 00° 42' 14" East a distance of 30.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Contains an Area of: 1,138.91 Acres, more or less

0 2000'1000'
SCALE 1" = 2000'
L
TS
CFO
A ET
No. 8768
A
AI
OFI
NR

PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
ILEY

MICHAEL BALLINGER
DESCRIPTION:

PROJECT NAME:
1 OF 5
FIGURE

ANNEXATION - CITY OF MERCED

UC MERCED
22-12201/24/2023
P:\CIVIL 3D PROJECTS\2022\22-122\SURVEY AND MAPPING\SURVEY EXHIBITS\22-122 ANNEX 8.5X11.DWG 1/24/2023 10:09:45 AM

EXHIBIT

EXHIBIT B
0 600'300'SCALE 1" = 600'
DESCRIPTION:PROJECT NAME:2 OF 5FIGUREANNEXATION - CITY OF MERCEDUC MERCED22-12201/24/2023P:\CIVIL 3D PROJECTS\2022\22-122\SURVEY AND MAPPING\SURVEY EXHIBITS\22-122 ANNEX 8.5X11.DWG 1/24/2023 10:09:49 AM

EXHIBIT
0 300'150'SCALE 1" = 300'
DESCRIPTION:PROJECT NAME:3 OF 5FIGUREANNEXATION - CITY OF MERCEDUC MERCED22-12201/24/2023P:\CIVIL 3D PROJECTS\2022\22-122\SURVEY AND MAPPING\SURVEY EXHIBITS\22-122 ANNEX 8.5X11.DWG 1/24/2023 10:09:54 AM

EXHIBIT
0 300'150'SCALE 1" = 300'
0 350'175'SCALE 1" = 350'
Δ
0 2000'1000'SCALE 1" = 2000'
DESCRIPTION:PROJECT NAME:4 OF 5FIGUREANNEXATION - CITY OF MERCEDUC MERCED22-12201/24/2023P:\CIVIL 3D PROJECTS\2022\22-122\SURVEY AND MAPPING\SURVEY EXHIBITS\22-122 ANNEX 8.5X11.DWG 1/24/2023 10:09:59 AM

EXHIBIT
COURSENO.LINEBEARINGLENGTHCOURSENO.LINEBEARINGLENGTH
’” ’’ ’
COURSENO.CURVERADIUSDELTALENGTH
LTSCFOAETNo. 8768AAIOFINRPROFESSIONALLANDSURVEYORILEYMICHAELBALLINGER DESCRIPTION:PROJECT NAME:5 of 5FIGUREANNEXATION - CITY OF MERCEDUC MERCED22-12201/24/2023P:\CIVIL 3D PROJECTS\2022\22-122\SURVEY AND MAPPING\SURVEY EXHIBITS\22-122 ANNEX 8.5X11.DWG 1/24/2023 10:10:05 AM

EXHIBIT
DECEMBER 2022

ADDENDUM
Merced Vision 2030 General Plan Program
Environmental Impact Report for the
UC Merced Annexation Project
Prepared for:

City
of Merced, Planning and Permitting Division
678 W. 18th Street
Merced, California 95340
209/385-6858
Contact: Kim Espinosa, Planning Manager

EXHIBIT C
Addendum to the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan
Program Environmental Impact Report
for the
UC Merced Annexation Project
Prepared for:

City of Merced, Planning and Permitting Division
678 W. 18th Street
Merced, California 95340
209/385-6858
Contact: Kim Espinosa, Planning Manager
Prepared By:

Ascent Environmental, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
916/444-7301
Contact: Mike Parker, Project Director
December 2022

City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... III ADDENDUM TO THE MERCED VISION 2030 GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ANNEXATION OF UC MERCED ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 1 Background and Action Triggering the Addendum .................................................................................................................. 1 California Environmental QUality Act Guidelines Regarding an Addendum to an ENvironmental Impact Report ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1-1

1.1 Purpose of this Addendum .............................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Approach to Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Document Organization ................................................................................................................................................. 1-3 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 2-1

2.1 Location ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Existing Environmental Review .................................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.4 Consistency with Merced Vision 2030 General Plan Program EIR .................................................................. 2-6

2.5 Development Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................... 2-7

2.6 Required Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................................................ 2-8 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ................................ ................................ .................. 3-1

3.1 Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories ...................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Explanation of Discussion, Mitigation Measures, and Conclusions Sections ............................................... 3-2

3.3 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3-3

3.4 Agriculture and Forest Resources ............................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.5 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3-11

3.6 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-18

3.7 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-26

3.8 Energy................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-29

3.9 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-32

3.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................................................... 3-38

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................................... 3-41

3.12 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................................................... 3-47

3.13 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................................................. 3-54

3.14 Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-57

3.15 Noise ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-59

3.16 Population and Housing .............................................................................................................................................. 3-63

3.17 Public Services ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-65

3.18 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3-69

3.19 Transportation ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-72

3.20 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 3-76

3.21 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................................................................... 3-79

3.22 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3-85 4 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4-1 5 REPORT PREPARERS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .5-1

Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
ii UC Merced Annexation Project
Appendices
Appendix A Summary of Mitigation Measures in the 2020 LRDP SEIR Appendix B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, UC Merced 2009 Long Range Development Plan

Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2-2 Annexation Area ............................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3 UC Merced 2020 Long Range Development Plan Land Use Diagram .......................................................... 2-4

City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ACTM Airborne Toxic Control Measures
AF acre-feet

CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Code
CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Merced
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources

EIR environmental Impact report

FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones

GP PEIR Merced Vision 2030 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report GSA groundwater sustainability agencies
gsf gross square feet
GSP groundwater sustainability plan

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan

LOS level of service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LRDP Long Range Development Plan

Mgal/d million gallons per day
mgd million gallon per day
MID Merced Irrigation District
MTCO
2e/year metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
iv UC Merced Annexation Project

NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NOX nitrous oxide
NRHP National Register of Historic Places

PM
10 coarse particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
PRC Public Resources Code
project proposed annexation

RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
ROG reactive organic gas

SB Senate Bill
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District sq. ft. square feet
SRA State Responsibility Area
SUDP/SOI Specific Urban Development Plan/Sphere of Influence SWPPP storm water pollution prevention plan

U.S. DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
UC Merced University of California, Merced
UC University of California
UCLC University of California Land Company LLC
UCP University Community Plan
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Mater Plan

VMT vehicle miles traveled
VST Virginia Smith Trust

City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 1

ADDENDUM TO THE
MERCED VISION 2030 GENERAL PLAN

PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR ANNEXATION OF UC MERCED
State Clearinghouse Number 2008071069

BACKGROUND AND ACTION TRIGGERING THE ADDENDUM
This document serves as an addendum to the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan Program Environmenta l Impact Report (GP PEIR), which considers the environmental effects of implementing the General Plan through the 2030 planning horizon. One of the primary purposes of the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan adopted in January of 2012 was to update and expand the City of Merced’s (City’s) Specific Urban Development Plan/Sphere of Influence (SUDP/SOI) to include the University of California, Merced (UC Merced) campus, adjacent University Community, and other areas within the planning area (City of Merced 2010).

The GP PEIR includes a preliminary analysis of the potential effects of annexing UC Merced into the City based on the 2009 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) for UC Merced and the annexation agreement maintained between the City and UC Merced. The Merced Vision 2030 General Plan includes Policy UE-1.4 related to continuation of joint planning efforts and Policy UE-1.5 to promote annexation of developed areas in the City’s SUDP/SOI during the planning period. Although the UC Merced campus is within the City’s SUDP/SOI, annexation of UC Merced had not been permissible pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 because the UC Merced campus is not contiguous with the incorporated city. In September 2020, legislation was passed unanimously by both the State Assembly and the Senate that recognizes the unique circumstances surrounding the UC Merced annexation. Assembly Bill (AB) 3312 allows the City to annex the UC Merced campus along a road strip (Bellevue Road or Lake Road) without the adjoining properties between UC Merced and the city limits. In February 2021, the Merced City Council directed City staff to proceed with the annexation of the UC Merced campus to the City under the terms of AB 3312.

As the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that the proposed annexation warrants the preparation of an addendum in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This addendum builds upon the GP PEIR analysis and evaluates the proposed annexation of UC Merced for potential to change the conclusions of the GP PEIR.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES REGARDING

AN ADDENDUM TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Altered conditions, changes, or additions to the description of a project that occur after certification of an environmental Impact report (EIR) may require additional analysis under CEQA. The legal principles that guide decisions regarding whether additional environmental documentation is required a re provided in the State CEQA Guidelines, which establish three mechanisms to address these changes: a subsequent EIR, a supplement to an EIR, and an addendum to an EIR.

Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines describes the conditions under which a subsequent EIR would be prepared. In summary, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no SEIR is required unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects;
Addendum Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
2 UC Merced Annexation Project
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

An addendum is appropriate where a previously certified EIR has been prepared and some changes or revisions to the project are proposed, or the circumstances surrounding the project have changed, but none of the changes or revisions would result in significant new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, consistent with CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, 15168, and 15183.

Specifically, the tiering provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 require that when a project is consis tent with the development density established by general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, lead agencies shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project. Consistent with these requirements, the City has engaged in a multi-step evaluation to determine whether additional evaluation would be required.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This addendum includes an attachment with an environmental checklist that contains the substantial evidence supporting that the proposed annexation would not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts from those identified in the GP PEIR. To ensure that all environmental topical areas are appropriately evaluated, the environmental checklist was prepared to mirror the standard organization of the sample environmental checklist presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. For each checklist topic, the analysis evaluates whether any “changed condition” (i.e., changed circumstances, project changes, issues that are peculiar to the project, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a different or new environmental impact significance conclusion from the EIR would occur. The column titles of the checklist have been modified from the Appendix G presentation to help answer the questions to be addressed pursuant to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, 15163, 15164, 15168, and 15183.This addendum and checklist serve as the appropriate CEQA compliance document and has been prepared consistent with the requirements of Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

The analysis demonstrates that implementation of the proposed UC Merced annex ation would not result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Further, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that suggests the potential for the UC Merced annexation to result in significant or substantially more severe effects not discussed in the GP PEIR. As demonstrated in the attached evaluation, UC Merced has committed to project design features and mitigation measures that would achieve impact reductions commensurate with the policies and mitigation measures identified in the GP PEIR. The City has not identified any mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment and were either previously found to be infeasible and are now feasible or are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR.

City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Merced (City) has been planning for the annexation of the University of California, Merced (UC Merced) since long before construction of the university began. Based on this long- term vision, the City and UC Merced have established agreements for the provision of public utilities including water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure to the UC Merced campus. An annexation agreement, first established in 2003, has been maintained to facilitate the eventual annexation of the area when the City Council deems it appropriate. Although the campus is within the City’s Specific Urban Development Plan/Sphere of Influence (SUDP/SOI), annexation of UC Merced had not been permissible pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 because the UC Merced campus is not contiguous with the incorporated city. In September 2020, legislation was passed unanimously by both the State Assembly and the Senate that recognizes the unique circumstances surrounding the UC Merced annexation. Assembly Bill (AB) 3312 allows the City to annex the UC Merced campus along with a road strip (Bellevue Road or Lake Road) without the adjoining properties between UC Merced and the city limits. In February 2021, the Merced City Council directed City staff to proceed with the annexation of the UC Merced campus to the City under the terms of AB 3312.

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS ADDENDUM
Annexation of UC Merced into the city was evaluated in the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan (GP PEIR). However, development and design of the UC Merced campus has evolved from the assumptions used in the GP PEIR analyses. UC Merced has prepared an updated Long Range Development Plan for growth projected between 2020 and 2030 (the 2020 LRDP) and certified the UC Merced 2020 Long-Range Development Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (2020 LRDP SEIR) , which evaluates the potential environmental effects that could result from the implementation of the 2020 LRDP . This addendum provides evidence to demonstrate that no new or substantially more severe impacts would occur as a result of these deviations in project specifics, new information, or changed circumstances.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 indicates that subsequent EIRs are approp riate only if major additions or changes to the analysis are necessary and none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Conditions that require preparation of subsequent analysis include substantial changes to the project that would result in a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an impact; substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project would occur that would result in a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an impact; new information of substantial importance indicating that the change in the project would result in significant effects not discussed, substantially more severe impacts, or a change in the feasibility of mitigation; or an alternative that was previously found to be infeasible. When none of these conditions are met, Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that a lead agency should prepare an addendum to the certified EIR. CEQA allows lead agencies to restrict review of modifications to a previously approved project to the incremental effects associated with the proposed modifications, compared against the anticipated effects of the previously approved project at build-out. This addendum evaluates the annexation of UC Merced, as currently planned, for potential to change the conclusions of the GP PEIR.

1.2 APPROACH TO ANALYSIS
This addendum uses a modified checklist format to document that the site-specific activities are covered by the GP PEIR pursuant to Section 15168(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states, “subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.” Pursuant to Section 15168(c)(4), an agency should use “…a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR.” The checklist is set up to document that none of the conditi ons described in CEQA Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
1-2 UC Merced Annexation Project
Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred and an addendum to the GP PEIR may be prepared (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164).

In general, the checklist includes a summary of the impacts and mitigation measures from the GP PEIR, augmented by the analysis in the 2020 LRDP SEIR (as applicable), and followed by a determination of whether the annexation falls within the scope of the impacts disclosed in the GP PEIR. The analysis demonstrates that incorporating the UC Merced campus into the city would not result in new or more substantial significant impacts than disclosed in the GP PEIR.

1.2.1 Jurisdictional Relationship
UC Merced is one of 10 campuses within the University of California (UC) system, which is a constitutionally created State educational institution with “full powers of organization and government” (California Constitution Article IX, Section 9). As such, the UC system, including UC Merced, is not subject to regulations of local governments, such as city and county general plans and land use and zoning policies, when using property under the UC’s control in furtherance of the UC’s educational purposes. Although the UC Merced campus would be i ncorporated into the legal boundary of the city upon annexation, the City would not have jurisdiction over development and operation of the campus. For coordination purposes, UC Merced may consider aspects of local plans and policies for the communities surrounding the UC Merced property when it is appropriate and feasible, although there is no formal mechanism for doing so. Annexation is proposed to allow the City to continue to provide certain urban services to the campus.

Annexation would not change the jurisdictional relationship between UC Merced and the City.

The City does not have authority to require that UC Merced comply with the mitigation measures identified in the GP PEIR. As detailed in Section 3, “Environmental Checklist,” the UC Merced 2020 LRDP and 2020 LRDP SEIR include a variety of policies and mitigation measures that UC Merced has adopted to address potential effects on the environment. The following analysis assumes that these existing commitments will be fulfilled and concludes that the required mitigation measures and design features included in the UC Merced LRDP are equally or more effective than the mitigation measures in the City’s GP PEIR.

1.2.2 Annexation Pre-Applications
The University Vista and Virginia Smith Trust (VST) Specific Plan projects are proposed mixed use developments that would be located west and south of the UC Merced campus, respectively, within the SUDP/SOI established in the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan. The city has received annexation pre-applications for these areas, which would be eligible for annexation following annexation of UC Merced.

The University Vista annexation project would involve the annexation of approximately 290 acres at the northwest corner of Bellevue and Lake Roads. The future mixed-use development would include an estimated 4,176 dwelling units (including 1,694 mixed use units, 845 units of student housing, 933 apartments, 494 townhomes, and 210 single - family homes) along with 788,486 square feet (sq. ft.) of commercial, mixed -use, and hospitality development. The proposed land uses are generally consistent with the Merced Vision 2030 land use designations and the Bellevue Community Plan.

The proposed VST Specific Plan is a conceptual land use plan for approximately 654 acres located northeast of the Merced city limit and within the area designated as “Community Plan” in the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan . The GP PEIR considered the effects of annexing this area into the city based on the conceptual land use plan . The current proposal for development of the VST property reflects current conditions and demand, as well as the changes that UC Merced adopted in the 2020 LRDP. As a result, it varies from the development envisioned in the University Community Plan (UCP) adopted by the County and used to inform the GP PEIR. The VST Specific Plan proposes a generally denser development with more dwelling units and more area designated for commercial and office development. For the VST Specific Plan portion of the UCP area, the number of dwelling units wo uld increase by 1,440 units and the amount of commercial and office square footage would increase by approximately 709,000 sq. ft.

Ascent Environmental Introduction
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 1-3
The Merced Vision 2030 General Plan assumed this type of urban village land use concept in these portions of the SUDP/SOI and the proposals are generally consistent with the programmatic assumptions in the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan, as evaluated in the GP PEIR. These proposals provide additional detail about the development that may occur in the SOI/SUDP. Because these pre-applications are consistent with the assumptions for long-term buildout of the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan, they do not constitute substantial changes in circumstances that would result in a new or a substantially more severe significant impact. The cumulative analysis in the GP PEIR evaluated annexation of these areas, and the proposed annexation would not result in indirect environmental effects not previously evaluated. Also, it should be noted that these proposals have not yet been approved; both involve discretionary actions, which will require environmental review pursuant to CEQA.

1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This addendum is organized as follows:

Section 1: Introduction. This section introduces the environmental review process. It describes the purpose and organization of the analysis.

Section 2: Project Description. This section provides a brief description of the proposed annexation.

Section 3: Environmental Checklist for Environmental Review. This section presents an analysis of a range of environmental issues to determine whether the UC Merced annexation would result in significant environmental impacts due to the proposed annexation or changes in circumstances or new information.

Section 4: References. This section lists the references used in preparation of this addendum.

Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
1-4 UC Merced Annexation Project
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 2-1
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed annexation (hereafter the “project”) would result in an administrative boundary change. The project would not result in any changes to development within the annexation area, as development of the University of California, Merced (UC Merced) campus is governed by the UC Regents and subject to an approved Long Range Development Plan (LRDP), as discussed further below.

2.1 LOCATION
The UC Merced campus is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the limits of the City of Merced (Figure 1). The entire 1,026-acre campus located on Lake Road would be annexed. In addition, the 2-mile segment of Bellevue Road between G Street and Lake Road would be annexed pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill 3312, enacted in 2020, which authorized annexation of the existing campus and road (Figure 2).

2.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The UC Merced campus has been developed through two phases: the first phase developed approximately 100 acres in the northern portion of the campus site and the recently completed second phase (also referred to as the UC Merced 2020 Project) expanded the campus facilities to the south and southeast, by 136 acres. Campus facilities include classrooms, offices, a library, social sciences and management and science and engineering buildings, student housing, dining facilities, a recreation and wellness center, sports fields, logistical/support services, and an early childhood education center; as well as additional teaching, residential, research, and student -support facilities.

Surrounding land uses include Lake Yosemite and Lake Yosemite Regional Pa rk to the north, the Merced Vernal Pools Grassland Preserve to the east, almond orchards to the south, and residential development to the west (Figure 3).

Lake Yosemite is a regulating reservoir owned and operated by Merced Irrigation District (MID). The l and between the Lake Yosemite Regional Park and the northern boundary of the campus is owned by Merced County. The university purchased a conservation easement that was placed on a portion of this property in 2016 .

2.2.1 Existing Utility Service
The campus is currently served by the full range of utilities and a well-developed utility infrastructure, augmented by water, wastewater, natural gas, electricity, and some telecommunications services from outside providers. Potable water is provided to the campus by the City of Merced via its distribution system. The water is primarily supplied by a 16-inch water line within the alignment of Bellevue Road. An on-campus distribution system has been developed to deliver potable water to each building. There is also a water supply well and a 250,000-gallon water storage tank on the campus to accommodate fire flow requirements. The campus connects to the City of Merced wastewater collection and treatment system via a 27-inch sanitary sewer line in Bellevue Road. The sewer pipeline in Bellevue Road was constructed to serve a campus with 25,000 students and connects to a 27 -inch trunk line on G Street near Merced College.

MID has jurisdiction and control over the Fairfield and Le Grand Canals, which traverse the campus site. In 2005, MID and UC Merced executed an agreement that allows the campus to discharge stormwater into Fairfield Canal, provided stormwater is appropriately detained before discharge into the canal and that the discharge into the canal does not exceed 225 gallons per minute. Discharge of stormwater to Le Grand Canal is not permitted because of the possibility that the canal may provide domestic water to the town of Le Grand. The campus’ stormwater collection and conveyance system is designed to convey runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm and consists of a network of grassy swales, detention basins, storm drain inlets, and underground pipes.

Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
2-2 UC Merced Annexation Project

Figure 2-1 Regional Location

Ascent Environmental Introduction
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 2-3

Figure 2-2 Annexation Area

Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
2-4 UC Merced Annexation Project

Figure 2-3 UC Merced 2020 Long Range Development Plan Land Use Diagram

Ascent Environmental Introduction
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 2-5

2.2.2 Existing Public Services
UC Merced has its own police force, which has been serving the campus since it opened in 2005. The campus site is also currently within the jurisdiction of the Merced County Sheriff’s Department. The university, County, and City police forces have established cooperative working relationships and the campus police frequently assists in local law enforcement activities, particularly related to traffic in the vicinity of the campus.

The campus currently receives fire protection services jointly from the Merced County Fire Department and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). The Merced County Fire Department provides the fire stations, equipment, and tools while CAL FIRE provides administrative staff, firefighting personnel, and training.

The City of Merced Fire Department provides mutual aid support, upon request, to the Merced County Fire Department and CAL FIRE under a signed Mutual Aid Agreement. There is no automatic response contractual agreement in place between the fire departments.

2.3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

2.3.1 Merced Vision 2030 General Plan Program EIR
The Merced Vision 2030 General Plan, adopted in January 2012, reflects that the annexation of UC Merced is within the long-term plans of the City. The General Plan includes Policy Urban Expansion (UE)-1.4 related to continuation of joint planning efforts and Policy UE-1.5 to promote annexation of developed areas in the City’s Specific Urban Development Plan/Sphere of Influence during the planning period. The Urban Expansion Chapter of the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan provides guidance on the integration of the university into the City and identifies the desire to annex the area at the earliest feasible date. Implementing Action UE-1.4.a calls for annexation of the UC Merced campus and UE 1.4.b spells out a comprehensive policy statement adopted by City Council Resolution #2006-89 in 2006 calling for the planned adjacent University Community (generally to the south of the campus) to also be annexed to the City. The Merced Vision 2030 General Plan states that “the City should revise all of its various planning documents to accommodate the incorporation of the University Community into the City of Merced, including…plans for wastewater treatment, water, storm drainage, parks, fire protection, and other services” (City of Merced 2012:2-30).

The Program Environmental Impact Report for the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan (GP PEIR) evaluates the potential for physical environmental effects to result from implementation of the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan. Consistent with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.3(b) and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168 and 15183, the GP PEIR can be used as the CEQA document for subsequent projects (public and private) that are consistent with the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan. Projects are evaluated to determine whether the actions proposed fall within the scope of the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan, whether project impacts are addressed in the c ertified GP PEIR, and whether the project incorporates all applicable performance standards and mitigation measures identified therein.

2.3.2 UC Merced Long-Range Development Plan EIRs
LRDPs are comprehensive land use plans used by University of California camp uses to guide future physical growth.

An LRDP identifies the policies and physical development needed to achieve the University’s academic goals for an established time horizon and a projected enrollment level. Campus administration and the University of C alifornia use the LRDP to guide future land use decisions. In March 2009, the Board of Regents of the University of California certified an EIR that analyzed and disclosed the impacts from the implementation of a LRDP for UC Merced and adopted the UC Merced 2009 LRDP. The 2009 LRDP was designed to guide the physical development of the 815 -acre campus through 2030 and beyond for growth up to an enrollment level of 25,000 students and a total campus population of 31,560 people.

The City of Merced chose to reflect the 2009 external boundaries for the university (and the adjacent University Community North) within the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan based on the environmental impacts analyzed in the Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
2-6 UC Merced Annexation Project
EIR prepared for the 2009 LRDP, which involved the participation of the university, the County of Merced, and the City of Merced. The GP PEIR also considered the effects of annexing UC Merced into the city based on the 2009 LRDP.

UC Merced subsequently acquired more land to the south of the original campus and revised the populations projections through 2030. UC Merced prepared the 2020 LRDP to guide future development of the 1,026-acre campus to support projected enrollment of 15,000 students and a total campus population of 17,411 people. The land use diagram in the 2009 LRDP was amended to cover the larger campus site, provide for more compact and sustainable development within the revised campus site, and allow more flexibility in the siting of future facilities. In view of these changes, An Initial Study was prepared to identify environmental impacts that were adequately addressed in the 2009 EIR and provide the basis for the scope of the UC Merced 2020 Long -Range Development Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (2020 LRDP SEIR), which evaluates the potential environmental effects that could result from the implementation of the 2020 LRDP. The 2020 LRDP SEIR builds on the analysis and mitigation in the 2009 LRDP EIR; the mitigation adopted for the 2009 LRDP would apply to the new facilities proposed in the 2020 LRDP.

EXISTING PLANNING AGREEMENTS
In 2003, the City entered into an Urban Services Agreement with the University of California to provide wastewater and water services to the UC Merced campus. As part of that agreement, UC Merced also signed an Annexation Agreement agreeing to annex Phase 1 of the Campus to the City of Merced at the time that the City Council deemed it was appropriate. The Urban Services Agreement was subsequently amended twice (in 2016 and 2019) to reflec t the expansion of the campus with the 2020 LRDP. A new Annexation Agreement for 219 acres was signed in 2016 to reflect the expansion of the campus.

Also in 2016, UC Merced and the City entered into a Transportation Funding Agreement for the 2020 LRDP. This Transportation Agreement includes provisions relating to truck routes and roadway construction impacts during construction of the 2020 LRDP; UC Merced’s funding and construction obligations for Campus Parkway and improvements to Bellevue Road and Lake Road (including the intersections of Bellevue Road at Lake Road and Lake Road at Yosemite Avenue); reimbursement provisions for University Community properties; and Transit Service improvements and bus stop locations for UC Merced’s bus service within the c ity.

2.4 CONSISTENCY WITH MERCED VISION 2030 GENERAL PLAN

PROGRAM EIR
The Merced Vision 2030 General Plan is a long-range plan intended to guide growth and development of the city through the year 2030. During this period, the population of the City of Merced Specific Urban Development Plan/Sphere of Influence (SUDP/SOI) area is expected to more than double from the 2010 level of 80,985 to over 155,000 individuals. These totals are based on UC Merced enrollment of approximately 2,700 full time students in 2008 and up to 25,000 in in 2030. (City of Merced 2010:2-1). The 2020 LRDP (which is designed to address campus growth between 2020 and 2030), however, is based on UC Merced’s revised enrollment projection of 15,000 students and a total campus population of 17,411 persons in 2030. This is a reduction of 10,000 students in 2030 compared to the assumptions in the GP PEIR.

2.4.1 Merced Vision 2030 General Plan Land Use Designations The Land Use Diagram for the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan identifies UC Merced as “scho ol.” Existing and planned development in the area proposed for annexation is, therefore, consistent with both the land use envisioned in the Merced Vision 2030 General Plan and the land use assumptions of the General Plan PEIR.

Ascent Environmental Introduction
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 2-7

2.4.2 Merced Vision 2030 General Plan Project Objectives The Merced Vision 2030 General Plan aims to achieve the following guiding principles identified in the General Plan PEIR (pp. 2-1 to 2-2).
 Expansion of the Sphere of Influence and City boundary with phasing of development to avoid premature conversion of agricultural land and to plan for cost-effective extension of municipal services.  Foster compact and efficient development patterns.
 Connectivity between existing and planned urban areas. Examples include the northeast area to ward UCM, the University Community, and South Merced.
 Merced as the single municipal service provider in the expanded sphere of influence.  New development provides or pays its fair share of public services and facilities to avoid burdening existing city residents (in short, new growth pays for itself).
 Mixed-use, transit and pedestrian friendly urban villages in growth areas with direct access to commercial cores from surrounding neighborhoods.
 Commercial nodes in new growth areas to avoid the aesthetic and circulation issues associated with more common “strip commercial.”
 Circulation: Recognition of the cost and importance of the arterial street system and protect capacity with access standards. Designs that encourage all modes of transportation.  Build community quality. High community standards for Merced’s services, infrastructure, and private development as a strategy for attracting business and industry and to benefit the City’s residents.  Planning well in advance for industrial/business park uses and for the infrastructure needed to support such development.
 A diversity of housing types and opportunities.
 Encouraging Sustainable and “Green” Development.
 Planning for the provision of infrastructure ahead of development.  Maintaining Merced’s high quality of life and keeping it a nice place to live.  Encouraging new research parks and the use of new technologies.  Protection of the Merced Regional Airport as an important community asset.  Maintaining a quality educational environment for pre-school, K-12, and higher education.  Maintaining our quality parks and recreation systems, including the bike path system.  Encouraging a healthy community through improved medical facilities, air quality, parks & recreation opportunities, etc.

Annexation of UC Merced would not conflict with these objectives.

2.5 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
This analysis is based on the most current development assumptions prepared by UC Merced, as identified in the 2020 LRDP. Between 2020 and 2030, enrollment is projected to increase by about 5,300 students, based on actual enrollment of 9,700 students in 2020, and 1,131 faculty and staff (UC Merced 2019:2.0-4). These are reduced enrollment levels and associated smaller increases in faculty and staff compared to the previous projections used in the design of the 2009 LRDP that informed the General Plan PEIR. The year 2030 is the horizon year for the City’s Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
2-8 UC Merced Annexation Project
adopted General Plan, as evaluated in the GP PEIR; it is also the horizon year of UC Merced’s current LRDP. Therefore, although it is acknowledged that the campus may continue to grow after 2030, these projections are appropriate for evaluation of the proposed annexation.

In total, the 2020 LRDP designates 274 acres for Campus Mixed Use, 306 acres for Campus Building Reserve and Support Land, 135 acres for Research Open Space, 9 acres for Active Open Space, 283 acres for Passive Open Space, and 19 acres for Campus Parkway Open Space (Figure 3). The 2020 LRDP projects additional academic (639,100 gross square feet [gsf]), housing (379,500 gsf), athletic (357,500 gsf), and support space (453,800 gsf) to the campus through 2030.

2.6 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The City is proposing annexation of UC Merced based on the terms of the existing annexation agreement (which currently applies to 219 acres of the campus) and Assembly Bill 3312. As the lead agency, the City is responsible for considering the adequacy of the environmental review before determining if the overall project should be adopted.

The Local Agency Formation Commission of Merced County is a legislatively established commission responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries; conducting special studies that review ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structure; and preparing a sphere of influence for each city and special district in each county. The Local Agency Formation Commission will consider and ultimately approve or deny the request for annexation.

City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-1
3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW

3.1 EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES
The purpose of this checklist is to evaluate the proposed annexation of UC Merced and determine if it results in new significant impacts when compared to the impacts identified in the certified Merced Vision 2030 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (GP PEIR). The row titles of the checklist include the full range of environmental topics, as presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. However, the column titles of the checklist have been modified from the Appendix G presentation to help answer the questions to be addressed pursuant to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15168. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category; rath er, it means there is no change in the condition or status of the impact compared to the conclusions of the GP P EIR. The purpose of each column of the checklist is described below.

3.1.1 Impact Examined in General Plan PEIR
This column provides a cross-reference to the pages of the prior environmental documents where information and analysis may be found relative to the impact criteria listed under each topic.

3.1.2 Could Annexation Result in a New or Substantially More Severe Impact?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the changes represented by the current project will result in new significant impacts that have not already been considered by the prior environmental review or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact.

3.1.3 Are there Changes in Circumstance or New Information Available that Could Result in a Substantially More Severe Impact?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the project site or the vicinity (circumstances under which the project is undertaken) that have occurred subsequent to the prior environmental documents, which would result in the current project having new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the prior environmental documents or that substantially increase the severity of a previously identified impact.

3.1.4 Do Mitigation Measures in the 2020 LRDP SEIR Address/Resolve Impacts, Including Impacts That Would Otherwise be New or Substantially More Severe?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column would typically indicate whether the GP PEIR provides mitigation for implementation of the General Plan that would also apply to impacts associated with the proposed UC Merced Annexation. However, because the UC is a constitutionally created State educational institution with “full powers of organization and government” (California Constitution Article IX, Section 9) , UC Merced would not be obligated to implement mitigation measures identified in the City’s GP PEIR upon annexation. For this reason, Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-2 UC Merced Annexation Project
this column indicates whether UC Merced has adopted either design features or mitigation measures through the 2009 LRDP EIR or 2020 LRDP SEIR that would address or resolve potential impacts that could otherwise be new or substantially more severe. If “N/A” is indicated, there is no significant impact requiring mitigation as analyzed in the 2020 LRDP SEIR.

3.2 EXPLANATION OF DISCUSSION, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND

CONCLUSIONS SECTIONS

3.2.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting provides an overview of the existing conditions as they relate to each individual resources section. These settings are used to assess the degree to which implementation of the proposed modificati ons addressed in this addendum would result in an environmental impact.

3.2.2 Discussion
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category to clarify the answers.

The discussion first provides a summary of the analysis of the topic provided in the GP PEIR, including General Plan policies and mitigation that were relied upon to determine whether a significant impact would occur. Next, a summary of the evaluation in the potential for effects related to the topic due to development of the 2020 LRDP is provided. The potential for annexation of the UC Merced campus into the city to result in new or more severe impacts is disclosed.

3.2.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures from the prior environmental review in the GP PEIR are summarized under each environmental category. However, because the UC is not subject to regulations of local governments when using property under UC Merced’s control in furtherance of UC Merced’s educational purposes, UC Merced would not be obligated to implement mitigation measures identified in the City’s GP PEIR upon annexation. For this reason, the discussion in this section also references project features and mitigation measures adopted by UC Merced that would address the topics under evaluation. Refer to Appendix A for the full text of the mitigation measures in the 2020 LRDP SEIR.

3.2.4 Conclusion
A discussion of the specific conclusion for each topical section relating to the need for additional environmental documentation is contained at the end of each separate section.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-3

3.3 AESTHETICS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could
Annexation
Result in a New
or Substantially
More Severe
Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
Impact #3.1-1: Substantial
adverse effect on a scenic
vista, pp. 3.1-4 to 3.1-6.

No No Yes
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state
scenic highway?
Impact #3.1-2: Substantially
damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to
trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway, p. 3.1-6.

No No N/A
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of
the site and its
surroundings? (Public views
are those that are
experienced from publicly
accessible vantage points.)
If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the
project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing
scenic quality?
Impact #3.1-3: Substantially
degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site
and its surroundings, pp. 3.1-6
and 3.1-7.

No No Yes d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Impact #3.1-4: Create a new
source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely
affect day or night views in the
area, pp. 3.1-7 and 3.1-8
No No Yes
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

3.3.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR describes existing scenic views and resources. Applicable Federal, State, and local regulations are also explained. No substantial change in the environmental setting related to aesthetics, described in the GP PEIR Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” has occurred since certification of the GP PEIR. The scenic character remains consistent with the views described in the GP PEIR, including those provided in Figure 3.1-2 (Photoplate 1). No changes in pertinent regulations or the status of scenic roadways have occurred.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-4 UC Merced Annexation Project

3.3.2 Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Pages 3.1-4 to 3.1-6 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas (Impact #3.1-1). As defined in the GP PEIR, scenic vistas are expansive views of highly valued landscapes from publicly accessible viewpoints. Scenic vistas may include views of natural features such as topography, water courses, rock outcrops, natural vegetation, and manmade scenic structures. Many areas within the City of Merced offer views of the Sierra Nevada and Coast Range. As stated in the GP PEIR, development in the planning area is not expected to block views of scenic resources. The visual character of the planning area is anticipated to change from open agricultural fields and pasture land to urban development. However, development would be consistent with General Plan policies aimed to protect scenic corridors (Policy OS 1.3 of the Open Space Element) and scenic viewsheds associated with agricultural resources (Policy OS 2.1 of the Open Space Element).

Furthermore, development would comply with standards, including floor area ratio and building height requirements, contained in the Urban Design Element, the Urban Expansion Element, and the Land Use Element of the General Plan.

The GP PEIR concludes that General Plan policies would ensure that impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant, and no cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not have additional effects on scenic vistas. The GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Therefore, impacts on scenic vistas from development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above.

Subsequent to the release of the GP PEIR, the University prepared the 2020 LRDP to change the previously adopted 2009 LRDP. The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus; it was developed to reflect slower enrollment growth than was originally anticipated at UC Merced. Although the 2020 LRDP encompasses a larger campus site than the 2009 LRDP, the land use diagram was modified to make the campus footprint more compact and sustainable, with a larger area dedicated to open space.

The 2020 LRDP SEIR did not evaluate impacts on scenic vistas because the Initial Study determined that the revised LRDP would not result in a more severe or new impact on scenic vistas beyond that identified for the 2009 LRDP (UC Merced 2018a). Specifically, the 211 acres of land that would be added to the campus would be primarily undeveloped and dedicated to open space and the relatively small 11-acre area dedicated to the development of campus facilities would be similar in appearance and scale to the development proposed in the 2009 LRDP.

Furthermore, the mitigation adopted for the 2009 LRDP (MM AES-1) would apply to the new facilities proposed in the 2020 LRDP. This mitigation commits the university to plant tall trees along the campus’ western boundary to screen views of the campus facilities from Lake Yosemite Regional Park and design major vehicular and pedestrian transportation corridors to provide views of the Sierra Nevada (UC Merced 2009).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts on scenic vistas beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding scenic vistas remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

resources within a state scenic highway (Impact #3.1-2). As described in the GP PEIR, there are no designated state scenic highways within the planning area. Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that there would be no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and no cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

No new state scenic highways have been designated in the planning area since the adoption of the GP PEIR (UC Merced 2018a). Therefore, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts on scenic resources within a state scenic highway that were not identified in the GP PEIR. The findings of the GP PEIR regarding Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-5
scenic resources within a state scenic highway remain valid and no new mitigation is required. There would continue to be no impact.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Pages 3.1-6 and 3.1-7 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to substantially degrade visual character and quality (Impact #3.1-3). As stated in the GP PEIR, development in the planning area would alter the existing visual character by transforming views from the existing rural setting to urban residential, commercial, and industrial vistas. However, development would be consistent with policies in the Urban Design Element, Urban Expansion Element, and the Land Use Element of the General Plan. These policies would ensure that urban development is compact, low profile, and architecturally interesting. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts on visual quality would be less than significant, and no cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not result in additional degradation of visual character or quality of public views of the campus and surrounding areas. The GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Therefore, impacts on visual character and quality from development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above.

As described in Section 3.3.2(a) above, the 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. The 2020 LRDP SEIR did not evaluate impacts on visual character and quality because the Initial Study determined that the revised LRDP would not result in a more severe or new impact on visual character and quality beyond that identified for the 2009 LRDP (UC Merced 2018a). Specifically, the 211 acres of land that would be added to the campus would be primarily undeveloped and dedicated to open space and the relatively small 11 -acre area dedicated to the development of campus facilities would be similar in visual character and quality to the development proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Furthermore, the mitigation ado pted for the 2009 LRDP (MM AES-3) would apply to the new facilities proposed in the 2020 LRDP. Through this mitigation, UC Merced committed to specific design standards for aboveground infrastructure that require screening, camouflage, and co -location of facilities (UC Merced 2009).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts on visual character and quality that were not identified in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding visu al character and quality remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Pages 3.1-7 and 3.1-8 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to adversely affect views from new sources of light and glare (Impact #3.1-3). As stated in the GP PEIR, individual development projects in the planning area could result in an incremental contribution to a cumulative light and glare impact. Although General Plan Policy OS-1.4 would improve and expand the City’s urban forest and reduce glare effects, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure #3.1-4 would require development projects to comply with design guidelines for outdoor lighting. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant with mitigation. However, the increase in nighttime illumination and daytime glare is significant, cumulatively considerable, and unavoidable (Impact #3.1-5) (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not create additional sources of light and glare. The GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Therefore, impacts related to light and glare from development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-6 UC Merced Annexation Project
As described in Section 3.3.2(a), above, the 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. The 2020 LRDP SEIR did not evaluate impacts related to light and glare because the Initial Study determined that the revised LRDP would not result in a more severe or new impact on light and glare beyond that identified for the 2009 LRDP (UC Merced 2018a). Specifically, the 211 acres of land that would be added to the campus would be primarily undeveloped and dedicated to open space and the relatively small 11 -acre area dedicated to the development of campus facilities would have similar light and glare effects as the development proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Because the development intensity of the 2020 LRDP is reduced, there would not be a new significant impact. Furthermore, the mitigation proposed for the 2009 LRDP (MM AES-3) would apply to the new facilities proposed in the 2020 LRDP (UC Merced 2009).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of light and glare impacts than is identified in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding light and glare remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would r emain significant and unavoidable.

