NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE MERCED COUNTY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY / TRANSIT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY FOR MERCED COUNTY / MCAG GOVERNING BOARD
City of Merced Council Chambers 678 W. 18th Street Merced, CA 95340 (209) 723-3153
Notice Regarding Translation Services: Translation services are not provided at MCAG’s public meetings unless requested at least three (3) business days in advance. Please contact Eva Garibay at (209)723-3153 during regular business hours to request translation services.
Aviso Con Respecto a Los Servicios de Intérprete Servicios de intérprete no son ofrecidos en las juntas publicas de MCAG al menos de que se soliciten tres (3) días hábiles en anticipación. Para solicitar servicios de intérprete por favor contacte a Robin Lamas al (209)723-3153 durante horas de oficina.
THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2016 – 3:00 P.M.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA DURING CONSIDERATION OF THAT ITEM.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS AGENDA ITEMS OR COMMENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA MAY DO SO AT THIS TIME. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER PERSON. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OR COMMUNITY OF RESIDENCE FOR THE RECORD. FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA, NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS TIME. IF IT REQUIRES ACTION, IT WILL BE REFERRED TO STAFF AND/OR PLACED ON THE NEXT AGENDA.
COPIES OF STAFF REPORTS OR OTHER WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION RELATING TO ITEMS OF BUSINESS REFERRED TO ON THE AGENDA ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS. PERSONS WITH QUESTIONS CONCERNING AGENDA ITEMS MAY CALL MCAG TO MAKE INQUIRY REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE ITEM DESCRIBED ON THE AGENDA.
ITEM STAFF
MERCED COUNTY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
* 4. Minutes of the April 21, 2016 Regional Waste Management Authority Board meeting
# 5. Oral Report – Monthly Update Brooks Stayer
For information only.
* # 6. Public Hearing – Highway 59 Landfill – Valley Fill Project Brooks Stayer
Conduct a public hearing on the Highway 59 Landfill – Valley Fill Project. After receiving comments, adopt Resolution No. 2016/05-19-03 and Resolution No. 2016/05-19-04.
# 7. Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Nadia Gonzalez Financial Reports
For information only.
TRANSIT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY FOR MERCED COUNTY
* 8. Minutes of the April 21, 2016 Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County meeting
9. Oral Report – Monthly Update Rich Green
# 10. Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County Rich Green Financial Report for July 2015-March 2016
For information only.
MCAG GOVERNING BOARD
11. Caltrans Report Ken Baxter
* 12. Consent Agenda
a. Minutes of the April 21, 2016 MCAG Governing Board meeting # b. Unmet Transit Needs Finding of Fact for Fiscal Year 2016/2017 # c. Draft Formal Amendment No. 14 to the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program – Scope and Funding Change for Merced Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Bike Path Project
13. Information/Discussion Only
a. Minutes of the May 11, 2016 Technical Review Board meeting # b. Active Transportation Program – Cycle 3 # c. Commute Connection Progress Report - 2016 # d. Bike to Work Month – May 2016 # e. MCAG Financial Report for July 2015-March 2016 # f. MCAG Check Register
* # + 14. Regional Transportation Plan Amendment 1 Matt Fell
Adopt the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan Amendment 1 and the corresponding Air Quality Conformity Analysis.
* # 15. Local Transportation Fund Apportionment for Fiscal Year Matt Fell 2016/2017
Adopt Resolution 2016/05-19-05 approving the Local Transportation Fund apportionment schedule for Fiscal Year 2016/17 and authorize staff to forward claim forms to the local jurisdictions.
* 16. Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Marjie Kirn
Direct staff to: a. Schedule a public meeting to hear public comments regarding the proposed removal of the call boxes; and b. Develop a plan to remove the under-utilized call boxes and upgrade any that remain.
17. Oral Report – One Voice Debrief Stacie Dabbs
* # 18. Property Purchase Agreement Marjie Kirn
Review and direct staff to finalize the Purchase Agreement and complete the purchase for the Fiscal Year 2016/17.
19. Executive Director’s Report
20. Directors’ Report
* Action # Attachment + Enclosure
The next MCAG Governing Board meeting will be held on Thursday, June 16, 2016, at 3:00 p.m., at the County of Merced, Board of Supervisors Chambers, 2222 M Street, Merced, CA
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted at the Merced County Association of Governments not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting.
______Joy Gort, Administrative Assistant II Dated this May 12, 2016
ITEM 4
MERCED COUNTY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
April 21, 2016
MINUTES
The regular meeting of the MERCED COUNTY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY held on Thursday, April 21, 2016, at the County of Merced, Board of Supervisors Chambers, 2222 M Street, Merced, CA was called to order by Chair Kelsey at 3:02 P.M.
DIRECTORS PRESENT Rodrigo Espinoza Deidre Kelsey Daron McDaniel Michael McGlynn for Jerry Antonetti Jerry O’Banion Joe Oliveira Jim Price Stan Thurston Mike Villalta Hub Walsh
DIRECTORS ABSENT John Pedrozo
GUESTS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC Gary Brizzee, City of Los Banos Tom Dumas, Caltrans District 10 Louise Farley, Senator Anthony Cannella’s Office Greg Love, NELLC Albert Perez, National Express Transit Jose Ramirez, San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Diana Westmoreland-Pedrozo, Citizens Advisory Committee
STAFF PRESENT Matt Fell, Transportation Manager Nadia Gonzalez, Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Rich Green, Transit Manager Joy Gort, Administrative Assistant II Emily Haden, Legal Counsel Marjie Kirn, Executive Director Robin Lamas, Administrative Assistant II Christina Smith, Chief Financial Officer Brooks Stayer, Director, Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Marty Yerrick, Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority
5. Consent Agenda
a. Minutes of the March 17, 2016 Regional Waste Management Authority Board meeting b. Request for Out-of-State Travel Director Thurston moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Director O’Banion. Ayes – Directors Walsh, McDaniel, Kelsey, O’Banion, Price, McGlynn, Oliveira, Espinoza, Villalta, Thurston Noes – None MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Oral Report – Monthly Update
Brooks Stayer gave the monthly update for Regional Waste.
7. Proposed Fiscal Year 2016/17 Operating Budget, 2016/17 Fleet Budget and Capital Project Overview
Director O’Banion moved to approve: a. The FY 2016/17 Operating Budget; b. Approve the FY 2016/17 Fleet Budget; c. Authorize the allocation of an additional $250,000 to the Hwy 59 Phase 6A LFG System out of the Capital Projects Fund; and d. Authorize the new projects totaling $2,275,000 as identified in the Capital Project Overview Ending FY 2015/16. Seconded by Director Oliveira. Ayes – Directors Walsh, McDaniel, Kelsey, O’Banion, Price, McGlynn, Oliveira, Espinoza, Villalta, Thurston Noes – None MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS OF THE MERCED COUNTY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, THAT PORTION OF THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 3:19 P.M.
/ s / Joy Gort Administrative Assistant II
PH: 209.723.4481 FAX: 209.384.3109 7040 N. Highway 59 Merced, CA 95348
ITEM 5
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAY 12, 2016
TO: MERCED COUNTY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
FROM: BROOKS STAYER, DIRECTOR OF MERCED COUNTY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
RE: ORAL REPORT - MONTHLY UPDATE
SUMMARY
In order to keep the Technical Review Board (TRB) and Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Board (MCRWMAB) informed, Director of Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Brooks Stayer will provide a monthly update to Authority activities and revenue.