3.3.3 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure was adopted upon approval of the General Plan to mitigate impacts associated with light and glare.

Mitigation Measure #3.1-4: The following guidelines will be followed in selecting and designing any outdoor lighting:

1. All outdoor lights including parking lot lights, landscaping, security, path and deck lights should be fully shielded, full cutoff luminaries.

2. Complete avoidance of all outdoor up-lighting for any purpose.

3. Avoidance of tree mounted lights unless they are fully shielded and pointing down towards the ground or shining into dense foliage. Ensure compliance over time.

4. Complete avoidance of up-lighting and unshielded lighting in water features such as fountains or ponds.

As described above, UC Merced has committed to project-specific measures to address light and glare. The UC Merced Design Standards (Section K – Electrical Requirements) include specifications to ensure that outdoor lighting does not result in backlight, uplight, or glare. Light levels are determined based on Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations and the State of California’s Energy Code (Title 24). The design requirements specify that exterior lighting shall not contribute to light pollution by throwing light beyond the campus property lines or up into the night sky, contributing to sky glow and obscuring night-time vistas. In addition, exterior lighting designs strive to meet the U.S. Green Building Council’s (LEED) criteria for its “Dark Sky” credit SS 8. 0.

Furthermore, the mitigation adopted for the 2009 LRDP (MM AES-1) would apply to the new facilities proposed on the UC Merced campus. This mitigation commits the university to plant tall trees along the campus’ western boundary to screen views of the campus facilities from Lake Yosemite Regional Park and design major vehicular and pedestrian transportation corridors to provide views of the Sierra Nevada. Through 2009 LRDP mitigation measure MM AES-3, the University has committed to specific design standards for aboveground infrastructure that require screening, camouflage, and co-location of facilities. See Appendix B for the full text of the mitigation measures adopted for the 2009 LRDP. No new mitigation measures are required.

3.3.4 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potentially significant impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not require additional environ mental review.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-7

3.4 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could
Annexation
Result in a New
or Substantially
More Severe
Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Important
Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
Impact #3.2-1: Directly or
indirectly result in conversion
of Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland) to non-agricultural
use, pp. 3.2-4 to 3.2-6
No No N/A
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use
or a Williamson Act
contract?
Impact #3.2-2: Conflict with
existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act
contract, p. 3.2-6
No No N/A
c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code
section 4526), or
timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as
defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
Impact #3.2-3: Conflict with
existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as
defined by Public Resources
Code section 1220(g)),
timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code
section 51104(g)), p. 3.2-7
No No N/A
d) Result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
Impact #3.2-4: Result in the
loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use, p. 3.2-7
No No N/A
e) Involve other changes in
the existing environment,
which, due to their location
or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
Impact #3.2-5: Involve other
changes in the existing
environment which, due to
their location or nature, could
result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use, p. 3.2-
7 No No N/A
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-8 UC Merced Annexation Project

3.4.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR describes important farmlands and Williamson Act Lands in the planning area. No changes to these designations have occurred within the SUDP/SOI or immediate vicinity of the UC Merced campus. Applicable Federal, State, and local regulations are consistent with the explanations provided in the GP PEIR. No substantial change in the environmental setting related to agriculture and forest resources, described in the GP PEIR Section 3.2, “Agriculture and Forest Resources,” has occurred since certification of the GP PEIR.

3.4.2 Discussion
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Important Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use?
Pages 3.2-4 to 3.2-6 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to convert Important Farmland to non-agricultural use (Impact #3.1-3). As stated in the GP PEIR, development in the planning area would result in the conversion of 1,898 acres of Important Farmland to urban uses. Although the General Plan includes Policies OS-2.1 and OS-2.2 and implementation actions to protect agricultural resources, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts on Important Farmland would be potentially significant. Mitigation M easure #3.2-1 would enhance the protection of agricultural land by requiring the City to collaborate with property owners; work cooperatively with land trusts and other organizations; establish conservation easements; and prioritize infill, sequential, and contiguous development. However, because the General Plan would result in the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural land uses, the GP PEIR concludes that impacts on Important Farmland would be significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, the loss of agricultural land would result in a considerable contribution to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact (Impact #3.2-6) (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not convert additional Important Farmland to non -agricultural use. Although the GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus as proposed in the 2009 LRDP, and buildout of the 2020 LRDP (the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus) would result in the conversion of an additional 16 acres of Important Farmland, the entire area is within the SUDP/SOI evaluated in the GP PEIR and identified for conversion from agricultural uses. (The area added to the UC Merced campus was previously part of the area owned by the University of California Land Company LLC (UCLC), a joint venture between the Virginia Smith Trust (VST) and the UC Regents, and envisioned for development that would complement the university.

Therefore, the GP PEIR considered conversion of the entire area.) Further, UC Merced has placed enough Important Farmland under conservation easements to compensate for the conversion of Important Farmland to campus uses (UC Merced 2018a).

This is consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure #3.2-1 in the GP PEIR.

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not substantially increase the severity of impacts on Important Farmland. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding the conversion of Important Farmland remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?

agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract (Impact #3.2-2). As stated in the GP PEIR, development in the planning area would affect approximately 8,758 acres of land currently designated for agricultural use by the County of Merced, of which approximately 71 acres are subject to Williamson Act Contracts. Although the General Plan includes Policy OS-2.1 and implementation actions to protect agricultural land and minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses, the GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to conflicts with existing agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts would be potentially significant. No mitigation was available to reduce these impacts.

Therefore, the GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to conflicts with existing agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts would be significant and unavoidable.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-9
The area proposed for annexation is within the 8,758 acres of agricultural land where potential impacts due to land use conflicts were disclosed in the adopted GP PEIR. The area north and east of the UC Merced campus outside of the SUDP/SOI evaluated in the GP PEIR is within an area zoned as Exclusive Agricultural (A -2) by Merced County (Merced County n.d.). This includes Lake Yosemite and Lake Yosemite Regional Park managed by Merced County and the Merced Vernal Pools and Grassland Reserve established by UC Merced. Land to the south is zoned as General Agriculture (A-2) and was also evaluated as an area of potential urban expansion in the GP PEIR. Furthermore, n o portion of the annexation area is under a Williamson Act contract (UC Merced 2019). There is land under a Williamson Act contract to the southeast; however, this area would be buffered from the developed portion of the university by passive open space.

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not substantially increase the severity of impacts related to conflicts with existing agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts that were identified in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding conflicts with existing agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production (Impact #3.2 -3). As stated in the GP PEIR, there is no forest land or timberland within the planning area. Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that there would be no impact on forest land or timberland, and no cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts on forest land or timberland. There are no areas in the annexation area that are zoned as forest land or timberland (UC Merced 2018a). Therefore, t he findings of the GP PEIR regarding forest land or timberland remain valid and no new mitigation is r equired. There would continue to be no impact.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Refer to Section 3.4.2(c). There is no forest land within the planning areas for the City of Merced General Plan and the UC Merced LRDP. Therefore, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts on forest land. The findings of the GP PEIR regarding forest land remain valid and no new mitigation is required. There would continue to be no impact.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The GP PEIR (Impact 3.2-5) provides cross reference to Impacts 3.2-1, 3.2-3, and 3.2-4 and concludes that there would be no impacts beyond those disclosed above (refer to Sections 3.4.2(a), 3.4.2(c), and 3.4.2(d)). As discussed above, the General Plan includes Policy OS-2.1 and implementation actions to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses. The area proposed for annexation is within the 8,758 acres of agricultural land where potential impacts due to land use conflicts were disclosed in the adopted GP PEIR. The area north and east of the UC Merced campus outside of the SUDP/SOI evaluated in the GP PEIR is within an area zoned as Exclusive Agricultural (A -2) by Merced County (Merced County n.d.). This includes Lake Yosemite and Lake Yosemite Regional Park managed by Merced County and the Merced Vernal Pools and Grassland Reserve established by UC Merced. Due to existing uses and land use restrictions, these areas would not convert to nonagricultural uses as a result of development or annexation of UC Merced. The agricultural land to the southeast would be buffered from the developed portion of the university by passive open space.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-10 UC Merced Annexation Project
Land to the south of the campus is zoned as General Agriculture (A-2). This area was evaluated as an area of potential urban expansion in the GP PEIR. Therefore, although annexation of the UC Merced campus would make this area eligible for subsequent annexation into the City, the conversion of this land to non -agricultural use was evaluated in the GP EIR. The annexation would not result in a new or more substantial impact than previously disclosed.

The GP PEIR and the 2020 LRDP SEIR do not identify impacts related to the conversion of Farmland and forest land from implementation of the General Plan and 2020 LRDP. The findings of the GP PEIR regarding the conversion of Farmland and forest land remain valid and no new mitigation is required . There would continue to be no impact.

3.4.3 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure was adopted upon approval of the General Plan to address impacts associated with conversion of Farmland. UC Merced has placed enough Important Farmland under conservation easements to compensate for the conversion of Important Farmland to campus uses . As described above, annexation of UC Merced would not convert additional Important Farmland to non-agricultural use. No new mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measure #3.2-1: The City will encourage property owners outside the City limits but within the SUDP/SOI to maintain their land in agricultural production until the land is converted to urban uses. The City will also work cooperatively with land trusts and other non-profit organizations to preserve agricultural land in the region. This may include the use of conservation easements. Infill development will be preferred and encouraged over fringe development. Sequential and contiguous development is also preferred and encouraged over leap-frog development.

3.4.4 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potent ially significant impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not require additional environmental review.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-11

3.5 AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially More
Severe Impact?*
Are there Changes
in Circumstance or
New Information
Available that
Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Are significance criteria
established by the applicable
air district available to rely on
for significance
determinations?
Yes. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has adopted CEQA air quality thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants (SJVAPCD 2015 and n.d.).

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Not Analyzed No No N/A
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality
standard?
Impact #3.3-1: Construction
activities associated with
development under the
Merced Vision 2030 General
Plan would result in criteria
pollutants, ozone precursors,
and other pollutants, pp. 3.3-
18 to 3.3-21
Impact #3.3-2: Development
and operation under the
General Plan would result in
emissions of criteria
pollutants, ozone precursors,
and other pollutants caused
by mobile source activity, area
sources, and stationary
sources, pp. 3.3-21 to 3.3-24
No No Yes
c) Expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Impact #3.3-3: Development
and Operation under the
General Plan would Expose
Sensitive Receptors to
Pollutant Concentration, pp.

3.3-24 and 3.3-25
No No N/A
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?
Impact #3.3-4:

Implementation of the
General Plan Update Would
Create Odor Impacts, pp. 3.3-
25 No No N/A
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-12 UC Merced Annexation Project

3.5.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR describes existing ambient air quality, as well as trends for several key pollutants including ozone and carbon monoxide. Since certification of the GP PEIR, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin continues to be in non- attainment for the federal ozone (8-hour) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards, as well as the State ozone (1- hour and 8-hour), PM2.5, and coarse particulate matter (PM10) standards (SJVAPCD 2012). In 2014, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin demonstrated attainment of the federal ozone (1-hour) standard (SJVAPCD 2021).

As the air district for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Dis trict (SJVAPCD) is responsible for periodically revising air quality attainment plans to reflect changing air basin conditions and federal and State requirements. The SJVAPCD adopted several new air quality attainment plans since the GP PEIR was certified, which include the following:
 2012 PM2.5 Plan
 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard
 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard
 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standard  2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard
 2014 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for Ozone State Implementation Plans  2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard
 2020 RACT Demonstration

3.5.2 Discussion
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The GP PEIR does not specifically evaluate the potential for implementation of the General Plan, including development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP, to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. However, as discussed in Section 3.5.2(b) below, implementation of the General Plan would result in significant, cumulative, and unavoidable impacts related to increases of criteria pollutants for which the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has non-attainment status. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan could have resulted in potentially significant conflicts with implementation of SJVAPCD air quality attainment plans that were applicable at the time the GP PEIR was certified. Applicable air quality plans woul d have included the 2007 PM
10 Maintenance Plan, 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 2007 Ozone Plan, 2009 RACT Demonstration for Ozone State Implementation Plans, and 2004 Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan.

However, SJVAPCD’s air quality plans and emissions inventories are based on existing and projected land use development as determined in the most recent local general plans and regional transportation plans. If a proposed project is inconsistent with the planned land use designations that were used to inform an air quality plan, that project could conflict with and obstruct implementation of air quality planning efforts. Projects that are consistent with growth anticipated in an air quality plan would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the air quality plan.

Development of UC Merced has been incorporated into the applicable planning documents , including the General Plan, that inform the growth projections used in the development of applicable air quality plans. Therefore, development of the campus is reflected in the SJVAPCD’s air quality plans and implementation of the 2020 LRDP would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The effect of campus buildout under the 2020 LRDP with respect to the regional air quality management plan would, of itself, be less than significant (UC Merced 2019: 4.1-33). Annexation of UC Merced would not result in an increased potential to conflict with an applicable air quality plan. Therefore, a new impact would not occur, and no new mitigation is required.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-13
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Pages 3.3-18 to 3.3-24 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to result in criteria pollutants, ozone precursors, and other pollutants during construction (Impact #3.3 -1) and operation (Impact #3.3-2).

As stated in the GP PEIR, construction activities associated with development under the General Plan would result in short-term emissions of various air pollutants, including reactive organic gas (ROG), nitrous oxide (NO X) particulate matter PM10 and PM2.5, and carbon dioxide (CO2). Construction projects would be required to (1) comply with applicable SJVAPCD regulations, including Regulation VIII, which includes measures to reduce dust generation; (2) prepare and implement a Dust Control Plan; and (3) implement additional “enhanced control measures,” such as installation of erosion controls and windbreaks where appropriate. Although compliance with SJVAPCD regulations would reduce air quality impacts, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts related to the generation of pollutants would be potentially significant for construction projects that exceed 22 acres. Mitigation Measure #3.3-1a includes additional measures to reduce the generation of dust and other air pollutant emissions from construction activities.

The GP PEIR concludes that impacts from construction exhaust emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level (City of Merced 2010) with mitigation.

During operation, new development projects and associated vehicle traffic would contribute to increased emissions of criteria pollutants, ozone precursors, and other pollutants. Each development proposal would be required to complete a project-specific analysis to determine whether emissions would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds. Although individual projects would be required to comply with SJVAPCD rules and include measur es to reduce emissions, operational emissions of ROG, NO
X, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure #3.3-2 includes Best Available Control Technology, mitigation, and energy conservation requirements for new discretionary permits. Although Mitigation Measure #3.3-2 would reduce air quality impacts, emissions would still exceed SJVAPCD thresholds for ROG, NO
X, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Therefore, the GP PEIR concludes that operational impacts would be significant, cumulative, and unavoidable (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not result in additional criteria pollutants associated with construction or operation.

The GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LR DP.

Therefore, impacts related to an increase of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors from development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above. The 2020 LRDP, which is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus, plans for less growth in a larger area. The entire campus, as reflected in the 2020 LRDP, is within the SUDP/SOI evaluated in the GP PEIR.

The 2020 LRDP SEIR, which evaluates the potential for development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2020 LRDP to result in construction and operational emissions that would involve a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin in non-attainment, concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Based on emissions modeling, construction of campus facilities under the 2020 LRDP would not result in emissions that would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds for any pollutants. UC Merced has also committed to requiring the use of Tier 4 equipment and incorporating measures from SJVAPCD Regulation VIII to reduce fugitive dust impacts in all construction contract specifications (LRDP MM AQ -1a and MM AQ-1b) (UC Merced 2019).

Based on emissions modeling, implementation of the 2020 LRDP would result in operational ROG and NO X emissions
that would exceed applicable thresholds. UC Merced has committed to measures to reduce emissions from vehicles and other energy sources (LRDP MM AQ-2a and MM AQ-2b). With mitigation, NO X emissions would still exceed
SJVAPCD thresholds and contribute to cumulatively considerable net increases in ozone. However, because UC Merced is projected to grow at a slower pace than previously anticipated, development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2020 LRDP would not result in emissions that would exceed the emissions projected under the 2009 LRDP (UC Merced 2019).

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-14 UC Merced Annexation Project
Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts related to cumulatively considerable net increases of criteria pollutants that were identified for the 2009 LRDP, as evaluated in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding cumulatively considerable net increases of criteria pollutants remain valid and no new mitigation is required.

Construction impacts would remain less than significant and operational impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Pages 3.3-24 and 3.3-25 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As stated in the GP PEIR, development within the planning area has potential to result in the location of sensitive receptors near sources of hazardous air pollutants. However, developments that are large sources of hazardous air pollutants are required to (1) adhere to General Plan policies; (2) comply with SJVAPCD’s Air Toxics Program and obtain applicable SJVAPCD permits; (3) comply with Mitigation Measures #3.3-1 and #3.3-2; and (4) if necessary, complete a project-specific Health Risk Assessment. The GP PEIR also states that development within the planning area could result in carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots from increased vehicle traffic; however, these impacts would be reduced through compliance with SJVAPCD a nd General Plan policies aimed at reducing vehicle trips and, if necessary, site-specific analysis of traffic impacts. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant, and no cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not expose additional sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

The GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP.

The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. The 2020 LRDP SEIR evaluated the potential for development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2020 LRDP to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The 2020 LRDP SIER concludes that buildout of the 2020 LRDP would not introduce substantial sources of toxic air contaminants and PM

2.5. In addition, buildout of the 2020
LRDP would not increase traffic volumes in a manner that would result in the violation of CO standards or expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations. Therefore, development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2020 LRDP would not expose sensitive receptors to substantially greater pollutant concentrations than those projected under the 2009 LRDP (UC Merced 2019). Furthermore, no new pollutant sources or sensitive receptors would be introduced during the annexation process.

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts on sensitive receptors from exposure to pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding impacts on sensitive receptors remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Pages 3.3-25 and 3.3-26 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to create odor impacts (Impact #3.3-4). As stated in the GP PEIR, construction activities associated with development in the planning area would generate odors; however, these odors would be temporary and short-term and would quickly dissipate from the source. Operational odors would be minor and subject to applicable General Plan policies related to the location, design, and construction of new developments to prevent incompatible uses and minimize effects to sensitive receptors. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to odors would be less than significant, and no cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

Similarly, odors from construction activities on the UC Merced campus would be short-term and temporary and not pervasive enough to affect a substantial number of people. In addition, routine operation of the campus would not include activities that typically produce odors, such as wastewater treatment, manufacturing, and agriculture (UC Merced 2018a).

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-15
Annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts related to odors. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding odors remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.

3.5.3 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures were adopted upon approval of the General Plan to address air quality impacts.

Mitigation Measure #3.3-1a: For any phase of construction in which an area greater than 22 acres, in accordance with Regulation VIII of the SJVAPCD, will be disturbed on any one day, the project developer(s) shall implement the following measures:

1. Basic fugitive dust control measures are required for all construction sites by SJVAPCD Regulation VIII.

2. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

3. Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be no greater than 15 mph.

4. Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas.

Mitigation Measure #3.3-1b: To reduce emissions and thus reduce cumulative impacts, the City of Merced shall consider adoption of an ordinance requiring the following measures to be implemented in conjunction with construction projects within the City:

1. The idling time of all construction equipment used in the plan area shall not exceed ten minutes when practicable.

2. The hours of operation of heavy-duty equipment shall be minimized when practicable.

3. All equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accord with manufact urer’s specifications when practicable.

4. When feasible, alternative fueled or electrical construction equipment shall be used at the project site.

5. The minimum practical engine size for construction equipment shall be used when practicable.

6. When feasible, electric carts or other smaller equipment shall be used at the project site.

7. Gasoline-powered equipment shall be equipped with catalytic converters when practicable.

Mitigation Measure #3.3-2: The following BACT (Best Available Control Technology) installations and mitigation shall be considered for new discretionary permits, to the extent feasible as determined by the City:
 Trees shall be carefully selected and located to protect building(s) from energy consuming environmental conditions, and to shade paved areas when it will not interfere with any structures. Trees should be selected to shade paved areas that will shade 50% of the area within 15 years. Structural soil should be used under paved areas to improve tree growth.  If transit service is available to a project site, development patterns and improvements shall be made to encourage its use. If transit service is not currently available, but is planned for the area in the future, easements shall be reserved to provide for future improvements such as bus turnouts, loading areas, route signs and shade structures.
 Multi-story parking facilities shall be considered instead of parking lots to reduce exposed concrete surface and save green space.
 Sidewalks and bikeways shall be installed throughout as much of any project as possible, in compliance with street standards, and shall be connected to any nearby existing and planned open space areas, parks, schools, residential areas, commercial areas, etc., to encourage walking and bicycling.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-16 UC Merced Annexation Project
 Projects shall encourage as many clean alternative energy features as possible to promote energy self - sufficiency. Examples include (but are not limited to): photovoltaic cells, solar thermal electricity systems, small wind turbines, etc. Rebate and incentive programs are offered for alternative energy equipment.

As many energy-conserving features as possible shall be included in the individual projects. Energy conservation measures include both energy conservation through design and operational energy conservation. Examples include (but are not limited to):
 Increased energy efficiency (above California Title 24 Requirements)  Energy efficient widows (double pane and/or Low-E)
 Use Low and No-VOC coatings and paints
 High-albedo (reflecting) roofing material
 Cool Paving. “Heat islands” created by development projects contribute to the reduced air quality in the valley by heating ozone precursors
 Radiant heat barrier
 Energy efficient lighting, appliances, heating and cooling systems  Install solar water-heating system(s)
 Install photovoltaic cells
 Install geothermal heat pump system(s)
 Programmable thermostat(s) for all heating and cooling systems  Awnings or other shading mechanism for windows
 Porch, patio and walkway overhangs
 Ceiling fans, whole house fans
 Utilize passive solar cooling and heating designs (e.g. natural convection, thermal flywheels)  Utilize daylighting (natural lighting) systems such as skylights, light shelves, interior transom windows, etc.
 Electrical outlets around the exterior of the unit(s) to encourage use of electric landscape maintenance equipment
 Bicycle parking facilities for patrons and employees in a covered secure area. Bike storage should be located within 50’ of the project’s entrance. Construct paths to connect the development to nearby bikeways or sidewalks
 On-site employee cafeterias or eating areas
 Low or non-polluting landscape maintenance equipment (e.g. electric lawn mowers, reel mowers, leaf vacuums, electric trimmers and edger’s, etc.)
 Pre-wire the unit(s) with high speed modem connections/DSL and extra phone lines  Natural gas fireplaces (instead of wood-burning fireplaces or heaters  Natural gas lines (if available) and electrical outlets in backyard or patio areas to encourage the use of gas and/or electric barbecues
 Low or non-polluting incentives items should be provided with each residential unit (such items could include electric lawn mowers, reel mowers, leaf vacuums, gas or electric barbecues, etc.) Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-17
As described above, UC Merced has committed to project-specific measures to address air quality impacts. UC Merced has committed to requiring the use of Tier 4 equipment and incorporating measures from SJVAPCD Regulation VIII to reduce fugitive dust impacts in all construction contract specifications (LRDP MM AQ -1a and MM AQ-1b). This would achieve the same reductions as Mitigation Measures 3.3-1a and 3.3-1b in the GP PEIR. UC Merced has also committed to measures to reduce emissions from vehicles and other energy sources (LRDP MM AQ -2a and MM AQ-2b) that would require similar emissions reductions to Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 in the GP PEIR. See Appendix A for the full text of the mitigation measures adopted for the 2020 LRDP. No new mitigation measures are required.

3.5.4 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potentially significant impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not require additional environmental review.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-18 UC Merced Annexation Project

3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could
Annexation
Result in a New
or Substantially
More Severe
Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or
through habitat
modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Impact #3.4-1: Result in
substantial adverse impacts on
candidate, special-status, or
sensitive species, pp. 3.4-35 to

3.4-40
No No Yes
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive
natural community
identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the
California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact #3.4-2: Result in
substantially adverse affect on
any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations
of by the CDFG or USFWS, p.

3.4-40
No No Yes
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally
protected wetlands
(including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other
means?
Impact #3.4-3: Result in
substantially adverse affect on
federally protected wetlands
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption or
other means, pp. 3.4-40 to

3.4-41
No No Yes
d) Interfere substantially with
the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with
established native resident
or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Impact #3.4-4: Interfere
substantially with the
movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors or
impeded the use of native
wildlife nursery sites, pp. 3.4-
41 to 3.4-42
No No Yes
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-19
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could
Annexation
Result in a New
or Substantially
More Severe
Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
Impact #3.4-5: Conflict with
any local policies or
ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or
ordinance, p. 3.4-42
No No N/A
f) Conflict with the provisions
of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Impact #3.4-6: Conflict with
the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation
plan, p. 3.4-42
No No N/A
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

3.6.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR describes biological communities and habitat types, special-status species, sensitive natural communities, and wildlife movement corridors. Based on review of aerial photography and materials prepared for UC Merced, these general descriptions continue to apply to the area within the SUDP/SOI or immediate vicinity of the UC Merced campus. Applicable Federal, State, and local regulations also remain consistent with the explanations provided in the GP PEIR. The environmental setting related to biological resources, described in the GP PEIR Section 3.4, “Biological Resources,” remains applicable to this analysis. No substantial change in the environmental setting related to biological resources has occurred since certification of the GP PEIR.

3.6.2 Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Pages 3.4-35 to 3.4-40 of the GP PEIR include a discussion regarding impacts on several special-status plant and wildlife species and determined that impacts on these species would be potentially significant due to the presence of habitat suitable for these species in areas where future development projects may occur (Impact #3.4- 1). Mitigation Measures #3.4-1a through #3.4-1i would require development projects to conduct focused surveys for special- status plants and wildlife, implement protective measures if these resources are detected (e.g., protective buffers), and prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan if impacts on special-status plants cannot be avoided. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts on special-status species would be less than significant with mitigation.

Similarly, the 2020 LRDP SEIR concludes that impacts on special-status plants would be less than significant and would not contribute substantially to a cumulative impact because, while several specials -status plant species have been detected during focused surveys of the project site, these occurrences have been preserved, and additional Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-20 UC Merced Annexation Project
habitat suitable for these species (i.e., vernal pools) has been preserved. The 2020 LRDP SEIR concluded that impacts on special-status wildlife would be less than significant through implementation of previously identified environmental commitments (e.g., creation and preservation of vernal pool habitat, establishment of conservation lands, implementation of the University’s Construction Mitigation Plan, incidental take permits and requirements therein, consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]). This is consistent with Mitigation Measures #3.4-1a through #3.4-1i in the GP PEIR.

Based on the discussion above, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts related to special-status species because impacts on these features have already been addressed through previously identified environmental commitments or will be addressed through mitigation measures described in the 2020 LRDP SEIR .

Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding this impact remain valid, and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant with mitigation. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

communities and determined that impacts on these resources would be potentially significant, because riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities (e.g., vernal pools) occur within the plan area (Impact #3.4- 2). Mitigation Measure #3.4-2 would require development projects to obtain a qualified biologist to map all riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities, avoid these resources as possible, or mitigate for unavoidable impacts on a no- net-loss basis. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts on riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities would be less than significant with mitigation.

The GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP.

Therefore, impacts on riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities from development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above.

Many of the potential effects of developing the UC Merced campus have been addressed through State and Federal permits obtained jointly by UCLC and UC Merced. In 2009, following the preparation and approval of an environmental impact statement, completion of a 404 (b)(1) analysis, and other requirements, including Section 106 and Section 7 consultations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued a Department of Army permit to UC Merced and UCLC, authorizing the filling of all 77.79 acres of jurisdictional waters on the UC Merced campus and University Community North sites, including 40.08 acres of vernal pools and swales, 0.33 acre of clay slope wetlands,

12.23 acres of irrigated wetlands, and 25.15 acres of canal wetlands (UC Merced 2019). Through the 404 permit process, the Merced Vernal Pools and Grassland Reserve was established. These lands were preserved as mitigation and are protected from damage and development in perpetuity under conservation easements. Located northeast of the campus, the reserve consists of the 5,030-acre VST Preserve, the 1,339-acre Campus Natural Reserve, and the 91- acre Myers Easterly property reserve.

The 2009 LRDP EIR concludes that impacts on riparian habitat were less than significant and would not contribute substantially to a cumulative impact through implementation of previously identified environmental commitments and as a result, the 2020 LRDP SEIR does not include a discussion regarding impacts on riparian habitat. The 2020 LRDP SEIR concluded that impacts on vernal pool habitat, which would be considered sensitive natural communities, would be less than significant because most of the identified impacts on wetlands evaluated in the 2009 LRDP EIR have been analyzed, disclosed, permitted, and mitigated (i.e., except for approximately 4.8 acres of vernal pools and swales) on a no-net-loss basis. Impacts on the few remaining vernal pools that would be affected by campus development would likely be adequately mitigated by existing compensatory habitat established by UC Merced such that there would be no net loss.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-21
Based on the discussion above, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts related to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities because impacts on these features have already been analyzed, disclosed, permitted, and mitigated as described in the 2020 LRDP SEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding this impact remain valid, and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Pages 3.4-40 to 3.4-41 of the GP PEIR includes a discussion regarding impacts on waters of the United States and determined that because federally protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States are present throughout the plan area, impacts on these resources would be potentially sig nificant (Impact #3.4-3). Mitigation Measures #3.4-3a and #3.4-3b would require development projects to conduct a delineation of waters of the United States, to obtain permits for fill of federal wetlands or other waters of the United States, and to replac e or rehabilitate these resources on a no-net-loss basis. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts on federally protected wetlands would be less than significant with mitigation.

Since certification of the GP PEIR, the sample threshold provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines has been changed to include waters of the state, some of which may be waters that are not under the jurisdiction of the USACE (i.e., waters of the United States). As a result, waters of the state may not be included in the GP P EIR analysis and compensated through implementation and Mitigation Measures #3.4-3a and #3.4-3b.

Wetland delineation surveys have been performed for the UC Merced campus that included waters of the United States and waters of the state. Identified impacts on wetlands have been analyzed, disclosed, permitted, and mitigated on a no-net-loss basis. Future impacts on the few remaining wetlands anticipated to be affected by campus may be adequately mitigated by existing compensatory wetlands such that there would be no net loss (UC Merced 2018a). Any additional development would be addressed as disclosed in the 2020 LRDP EIR , which would be consistent with GP PEIR Mitigation Measures #3.4-3a and #3.4-3b.

Despite the fact that the GP PEIR did not analyze impacts on state-protected wetlands, based on the discussion above, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts related to state or federally protected wetlands because impacts on these features have already been analyzed, disclosed, permitted, and mitigated as described in the 2020 LRDP SEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding this impact remain valid, and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Pages 3.4-41 to 3.4-42 of the GP PEIR include a discussion regarding impacts on wildlife movement corridors and wildlife nurseries and determined that impacts on wildlife movement corridors would be less than significant because the plan area is not located within a designated wildlife corridor or linkage area for sensitive or other wildlife species (Impact #3.4-4). However, the GP PEIR also determined that while not considered a wildlife nursery, implementation of construction activities within the plan area could result in disturbance to nest ing birds. Mitigation Measure #3.4-1e would require development projects to implement preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and protective measures if active nests are detected. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts on nesting birds would be less than sig nificant with mitigation.

San Joaquin kit fox could use the UC Merced campus as a dispersal corridor; however, the 2020 LRDP SEIR concluded that impacts on movement of San Joaquin kit foxes would be less than significant because requirements under a USFWS Biological Opinion and a CDFW incidental take permit would be implemented, as described in the 2009 LRDP EIR and 2020 LRDP SEIR, which would minimize potential impacts on dispersing kit foxes. Nesting birds could also use the UC Merced Campus as nursery sites. The 2020 LRDP SEIR concludes that impacts on nesting birds would be less Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-22 UC Merced Annexation Project
than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9a that would require focused surveys for nesting birds and protective measures for active nests and Mitigation Measure BIO-9b related to bird-safe design for new buildings and structures (UC Merced 2018a). This is analogous to the preconstruction surveys required pursuant to GP PEIR Mitigation Measure #3.4-1e.

Based on the discussion above, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts related to wildlife movement corridors and wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding this impact remain valid, and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

protecting biological resources and determined that there would be no impact (Impact #3.4-5). There are no local policies or ordinances that are applicable to the UC Merced campus (UC Merced 2018a). Annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources remain valid, and no new mitigation is required. There would continue to be no impact.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and determined that there would be no impact because no HCP or NCCP had been adopted that encompasses the plan area (Impact #3.4- 6). Because no HCPs, NCCPs or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans have been adopted that include the plan area, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding conflict with HCPs, NCCPs, or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans remain valid, and no new mitigation is required. There would continue to be no impact.

3.6.3 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures were adopted upon approval of the General Plan to mitigate impacts to biological resources.

Mitigation Measure #3.4-1a: Vernal Pools and Vernal Pool Associates.

To protect vernal pools and species associated with vernal pools including vernal pool smallscale, succulent owl’s-clover, pincushion navarretia, Colusa grass, hairy Orcutt grass, spiny-sepaled button celery, San Joaquin Orcutt grass, Greene’s tuctoria, Conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, Midvalley fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, California linderiella, and Molestan blister beetle, surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence of vernal pools prior to or concurrent with application for annexation in areas identified as having potential habitat.

Surveys to detect vernal pools are most easily accomplished during the rainy season or during early spring when pools contain water. If vernal pools are found to occur on a project site, the pools and a 100 -foot-wide buffer around each pool or group of pools will be observed. If the vernal pools and buffer areas cannot be avoided, then the project proponent must consult with and obtain authorizations from, but not limited to, CDFW, USFWS, USACE, and the State Water Resources Quality Control Board.

Consultation and authorizations may require that additional surveys for special- status species be completed.

Because there is a federal policy of no net loss of wetlands, mitigation to reduce losses and compensation to offset losses to vernal pools and associated special-status species will be required.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-23
Mitigation Measure #3.4-1b: Special-Status Plants.

To protect special-status plants, the City shall ensure that a botanical survey be conducted for projects containing habitat suitable for special-status plant species. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist or botanist during the appropriate flowering season for the plants and shall be conducted prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the project. If special-status plants are found to occur on the project site, the population of plants shall be avoided and protected. If avoidance and protection is not possible, then a qualified biologist will prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for the affected species. The plan shall be submitted to the CDFG and/or the USFWS for review and comment. Details of the mitigation and monitoring plan shall include, but not be limited to:
 Removing and stockpiling topsoil with intact roots and seed bank in the disturbance area, and either replacing the soil in the same location after construction is complete or in a different location with suitable habitat; or
 Collect plants, seeds, and other propogules from the affected area prior to disturbance. After construction is complete, then the restored habitat will be replanted with propogules or cultivated nursery stock; or
 These and other mitigations will only be considered successful if the populations of the affected species are sustained for a minimum of three years and are of a similar size and quality as the original population.

Mitigation Measure #3.4-1c: Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle.

To protect the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB), the project proponent shall ensure that a survey for elderberry bushes be conducted by a qualified biologist at each project site containing habitat suitable for VELB prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit. If elderberry bushes are found, the project proponent shall implement the measures recommended by the biologist, which shall contain the standardized measures adopted by the USFWS.

Mitigation Measure #3.4-1d: Burrowing Owls.

To protect burrowing owls on proposed projects where suitable habitat exists, the following shall be implemented:
 To protect burrowing owls, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at all project sites that contain grasslands, fallowed agricultural fields, or fallow fields along roadsides, railroad corridors, and other locations prior to grading. If, during a pre-construction survey, burrowing owls are found to be present, the project proponent shall implement the measures recommended by the biologist and include the standardized avoidance measures of CDFG Mitigation Measure #3.4-1e: Special-Status Birds.

To protect raptors and other special-status birds on proposed projects where suitable habitat exists, the following measures shall be implemented:
 Trees scheduled to be removed because project implementation shall be removed during the non- breeding season (late September to the end of February).  Prior to construction, but not more than 14 days before grading, demolition, or site preparation activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting survey to determine the presence of nesting raptors. Activities taking place outside the breeding season (typically February 15 through August 31) do not require a survey. If active raptor nests are present in the construction zone or within 250-feet of the construction zone, temporary exclusion fencing shall be erected at a distance of 250 -feet around the nest site. Clearing and construction operations within this area shall be postponed until juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second nesting attempt determined by the biologist.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-24 UC Merced Annexation Project
 If nesting Swainson’s hawks are observed during field surveys, then consultation with the CDFG regarding Swainson’s hawk mitigation guidelines shall be required. The guidelines include, but are not limited to, buffers of up to one quarter mile, monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist, and mitigation for the loss of foraging habitat.
 To avoid impacts to common and special-status migratory birds pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CDFG codes, a nesting survey shall be conducted prior to construction activities if the work is scheduled between March 15 and August 31. If migratory birds are identified nesting within the construction zone, a 100-foot buffer around the nest site must be designated. No construction activity may occur within this buffer until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged. A qualified biologist may modify the size of the buffer based on site conditions and the bird’s apparent acclimation to human activities. If the buffer is modified, the biologist would be required to monitor stress levels of the nesting birds for at least one week after construction commences to ensure that project activities would not cause nest site abandonment or loss of eggs or young. At any time the biologist shall have the right to implement the full 100-foot buffer if stress levels are elevated to the extent that could cause nest abandonment and/or loss of eggs or young.

Mitigation Measure #3.4-1f: Special-Status Amphibians.

To protect California tiger salamander and western spadefoot on proposed projects where suitable habitat exists, the following shall be implemented:
 To protect special-status amphibians, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at all project sites that contain appropriate habitat. If, during a pre-construction survey, special-status amphibians are found to be present, the project proponent shall implement the measures recom mended by the biologist and standardized measures adopted by the USFWS or the CDFG.

Mitigation Measure #3.4-1g: Special-Status Reptiles.

To protect western pond turtle and giant garter snake on proposed projects where suitable habitat exists, the following shall be implemented:
 To protect special-status reptiles, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at all project sites that contain appropriate habitat. If, during a pre-construction survey, special-status reptiles are found to be present, the project proponent shall implement the measures recommended by the biologist and standardized measures adopted by the USFWS or the CDFG.

Mitigation Measure #3.4-1h: Special-Status Fish.

To protect special-status fish, including hardhead on proposed projects where suitable habitat exists, the following shall be implemented:
 To protect special-status fish, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified fish biologist at all project sites that contain appropriate habitat. If, during a pre-construction survey, special status fish are found to be present, the project proponent shall implement the measures recommended by the biologist and standardized measures adopted by the USFWS, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or the CDFG.

Mitigation Measure #3.4-1i: Special-Status Mammals.

To protect Merced kangaroo rat, western mastiff bat, western red bat, hoary bat, Yuma myotis, San Joaquin pocket mouse, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox on proposed projects where suitable habitat exists, the following shall be implemented:
 To protect special-status mammals, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at all project sites that contain appropriate habitat. If, during a pre-construction survey, special-status mammals are found to be present, the project proponent shall implement the measures recommended by the biologist and standardized measures adopted by the USFWS or the CDFG.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-25
Mitigation Measure #3.4-2: Streambed Alteration Agreement.