Tonnage Update Discussion
Director Stayer will discuss landfill tonnage revenue generated at the Highway 59 and Billy Wright Landfills for April 2016.
REQUESTED ACTION
For information only.
Attachment: Chart: April Comparisons 2012-2016
Partnering for Regional Solutions
Disposed Tons For Highway 59 and Billy Wright Landfills April Comparison: 2012 - 2016 33,000 30,808 Total Tons Both Landfills 30,000 27,153 27,000 23,909 24,055 24,000 22,665 H59 Disposed Highway 59 Landfill 20,712 Tons 21,000 19,745 19,189
16,803 BWL Disposed 18,000 16,193 Tons
Tons 15,000 Total 12,000 Disposed Tons 9,000 6,753 6,000 4,488 3,909 4,163 2,995 Billy Wright Landfill 3,000
0 Apr '12 Apr '13 Apr '14 Apr '15 Apr '16
PH: 209.723.4481 FAX: 209.384.3109 7040 N. Highway 59 Merced, CA 95348
ITEM 6
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAY 12, 2016
TO: MERCED COUNTY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
FROM: BROOKS STAYER, DIRECTOR OF MERCED COUNTY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
RE: PUBLIC HEARING - HIGHWAY 59 LANDFILL - VALLEY FILL PROJECT
BACKGROUND In order to provide uninterrupted service at the Hwy 59 landfill, a new disposal unit/expansion must be constructed and in operation when the current phase (6A) reaches capacity in 2019. Due to budget limitations the Board approved the Valley Fill (VF) project in January 2014 to explore the possibility of lining the valley that lay between Phases 1-4 and Phase 5. It was understood that this expansion would have to undergo a rigorous environmental review process but this was warranted as the VF yielded 18% more volume at 40% of the cost of utilizing the next phase in sequence (6B) that had secured environmental approvals in 1996.
DISCUSSION The initial task was to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to consider the potential effects of the project on the environment and to adopt and implement mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lessen the effects of those activities on the environment to the extent feasible. A Draft EIR for the VF Project was circulated for public review and comment on September 17, 2015 and a public hearing to receive oral comments was conducted on October 15, 2015. All comments on environmental issues received during the comment period on the Draft EIR were evaluated. Written responses were prepared and are included in the Final EIR. The “Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations” (Exhibit A to Attached Resolutions) address the environmental effects associated with the Project that are described and analyzed within the Final EIR.
PUBLIC HEARING Chris Mundhenk, Senior Environmental Planner from Ascent Environmental, Inc., will make a presentation on the VF Project environmental review process. The Chairperson of the Governing Board will open the Public Hearing to receive oral testimony on the Final VF EIR. After all oral testimony is received the public hearing will be closed and the Governing Board will be requested to adopt the attached resolutions that document all the required actions.
Partnering for Regional Solutions
REQUESTED ACTION
Conduct a public hearing on the Highway 59 Landfill – Valley Fill Project. After receiving comments, adopt Resolution No. 2016/05-19-03 and Resolution No. 2016/05-19-04.
Attachments: Resolution No. 2016/05-19-03 Resolution No. 2016/05-19-04 Exhibit A: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Environmental Impact Report Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Public Notice of Public Hearing
RESOLUTION NO. 2016/05-19-03
RESOLUTION OF THE MERCED COUNTY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY GOVERNING BOARD CERTIFYING THE HIGHWAY 59 LANDFILL - PROPOSED VALLEY FILL PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
WHEREAS, the Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority (MCRWMA) is the owner and operator of the Highway 59 Landfill; and,
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines defines the lead agency as the agency with principal responsibility for carrying out and approving a project; and,
WHEREAS, the MCRWMA as lead agency under CEQA determined that the proposed Valley Fill Project may result in potentially significant adverse effects on the environment and commissioned the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and,
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2014061081) was prepared pursuant to CEQA, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder (CEQA Guidelines) to address the potentially significant environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project alternatives associated with the consideration of the Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project; and,
WHEREAS, Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the lead agencies shall certify that the decision-making body of the lead agency has reviewed and considered the information presented in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and,
WHEREAS, Section 15090 further provides that the lead agency shall certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and,
WHEREAS, Section 15090 further provides that lead agencies shall certify that the Final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis; and,
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and circulated on June 24, 2014 for a minimum 30-day period of public agency comment; and,
WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting was held by the MCRWMA on July 17, 2014; and,
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period beginning on September 17, 2015 and ending on November 2, 2015; and
WHEREAS, MCRWMA held a public hearing to receive oral comments on the Draft EIR on October 15, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, MCRWMA received written comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period; and,
WHEREAS, the MCRWMA received no comments during the Draft EIR review period that constituted significant new information which would require recirculation of the Draft EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the MCRWMA evaluated all comments on environmental issues received during the comment period on the Draft EIR and prepared written responses to these comments which are included in the Final EIR; and,
WHEREAS, prior to taking action on the Valley Fill Project, the MCRWMA Governing Board has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final EIR, which is comprised of the Draft EIR, all comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments made regarding significant environmental points, all revisions to the Draft EIR, the Final EIR and its technical appendices, all supporting documents, including maps, exhibits, testimony, and written documents contained in the file for this project, and all other oral and written evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority finds with respect to the Valley Fill Landfill Project that:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated by this reference;
2. Notice has been given in the time and in the manner required by State law;
3. The MCRWMA Governing Board has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, including the comments received from the public prior to taking action;
4. The Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA; and
5. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the decision-making body of the MCRWMA relating to the potential effects on the environment resulting from construction and operation of the Valley Fill Landfill Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED and CERTIFIED by the Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority that:
1. The Final EIR was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Cal. Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.), as amended, and the State Guidelines thereto (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15000 et seq.).
2. The Final EIR was presented to the MCRWMA, and was independently reviewed and considered by the MCWRMA and its Governing Board.
3. The Final EIR reflects MCWRMA’s independent judgment and analysis with respect to the analysis of the potential effects on the environment from the construction and operation of the Highway 59 Landfill, Valley Fill Project.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was passed and adopted by the Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority this 19th day of May, 2016.
AYES:
NOES:
APPROVED:
______Marjie Kirn, Executive Director Deidre Kelsey, Chair Merced County Regional Waste Management Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Authority
RESOLUTION NO. 2016/05-19-04
RESOLUTION OF THE MERCED COUNTY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY GOVERNING BOARD APPROVING THE HIGHWAY 59 LANDFILL - VALLEY FILL PROJECT, ADOPTING THE CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority (MCRWMA) is the owner and operator of the Highway 59 Landfill; and,
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project (Final EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2014061081) was prepared pursuant to CEQA, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder (CEQA Guidelines) to address the environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project alternatives associated with the consideration of the Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project; and,
WHEREAS, the MCRWMA, by Resolution No. 2016/05-19-03 certified the Final EIR as complete and adequate and fully in compliance with all requirements of CEQA on May 19, 2016; and,
WHEREAS, the MCRWMA has prepared CEQA Findings of Fact in compliance with Public Resources Code Sections 21081 and 21081.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, which are entitled “Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations” pursuant to CEQA. (attached hereto as Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, the project will have significant impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less-than- significant level, and the MCRWMA has prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and the CEQA Guidelines included as Section 2 of the “Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations” (attached hereto as Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by MCRWMA pursuant to this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record and are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole, not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and,
WHEREAS, the MCRWMA has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines included in the “Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations” (attached hereto as an Attachment to Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, the MCRWMA finds that based on existing traffic data collected as part of the Valley Fill Project, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1 and 4.2 adopted as part of the Highway 59 Expansion 1996 EIR is no longer considered necessary for the purposes of mitigating traffic hazard impacts, and based on the relevant substantial evidence in the record shall hereby be removed; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and CERTIFIED that the Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority finds with respect to the Valley Fill Landfill Project that:
1. The CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Valley Fill Landfill Project, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted.