To minimize impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities, the following the measures shall be implemented when streambed alterations are proposed:
 The project proponent shall have a qualified biologist shall map all riparian habitat , or other sensitive natural communities. To the extent feasible and practicable, all planned construction activity shall be designed to avoid direct effects on these areas.
 In those areas where complete avoidance is not possible, then all riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural communities, shall be mitigated on a “no-net-loss” basis in accordance with either CDFG regulations and/or a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, if required. Habitat mitigation shall be replaced at a location and with methods acceptable to CDFG.

Mitigation Measure #3.4-3a: Conduct a delineation of Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands and Obtain Permits.

In order to determine if there are wetlands or waters of the U.S. on a proposed project site which fall under USACE jurisdictional authority under Section 404 of the CWA, a delineation of the Waters of the U.S. and wetlands shall be performed and submitted to USACE for verification prior to annexation.

A Section 404 permit and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification or Waiv er of Waste Discharge shall be acquired from USACE and the regional water quality control board (RWQCB) and a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG respectively prior to the onset of construction related activities.

Mitigation Measure #3.4-3b:

Any jurisdictional waters that would be lost or disturbed due to implementation of any proposed project within the plan area shall be replaced or rehabilitated on a “no-net-loss” basis in accordance with the USACE’s and the RWQCB mitigation guidelines. Habitat restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement if required shall be at a location and by methods agreeable to USACE, RWQCB, and City of Merced. The project applicant shall abide by the conditions of any executed permits.

As described above, the University’s Construction Mitigation Plan, incidental take permits and requirements therein, and consultation with USFWS and CDFW would mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level consistent with Mitigation Measures #3.4-1a through #3.4-1i in the GP PEIR. UC Merced has also committed to implementing mitigation measures for the protection of the crotch bumble bee (2020 LRDP MM BIO -4). 2020 LRDP MM BIO-9a commits UC Merced to avoid and minimize impacts on native birds protected under the M igratory Bird Treaty Act, including listed species, fully protected species, special-status species of concern, and raptors and passerines.

Mitigation Measure LRDP MM BIO-9b requires that new buildings and structures incorporate bird-safe design practices. See Appendix A for the full text of the mitigation measures adopted for the 2020 LRDP. These measures exceed the commitments of the GP PEIR and would result in additional impact reduction. No additional mitigation is required.

3.6.4 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potentially significant impacts or cumulative impacts on biological resources that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid, and approval of the project would not require additional environmental review.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-26 UC Merced Annexation Project

3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially More
Severe Impact?*
Are there Changes
in Circumstance or
New Information
Available that
Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance
of a historical resource
pursuant to Section
15064.5?
Impact #3.5-1: Cause a
substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historic or
archaeological resource, pp.

3.5-9 to 3.5-12
No No N/A
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance
of an archaeological
resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
Impact #3.5-1: Cause a
substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historic or
archaeological resource, pp.

3.5-9 to 3.5-12
No No Yes
c) Substantially disturb human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Impact #3.5-2: Potentially
disturb human remains or
destroy a unique
paleontological resource, site,
or geologic feature, pp. 3.5-10
to 3.5-12
No No Yes
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

3.7.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR describes the pre-history and Native American ethnography of the area, as well as use of the area in the historic period. Applicable Federal, State, and local regulations are also described. No substantial change in the environmental setting related to cultural resources, described in the GP PEIR Section 3.5, “Cultural Resources,” has occurred since certification of the GP PEIR.

3.7.2 Discussion
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
This topic is addressed in Section 3.7.2(b) below.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Pages 3.5-9 to 3.5-12 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historic and archaeological resources (Impact #3.1 -1). As stated in the GP PEIR, development in the planning area could result in earthmoving activities with potential to unearth previously undiscovered cultural resources. However, development that occurs with implementation of the General Plan would be consistent with policies to identify and preserve archaeological, historical, and other cultural resources (Policies SD

2.1, SD 2.2, and SD-2.3 of the Sustainable Development Element). The GP PEIR concludes that General Plan policies Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-27
would ensure that impacts on historical and archaeological resources would be less than significant ; however, cumulatively considerable impacts on cultural resources from development in accordance with the General Plan would be significant and unavoidable (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not result in additional adverse changes in the significance of historical or archaeological resources. The GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Therefore, impacts on historical and archaeological resources from development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above.

The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. The 2020 LRDP S EIR does not evaluate impacts on cultural resources because the Initial Study determined that the revised LRDP would not result in a more severe or new impact on cultural resources beyond that identified for the 2009 LRDP. Specifically, no new archaeological resources or historic resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) were identified in the revised LRDP area (UC Merced 2018a). Furthermore, the mitigation adopted for the 2009 LRDP (MM CUL-2 and MM CUL-3) would apply to the new facilities proposed in the 2020 LRDP. This mitigation commits UC Merced to formally evaluate previously evaluated historic resources for NRHP and CRHR eligibility, and if eligible, develop and implement a Historic Properties Treatment Plan. In addition, this mitigation commits UC Merced and its contractors to follow specific protocols in the event that buried cultural resources are encountered during construction activities (UC Merced 2009).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result i n any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts on historical and archaeological resources beyond those evaluated in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding historical and archaeological resources remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant but cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
c) Substantially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Pages 3.5-10 to 3.5-12 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to disturb human remains (Impact #3.1-2). As stated in the GP PEIR, earthmoving activities during development in the planning area could result in the discovery of previously unidentified human remains. However, development would comply with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, which includes procedures to follow in the event that human remains are discovered during construction phases of development. In addition, development would b e consistent with General Plan policies aimed to identify and preserve cultural resources, including human remains (Policies SD 2.1, SD 2.2, and SD-2.3 of the Sustainable Development Element). The GP PEIR concludes that General Plan policies would ensure that impacts on human remains would be less than significant; however, cumulatively considerable impacts on cultural resources from development in accordance with the General Plan would be significant and unavoidable (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not result in new disturbances to human remains. The GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Therefore, impacts on human remains from development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above.

The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. The 2020 LRDP S EIR does not evaluate impacts on cultural resources because the Initial Study determined that the revised LRDP would not result in a more severe or new impact on cultural resources beyond that identified for the 2009 LRDP (UC Merced 2018a). The mitigation adopted for the 2009 LRDP (MM CUL-3) would apply to the new facilities proposed in the 2020 LRDP, which commits UC Merced and its contractors to follow specific protocols in the event that human remains are encountered during construction activities (UC Merced 2009).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts related to the disturbance of human remains beyond those evaluated in Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-28 UC Merced Annexation Project
the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding the disturbance of human remains remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant but cumulatively significant and unavoidable.

3.7.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for cultural resources were proposed in the GP PEIR. The mitigation adopted for the 2009 LRDP (MM CUL-2 and MM CUL-3) would apply to the UC Merced campus. This mitigation commits UC Merced to formally evaluate previously evaluated historic resources for NRHP and CRHR eligibility, and if eligible, develop and implement a Historic Properties Treatment Plan. In addition, this mitigation commits UC Merced and its contractors to follow specific protocols in the event that buried cultural resources are encountered during construction activities.

See Appendix B for the full text of the mitigation measures adopted for the 2009 LRDP. No new mitigation measures are required.

3.7.4 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potentially significant impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not require additional environmental review.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-29

3.8 ENERGY
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially More
Severe Impact?*
Are there Changes
in Circumstance or
New Information
Available that
Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
Not Analyzed No No N/A
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Not Analyzed No No N/A
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

3.8.1 Environmental Setting
Since adoption of the GP PEIR, the State has increased the standards for building energy and vehicle fuel efficiency.

The following plans and policies related to energy conservation are applicable to the project:
 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards: Title 24 includes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings to achieve energy efficiency in response to Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and other State commitments.
 California Green Building Code (CALGreen): CALGreen identifies mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings, which include requirements for construction site selection, stormwater control during construction, construction solid waste reduction, indoor water use reduction, building material selection, natural resource conservation, and site irrigation conservation.  California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ACTM): CARB has promulgated an ACTM that imposes idling limits for heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles. In addition to reducing air emissions, this ACTM would prevent the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources.  University of California (UC) Sustainable Practices Policy: The UC Sustainable Practices Policy establishes the UC system’s commitment to reducing its dependence on non-renewable energy sources.

3.8.2 Discussion
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
This topic is addressed in Section 3.8.2(b) below.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-30 UC Merced Annexation Project
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The GP PEIR does not specifically evaluate the potential for implementation of the General Plan to result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with state or local plans. As described in Section 5.2, “Significant Irreversible Changes,” of the GP PEIR, buildout of the General Plan would result in consumption of fossil fuels. Increased energy would be required for construction; lighting, cooling, and heating of residences; and transportation of people. However, conserving non-renewable energy resources is identified as a plan objective that promotes sustainable growth. To that end, the General Plan includes policies intended to limit energy consumption (e.g., Policy T-1.5 Minimize unnecessary travel demand on major streets and promote energy conservation). General Plan policies and standards promoting energy conservation (Transportation and Circulation Policy T-1.5, Urban Development Policy UD-2.2, Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Policy OS-5.1, and Sustainable Development Policies SD-3.1 and SD-3.2) reduce energy demand (City of Merced 2010). In addition, as discussed above, Mitigation Measure #3.3-2 requires that individual projects include as many energy-conserving features as possible.

The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. The 2020 LRDP SEIR evaluates the potential for implementation of the 2020 LRDP to increase the use of energy resources and conflict with plans for energy efficiency. Construction activities would be spread over a 10-year construction period and would represent a small percentage of the total energy used in the State. In addition, the proposed developments would include sustainable construction methods that comply with CALGreen and CARB’s ATCMs. Therefore, construction- related energy use would not be inefficient or wasteful and would not conflict with energy efficiency plans; this impact would be less than significant and would not contribute substantially to a cumulative impact (UC Merced 2019).

Campus operation under the 2020 LRDP would require the consumption of natural gas and electricity. However, the proposed developments would be required to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards by 20 percent in compliance with UC Sustainable Practices Policy. UC Merced has set a goal of outperforming Title 24 energy efficiency standards by 30 percent and existing buildings on campus are currently using approximately 50 percent less energy than Title 24 standards. New buildings would be designed to minimize energy consumption and incorporate energy conservation measures, such as the use of passive solar design, energy -efficient appliances, solar hot water systems, and low-flow showerheads (UC Merced 2019).

Implementation of the 2020 LRDP would also require the consumption of petroleum fuel related to vehicle travel to and from the campus. UC Merced has committed to greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures that would reduce petroleum-based fuel use (LRDP MM GHG-1 and MM AQ-2). Furthermore, the total consumption of petroleum-based fuel is expected to decrease over time because State laws and regulations will continue to require further improvements in fuel efficiency in motor vehicles produced and/or sold in the State and push towards more zero emissions vehicles in the State vehicle mix. Therefore, operational energy use would not be inefficient or wasteful and would not conflict with energy efficiency plans; this impact would be less than significant and would n ot contribute substantially to a cumulative impact (UC Merced 2019).

Furthermore, because UC Merced is projected to grow at a slower pace than previously anticipated, development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2020 LRDP is expected to consu me less energy than the development proposed under the 2009 LRDP (UC Merced 2019). Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new significant impacts related to energy consumption and no mitigation is required.

3.8.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for energy were proposed in the GP PEIR and no new mitigation measures are required.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-31

3.8.4 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potentially significant impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not require additional environmental review.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-32 UC Merced Annexation Project

3.9 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially
More Severe
Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
(Refer to California
Geological Survey Special
Publication 42.)
Impact #3.6-1: Expose people
or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects
from seismic hazards, pp. 3.6-
8 to 3.6-9
No No Yes
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Impact #3.6-2: The proposed
project would not result in
substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil, pp. 3.6-9 and

3.6-10
No No N/A
c) Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become
unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
Impact #3.6-3: The proposed
project would not be located
on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially
result in on-or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse
No No Yes
d) Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code
(1994, as updated), creating
Impact #3.6-4: The proposed
project could be located on
expansive soils creating
substantial risks to life or
property, pp. 3.6-10 and 3.6-11
No No Yes
Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-33
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially
More Severe
Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water
disposal systems where
sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
Impact #3.6-5: Have soils
incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water,
pp. 3.6-11
No No N/A
f) Directly or indirectly destroy
a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Impact #3.5-2: Potentially
disturb human remains or
destroy a unique
paleontological resource, site,
or geologic feature, pp. 3.5-10
to 3.5-12
No No N/A
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

3.9.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR describes faults, seismicity, and seismic hazards for the City and SUDP/SOI . Applicable Federal, State, and local regulations are also explained. No substantial change in the environmental setting related to geology and soils, described in the GP PEIR Section 3.6, “Geology and Soils,” has occurred since certification of the GP PEIR. Soils and geologic conditions in the SUDP/SOI surrounding the UC Merced campus are consistent with the conditions described in the GP PEIR. No changes in pertinent regulations have occurred.

3.9.2 Discussion
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
Pages 3.6-8 and 3.6-9 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects from seismic hazards (Impact #3.6 -1). As stated in the GP PEIR, the planning Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-34 UC Merced Annexation Project
area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone; however, some areas may be subject to strong seismic ground shaking. Overall, soil liquefaction is considered to be a low to moderate hazard within the City. Individual development projects would be required to complete geotechnical engineering investigations to accurately evaluate site-specific seismic hazards and would be designed in conformance with the California Building Standards Code. In addition, several General Plan policies would reduce seismic-related hazards (S 2.1, S 2.2, and S 2.3 of the Safety Element). The GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to seismic hazards would be less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not cause new adverse effects from seismic hazards. The GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Therefore, impacts from seismic hazards associated with development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above.

The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. The 2020 LRDP would be subject to the same seismic hazards and the same California Building Code regulations as those that applied to the 2009 LRDP (UC Merced 2018a). Furthermore, the mitigation proposed for the 2009 LRDP (MM GEO-2) would apply to the new facilities proposed in the 2020 LRDP. This mitigation commits UC Merced to prepare site-specific geotechnical evaluations and incorporate site-specific recommendations into the design of each new development (UC Merced 2009).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts from seismic hazards. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding seismic hazards remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Pages 3.6-9 and 3.6-10 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to result in substantial soil and erosion or the loss of topsoil (Impact #3.6-2). As stated in the GP PEIR, the soil conditions and flat topography in the planning area result in low potential for erosion impacts. Development would be subject to erosion control and grading requirements, including compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and implementation of storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) for project sites that disturb more than 1 acre. In addition, General Plan Policy OS-5.2 of the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element requires the City to reduce soil erosion potential for new development. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not increase soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Therefore, impacts on soil erosion and loss of topsoil from development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above. The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. The 2020 LRDP would not result in a more severe or new impact on soil erosion and loss of topsoil beyond that identified for the 2009 LRDP. Specifically, implementation of the 2020 LRDP would be subject to the same erosion control requirements as that of the 2009 LRDP , including NPDES stormwater regulations for projects disturbing more than 1 acre (UC Merced 2018a).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding soil erosion and loss of topsoil remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-35
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

geologic units or soils (Impact #3.6-3). As stated in the GP PEIR, there is low potential for landslides, soil liquefaction, lurch cracking, and lateral spreading in the flatter portions of the planning area. In addition, compliance with regulations, such as the Alquist-Priolo Act and California Building Standards Code, and implementation of General Plan policies (Policy OS-5.2 of the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element and S-2.3 of the Safety Element) would address public health and safety issues resulting from unstable geologic units. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to unstable geologic units and soils would be less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not exacerbate effects from soil instability. The GP PEIR evaluates the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Therefore, impacts related to unstable geologic units and soils from development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above. The revised L RDP would not result in a more severe or new impact from geologic units and soils beyond that identified for the 2009 LRDP. Specifically, the 2020 LRDP plan area is located on the same geologic units and soils and subject to the same California Building Code regulations as those that applied to the 2009 LRDP (UC Merced 2018a). Furthermore, the mitigation proposed for the 2009 LRDP (MM GEO-2), which requires preparation of a site-specific geotechnical evaluation and incorporation of site-specific recommendations into the design of each new development, would apply to the new facilities proposed in the 2020 LRDP (UC Merced 2009).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts from unstable geologic units and soils beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding unstable geologic units and soils remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

expansive soils (Impact #3.6-4). As stated in the GP PEIR, the soils in the planning area are not generally considered to be expansive. In addition, compliance with regulations, such as the Alquist-Priolo Act and California Building Standards Code, and implementation of General Plan policies (Policy S-2.3 of the Safety Element) would address public health and safety issues resulting from expansive soils. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not increase risks to life or property from expansive soils. The GP PEIR evaluate s the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils from development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above. The 2020 LRDP would be expo sed to the same risks from construction in areas with expansive soils as those that applied to the 2009 LRDP (UC Merced 2018a).

Furthermore, the mitigation proposed for the 2009 LRDP (MM GEO-2), which requires preparation of a site-specific geotechnical evaluation and incorporation of site-specific recommendations into the design of each new development, would apply to the new facilities proposed in the 2020 LRDP (UC Merced 20 09).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not r esult in any new impacts from expansive soils beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding unstable expansive soils remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-36 UC Merced Annexation Project
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems (Impact #3.6 -5). As stated in the GP PEIR, soils in the planning area are not generally considered to be expansive, have a generally low to moderate erosion potential, and are generally considered suitable for wastewater disposal using conventional septic systems. The GP PEIR concludes that this impact would be less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable (City of Merced 2010).

The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. The 2020 LRDP S EIR does not evaluate impacts from soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems because these wastewater disposal methods are not proposed under the 2020 LRDP and no impacts would occur (UC Merced 2019).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts from soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems beyond those evaluated in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding this topic remain valid and no new mitigation is required.

This impact would remain less than significant.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Pages 3.5-10 to 3.5-12 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (Impact #3.1-2). As stated in the GP PEIR, earthmoving activities during development in the planning area could result in impacts on paleontological resources or geologic features. However, development would be consistent with General Plan Policy SD-2.2 of the Sustainable Development Element, which aims to identify and preserve cultural resources. The GP PEIR concludes that this General Plan policy would ensure that impacts on paleontological resources and geologic features would be less than significant; however, cumulatively considerable impacts on paleontological resources and geologic features from development in accordance with the General Plan would be significant and unavoidable (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not result in additional destruction of paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features. The GP PEIR evaluates the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Therefore, impacts on paleontological resources and geologic features from development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above. The 2020 LRDP would not result in a more severe or new impact on cultural resources beyond that identified for the 2009 LRDP. Specifically, the paleontological sensitivity of the 2020 LRDP planning area is the same as that of the 2009 LRDP (UC Merced 2018a). Furthermore, the mitigation adopted for the 2009 LRDP (MM CUL-4) would apply to the new facilities proposed in the 2020 LRDP. This measure commits UC Merced and its contractors to follow specific protocols in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction activities, and commits UC Merced to retain a paleontological monitor in areas of high paleontological sensitivity (UC Merced 2009).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts on paleontological resources and geologic features beyond those identified for the 2009 LRDP, as evaluated in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding paleontological resources and geologic features remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant but cumulatively significant and unavoidable.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-37

3.9.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for geology and soils were proposed in the GP PEIR. UC Merced has committed to the mitigation proposed for the 2009 LRDP (MM GEO-2 and MM CUL-4) for development on the UC Merced campus.

This mitigation commits UC Merced to prepare site-specific geotechnical evaluations and incorporate site-specific recommendations into the design of each new development. It also commits UC Merced and its contractors to follow specific protocols if paleontological resources are encountered during construction activities and commits UC Merced to retain a paleontological monitor in areas of high paleontological sensitivity (UC Merced 2009) . See Appendix B for the full text of the mitigation measures adopted for the 2009LRDP. No new mitigation measures are required.