2. The MCRWMA approves the construction and operation of the Valley Fill Landfill Project for which it is the owner and operator.
3. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Valley Fill Landfill Project, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference is hereby adopted.
4. Substantial evidence in the record, including as explained and substantiated in the EIR (see, e.g., DEIR, pp. 4.10-19 thru -20), supports the removal of Mitigation Measures 4.1 and 4.2 from the 1996 EIR for the Highway 59 Landfill Expansion (SCH No. 94032011), and such mitigation measures are hereby deleted.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was passed and adopted by the Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority this 19th day of May, 2016.
AYES:
NOES:
APPROVED:
______Marjie Kirn, Executive Director Deidre Kelsey, Chair Merced County Regional Waste Management Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Authority EXHIBIT A
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Environmental Impact Report
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2014061081
Prepared for: Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority 7040 North Highway 59 Merced, California 95348
Prepared by: Ascent Environmental, Inc. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814
May 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS ...... 1-1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1.1 Project Background ...... 1-1 1.1.2 Project Purpose and Objectives ...... 1-2 1.1.3 CEQA Requirements for Findings ...... 1-3 1.1.4 Organization of Findings ...... 1-4 Description of the Project ...... 1-5 1.2.1 Project Location ...... 1-5 1.2.2 Project Description ...... 1-5 Environmental Review Process ...... 1-7 1.3.1 Notice of Preparation and Commencement of Scoping Period for EIR ...... 1-7 1.3.2 Public Noticing and Public Review of Draft EIR ...... 1-7 Description of the Record ...... 1-8 Significant Environmental Impacts of the Project ...... 1-9 General Findings...... 1-9 1.6.1 Certification of the EIR ...... 1-9 1.6.2 Evidentiary Basis for Findings...... 1-10 1.6.3 Findings Regarding Mitigation Measures ...... 1-10 1.6.4 Location and Custodian of Records ...... 1-11 Alternatives ...... 1-11 1.7.1 Alternatives Evaluated in the EIR ...... 1-11 1.7.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...... 1-13 Findings of Fact ...... 1-14 1.8.1 Effects Found Not to be Significant ...... 1-14 1.8.2 Significant Impacts Associated with Development of the Valley Fill Project ...... 1-18 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ...... 1-28
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ...... 2-1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts of the Project ...... 2-1 Benefits of the Project ...... 2-1 2.2.1 Meet Waste Disposal Demands ...... 2-1 2.2.2 Conserve Resources ...... 2-1 2.2.3 Minimize Net Fiscal Effects...... 2-2
Attachments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project i
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION
Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority (MCRWMA), as lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project (Valley Fill Project or proposed project) (State Clearinghouse No. 2014061081). The proposed project would include relocation of several currently permitted on-site facilities and a vertical reconfiguration of the disposal area. The reconfiguration would allow continued operation of the existing landfill for an additional 11 to 15 years without consuming additional land surface area, as would occur with a lateral expansion of the existing landfill boundary. MCRWMA also proposes to amend its existing solid waste facility permit (SWFP) to: incrementally increase the maximum daily tonnage up to 3,000 peak tons per day in 2035 and beyond; incrementally increase the allowable traffic up to 800 vehicles per day by 2035; increase the height of the existing disposal area by 50 feet; and add dewatered sewage sludge to the list of wastes accepted at the landfill. Additionally, MCRWMA is proposing the removal of previously adopted Mitigations Measures 4.1 and 4.2 from the 1996 Highway 59 Landfill Expansion EIR (1996 EIR) based on substantial evidence that the need for such mitigation is no longer required. In accordance with the court’s decision from Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal. App.4th 342, MCRMWA will be removing these mitigation measures as part of a public process.
These findings, as well as the accompanying statement of overriding considerations in Section 2, have been prepared in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.)
1.1.1 Project Background
The Highway 59 Landfill, which is owned and operated by MCRWMA, was created in 1972 as part of an effort to establish two regional landfills that would address solid waste management and recycling requirements throughout the County. MCRWMA members include the County of Merced, and each incorporated city in the County: Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston, Los Banos, and Merced. The MCRWMA system includes facilities for solid waste diversion, composting, recycling, and disposal. The system’s two landfills, Highway 59 Landfill and Billy Wright Landfill, were constructed to provide disposal of solid waste generated in the east and west County areas, respectively. The eleven-member MCRWMA Governing Board consists of the five elected County Supervisors and one elected official from each of the city members. The Executive Director of the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) acts as the Executive Director of the MCRWMA and is responsible for its day-to-day administration.
The Highway 59 Landfill has been operating since 1973, and consists of approximately 610 acres, 254 acres of which have been or are currently used for waste disposal activities. Current and historical waste disposal areas are located in the northern and southern portions of the property, respectively. The northern portion is approximately 219 acres, of which 140 acres (also known as Phase 6, following nomenclature developed as part of the EIR prepared for the landfill in 1996) are currently permitted for waste disposal. In between the northern portion and the southern portion is a 168-acre wetland (vernal pool) preserve, which was established in 2000 to mitigate significant environmental impacts of expanding the landfill to the north. In addition, approximately 80 acres of administrative offices and composting operations are located in the central portion of the landfill property. The composting operation is authorized under a separate solid waste facility permit from the remainder of the landfill and has a permitted annual throughput of up to 25,000 tons/year.
The southern portion of the landfill includes the historical waste disposal area (also known as Phases 1 through 5), and is approximately 220 acres. Phase 5 currently has a liner system for collection of leachate
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 1-1 Introduction Ascent Environmental and Phases 1–4 are currently unlined. Greenwaste processing, materials recycling, household hazardous waste facility, maintenance shop, and aboveground fuel tanks are currently located in this portion of the landfill. The household hazardous waste facility accepts household hazardous waste on pre-determined days. Hazardous wastes are stored temporarily at the facility until appropriate disposal can be arranged. Such wastes are typically stored for no longer than 30 days and removed by a contract hauler.
The overall design capacity of the existing landfill is approximately 36,358,000 cubic yards, of which approximately 24,000,000 cubic yards is unused and available as of 2014. In accordance with the existing SWFP issued by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) in February 2011, the maximum permitted throughput at the landfill is 1,500 peak tons per day (tpd). The current SWFP for the Highway 59 Landfill identifies a current design capacity of 30,012,352 cubic yards, which is erroneous. The actual design capacity is approximately 36,358,000 cubic yards, as noted above. The reason for this discrepancy is that an incorrect design capacity for Phases 1–5 was reflected in the SWFP issued in 2000 for the landfill. At such time as MCRWMA updates its SWFP for the Highway 59 Landfill, this discrepancy will be corrected. The estimated closure date of the landfill, according to the SWFP, is 2030, but the current estimated closure date is 2065 based on the correct design capacity. A closure plan was approved in 2010 for Phases 1–4 and a preliminary closure plan has been prepared for Phases 5 and 6.
The maximum allowable height of landfill operations is 310 feet above mean sea level (msl) within Phases 1–5 and 360 feet above msl within Phase 6. The historic maximum depth within Phase 5 is 155 feet below ground surface (bgs), and the allowable depth within Phase 6 is 175 feet bgs.