3.9.4 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potentially significant impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not require additional environmental review.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-38 UC Merced Annexation Project

3.10 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially More
Severe Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Impact #3.17-1: Development
of the Project could potentially
result in a cumulatively
considerable incremental
contribution to the significant
cumulative impact of global
climate change, pp. 3.17-15
and 3.17-16
No No N/A
b) Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Impact #3.17-2: Conflict with
an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse
gases, pp. 3.17-16 and 3.17-17
No No Yes
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

3.10.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR describes existing GHGs and links to global climate change, as well as feedback mechanisms and uncertainty related to how specific changes could affect global climate change. Applicable Federal, State, and local regulations are also explained. Since adoption of the GP PEIR, additional laws and regulations have been passed that set forth more stringent GHG reduction targets, including Senate Bill (SB) 32 of 2016, which reduces the statewide GHG emissions targets established under AB 32 of 2006 to 40 percen t below 1990 levels by 2030.

The UC and UC Merced have adopted policies and plans to reduce GHG emissions, which include the following:
 UC Sustainability Policy: This policy reflects UC Merced’s commitment to demonstrate sustainable practices through green building design; clean energy; climate protection; sustainable transportation; sustainable building operations; zero waste; and sustainable procurement, foodservices, water systems, and health centers ( University of California 2020).
 UC Merced Sustainability Strategic Plan: This plan outlines UC Merced’s sustainability goals for academics, research, engagement, and operations, which include achieving zero net GHG emissions by 2020 (UC Merced 2017).
 UC Merced Climate Action Plan: This plan represents UC Merced’s vision for climate sustainability and summarizes goals, progress, and actions related to reducing GHG emissions. The primary goals for the plan include achieving a net zero energy campus and a climate neutral University by 2020. The plan was developed to meet UC Sustainability Policy requirements (UC Merced 2018b).

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-39

3.10.2 Discussion
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Pages 3.17-15 to 3.17-16 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to contribute to global climate change from emissions of GHGs (Impact #3.17-1). As stated in the GP PEIR, implementation of the General Plan would result in GHG emissions from stationary sources, such as commercial buildings and residential homes (e.g., use of natural gas and operation of landscape maintenance equipment), and from vehicle emissions associated with new development. Implementation of the General Plan would comply with existing plans and po licies that address global climate change. In addition, Mitigation Measures #3.3-1a and #3.3-2 (refer to Section 3.5.3, “Air Quality”) would minimize air pollutants, including emissions of GHGs, from new development. Despite these measures, implementation of the General Plan would result in a significant, cumulatively considerable, and unavoidable impact from the generation of GHG emissions.

The GP PEIR evaluates the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP.

Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions from development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above. The 2020 LRDP SEIR evaluated the potential for development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2020 LRDP to change the potential for the campus to generate GHG emissions. A revised GHG impact assessment was prepared to comply with more stringent GHG reduction targets set forth by AB 32. Based on AB 32 and SB 32 targets, UC Merced used the following targets as thresholds of significance: (a) 2030 Total Emissions Target of 3,300 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO
2e/year) and (b) 2030 Per Capita Emissions Target of 2.44 MTCO2e/service person/year. Based on modeling for the 2020 LRDP, the campus per capita emissions in 2030 were below UC Merced’s 2030 Per Capita Target, but total campus emissions were found to exceed UC Merced’s 2030 Total Emissions Target. UC Merced has committed to implementing measures (LRDP MM GHG-1 and MM AQ-2), which include implementing project-specific and campus-wide greenhouse reduction measures and purchasing GHG offsets, if necessary, to reduce GHG emissions to less than significant levels (UC Merced 2019).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not substantially increase the severity of impacts related to GHG emissions evaluated in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding GHG emissions remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Pages 3.17-16 to 3.17-17 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to conflict with plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions (Impact #3.17 -2). As stated in the GP PEIR, the General Plan policies were designed to reduce GHG emissions to the extent practicable in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, the GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to conflicts with applicable plans, policies, and regulations for reducing GHG emissions would be less than significant
The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. The 2020 LRDP S EIR evaluates the potential for development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2020 LRDP to conflict with applicable plans, policies, and regulations for reducing GHG emissions. As described in Section 3.10.2(a) above, the per capita campus emissions were found to meet UC Merced’s 2030 Per Capita Emissions Target and the total campus emissions would meet UC Merced’s 2030 Total Emission Target with implementation of mitigation measures MM GHG-1 and MM AQ-2. In addition, campus development under the 2020 LRDP would continue to be completed in compliance with the UC Sustainability Policy, UC Merced Sustainability Strategic Plan, and UC Merced Climate Action Plan (UC Merced 2019).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts related to conflicts with applicable plans, policies, and regulations for reducing GHG emissions evaluated in the GP PEIR.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-40 UC Merced Annexation Project
Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding GHG emissions remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.

3.10.1 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for GHG emissions were proposed in the GP PEIR. UC Merced has committed to implementing project-specific and campus-wide greenhouse reduction measures and purchasing GHG offsets, if necessary, to reduce GHG emissions from development and operation of the UC Merced campus (LRDP MM GHG-1 and MM AQ-2). See Appendix A for the full text of the mitigation measures adopted for the 2020 LRDP. No new mitigation measures are required.

3.10.2 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potentially significant impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not require additional environmental review.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-41

3.11 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially More
Severe Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
Impact #3.7-1: Create a
significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials,
pp. 3.7-8 to 3.7-9
No No N/A
b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably
foreseeable upset and/or
accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous
materials into the
environment?
Impact #3.7-2: Create a
significant hazard to the public
or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment, pp. 3.7-9 to 3.7-10
No No N/A
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
Impact #3.7-3: Emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school, pp. 3.7-10 and

3.7-11
No No N/A
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
Impact #3.7-4: Would the
proposed project be located on
a site, or proximate to a site,
that is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, create a
significant hazard to the public
or the environment, p. 3.7-11
No No Yes
e) For a project located within
an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the
project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in
the project area?
Impact #3.7-5: Would the
proposed project be located
within an airport land use plan,
or within two miles of a public
airport or private airstrip,
creating a safety hazard for
people residing or working in
the project area, pp. 3.7-11 to

3.7-12
No No N/A
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-42 UC Merced Annexation Project
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially More
Severe Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Impact #3.7-6: Impair
implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan, p.

3.7-13
No No N/A
g) Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to
a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving
wildland fires?
Impact #3.7-7: Expose people or
structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where
residence are intermixed with
wildlands, pp. 3.7-13 and 3.7-14
No No N/A
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

3.11.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR describes wildland and urban fires hazards, airport safety, hazards associated with railroads, and emergency preparedness. Applicable Federal, State, and local regulations are also explained. No substantial change in the environmental setting related to hazards and hazardous materials, described in the GP PEIR Section 3.7, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” has occurred since certification of the GP PEIR. The existing hazards and response mechanisms are generally consistent with those described in the GP PEIR . No substantial changes in pertinent regulations have occurred.

3.11.2 Discussion
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Pages 3.7-8 and 3.7-9 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardou s materials (Impact #3.7-1). As stated in the GP PEIR, new development in the planning area could increase hazardous materials used, stored, transported, and disposed of in the planning area. These activities are regulated by federal, State, and County agencies. General Plan policies (T-1.4 of the Transportation and Circulation Element and S-7.1 and S-7.2 of the Safety Element) would include actions to improve roadway safety, prevent releases of hazardous materials, require that hazardous sites are properly remediated, and ensure that hazardous materials are properly used and stored. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not create new hazards from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The GP PEIR evaluates the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Therefore, impacts on the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-43
implementation of the GP PEIR, described above. The 2020 LRDP would not result in a more severe or new impact on this topic beyond that identified for the 2009 LRDP. Specifically, the 2020 LRDP would be subject to the same regulations pertaining to hazardous materials as those that applied to the 2009 LRDP , which include the following:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services guidelines for classifying biohazardous agents; U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), California Department of Transportation, and U.S. Postal Service regulations for packaging and transporting hazardous materials; UC Merced Environmental Health and Safety procedures for handling hazardous materials; federal and state animal safety protocols and waste management practices; and California Occupational Health and Safety requirements for laboratory settings. In addition, construction activities would comply with applicable regulations and codes, including Titles 8 and 22 of the Code of California Regulations, Uniform Fire Code, and Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code (UC Merced 2018a).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Pages 3.7-9 and 3.7-10 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to create a significant hazard to the public from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (Impact #3.7-2). As stated in the GP PEIR, the threat of accidents would be maintained at a less than significant level through compliance with existing federal, State, County, and local regulations, which include the following: US. DOT regulations for the transport of hazardous materials, California Environmental Protection Agency oversight of federal laws and regulations, and the City’s Emergency Plan. General Plan policies (S-

7.1 and S-7.2 of the Safety Element) include requirements for the City to prevent injuries and environmental contamination from the accidental release of hazardous materials, enforce the Merced County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and enforce the permitted use and storage of hazardous materials. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts related accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable (City of Merced 2010).

The GP PEIR evaluates the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP.

Therefore, impacts from the accidental release of hazardous materials associated with development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above. Implementation of the 2020 LRDP would involve transportation of similar amounts of hazardous materials as was anticipated in the 2009 LRDP. In addition, the 2020 LRDP would be subject to the same regulations as those that applied to the 2009 LRDP, which include U.S. DOT and U.S. Postal Service regulations for packaging and transporting hazardous materials that minimize the potential for accidental spills (UC Merced 2018a).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts from the accidental release of hazardous materials beyond those evaluated in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding the accidental release of hazardous materials remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Pages 3.7-10 and 3.7-11 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to emit or handle hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school (Impact #3.7-3). As stated in the GP PEIR, implementation of the General Plan is anticipated to increase the number of school- age children and, thus, the need for constructing additional school facilities. General Plan policies would ensure that schools are sited in a manner that minimizes exposure to hazardous conditions and developed in compliance with the California Education Code and California Code of Regulations (Policy P-7.1 of the Public Services and Facilities Element). In addition, General Plan Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-44 UC Merced Annexation Project
Policies S-7.1 and S-7.2 of the Safety Element include requirements to prevent injuries and environmental contamination from the accidental release of hazardous materials and to remediate hazardous materials sites prior to their development. Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant, and no cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not generate new emissions within 0.25 mile of existing or proposed schools. There are no existing schools within 0.25 mile of the 2020 LRDP planning area (UC Merced 2018a).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts from emitting or handling hazardous materials near schools. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding emitting or handling hazardous materials near schools remain valid and no new mitigation is required . This impact would remain less than significant.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

materials site and thereby create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (Impact #3.7 -4). The GP PEIR identifies several hazardous materials sites in the planning area. However, future development in the planning area would comply with regulations established by the State Department of Health Services, the Merced County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and applicable General Plan policies discussed in the responses above.

Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts from hazardous materials sites would be less than significant, and no cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not create new hazards from hazardous materials sites. Although unknown hazardous materials sites could be identified in areas planned for campus development, the mitigation adopted for the 2009 LRDP (MM HAZ-4) would apply to the new facilities proposed in the 2020 LRDP. This mitigation commits UC Merced to remediate or remove any contamination that is identified during construction on the campus (UC Merced 2009).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts from hazardous materials sites. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding hazardous materials sites remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Pages 3.7-11 and 3.7-12 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to result in excessive airport noise or safety hazards (Impact #3.7-2). The GP PEIR identifies two airports in the planning area, which include the Merced Regional Airport and Castle Airport. Future development would be subject to the requirements of the Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Furthermore, General Plan policies would ensure that incompatible development is not approved in areas where airport impacts could occur (Policy UE -1.1 of the Urban Expansion Element, Policy S-5.1 of the Safety Element, Policy OS-4.1 of the Open Space Element, and Policy T-3.1 of the Transportation Element). Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant, and no cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not create new airport safety hazards or noise. The UC Merced campus is not within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport (UC Merced 2018a).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts from excessive airport noise and safety hazards. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding excessive airport noise and safety hazards remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-45
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

emergency response or evacuation plans (Impact #3.7-6). As stated in the GP PEIR, new development and population growth could affect emergency response and evacuation during disasters. General Plan Policy S- 1.1 of the Safety Element would support emergency preparedness, the funding of emergency service needs in conjunction with urban growth, and the planning of future emergency routes. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to impairment of emergency response and evacuation plans would be less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not result in interference with existing emergency response and evacuation plans. The GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP.

Therefore, impacts on emergency response and evacuation plans associated with development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above. The 2020 LRDP would be subject to the same emergency response and evacuation plans and procedures as those that applied to the 2009 LRDP, including the UC Merced Emergency Operations Plan and Crisis Communications Plan. Furthermore, safety planning documents would continue to be prepared and updated in accordance with applicable regulations, including California Health and Safety Code Section 25517.5 (UC Merced 2018a).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts on emergency response and evacuation plans beyond those evaluated in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding emergency response and evacuation plans remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Pages 3.7-13 and 3.7-14 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to expose people or structures to risks involving wildland fires (Impact #3.7-7). The GP PEIR identified minimal wildland fire risks in the planning area. General Plan policies would ensure that the City is able to provide adequate fire protection services for the community, provide adequate accessibility and infrastructure support for emergency service providers, and reduce fire hazards through fire prevention and management practices (Policy S -4.1 and S-4.2 of the Safety Element and Policy OS-4.1 of the Open Space Element). The GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to wildland fires would be less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not expose more people or structures to wildland fires. The GP PEIR evaluate s the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Therefore, impacts from wildland fires associated with development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above.

The area proposed for annexation would be subject to the same fire risk as the 2009 LRDP planning area evaluated in the GP PEIR. In addition, the 2020 LRDP would be subject to the standards and management practices for fire protection and prevention as those that applied to the 2009 LRDP. These standards include building code standards for fire equipment access, minimum water supply reserves, and fuel breaks. Furthermore, UC Merced would continue to adhere to fuel management practices in open space and landscaped areas (UC Merced 2018a).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts from wildland fires beyond those evaluated in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding wildland fires remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-46 UC Merced Annexation Project

3.11.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for hazards and hazardous materials were proposed in the GP PEIR. The mitigation adopted for the 2009 LRDP (MM HAZ-4) commits UC Merced to remediate or remove any contamination that is identified during construction on the campus. See Appendix B for the full text of the mitigation measures adopted for the 2009 LRDP. No new mitigation measures are required.

3.11.4 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potentially significant impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not require additional environmental review.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-47

3.12 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially More
Severe Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
Impact #3.8-1: Violation of
water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially
degrade water quality, pp.

3.8-14 and 3.8-15
No No N/A
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may
impede sustainable
groundwater management
of the basin?
Impact #3.8-2: The proposed
project could substantially
deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local
groundwater table, pp. 3.8-15
and 3.8-16
No No N/A
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river
or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:

i) Result in substantial on-
or offsite erosion or
siltation;
Impact #3.8-3: The proposed
project could substantially
alter the existing drainage
pattern of the area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in
a manner which would result
in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site or
substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result
in on- or offsite flooding, pp.

3.8-16 and 3.8-17
No No N/A
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-48 UC Merced Annexation Project
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially More
Severe Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
ii) Substantially increase the
rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on- or
offsite;
Refer to Impact #3.8-3 above No No N/A
iii) Create or contribute
runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of
existing or planned
stormwater drainage
systems or provide
substantial additional
sources of polluted
runoff; or
Impact #3.8-4: The proposed
project could create or
contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of
existing stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted
runoff, pp. 3.8-17 and 3.8-18
No No N/A
iv) Impede or redirect
flood flows?
Impact #3.8-5: The proposed
project could place housing or
other structures within a 100-
year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary, Flood
Insurance Rate Map, or other
flood hazard delineation map
or place within a 100-year
flood hazard area structures
which could impede or
redirect flood flows, pp. 3.8-18
and 3.8-19
No No N/A
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
Not Analyzed No No N/A
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Not Analyzed No No N/A
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

3.12.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR describes the climate, regional topography, the San Joaquin/Merced River drainage basin, groundwater conditions, and water quality for the City and SUDP/SOI. No substantial change in the environmental setting related to hydrology and water quality, described in the GP PEIR Section 3.8, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” has occurred.

Since certification of the GP PEIR, new legislation was passed to protect groundwater resources in the State. Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), passed in 201 4, the Department of Water Resources Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-49
identified 94 basins and subbasins throughout the State as medium and high priority, of which 21 were identified as critically overdrafted. As defined by SGMA, critical overdraft occurs when “continuation of present wat er management practices would probably result in significant adverse overdraft-related environmental, social, or economic impacts." SGMA requires local agencies in high- and medium-priority basins to form groundwater sustainability agencies (GSA).

GSAs are responsible for developing and implementing groundwater sustainability plans (GSP s). GSPs serve as a roadmap for (1) how to achieve long-term groundwater sustainability, (2) how to manage groundwater, and (3) how to avoid undesirable effects from groundwater overdraft, such as reduced groundwater levels and storage, land subsidence, depletion of surface water, and degradation of groundwater quality (Merced SGMA 2018).

The Merced Groundwater Basin underlies the project area. Upon passage of SGMA, the Merced Groundwater Basin was formally designated as a critically overdrafted and a high-priority basin. In 2017, three GSAs were formed within the Merced Subbasin: Merced Subbasin GSA, Merced Irrigation-Urban GSA, and Turner Island Water District GSA.

These three GSAs, collectively referred to as the Merced SGMA, adopted the Merced Subbasin GSP in December 2019. The Merced Subbasin GSP identifies 12 priority projects and management actions to either (1) increase surface water supplies to augment the sustainable groundwater yield, or (2) increase groundwater recharge, and thereby increase the amount of groundwater that can be sustainably used (Merced SGMA 2019). Now that the GSP has been adopted, the GSAs are moving into the GSP implementation phase.

In 2017, UC Merced prepared the UC Merced Campus Water Action Plan, which is a strategic planning document intended to identify water systems or processes that maximize campus water use conservation and efficiency, optimize water resource management, protect resources in the context of the local watershed, enhance economic, social, and environmental sustainability while meeting operational objectives, comply with the UC system wide 2016 Sustainable Practices Policy on Sustainable Water Systems, and supports UC Merced’s Sustainability Strategic Plan.

The Water Action Plan includes both targets and actions to reduce consumptive use of water, and targets and actions to manage stormwater and protect the watershed.

The City of Merced’s 2020 Urban Water Mater Plan (UWMP) was adopted in August of 2021. In 2020, the City supplied 20,076 acre-feet (AF) of potable water and 4,050 AF of recycled water. Potable water demands are projected to increase to 31,825 AF by 2040 due to increases in the City and UC Merced population. The City’s water supply is projected to sufficiently meet expected demands through 2040 through the installation of additional groundwater wells and construction of a 10 million gallon per day (mgd) surface water treatment plant. The surface water treatment plant is projected to use surface water supplied by Merced Irrigation District and begin operation by 2030 (City of Merced 2021).

3.12.2 Discussion
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Pages 3.8-14 and 3.8-15 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality (Impact #3.8 -1). As stated in the GP PEIR, construction activities and new development in the planning area could increase pollutants entering receiving waters and potentially impact water quality. General Plan Policies P-5.1 and P-5.2 of the Public Services and Facilities Element would ensure that the City provides new storm drainage facilities for future development and continues to implement and update the Merced Storm Water Master Plan and Storm Water Management Plan for the planning area. New development would be required to comply with these plans. In addition, General Plan Policy OS-5.1 of the Open Space Element would ensure that the City takes measures to preserve and enhance water quality, including utilizing Best Management Practices (BMP), monitoring groundwater contamination s ources, and promoting the use of drought tolerant landscaping. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to water quality standards and degradation would be less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable (City of Merced 2010).