Off-site landfill gas (LFG) migration east of Phases 1–4 was identified as exceeding methane standards at the facility boundary (Section 20921 of Article 3, Subchapter 4, Chapter 3, Division 2 of Title 27) based on monitoring of perimeter LFG probes. As a result of the continued violation, the landfill was added in January 2013 to CalRecycle’s Inventory of Solid Waste Facilities Which Violate State Minimum Standards. MCRWMA has since implemented LFG extraction system modifications approved by the Merced County Department of Environmental Health to correct the exceedance. These include six vadose extraction wells, which have been constructed outside the waste boundary to correct the violation.
Additionally, MCRWMA completed implementation of a corrective action plan to remove volatile organic compounds from groundwater south and southwest of Phases 1–4 in 2015.
1.1.2 Project Purpose and Objectives
The primary purpose of the project is to increase the disposal capacity of the landfill in a manner that is economically and environmentally superior to the currently planned disposal in Phase 6. Disposal in Phase 6 would require excavation of more than 2,500,000 cubic yards of soil, whereas the proposed project would require excavation of approximately 32,000 cubic yards, a substantially lower volume. Implementation of the Valley Fill Project would provide sufficient near-term capacity to delay activation of Phase 6B until approximately 2035. By that date, it is anticipated that all of the heavy equipment required for excavation of soil would meet Tier 4 emissions standards (requiring that emissions of PM and NOx be reduced substantially as compared to Tier 1-3 standards). MCRWMA’s existing fleet meets Tier 1-3 standards.
Implementation of the proposed project would achieve the following:
Reduce the volume of soil to be excavated in the near-term by 2,468,000 cubic yards;
Reduce near-term air emissions (dust and diesel emissions) associated with reduced excavation (approximately 98 percent reduction);
Increase the permitted design capacity of the landfill by 19 percent with a 3 percent increase in waste footprint;
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-2 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Ascent Environmental Introduction
Increase the permitted design capacity of the landfill by approximately 6,857,000 cubic yards without expanding the facility boundary;
Extend the life of the landfill by approximately 15 years without expanding the facility boundary;
Realize substantial near-term savings (the cost of Valley Fill Project is less than 30 percent of the cost of Phase 6B); and
Ensure the availability of solid waste disposal capacity in Merced County for the foreseeable future while accommodating additional demands for disposal resulting from regional growth.
The objectives of the proposed project are to:
meet the need for long-term solid waste disposal capacity in Merced County and elsewhere in the region; provide solid waste disposal in a manner and location that protects public health and the environment; minimize the net fiscal effects on rate payers and taxpayers; and conserve resources while providing a necessary level of solid waste disposal.
1.1.3 CEQA Requirements for Findings
CEQA, PRC Sections 21000 et seq. and the regulations implementing that statute, CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 et seq. (the “CEQA Guidelines”) require public agencies to consider the potential effects of their discretionary actions on the environment and to adopt and implement mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lessen the effects of those activities on the environment to the extent feasible. Specifically, PRC Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles announced in PRC Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See PRC Section 21081(a); CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The three possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (PRC Section 21081(a); see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a).)
PRC Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 1-3 Introduction Ascent Environmental
factors.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations. (See also Citizens of Golden Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta II) (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565.)
The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 (City of Del Mar).) “[F]easibility” under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 (Sequoyah Hills); see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 [after weighing “‘economic, environmental, social, and technological factors … an agency may conclude that a mitigation measure or alternative is impracticable or undesirable from a policy standpoint and reject it as infeasible on that ground’”].)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts cannot be feasibly avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15093, 15043(b); see also PRC Section 21081(b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving…any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Goleta II, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576)
Because the Valley Fill Project EIR identified significant effects that may occur as a result of the project, and in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines presented above, MCRWMA hereby adopts these Findings as part of the approval of the Valley Fill Project. These Findings constitute MCRWMA’s best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. These Findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that come into effect as a result of MCRWMA approval of the Valley Fill Project. Moreover, because certain environmental impacts would be significant and unavoidable, MCRWMA also adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
1.1.4 Organization of Findings
The Statement of Findings, Section 1 of this document, is organized as follows:
Section 1.1 provides the background and context of the project and describes the need for these Findings
Section 1.2 includes a brief description of the project
Section 1.3 describes the CEQA environmental review process for the project
Section 1.4 describes the record of documents for the project
Section 1.5 summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the project
Section 1.6 contains the general Findings about the project
Section 1.7 contains the Findings regarding alternatives to the project
Section 1.8 contains the Findings of Fact regarding the significant effects of the project for the approved Valley Fill Project
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-4 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Ascent Environmental Introduction
Section 1.9 describes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project, specifically for the approved Valley Fill Project
The Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section 2 of this document, is organized as follows:
.1 describes the significant unavoidable impacts of the project Section 2.2 describes the benefits of the project
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
1.2.1 Project Location
The Highway 59 Landfill is located immediately east of State Route (SR) 59 in unincorporated Merced County, approximately 6 miles north of the City of Merced. The street address is 7040 North Highway 59. The existing landfill is bounded on the west by SR 59 and vacant grazing land, on the east by vacant grazing land and an abandoned railroad grade, and on the north and south by orchards. Residential uses are located farther to the south.
The Highway 59 Landfill consists of five parcels which are County Assessor’s parcel numbers (APNs) 052- 150-006, 052-070-006, 052-150-004, 052-160-033, and 052-160-035. The site is located in Sections 13, 14, 23, 24, and 25, Township 6 South, Range 13 East on the U.S. Geological Survey Winton and Yosemite Lake 7.5-minute quadrangles. The project site is located in the southwest portion of the landfill and within two of the five landfill parcels (APNs 052-150-004 and a portion of 052-150-006). The total land area associated with the project site is approximately 230 acres.
1.2.2 Project Description
EXPANSION OF LANDFILL CAPACITY The project would expand the waste footprint by 3 percent (7.8 acres) between Phases 1–4 and Phase 5 and vertically increase the height of waste by 50 feet on approximately 66 acres of existing landfill to provide up to 6,857,000 cubic yards of additional long-term design capacity. Existing facilities located between Phases 1–4 and Phase 5 would be relocated to the administrative offices area and this valley (7.8 acres) would be used for disposal. Phases 1–5 are currently at 310 feet above msl, which is the maximum allowable height under the existing permit. The proposed project would increase the maximum disposal elevation to 360 feet above msl in the area located between Phases 1–4 and Phase 5. In so doing, the proposed project would allow for operation of the landfill for an additional 11 to 15 years beyond the currently estimated closure date of 2065. The expansion area would have a base liner system that would integrate with the existing liner system in Phase 5, and would include, in descending order, a 24-inch soil- operations layer, non-woven separation geotextile, 12-inch gravel drainage layer, a 60-millimeter-thick synthetic membrane of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), a Geosynthetic Clay Liner, and 12-inch-thick compacted subgrade (MCRMWA 2014). The liner would be consistent with current solid waste permitting requirements and other applicable requirements.
RELOCATION OF FACILITIES To accommodate expansion of the landfill capacity, several facilities would be relocated outside of the expansion area to an area adjacent to the current administrative offices. The existing equipment maintenance building, household hazardous waste facility, and recyclables transfer area would be demolished and replacement facilities would be constructed in the central portion of the site, immediately north of the existing administrative offices. The existing maintenance shop and two above ground storage
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 1-5 Introduction Ascent Environmental tanks (ASTs, one diesel and one gasoline), would be relocated to a new concrete pad east of the existing administration building. The old scales and scale house, office, and employee break room that are located between Phases 1–4 and 5 would also be demolished. Because newer facilities that serve these purposes already exist in the central portion of the site, these facilities would not need to be relocated or reconstructed. Other ancillary facilities (i.e., domestic well and landfill entrance road) would be demolished or removed. No other modifications to the onsite roadway network would occur as a result of the project.
Under the proposed project, the leachate collection and monitoring system would be constructed to accommodate the expansion. Leachate generated from the expansion area would gravity feed into the lined surface impoundment south of Phase 5. The proposed improvements to the existing leachate system at the landfill would involve a separate leachate collection system to be discharged into the Phase 5 lined leachate impoundment. Currently, Phase 5 includes a leachate collection system as part of its liner system. A similar method would be employed within the valley located between Phases 1–4 and Phase 5 and would include a 1-foot-thick gravel drainage blanket and a system of 6-inch (minimum) perforated and non-perforated collection pipes.
PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY MCRWMA would purchase approximately 21 acres immediately east of Phases 1–4 that would provide additional buffer in the event of off-site LFG migration. This land is currently vacant and used for grazing. No other activity is proposed in this area at this time.
INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN DAILY PERMITTED TONNAGE Disposal tonnage would increase over time from anticipated population growth. However, the amount of waste received by the landfill will fluctuate, as it does currently, due to other factors such as waste hauler schedules, holidays, emergencies, disasters, other landfill closures, disposal fee increases at other landfills, and other circumstances or events beyond the control of MCRWMA. Because peak daily tonnage at the Highway 59 Landfill is limited by the facility’s existing SWFP, and to avoid potential exceedances of the SWFP conditions, MCRWMA has determined that incremental increases in the allowable peak daily tonnage limit are necessary to avoid a permit violation (i.e., an exceedance of allowable tonnage/traffic under the SWFP). Based on the projected increase in waste stream through 2035, MCRWMA would seek a permit revision that would allow incremental increases in peak daily tonnage up to 3,000 peak tons per day in 2035 and beyond. Projected peak tonnage projection shown in Table 1-1. Therefore, as part of the proposed project, MCRWMA proposes up to five incremental increases in the facility’s peak daily tonnage through 2035 and beyond.
Table 1-1 Projected Peak Tonnage and Traffic Volumes Monthly (30 Day) Average Tonnage Projected Maximum Traffic Volumes Year Projected Peak Daily Tonnage (Tons) (Tons) (vehicles/day) Existing Permit (2014) 1,500 900 554 2015 to 2020 2,000 1,400 554 2020 to 2025 2,200 1,550 600 2025 to 2030 2,450 1,750 675 2030 to 2035 2,700 1,925 750 2035 to closure 3,000 2,125 800 Source: MCRWMA 2014
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-6 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Ascent Environmental Introduction
INCREASE IN PERMITTED PEAK DAILY TRAFFIC As with daily tonnage, the SWFP limits the volume of traffic to and from the landfill each day. The current permitted traffic volume for the landfill is 554 vehicles per day, including 544 inbound vehicles carrying waste materials and 10 outbound vehicles carrying materials from resource recovery processes conducted at the landfill. With the proposed incremental increases in peak daily tonnage, peak daily vehicle trips would increase to 800 by 2035 (see Table 1-1). Currently, the landfill receives an average of 233 vehicle trips per day. However, in the past 10 years, the landfill has come close to the total permitted number of 554 vehicle trips per day at least 12 times. Therefore, as part of the proposed project, MCRWMA proposes up to four incremental increases in the facility’s permitted peak daily traffic volume through 2035 and beyond.
SEWAGE SLUDGE ACCEPTANCE AT THE LANDFILL Dewatered sewage sludge is proposed to be added to the list of wastes accepted at the landfill that require special handling and/or pre-notification. Handling of dewatered sewage sludge would be conducted in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
This Draft EIR has been prepared under MCRWMA’s direction in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (PRC Sections 21000-21177) and the CEQA Guidelines (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). MCRWMA is serving as the lead agency under CEQA for consideration of certification of this EIR and potential project approval; CEQA Guidelines Section 151367 defines the lead agency as the agency with principal responsibility for carrying out and approving a project.
According to CEQA, if the lead agency determines that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)(1)). An EIR is an informational document used to inform public agency decision-makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects, and describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while substantially lessening or avoiding any of the significant environmental impacts. Public agencies are required to consider the information presented in the EIR when determining whether to approve a project.
1.3.1 Notice of Preparation and Commencement of Scoping Period for EIR
In accordance with PRC Section 21092 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and circulated on June 24, 2014, for a minimum 30-day period of public and agency comment. The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and posted on MCAG’s website (http://www.mcagov.org/DocumentCenter/View/290). A public scoping meeting was held by MCRWMA on July 17, 2014, however, no written or oral comments were provided at this meeting.
1.3.2 Public Noticing and Public Review of Draft EIR
In accordance with Sections 15087 and 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment to lead and responsible agencies, as well as members of the public, for 45-days (September 17, 2015 through November 2, 2015). MCRWMA also conducted a public hearing on October 15, 2015. During the public review period, federal, state, and local agencies commented on issues evaluated in the Draft EIR. Comment letters received on the Draft EIR are included in the Final EIR. None of
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 1-7 Introduction Ascent Environmental
the comments constituted “significant new information,” which would require recirculation of the Draft EIR. Significant new information is defined in Section 15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines as follows:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
None of these circumstances has arisen from comments on the Draft EIR.
After close of the Draft EIR public comment period, responses to comments on environmental issues were prepared as part of the Final EIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), commenting agencies were provided a minimum of 10 days to review the proposed responses to their comments before any action was taken on the Final EIR or project. The Final EIR was then considered for certification (in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15090) by MCRWMA. MCRWMA found that the Final EIR is "adequate and complete," and certified the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA. The rule of adequacy generally holds that an EIR can be certified if:
(1) The EIR shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and
(2) The EIR provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed project with consideration given to its environmental impacts.
The level of detail contained throughout the EIR is consistent with Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines and recent court decisions, which provide the standard of adequacy on which this document is based. The Guidelines state as follows:
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.
CEQA requires that when a public agency makes findings based on an EIR, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for those measures it has adopted or made a condition of the project approval to mitigate significant adverse effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project was prepared and considered by MCRWMA in conjunction with the Final EIR review.
DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record before MCRWMA consists of all non-privileged documents relating to the project in MCRWMA’s files on this matter, including, without limitation:
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-8 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Ascent Environmental Introduction
The NOP prepared for the project;
The Draft EIR for the Valley Fill Project, with all appendices to the Draft EIR and cited references;
All comments or documents submitted by public agencies or by members of the public during or after the comment period on the Draft EIR or up to MCRWMA’s approval of the project;
The Final EIR for the Valley Fill Project, with all appendices to the Final EIR and cited references;
The MMRP, included as Attachment A to these Findings;
All Findings and Resolutions adopted by MCRWMA in connection with the project and all documents cited or referred to therein;
All staff reports and presentation materials related to the project, including internal reports and analyses prepared by consultants to MCRWMA;
All studies conducted for the project and contained in, or referenced by, staff reports, the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, or the MMRP;
All public reports and documents related to the project prepared for or by MCRWMA, including, without limitation, all planning documents, other public agencies, or the federal courts;
All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings, meetings and workshops related to the project, the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and the MMRP;
All other public reports and documents relating to the project that were used by MCRWMA staff or consultants in the preparation of the Draft EIR, Final EIR and MMRP; and
All other documents, not otherwise included above, required by PRC Section 21167.6.