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-50 UC Merced Annexation Project
Annexation of UC Merced would not result in new violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or additional degradation to water quality. The GP PEIR evaluate s the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Therefore, impacts related to water quality standards and degradation associated with development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above. The 20 20 LRDP would not result in a more severe or new impact. Specifically, all development would be subject to regulations pertaining to water quality, including NPDES stormwater regulations for construction projects disturbing more than 1 acre . In compliance with NPDES regulations, a project-specific SWPPP would be prepared and implemented to reduce water quality impacts (UC Merced 2018a).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts on water quality standards and degradation beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding water quality standards and degradation remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Pages 3.8-15 and 3.8-16 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to deplete groundwater supplies and interfere with groundwater recharge (Impact #3.8-2). As stated in the GP PEIR, the City primarily depends on groundwater sources that draw from the San Joaquin aquifer and has instituted water conservation measures in response to prolonged drought conditions. The City is within the Merced Subbasin, which the Department of Water Resources identified as a critically overdrafted basin. General Plan Policies P -3.2 and P-4.2 of the Public Services and Facilities Element would ensure that groundwater resources are protected through development of new water conservation and recycling technologies and procedures, enhancement of surface water delivery systems, utilization of Merced Irrigation District water resources wh en water treatment is not needed, development of groundwater recharge facilities, and use of reclaimed water when practical. Although these policies would help to reduce impacts on groundwater supply and recharge, the GP PEIR states that the basin’s rate of overdraft will continue to increase as urban development increases and no mitigation was available to reduce the impact. Therefore, impacts on groundwater supply and recharge would be significant and would result in a significant cumulative impact (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not result in additional decreases of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge. The GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater supply and recharge associated with development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above.

The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. The 2020 LRDP SEIR evaluates the potential for development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2020 LRDP to interfere with groundwater recharge and deplete groundwater supplies. With respect to groundwater recharge, the campus development proposed under the 2020 LRDP would be more compact than what was anticipated under the 2009 LRDP. Therefore, development the 2020 LRDP would result in a greater area for groundwater recharge compa red to development under the 2009 LRDP. Furthermore, UC Merced developed a Water Action Plan in 2017 with strategies to improve groundwater recharge, which include incorporating low-impact development practices and stormwater retention basins into site design. Therefore, the revised LRDP would not result in a more severe or new impact on groundwater recharge (UC Merced 2019).

With regards to groundwater supplies, UC Merced is projected to grow at a slower pace than previously anticipated.

Therefore, development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2020 LRDP would have a lower water demand than projected for the 2009 LRDP. In addition, UC Merced’s Water Action Plan includes actions to reduce water use on campus, such as implementing water efficient landscaping practices, using water efficient appliances and fixtures, conducting regular campus water audits, using low-flow water measurement sensors, and exploring new Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-51
opportunities for wastewater treatment. Furthermore, the City adopted 2020 UWMP , which outlines efforts to address overdraft conditions in the Merced Subbasin. These efforts include identifying new water sources for the City and adopting programs for groundwater recharge, water conservation and education, conjunctive use, water reclamation and recycling, and construction and operation of new water facilities. The 2020 LRDP would not result in a more severe or new impact on groundwater supplies.

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts on groundwater supply and recharge beyond those identified for the 2009 LRDP, as evaluated in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding groundwater supply and recharge remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or siltation; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Pages 3.8-16 and 3.8-17 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to alter drainage patterns in a manner that results in substantial erosion or siltation or increase surface runoff in a manner that results in flooding (Impact #3.8-3). As stated in the GP PEIR, new development would increase impervious surfaces in the planning area, thereby increasing runoff that could increase erosion, siltation, or flooding. General Plan p olicies (Policy OS-5.2 of the Open Space Element, Policy P-1.1 of the Public Services and Facilities Element, Policies S-3.1 and S-3.2 of the Safety Element) would ensure that all new development has adequate storm drainage facilities and complies with applicable federal, State, and local regulations for stormwater management and flood prevention. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts from changes in drainage patterns would be less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable (City of Merced 2010).

Pages 3.8-17 and 3.8-18 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to contribute runoff water in excess of existing stormwater drainage system capacity or result in additional sources of polluted runoff (Impact #3.8- 4). As stated in the GP PEIR, new development applications would be evaluated for consistency with City Design Standards. General Plan policies (Policies P-1.1, P-5.1, P-5.2 of the Public Services and Facilities Element) would ensure that the City has adequate public infrastructure and services to meet the needs of future development. In addition, all new development would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations for stormwater management and pollution prevention (i.e., preparation of a SWPPP for projects that disturb more than 1 acre).

Annexation of UC Merced would not result in additional impervious surfaces or changes to drainage patterns. The GP PEIR evaluates the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP.

Therefore, impacts from changes in drainage patterns associated with development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above.

The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. The 2020 LRDP SEIR evaluates the potential for development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2020 LRDP to result in effects from changes in drainage patterns. Although new development would generate storm water runoff, UC Merced would manage storm water flows through implementation of low impact development strategies and provision of storm water detention and retention facilities. In addition, new development would comply with UC Sustainable Practices Policy and the UC Merced Water Action Plan, which include actions for reduced storm water Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-52 UC Merced Annexation Project
runoff and improving water quality on the UC Merced campus. Furthermore, the campus development proposed under the 2020 LRDP would be more compact than what was anticipated under the 2009 LRDP, which would result in reduced surface runoff (UC Merced 2019).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts from changes in drainage patterns beyond those identified for the 2009 LRDP, as evaluated in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding impacts from changes in drainage patterns valid and no new mitigation is required.

This impact would remain less than significant.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Pages 3.8-18 and 3.8-19 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to impede or redirect flood flows (Impact #3.8-5). As stated in the GP PEIR, portions of the planning area are within the 100- and 500-year floodplains. General Plan Policies S-3.1 and S-3.2 of the Safety Element direct the City to limit development in hazardous areas and minimize flooding hazards. Where applicable, new development would be required to adhere to the City’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, Municipal Code, General Plan policies, Merced Irrigation District rules and regulations, and the Merced Storm Water Master Plan. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flow would be less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not result in new impediments to flood flows. The UC Merced campus is not within a 100-year flood hazard area (UC Merced 2018a). No physical changes would result from annexation that would affect flood flows.

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding flood flows remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The GP PEIR did not specifically evaluate the potential for implementation of the General Plan, including development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP, to risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

However, as noted in Section 3.12.2(c)(iv) above, the campus is not within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Furthermore, the planning area is not within the inundation area of a dam and is not at risk of seiche or tsunami inundation (UC Merced 2018a). Therefore, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new significant impacts from the release of pollutants due to project inundation and no mitigation is required. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The GP PEIR did not specifically evaluate the potential for implementation of the General Plan, including development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP, to conflict with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. However, as noted in Sections 3.12.2(a) and (b) above, Annexation of UC Merced would not result in more severe or new impacts on water quality and groundwater supplies beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. The 2020 LRDP, as evaluated in the certified 2020 LRDP SEIR, proposes a land use pattern that would decrease impervious area and increase the potential for groundwater recharge compared to the 2009 LRDP. Annexation would not result in any additional development. No new mitigation is required.

3.12.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for hydrology and water quality were proposed in the GP PEIR and no new mitigation measures are required.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-53

3.12.4 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potentially sign ificant impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not require additional environmental review.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-54 UC Merced Annexation Project

3.13 LAND USE AND PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially More
Severe Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an
established community?
Impact #3.9-1: Physically
divide an established
community, pp. 3.9-17 to 3.9-
20 No No N/A
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an
environmental effect?
Impact #3.9-2: Conflict with
any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation, pp. 3.9-
20 and 3.9-21
No No N/A
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

3.13.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR describes the conditions in the City and SUDP/SOI and applicable State and local land use and planning regulations. No substantial change in the environmental setting related to land use and planning, described in the GP PEIR Section 3.9, “Land Use and Planning,” has occurred since certification of the GP PEIR. Existing and planned land uses in the SUDP/SOI surrounding the UC Merced campus are consistent with the conditions described in the GP PEIR. No substantial changes in pertinent regulations have occurred.

3.13.2 Discussion
a) Physically divide an established community?
Pages 3.9-17 to 3.9-20 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to divide established communities (Impact #3.9-1). As described in the GP PEIR, development within the planning area would generally follow existing development patterns. General Plan policies would ensure that new development patterns maintain a compact urban form, urban expansion boundaries are controlled, connectivity is maintained between existing and planned urban areas, and new development has reasonable access to public services and facilities (Policies UE-1.1 and UE-1.2 of the Urban Expansion Element and Policies LU-1.9 and LU-3.2 of the Land Use Element). Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts related to the division of established communities would be less than significant, and no significant cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not divide an established community. The area proposed for annexation consists of the existing university (including the undeveloped planning area) and the 2 -mile portion of Bellevue Road between G Street and Lake Road. The project would not result in physical changes to the areas proposed for annexation.

Incorporating Bellevue Road into the City would, therefore, not physically divide the existing rural residential community in the unincorporated area north and south of Bellevue Road.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-55
Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts related to dividing established communities. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding the division of established communities remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 provides the sole and exclusive authority and procedure for the initiation, conduct, and completion of changes of organization and reorganization for cities and districts. The act grants a local agency formation commission the power to review and approve a change of organization of a local agency, which includes an annexation into a city. The act generally requires that a territory to be annexed be contiguous to the city at the time the proposal is initiated. The act also requires each commission to develop and determine the sphere of influence of each city and special district within the county. The act defines sphere of influence, for purposes of these provisions, as a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of the local agency, as determined by the commission.

Pages 3.9-20 and 3.9-21 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations (Impact #3.9-2). As described in the GP PEIR, the General Plan is the primary planning document for the City. General Plan policies would ensure that the City’s other documents and plans are updated as necessary for consistency with the General Plan and that expansion and annexations are consistent with Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission policies and procedures (Policy-1.2 of the Public Services and Facilities Element, Policies UE-1.2, UE-1.3, and UE-1.5 of the Urban Expansion Element, Policy P-1.3 of the Public Services and Facilities Element, Policy T-3.2 of the Transportation Element, Policy L-3.2 of the Land Use Element). Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts related to conflicts with land use plans, policies, and regulations would be less than significant, and no significant cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not create new conflicts with exiting land use plans, policies, and regulations. The annexation was conceptually evaluated in the GP PEIR and is consistent with the General Plan. As a result, the City’s planning documents anticipate future development of the campus (UC Merced 2018a). Further, the annexation would be conducted in a manner consistent with Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission policies and procedures, as well as AB 3312.

AB 3312, signed into law in 2020, authorizes the annexation of territory comprising the main campus of UC Merced, as specified, and the road strip, as defined, to the City of Merced, notwithstanding the requirement that the territory be contiguous with the city, if other conditions are met, including that the territory is within the city’s sphere of influence. The bill prohibits the Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission from approving a subsequent annexation to the road strip pursuant to these provisions unless the territory proposed to be annexed is contigu ous to the property comprising the main campus of UC Merced or the boundaries of the City of Merced.

The proposed annexation would be consistent with the City’s policies related to urban expansion, including the following:
 UE-1.1 Designate areas for new urban development that recognize the physical characteristics and environmental constraints of the planning area.
 UE-1.2 Foster compact and efficient development patterns to maintain a compact urban form.  UE-1.3 Control the annexation, timing, density, and location of new land uses within the City’s urban expansion boundaries.
 UE-1.4 Continue joint planning efforts on the UC Merced and University Community plans.  UE-1.5 Promote annexation of developed areas within the City’s Specific Urban Development Plan (SUDP)/Sphere of Influence (SOI) during the planning period.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-56 UC Merced Annexation Project
Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts related to conflicts with land use plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding conflicts with land use plans, policies, and regulations remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.

3.13.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for land use and planning were proposed in the GP PEIR and no new mitigation measures are required.

3.13.4 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potentially significant impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not require additional environmental review.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-57

3.14 MINERAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially More
Severe Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that
would be of value to the
region and the residents of
the state?
Impact #3.10-1: The proposed
project could adversely affect
the availability of a known
mineral resource of value to
the region and/or residents of
the state, pp. 3.10-2 and 3.10-3
No No N/A
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on
a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land
use plan?
Impact #3.10-2: The proposed
project could adversely affect
the availability of a locally-
important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a
local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan,
pp. 3.10-3
No No N/A
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

3.14.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR explains that there are no commercial deposits of aggregate, oil, or gas in the City and SUDP/SOI .

Applicable State and local regulations are also described. No substantial change in the environmental setting related to mineral resources, described in the GP PEIR Section 3.10, “Mineral Resources,” has occurred since certification of the GP PEIR. Conditions in the SUDP/SOI surrounding the UC Merced campus are consistent with the conditions described in the GP PEIR. No changes in pertinent regulations have occurred.

3.14.2 Discussion
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
This topic is addressed in Section 3.14.2(b) below.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Pages 3.10-2 and 3.10-3 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to result in the loss of availability of mineral resources (Impact #3.9-1 and Impact #3.9-2). As described in the GP PEIR, there are no known economic deposits of precious or base metals within the planning area and no economic deposits of aggregate minerals that are mined within the planning area. In addition, there are no Mineral Resource Zones or mineral resource recovery sites within the planning area. Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that there would be no impact o n mineral resources, and no significant cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-58 UC Merced Annexation Project
Annexation of UC Merced would not result in the loss of mineral resources. The UC Merced campus is not designated as a Mineral Resource Zone and there are no known or potential mineral resources on the campus (UC Merced 2018a).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts on mineral resources. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding mineral resources remain valid and no new mitigation is required. There would continue to be no impact.

3.14.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for mineral resources were proposed in the GP PEIR and no new mitigation measures are required.

3.14.4 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potentially significant impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not require additional environmental review.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-59

3.15 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially More
Severe Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve Impacts,
Including Impacts That
Would Otherwise be New or
Substantially More Severe?
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or in other
applicable local, state, or
federal standards?
Impact #3.11-1: Buildout of the
General Plan may contribute to
increased traffic noise levels,
and an exceedance of the City’s
noise standards and resulting in
potential noise impacts to new
sensitive receptors, pp. 3.11-21
to 3.11-29
Impact #3.11-2: Buildout of the
General Plan may contribute to
increased traffic noise levels,
and a significant increase in
overall traffic noise levels at
existing sensitive receptors, p.

3.11-29
Impact #3.11-3: Buildout of the
General Plan will result in
construction activities which will
contribute to the overall
ambient noise environment, pp.

3.11-29 and 3.11-30
Impact #3.11-5: Proposed
General Plan Buildout could
expose new noise-sensitive
receptors to railroad noise
levels, pp. 3.11-32
Impact #3.11-6: The Proposed
General Plan Buildout may
include stationary noise sources
such as automotive and truck
repair facilities, tire installation
centers, car washes, loading
docks, corporation yards, parks,
and play fields may create noise
levels in excess of the City
standards, p. 3.11-33
No No N/A
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Impact #3.11-4: Proposed
General Plan Buildout will result
in construction activities which
could contribute to vibration
levels at building facades, pp.

3.11-31 to 3.11-32
No No Yes
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-60 UC Merced Annexation Project
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially More
Severe Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve Impacts,
Including Impacts That
Would Otherwise be New or
Substantially More Severe?
c) For a project located within
the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would
the project expose people
residing or working in the
project area to excessive
noise levels?
Impact #3.11-7: Proposed
General Plan Buildout could
expose new noise sensitive
receptors to aircraft operations
noise levels, p. 3.11-33
No No N/A
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

3.15.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR describes acoustic terminology; existing roadway, railroad, and airport noise levels; fixed noise sources; and community noise levels. Applicable federal, State, and local regulations are also explained. No substantial change in the environmental setting related to noise, described in the GP PEIR Section 3.11, “Noise,” has occurred since certification of the GP PEIR. Noise-generating uses and sensitive receptors in the SUDP/SOI surrounding the UC Merced campus are generally consistent with the conditions described in the GP PEIR. No changes in pertinent regulations have occurred.

3.15.2 Discussion
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards? Pages 3.11-21 to 3.11-29 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to generate noise levels in excess of applicable standards from mobile sources (Impact #3.11-1, #3.11-2, and #3.11-5), construction activities (Impact #3.11-3), and stationary sources (Impact #3.11-6). The GP PEIR identified several noise receptors that would experience a significant increase in traffic noise levels (i.e., increase of four decibels). The use of construction equipment and vehicles could also result in temporary noise impacts. In addition, new development could result in noise sources (e.g., railroad tracks, commercial and industrial facilities, and recreational land uses) located near noise - sensitive land uses. The General Plan Noise Element includes several implementing actions and criteria used to address noise impacts, which include discouraging traffic in residential areas, restricting hours of construction activities and using noise controls on construction equipment, defining noise level standar ds for new projects, and requiring mitigation for projects that generate noise levels in excess of applicable standards, where applicable. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to the generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards would be less than significant, and no cumulative impacts were identified with respect to the effect of road traffic and railroad noise on new sensitive receptors (Impacts #3.11-1 and #3.11-5), construction activities (Impact #3.11-3), and stationary sources (Impact #3.11-6). However, impacts on existing sensitive receptors from increased traffic noise levels were determined to be significant and unavoidable (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not create new noise sources. Traffic volumes used to project increased traffic noise levels in the GP PEIR included assumptions for traffic generated by UC Merced, as envisioned in the 2009 LRDP EIR.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-61
The 2020 LRDP SEIR, which evaluates the potential effects of UC Merced based on the most current LRDP, concl udes that noise levels from campus development would not exceed applicable standards based on the distance from the campus to the nearest off-site noise-sensitive receptors. Furthermore, noise-generating equipment used on campus would be fitted with noise attenuation barriers, such that noise levels would not exceed applicable standards for on - campus noise-sensitive receptors (UC Merced 2019). Traffic generated by campus development would not result in a significant noise impact on receptors along the routes used by campus population, including residences along Lake and Bellevue Roads. Ambient traffic noise from Bellevue Road would increase from approximately 59 dBA Ldn to about 63 dBA Ldn in 2030. Noise levels at residences at a distance of up to 80 feet from this roadway would experience a slightly higher noise level increase. Along Lake Road, noise levels would increase from about 61 dBA Ldn to about 63 dBA Ldn in 2030. The resulting noise levels in 2030 along both roadways would not result in a significan t impact (UC Merced 2019: 4.5-10).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts related to noise increases in excess of applicable standards that were identified for the 2009 LRDP, as evaluated in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding noise increases in excess of applicable standards remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Pages 3.11-31 to 3.11-32 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to require construction activities that cause vibration (Impact #3.11-4). As stated in the GP PEIR, certain construction activities may produce noise and vibration levels that could be excessive or result in damage to structures. Mitigation Measure #3.11 -4 would require additional site-specific analysis of vibration impacts for any construction activities requiring the use of pile drivers or large vibratory compactors. With implementation of Mitigation Measure #3.11-4, the GP PEIR concludes that impacts related to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration and noise would be less than significant, and no significant cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

The 2020 LRDP SEIR evaluates impacts from groundborne vibration generated during pile driving activities.

Construction activities associated with implementation of the 2020 LRDP could require pile driving with potential to cause structural damage, human annoyance, and disruptions to laboratory experiments. UC Merced has committed to limiting impact pile driving in vibration-sensitive areas, notifying occupants of vibration-generating activities near sensitive facilities, and implementing other project-specific measures to minimize construction vibration damage (LRDP MM NOI-4a and MM-NOI-4b) to reduce impacts to less than significant levels (UC Merced 2019).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts from the generation of excessive groundborne vibration and noise. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding the generation of excessive groundborne vibration and noise remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

receptors to noise levels associated with aircraft operations (Impact #3.11-7). As stated in the GP PEIR, development in the planning area could be located in proximity to Merced Regional Airport, Castle Airport, and other privately owned airfields. However, new development would be reviewed for consistency with the Merced County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and measures from the General Plan Noise Element would be implemented to mitigate aircraft operation noise, where applicable. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts from excessive airport noise levels would be less than significant, and no cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-62 UC Merced Annexation Project
Annexation of UC Merced would not expose more people to excessive airport noise levels. There are no airports within the vicinity of the LRDP planning area with potential to result in excessive noise levels at the campus. T he nearest airport is the Merced Regional Airport, which is located 7 miles from the LRDP planning area (UC Merced 2018a).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts from excessive airport noise levels. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding excessive airport noise levels remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.

3.15.3 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure was adopted upon approval of the General Plan to mitigate impacts associated with construction vibration.

Mitigation Measure #3.1-4: Table 3.11-13 provides criteria for evaluating construction vibration impacts. If construction activities include the use of pile drivers or large vibratory compactors, an analysis of potential vibration impacts should be conducted. The vibration impacts should not exceed a peak particle velocity of

0.1 inches/second.