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
The EIR identifies significant and potentially significant but mitigable impacts to the following environmental resources: air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, and hazards and hazardous materials. As described below (Section 1.8), mitigation measures are available to reduce each of these impacts to a less-than-significant level, and MCRWMA has adopted such measures.
The EIR also identifies significant and unavoidable impacts for the Valley Fill Project related to traffic and transportation (project level and cumulative).
GENERAL FINDINGS
1.6.1 Certification of the EIR
In accordance with CEQA, MCRWMA has considered the effects of the project on the environment, as shown in the Final EIR, and the whole of the administrative record, prior to taking any action to approve the Valley Fill Project. The Final EIR was released for public review on May 2, 2016. MCRWMA reviewed the Final EIR and, at the May 19, 2016 public hearing, recommended that the EIR be certified. MCRWMA has reviewed and considered the EIR and the information relating to the environmental impacts of the proposed project and has certified that the EIR has been prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA. By these
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 1-9 Introduction Ascent Environmental
Findings, MCRWMA ratifies and adopts the conclusions of the Final EIR as set forth in these Findings, except where such conclusions are specifically modified by these Findings. The Final EIR and these Findings represent the independent judgment and analysis of MCRWMA.
1.6.2 Evidentiary Basis for Findings
These Findings are based upon substantial evidence in the record before MCRWMA. The references to the Draft EIR and Final EIR set forth in the Findings are for ease of reference and are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of the evidence relied upon for these Findings.
1.6.3 Findings Regarding Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES REMOVED The 1996 EIR included mitigation (Mitigation Measures 4.1 and 4.2) that required dedication of additional right-of-way and construction of acceleration and deceleration lanes to accommodate safe turning movements under future (cumulative) conditions. However, the traffic volumes anticipated in the 1996 EIR, while considered reasonable and appropriate at the time of preparation of that analysis, are now understood to have overestimated potential volumes along SR 59. As such, MCRWMA finds that based on existing traffic data collected as part of the Valley Fill Project, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1 and 4.1 adopted as part of the 1996 EIR is no longer considered necessary for the purposes of mitigation traffic hazard impacts, and shall hereby be removed.
MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED Except as otherwise noted, the mitigation measures referenced herein are those identified in the Final EIR and adopted by MCRWMA as set forth in the MMRP.
IMPACTS AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES Except as otherwise stated in these Findings, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15092, MCRWMA finds that environmental effects of development of the Valley Fill Project will not be significant or will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the adopted mitigation measures. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to the extent feasible. MCRWMA has determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment that are found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to overriding considerations described in Section 2. These overriding considerations consist of specific social, environmental, and economic benefits of the project that justify its approval and outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, as more fully stated in Section 2 (Statement of Overriding Considerations). Except as otherwise stated in these Findings, MCRWMA finds that the mitigation measures incorporated into and imposed upon the project will not have new significant environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the EIR.
RELATIONSHIP OF FINDINGS AND MMRP TO FINAL EIR These Findings and the MMRP are intended to summarize and describe the contents and conclusions of the Draft EIR and Final EIR for policymakers and the public. For purposes of clarity, these impacts and mitigation measures may be worded differently from the provisions in the Final EIR and/or some provisions may be combined. Nonetheless, MCRWMA and/or the construction contractor will implement all measures contained in the Final EIR. In the event that there is any inconsistency between the descriptions of mitigation measures in these Findings or the MMRP and the Final EIR, MCRWMA and/or the construction contractor will implement the measures as they are described in these Findings and the attached MMRP. In the event a
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-10 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Ascent Environmental Introduction mitigation measure recommended in the Final EIR has inadvertently been omitted from these Findings or from the MMRP, such mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Findings and/or MMRP, as applicable.
1.6.4 Location and Custodian of Records
Pursuant to PRC Section 15091, MCRWMA is the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision is based, and such documents and other materials are located at the offices of MCRWMA, 7040 North Highway 59, Merced, California 95348. Additionally, many of the documents and materials are available online at: http://www.mcagov.org/233/Valley-Fill-Project.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives evaluated in the EIR included those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). As directed by CEQA, the EIR included feasible alternatives that would reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts associated with the project. Alternatives considered in an EIR need to attain most of the project objectives to be considered feasible. The exception is the No Project Alternative, which is a required alternative for EIRs under CEQA (Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)).
1.7.1 Alternatives Evaluated in the EIR
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 and in light of the project objectives, the following alternatives to the project were identified and evaluated in the Draft EIR:
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative 3: Lateral Expansion Alternative 4: Billy Wright Landfill Expansion
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1) requires that the ‘no project’ alternative be described and analyzed “to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project.” Under Alternative 1: No Project, the Highway 59 Landfill would not be expanded and current conditions would continue until the active phase (Phase 6) of the landfill reaches capacity. The landfill would then be closed in accordance with the Title 27 of the CCR closure and monitoring procedures. (Title 27 CCR, Section 21090 et seq.) Groundwater and LFG would continue to be monitored as part of post-closure activities. All structures unrelated to ongoing monitoring of the landfill would be removed and waste would need to be transported to another waste disposal facility following closure. None of the impacts identified in the Draft EIR, including the significant and unavoidable impacts, would occur under this alternative because the project site would remain in its current state. However, this alternative would not meet the need for long- term solid waste disposal capacity in Merced County and the region, would not minimize the net fiscal effects on rate payers and taxpayers, and would not conserve resources while providing a reasonable level of solid waste disposal. Therefore, this alternative would not realize any of the key objectives of the project.
For these reasons, MCRWMA hereby rejects Alternative 1 because it is infeasible.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 1-11 Introduction Ascent Environmental
ALTERNATIVE 2: REDUCED PROJECT Alternative 2 would include the same features as the proposed project, but on a smaller scale. This alternative would have approximately 4,200,000 fewer cubic yards of long-term disposal capacity, which would result in an estimated closure date extension of 7 to 11 years compared to the 11 to 15 years offered by the proposed project. The estimated closure date of the landfill would be between 2072 and 2076 under this alternative.
This alternative would relocate facilities from the proposed disposal area between Phases 1–4 and Phase 5 of the landfill and prepare the area for disposal operations (e.g., install liner, and LFG and leachate systems). This alternative would also include purchase of the buffer area east of the landfill and increase the permitted daily tonnage for the landfill. However, the height of the expanded disposal area would be limited to the same height as the existing Phases 1–5 (310 feet above mean sea level [msl]) instead of 360 feet above msl as proposed. Construction and operation of this alternative would be similar to the proposed project; however, because height would be reduced, the landfill capacity would be exhausted sooner. As compared to the proposed project, this alternative would make less efficient use of resources (including use of the existing landfill), result in a nearer-term need for analysis (considering the reality that solid waste will continue to be generated, and needing to be disposed of, in the future), design, and construction of a new landfill facility, expansion of an existing facility, or hauling to a more distant facility, if one were able to accommodate the waste. Because of the myriad conditions that affect landfill capacity (e.g., other disposal opportunities, fluctuating demand for disposal locally and regionally), it would be speculative to contemplate the impacts of alternative disposal of the incrementally greater volume of waste (e.g., through expansion of another facility, transport to an existing, more distant facility) that would be accommodated under the proposed project as compared to Alternative 2, Reduced Project.
Because Alternative 2 would not meet certain key objectives, including the primary purpose of the project (to increase the disposal capacity of the landfill in a manner that is economically and environmentally superior to the currently planned disposal in Phase 6), and with respect to meeting the need for long-term solid waste disposal capacity in Merced County while minimizing the net fiscal effects on rate payers and taxpayers, the MCRWMA finds Alternative 2 infeasible. The MSRWMA also finds that Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project related to traffic, as explained in the Draft EIR. MCRWMA therefore rejects further consideration of this alternative.
ALTERNATIVE 3: LATERAL EXPANSION Alternative 3 would be similar to the proposed project, except that the existing Highway 59 Landfill would be expanded to the north instead of expanding the infill area between Phases 1–4 and Phase 5. This alternative would also include purchase of the buffer area east of the landfill and increase in the permitted daily tonnage for the landfill. Depending on the amount of lateral expansion, the anticipated closure date under this alternative could vary, however for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the planned closure date would coincide with that of the proposed project. This alternative would require purchase of property north of the existing landfill and removal of existing orchards. The Henderson Lateral that borders the existing landfill to the north would need to be realigned or diverted into an underground pipeline. The magnitude of construction of this alternative would be greater than the proposed project because it would require orchard removal, installation of additional infrastructure, and substantial grading to expand the footprint of the existing landfill. Operation of this alternative would be similar to the proposed project. The 1996 EIR prepared previously by MCRWMA for Phase 6 of Highway 59 Landfill also evaluated a lateral expansion alternative. The 1996 EIR, however, evaluated the use of land southwest of the existing landfill, across SR 59. This alternative would require purchase of property southwest of the existing landfill. The magnitude of construction of this alternative would be greater than the proposed project because it would require installation of additional infrastructure and substantial grading associated with a new facility. The 1996 EIR also found that this alternative would result in a significant impact to conversion of prime agricultural soils. This alternative would also result in less efficient operations related to operating at two sites and increase hazards related to crossing SR 59. Due to increased usage of SR 59 as a regional
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-12 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Ascent Environmental Introduction roadway and growth of the City of Merced northward towards the landfill, expansion on the other side of SR 59 is not considered a feasible alternative and is not carried forward as part of this alternative or as a separate alternative.
Because this alternative would not meet most of the basic project objectives, particularly with respect to minimizing the net fiscal effects on rate payers and taxpayers and conserving resources while providing a necessary level of solid waste disposal, and would result in greater impacts to several resource areas, MCRWMA rejects further consideration of this alternative as infeasible.
ALTERNATIVE 4: BILLY WRIGHT LANDFILL EXPANSION Alternative 4 would include expansion of the Billy Wright Landfill (BWL), which is currently the only other landfill disposal site in Merced County. BWL is located approximately 50 miles southwest of the Highway 59 Landfill. To meet the project objectives of providing long-term solid waste disposal for Merced County, the project would need to be located within the county or immediate vicinity. Although expansion of an existing waste disposal facility would have fewer impacts than construction of a new landfill, as discussed in the Draft EIR, a new landfill and other off-site alternatives, such as expansion of the BWL, were determined to be infeasible. Expansion of the BWL, for example, would require acquisition of additional land for waste disposal and was evaluated as part of Option 1B in the 2006 EIR prepared by MCRWMA for the expansion of the BWL. This alternative involved the use of an additional 53 acres along the current northern boundary of BWL and would provide approximately 18,000,000 cubic yards of additional capacity at BWL. Because this alternative would also include expansion of an existing facility, construction impacts would likely be similar to or greater than the proposed project. Under this alternative, waste would need to be transported to the western portion of the county or outside of the county once the Highway 59 Landfill reaches capacity, which would result in waste being transported greater distances than under the proposed project. This would result in additional operational emissions related to truck trips and greater impacts on traffic, transportation and related air quality and GHG emissions. The acquisition of additional land for expansion of the BWL would be more costly than the proposed project and could result in additional impacts associated with expanding the footprint of the BWL into an area that is not currently disturbed.
Because this alternative would not meet most of the project objectives, including minimizing the net fiscal effects on rate payers and taxpayers; and conserving resources while providing a necessary level of solid waste disposal, and because this alternative would result in greater adverse environmental impacts (from long term traffic, transportation and air quality impacts), than the project, MCRWMA rejects further consideration of this alternative.
1.7.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 states that an EIR should identify the “environmentally superior” alternative. “If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” As shown in Section 1.5, Significant Environmental Impacts of the Project, there would be significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project. These project-level and cumulative impacts are related to traffic and transportation. With regard to the other alternatives considered in this EIR, development of Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. It would not eliminate significant and unavoidable effects associated with traffic and transportation, but would reduce certain impacts associated with the proposed project, notably changes in visual character and views and air quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Therefore, for purposes of fulfilling the objectives established by MCRWMA, Alternative 2 would be considered the environmentally superior alternative.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 1-13 Introduction Ascent Environmental
FINDINGS OF FACT
MCRWMA has reviewed the Final EIR for the Valley Fill Project, consisting of the Valley Fill Draft EIR (September 2015) and the Valley Fill Responses to Comments on Draft EIR (May 2016), together which form the Final EIR. MCRWMA has considered the public record on the project, which, in addition to the above documents and this Statement of Findings, is composed of the MMRP for the Valley Fill Project EIR. The MMRP meets the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the PRC by providing a monitoring plan designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures adopted by MCRWMA during project implementation.
All relevant project documents are on file at MCRWMA, 7040 North Highway 59, Merced, California 95348.
Pursuant to PRC Section 21081, for each significant effect identified in the EIR, MCRWMA must make one or more of the findings described in Section 1.1 of this document.
After reviewing the public record, composed of the aforementioned elements, MCRWMA hereby makes the following findings regarding the significant effects of the proposed project, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The numeric references for each impact refer to the impact/mitigation titles included in the EIR. Several of the mitigation measures listed below have been summarized herein. Please refer to the MMRP (Attachment A) for the full text of all mitigation measures to be implemented.
1.8.1 Effects Found Not to be Significant
Effects of the project found to be less-than-significant, and which require no mitigation, are identified in the bulleted list below. The impact numbers and titles are the same as those used in the EIR. MCRWMA has reviewed the record and agrees with the conclusion that the following impacts would not be substantially changed by the project, and therefore no additional findings are needed:
Impact 4.1-1: Temporary changes in visual character. Temporary changes in views would include construction activities and equipment associated with relocating on-site facilities. Construction would include demolition of facilities within the southern portion of the project site and construction of new facilities in the central portion of the site. These changes would be temporary, largely screened from outside views, and not out of character with the existing industrial environment. Therefore, the temporary changes as a result of the proposed project would not substantially degrade views of the project site.
Impact 4.1-2: Long-term adverse changes in visual character. Some ancillary facilities would be relocated from the southern portion of the project site to the central portion of the site. In addition, the valley between Phases 1-4 and Phase 5 would become an active disposal area and over time would increase in elevation up to 360 feet above msl. The height of the landfill within Phases 1-5 is currently at or below 310 feet above msl, the maximum permitted elevation. Although the proposed project would increase the height and mass of Phases 1-5 and these changes would be visible from a distance, the proposed project would be consistent with existing views and there are no scenic resources with views of this area.
Impact 4.1-3: Potential for increased light and glare. The existing landfill includes nighttime lighting, which would continue after implementation of the project. No new sources of light or glare would be created.