Table 3.11-13 Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings Peak Particle
Velocity
inches/second
Peak Particle
Velocity
mm/second
Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0-0.006 0.15 Imperceptible by people Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type

0.006-0.02 0.5 Range of Threshold of perception Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type

0.08 2.0 Vibrations clearly perceptible Recommended upper level of which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected

0.1 2.54 Level at which continuous vibrations
begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of architectural damage to n ormal
buildings

0.2 5.0 Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk of architectural
damage to normal dwellings

1.0 25.4 -- Architectural Damage

2.0 50.4 -- Structural Damage to Residential Buildings

6.0 151.0 -- Structural Damage to Commercial Buildings
Source: Survey of Earth-borne Vibrations due to Highway Construction and Highway Traffic, Caltrans 1976.

As described above, UC Merced has committed to project-specific measures to minimize construction vibration damage. LRDP MM NOI-4a limits groundborne vibration due to construction activities to 0.50 inch/second, peak particle velocity, for impact pile driving activities occurring within 50 feet of typical structures. This is less than the 1 inch/second threshold in the City’s mitigation measure and is, therefore, more stringent. See Appendix A for the full text of the mitigation measures adopted for the 2020 LRDP. No new mitigation measures are required.

3.15.4 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potentially significant impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not require additional environmental review.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-63

3.16 POPULATION AND HOUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could
Annexation
Result in a New
or Substantially
More Severe
Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension
of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Impact #3.12-8: Induce
substantial population growth
in an area, either directly or
indirectly, pp. 3.12-8 to 3.12-10
No No N/A
b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
Impact #3.12-2: Displace a
substantial number of people
or existing housing,
necessitating the construction
of replacement housing
elsewhere, pp. 3.12-10
No No N/A
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

3.16.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR describes population trends, household size, age characteristics, and employment for the City and Merced County. No substantial change in the environmental setting related to population and housing , described in the GP PEIR Section 3.12, “Population and Housing,” has occurred since certification of the GP PEIR. As discussed in the GP PEIR, the Merced County Association of Governments projected that the City of Merced would have a population of 97,700 residents and the County of Merced would have a population of 340,800 residents in 2020 (City of Merced 2010). Based on the most recent U.S. census data, the 2020 population was 86,333 residents in t he City of Merced and 281,202 residents in the County of Merced (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). Based on this data, actual population growth within the City and County of Merced was less than previously anticipated in the GP PEIR. No changes in pertinent regulations have occurred.

3.16.2 Discussion
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Pages 3.12-8 to 3.12-10 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to induce substantial unplanned population growth (Impact #3.12-1). The General Plan includes policies and standards to regulate future growth that would be allowed under the plan, with higher intensity development focused in existing urban areas. In addition, the General Plan includes policies to ensure that adequate housing, jobs, and public facilities and services are available to support planned population growth. Applicable policies include Policies UD -1.1 through UD-1.5 of the Urban Design Element, Policies UE-1.2 and UE-1.3 of the Urban Expansion Element, Policies LU-1.1 to LU-1.3, LU-1.9, LU-2.1, LU-2.6, LU-2.7, LU-2.9, LU-2.10, and LU-3.1 to LU-3.3 of the Land Use Element, and Policies H-1.1 to H-1.3, H- Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-64 UC Merced Annexation Project

1.5 to H-1.8, H-2.1 to H-2.4 of the Housing Element. The GP PEIR concluded that impacts related to inducing substantial unplanned population growth would be less than significant, and no significant cumulative impacts wer e identified (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not induce additional unplanned population growth. The GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP , and development of the adjacent SUDP/SOI within the planning horizon. Therefore, population growth from development of UC Merced was included in the GP PEIR impacts described above.

Roads and other infrastructure required to serve the UC Merced campus are in place or currently planned through established pre-annexation agreements. The infrastructure is sized to accommodate the campus and planned development of the SUDP/SOI and would not indirectly induce unplanned growth in the unincorporated county.

Under the 2020 LRDP, as evaluated in the certified 2020 LRDP SEIR, UC Merced is now projected to grow at a slower pace than anticipated in the 2009 LRDP EIR. It is estimated that enough housing units would be available in the City and surrounding area to accommodate the anticipated growth at the UC Merced campus (UC Merced 2019).

Furthermore, because the General Plan and associated documents identify annexation of UC Merced as a policy objective, the population growth that would result from annexation would not be unplanned.

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts related to inducing substantial unplanned population growth. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding inducing substantial unplanned population growth remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

housing (Impact #3.12-2). As described in the GP PEIR, most new development permitted by the General Plan would occur on infill locations, undeveloped parcels, or parcels that can be subdivided, rather than redevelopment of existing developed land and buildings. Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts related to displacing people or existing housing would be less than significant, and no significant cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

The UC Merced campus consists of the existing, developed university and undeveloped grazing land (UC Merced 2018a). Annexation of the UC Merced campus would not displace people or housing. In addition, as a result of AB 3312, annexation of the existing residential land between the city limit and the UC Merced campus would not be required. As a result, indirect effects on existing residents are not anticipated. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding inducing substantial unplanned population growth remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.

3.16.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for population and housing were proposed in the GP PEIR and no new mitigation measures are required.

3.16.4 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potentially sign ificant impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not require additional environmental review.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-65

3.17 PUBLIC SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could
Annexation
Result in a New
or Substantially
More Severe
Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, or
the need for new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other
performance objectives for
any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Impact #3.14-2: Result in
substantial adverse physical
impact to the continued
provision of fire protection
services in the City, pp. 3.14-13
and 3.14-14
No No N/A
Police protection?
Impact #3.14-1: Result in a
substantial adverse physical
impact to the continued
provision of law enforcement
services in the City, pp. 3.14-12
and 3.14-13
No No Yes
Schools?
Impact # 3.14-3: Result in a
substantial adverse physical
impact to the continued
provision of school services in
the City
No No N/A
Parks?
Refer to Impacts #3.13-1 and
#3.13-2 in Section 3.18,
“Recreation,” below.

No No N/A
Other public facilities?
Impact #3.14-4: Result in a
substantial increase in the
demand for other public
services and facilities, pp. 3.14-
16 and 3.14-17
No No N/A
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-66 UC Merced Annexation Project

3.17.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR describes existing conditions related to police, fire protection, schools, libraries, health services, and government facilities. Applicable local regulations are also explained. No substantial change in the environmental setting related to public services, described in the GP PEIR Section 3.14, “Public Services,” has occurred since certification of the GP PEIR. Public services in the SUDP/SOI surrounding the UC Merced campus are consistent with the conditions described in the GP PEIR. Existing and proposed land uses remain consistent with the conditions described. No changes in pertinent regulations have occurred.

3.17.2 Discussion
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Pages 3.14-13 and 3.14-14 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to result in adverse physical impacts from the provision of fire protection services in the City (Impact #3.14- 2). As described in the GP PEIR, the City would need to relocate two existing fire stations and add five new facilities with personnel and equipment to meet the needs of anticipated population growth associated with General Plan buildout . General Plan policies would ensure that adequate fire protection services, facilities, and infrastructure support are provided for the community, and that fire department response objectives continue to be met (Policy P -2.1 of the Public Services and Facilities Element and S-4.1 and S-4.2 of the Safety Element). Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts related to the construction of new fire protection facilities would be less than significant, and no significant cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not result in additional environmental impacts from new fire protection facilities. The GP PEIR considered long-term development and annexation of the SDUP/SOI, including the UC Merced campus.

Therefore, impacts related to the construction of new fire protection facilities from development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above. Public service providers, including the City of Merced Fire Department, plan to serve the area within the SDUP/SOI upon annexation. Upon annexation, UC Merced’s existing memorandum of understanding with Merced County for fire protection services would be transferred to the City.

The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. The 2020 LRDP SEIR evaluates impacts related to fire protection services and concludes that the revised LRDP would not result in a more severe or new impact on fire protection services beyond that identified for the 2009 LRDP. The 2020 LRDP SEIR identified various options for the provision of fire service to the expanded campus, which include: (1) continuing to contract with the Merced County Fire Department, (2) contracting with the Merced City Fire Department, or (3) constructing an on-site UC Merced Fire Department. The 2020 LRDP SEIR concluded that response times would not be adversely affected and determined that the environmental impacts associated with construction of new fire stations or facilities would be mitigated through compliance with the City’s GP PEIR (UC Merced 2019).

As described above, the City evaluated potential fire station sites in the GP PEIR based on the General Plan. Two of the fire station sites evaluated were in proximity to the UC Merced campus. Based on current planning, no additional fire stations would be required to serve the annexation area beyond those evaluated in the GP PEIR. Further, because fire stations are within the scope of the development disclosed in the GP PEIR, the locations of the stations may differ from those assumed in the GP PEIR. As acknowledged in the GP PEIR, “The actual location of new and expanded facilities will depend on the pattern of growth…which is not known at this time. However, fire and emergency response would be allowed in most proposed General Plan land use designations” (City of Merced 2010). Further, Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-67
given that the student population projections are less than assumed in the GP PEIR, there would not be an increase in demand for fire protection beyond previous projections.

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts from the construction of new fire protection facilities that were identified for the 2009 LRDP, as evaluated in the GP PEIR.

Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding the construction of new fire protection facilities remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.

Police protection?
Pages 3.14-12 and 3.14-13 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to result in adverse physical impacts from the provision of police protection services in the City (Impact #3.14- 1). As described in the GP PEIR, the City would need approximately 91 police officers and additional support staff and facility space to meet the needs of anticipated population growth associated with General Plan buildout. General Plan policies would ensure that adequate police protection services and facilities are provided for the community (Policy P -1.3 and P-2.1 of the Public Services and Facilities Element and S-6.1 and S-6.2 of the Safety Element). Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts related to police protection services would be less than significant, and no significant cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

The UC Merced Police Department serves the UC Merced community and associated university property 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. UC Merced would continue to be served by the existing police department upon annexation.

Furthermore, the mitigation adopted for the 2009 LRDP (LRDP MM PUB-1) commits the university to maintain a ratio of 0.7 officers for every 1,000 members of the campus population (UC Merced 2009). Therefore, City services would not be required. Annexation would not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts related to police protection services. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding police protection services remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.

Schools?

impacts from the provision of school services in the City (Impact #3.14-3). As described in the GP PEIR, the anticipated population growth associated with General Plan buildout would result in increased student generation and the need for additional elementary, junior high, and high school facilities in the city. General Plan policies would ensure that adequate educational facilities are provided to meet the needs of current and future students (Policy P -7.1 and P-7.2 of the Public Services and Facilities Element). Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that there would be no impact related to school services, and no significant cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not result in additional environmental impacts from new school facilities. The GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP.

Therefore, impacts related to school services from development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above.

The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. The 2020 LRDP SEIR evaluates impacts related to the provision of school services and concluded that the revised LRDP would not result in a more severe or new impact on school services beyond that identified for the 2009 LRDP. Because UC Merced is projected to grow at a slower pace than previously anticipated, development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2020 LRDP would not increase the elementary through high school student population and demand for the City’s school facilities when compared to the 2009 LRDP (UC Merced 2019).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts related to school services. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding school services remain valid and no new mitigation is required. There would continue to be no impact.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-68 UC Merced Annexation Project
Parks?
Refer to Impacts #3.13-1 and #3.13-2 in Section 3.18, “Recreation,” below. Based on the discussion in Section 3.18, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts related to parks. The findings of the GP PEIR regarding parks remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.

Other public facilities?
Pages 3.14-16 and 3.14-17 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to increase the demand for other public services and facilities in the city (Impact #3.14-4). As described in the GP PEIR, the anticipated population growth associated with General Plan buildout would result in increased demands for libraries, government facilities, and health service facilities in the county and city. General Plan policies would ensure that adequate library and health services and facilities are provided to meet the needs of the community (Policy P -8.1 to P-8.3 of the Public Services and Facilities Element). Therefore, the GP PEIR concluded that impacts on other public facilities would be less than significant, and no significant cumulative impacts were identified (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not result in additional environmental impacts from other new public facilities. The GP PEIR evaluated the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP.

Therefore, impacts related to public facilities from development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above.

The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. As described above, UC Merced is projected to grow at a slower pace than previously anticipated. As a result, development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2020 LRDP would not increase the demand for the library facilities when compared to the 2009 LRDP. Furthermore, UC Merced’s library system would continue to provide library services to the campus community (UC Merced 2019).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts related to other public facilities. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding other public facilities remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.

3.17.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for public services were proposed in the GP PEIR. The mitigation adopted for the 2009 LRDP (LRDP MM PUB-1) commits the university to maintain a ratio of 0.7 police officers for every 1,000 members of the campus population. See Appendix B for the full text of the mitigation measures adopted for the 2009 LRDP. No new mitigation measures are required.

3.17.4 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potentially significant impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not require additional environmental review.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-69

3.18 RECREATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially More
Severe Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be
accelerated?
Impact #3.13-1: Increase the
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities, pp. 3.13-7 and 3.13-8
No No Yes
b) Include recreational
facilities or require the
construction or expansion
of recreational facilities that
might have an adverse
physical effect on the
environment?
Impact #3.13-2: Does the
project include recreational
facilities or require the
construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which
might have an adverse
physical effect on the
environment, pp. 3.13-8 and

3.13-9
No No N/A
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

3.18.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR provides an inventory of park land in the city and describes existing recreational resources . Applicable State and local regulations are also explained. No substantial change in the environmental setting related to recreation, described in the GP PEIR Section 3.13, “Recreation,” has occurred since certification of the GP PEIR. The SUDP/SOI surrounding the UC Merced campus has not been developed and the demand for park facilities has not changed. No changes in pertinent regulations have occurred.

3.18.2 Discussion
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Pages 3.13-7 and 3.13-8 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities (Impact #3.13-1). As stated in the GP PEIR, new development and population growth in the planning area would increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities. General Plan Policies OS-3.1 through OS-3.4 and OS-4.1 of the Open Space Element would ensure that the City continues to meet the recreation and open space needs of the growing population by providing 5 acres of parkland for every new 1,000 residents. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable (City of Merced 2010).

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-70 UC Merced Annexation Project
Annexation of UC Merced would not increase the deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities. The GP PEIR evaluates the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP.

Therefore, impacts related to the increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities associated with development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above.

The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. Because UC Merced is projected to grow at a slower pace than previously anticipated, development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2020 LRDP would place reduced demands on the Lake Yosemite Regional Park than the 2009 LRDP (UC Merced 2018a). Furthermore, the mitigation adopted for the 2009 LRDP (MM PUB-6) would apply to development of the 2020 LRDP. This mitigation commits UC Merced to (1) provide recreational opportunities for the community, (2) improve or fund improvements for existing facilities at Lake Yosemite Regional Park as necessitated by increased use associated with development of the campus, and (3) protect sensitive biological resources during improvement projects Lake Yosemite Regional Park (UC Merced 2009).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts to existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding the increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Pages 3.13-8 and 3.13-9 of the GP PEIR discuss the potential for General Plan implementation to include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment (Impact #3.13-2). Population growth in the planning area would require the construction of new parks and recreational facilities to meet the standards of the City’s General Plan and Park and Open Space Master Plan. General Plan Policy OS-3.1 of the Open Space Element would ensure that the City provides 5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 new residents. The City’s Park Dedication Ordinance would further ensure the acquisition of park land and open space. In addition, development impact fees would finance new parks and recreational facilities. These policies would ensure that future development in the planning area would not increase the need for recreational facilities beyond those anticipated in the General Plan. The GP PEIR concludes that impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant and would be less than cumulatively considerable (City of Merced 2010).

Annexation of UC Merced would not result in additional environmental impacts from new recreational facilities. The GP PEIR evaluates the development and annexation of the UC Merced campus, as proposed in the 2009 LRDP.

Therefore, impacts on the environment from new or expanded recreational facilities associated with development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2009 LRDP are consistent with the impacts from implementation of the GP PEIR, described above.

The 2020 LRDP is the current planning document for development of the UC Merced campus. Because UC Merced is projected to grow at a slower pace than previously anticipated, development of the UC Merced campus in accordance with the 2020 LRDP would not increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities when compared to the 2009 LRDP. Furthermore, the 2020 LRDP would not result in a demand for off -site recreational facilities because recreational facilities and open space provided on campus would serve the residential campus population.

Therefore, impacts from the 2020 LRDP were determined to be less than significant (UC Merced 2019).

Based on the above discussion, annexation of the UC Merced campus would not result in any new impacts.

Therefore, the findings of the GP PEIR regarding impacts on the environment from new or expanded recreational facilities remain valid and no new mitigation is required. This impact would remain less than significant.

Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-71

3.18.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for recreation were proposed in the GP PEIR. The mitigation adopted for the 2009 LRDP (MM PUB-6) commits UC Merced to (1) provide recreational opportunities for the community, (2) improve or fund improvements for existing facilities at Lake Yosemite Regional Park as necessitated by increased use assoc iated with development of the campus, and (3) protect sensitive biological resources during improvement projects Lake Yosemite Regional Park. See Appendix B for the full text of the mitigation measures adopted for the 2009 LRDP. No new mitigation measures are required.

3.18.4 Conclusion
There are no significant impacts that are peculiar to the project. No new impacts have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not have any potentially significant impacts or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the GP PEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not require additional environmental review.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Merced
3-72 UC Merced Annexation Project

3.19 TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Impact Examined in GP PEIR?
Could Annexation
Result in a New or
Substantially
More Severe
Impact?*
Are there Changes in
Circumstance or New
Information Available
that Could Result in a
Substantially More
Severe Impact?
Do Mitigation Measures
and/or Design Features
Address/Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
Conflict with Adopted Policies
Supporting Alternative
Transportation, p. 3.15-31
No No N/A
b) Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Not Analyzed No No N/A
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
Substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment),
pp. 3.15-30 to 3.15-31
No No N/A
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
Result in Inadequate
Emergency Access, p. 3.15-31 No No N/A
*Determination does not factor implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

3.19.1 Environmental Setting
The GP PEIR, certified in 2012, used automobile delay or level of service (LOS) as the primary metric to evaluate the project’s CEQA transportation impacts, consistent with industry standards and the City General Plan goals and policies at the time.

On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law and started a process to change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA. SB 743 directed the California Office of Planning and Research to revise the CEQA Guidelines to modify the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts to promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, adopted in December 2018, provides that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the “most appropriate measure of transportation impacts” and mandates analysis of VMT impacts effective July 1, 2020. Additionally, as detailed under Public Resources Code Section 21009(b)(2), LOS, or other measures of automobile delay, are no longer considered significant environmental impacts under CEQA. Because it was adopted prior to July 1, 2020, the adopted GP PEIR did not address conflicts with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3.

The GP PEIR was certified in 2012, several years before the amendment to the CEQA Guidelines adding VMT as the measure of transportation impacts. As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15007, “amendments to the guidelines apply prospectively only,” and CEQA documents must meet the “content requirements in effect when the document was set out for public review,” and “shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved.” As directed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15007, the GP PEIR does not need to be revised to conform to the new VMT requirements. The change in law Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist
City of Merced
UC Merced Annexation Project 3-73
(replacement of the LOS standard with VMT) does not constitute new significant information under CEQA (PRC 21166 or CEQA Guidelines 15162) as it does not constitute a new impact caused by the changes proposed in the project.

In addition, PRC 21155 and CEQA Guidelines 15162 specify that a subsequent or supplemental EIR may be required if new information becomes available, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified. Information regarding adverse effects of VMT on the environment was known at the time the GP PEIR was prepared. The GHG section of GP PEIR identifies vehicles as a source of CO2 emissions; thus, the concept of VMT could have been evaluated in the transportation discussion as well. Under the proposed modifications, the UC Merced campus would be annexed into the City of Merced. The GP PEIR included the UC Merced campus within the SUDP/SOI and accounted for annexation of UC Merced within the impact analysis. Therefore, if VMT were analyzed within the GP PEIR it would have included the VMT associated with the UC Merced campus.

LOS may be reviewed by the City as part of development review. However, because LOS is no longer considered an appropriate metric for analyzing transportation impacts on the environment, analysis and mitigation measures related to LOS are not included in this discussion.

3.19.2 Discussion
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?