Impact 4.2-1: Short-term construction-generated criteria pollutant emissions. Short-term construction- generated emissions would not exceed San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s regional
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-14 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Ascent Environmental Introduction
significance thresholds and, thus, would not contribute to pollutant concentrations that exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or California Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Impact 4.2-3: Exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs. Based on modeling conducted for the project- specific Health Risk Assessment, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions in excess of 10 in 1 million cancer risk or a non- carcinogenic health risk greater than 1.0 on the Hazard Index.
Impact 4.2-4: Increase in GHG emissions. Project construction would be short term, would predominantly use existing landfill equipment, and would not require substantial vehicle trips to and from the landfill. As such, GHG emissions from project construction would not be substantial. Project operation would not require additional equipment or staffing, but would increase daily disposal capacity. Because the project would comply with measures and plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including the Air Resources Board Scoping Plan through compliance with Landfill Methane Control Measure (LMCM), and because of the sequestration of additional carbon that would occur within the expanded disposal area, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions or be inconsistent with applicable GHG reduction targets or plans.
Impact 4.4-1: Change in the significance of a historical resource. The records search revealed a historical resource (Henderson Lateral) adjacent to and a potential historic district (Merced Irrigation District) on the Highway 59 Landfill. However, the Henderson Lateral has not been determined as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and project activities would occur 3,000 feet south of this resource. At this distance, the resource would be completely avoided. The Merced Irrigation District has not been determined as eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR and its status is currently listed as “needing to be reevaluated.” Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Impact 4.4-3: Destroy a unique paleontological resource. The area surrounding the proposed project site is not known to be highly sensitive for paleontological resources. Earth-moving activities would be limited to previously disturbed areas.
Impact 4.5-1: Exposure of people or structures to potential increases in seismic hazards. Project facilities would be constructed on a site that may be subject to strong seismic ground shaking from active earthquake faults, and soils with shrink-swell potential. Seismic ground shaking, though infrequent, could cause structural failure of proposed facilities. Damage could also result from expansion and contraction of underlying soils. Because, the project would be designed, engineered, and constructed in conformance with applicable codes and standard engineering practices, which consider the characteristics of materials and forces, and are designed to result in adequate strength and safety requirements, the potential for structural damage and associated hazards to people during a seismic event would be substantially reduced.
Impact 4.5-2: Increased risk of subsidence, slope stability, and risk of landslide. Soils underlying the project site are not characterized as having risks associated with subsidence. Subsidence in Merced County is associated with substantial groundwater pumping resulting in dewatering; however, there is no history of subsidence from groundwater pumping at the project site or in the vicinity. The proposed project would meet the requirements of Title 27 of the CCR which requires that Class III municipal solid waste landfills be evaluated for slope stability.
Impact 4.6-2: Exposure of people and the environment to hazards related to LFG. Expansion of the landfill could result in the production of additional LFG that could expose people or the environment to safety hazards. However, LFG would continue to be monitored at the project site and the LFG collection and monitoring system would be expanded to accommodate the increased production of LFG.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 1-15 Introduction Ascent Environmental
Impact 4.6-3: Potential hazards associated with vectors. Vector control measures that are currently in place are effective and would continue to be implemented. In addition, because there is no proposed expansion of the storm water detention basins or other water-related facilities, the proposed project would not increase the amount of standing water that could attract mosquitoes.
Impact 4.6-4: Increased potential for wildland fires. The project site is located in an area designated as a moderate fire hazard severity zone. However, extensive fire control measures are currently, and would continue to be, implemented at the project site to reduce the potential risk for fires. Therefore, neither construction nor operation of the project would increase the potential for wildland fire in the project area.
Impact 4.7-1: Long-term water quality degradation from hazardous materials. Volatile organic compounds have been detected in groundwater down-gradient of Phases 1-4 as a result of past LFG migration. Expansion of the landfill could further affect groundwater quality by increasing the amount of LFG and leachate produced by the landfill. However, MCRWMA, in coordination with RWQCB, has implemented a corrective action plan consisting of vadose and groundwater extraction wells to address existing impacts to groundwater. In addition, the project would include expansion of the existing LFG collection system and liner system, which would include a leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) that complies with Title 27 of the CCR (Section 20340).
Impact 4.7-2: Short-term water quality degradation from construction. Relocation of supporting uses from the proposed disposal area to the area south of the existing administrative offices would involve ground-disturbing activities such as excavation, grading, and trenching. Construction activities would create the potential for soil erosion and possibly increase sedimentation of stormwater facilities on-site. However, all ground-disturbing activities would be within the landfill footprint and stormwater would be captured by the on-site stormwater retention basins.
Impact 4.7-3: Depletion of groundwater or interference with groundwater recharge. Construction of the project would require additional water for dust control during the construction period. No other element of the project would result in a change in groundwater use or in groundwater recharge. Relocation of on- site facilities and expansion of the disposal area at the landfill would not increase the demand for groundwater supplies, and the change in the amount of impervious surfaces would be negligible.
Impact 4.8-1: Conflict with land use plans, policies, or existing zoning. The project site is designated Foothill Pasture under the 2030 Merced County General Plan and is zoned A-1 (General Agricultural). The purchase of approximately 20 acres to provide an additional buffer in the event of off-site LFG migration would be consistent with the 2030 Merced County General Plan and existing zoning. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with land use plans, policies, or existing zoning.
Impact 4.8-2: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non- agricultural use. The project site is located on land classified as Urban and Built-Up Land and Vacant or Disturbed Land. The proposed project would include the purchase of approximately 20 acres of land that is classified Vacant or Disturbed Land. Therefore, there would be no conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use.
Impact 4.9-1: Increased short-term, construction-related noise and vibration at nearby sensitive land uses. Project construction would involve the use of heavy construction equipment. The Merced County Noise Ordinance and Merced County General Plan limit construction activities to daytime business hours only. The project would adhere to these limits. Additionally, the closest sensitive receptors are located more than 1,000 feet from the project site. Based on distance, specific equipment expected to be used, and dissipation rate, the vibration associated with project construction would be hardly perceptible, if perceptible at all, and would not exceed Caltrans’ or Federal Transportation Administration’s specified vibration thresholds for structural damage or annoyance, respectively. Thus, short-term construction noise would neither generate nor expose persons to noise levels in excess of applicable standards, and would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-16 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Ascent Environmental Introduction
Impact 4.9-2: Increased stationary source noise and vibration during operation. Based on comparison of existing and post-project noise levels, project-generated stationary source noise levels would not exceed applicable noise standards and, therefore, would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
Impact 4.9-3: Increased traffic noise during operation. The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in daily vehicle trips travelling to and from the landfill. With respect to existing and existing-plus-project traffic volumes and their associated noise levels, the additional project-generated traffic would result in an increase of less than 3 decibels, which is perceived as barely noticeable by humans (Egan 2007).
Impact 4.10-1: Construction-related increase in traffic. During construction of the proposed project, daily commutes by construction workers would primarily increase traffic on SR 59. However, the addition of up to 34 vehicle trips (17 roundtrips x 2) would not cause any level of service (LOS) thresholds to be exceeded, and would result in overall traffic volumes consistent with LOS C as established in Caltrans’ TCR for SR 59. Therefore, this increase would be temporary and not substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of area roadways.
Impact 4.10-3: Near-term (2020) roadway level of service impacts. With implementation of the proposed project, levels of service on SR 59 and Bellevue Road would continue to operate within acceptable Merced County and Caltrans LOS thresholds.
Impact 4.10-6: Potential hazards associated with design features. The proposed project would incrementally increase the maximum daily tonnage and traffic permitted at the landfill over the next 20 years. Increasing traffic entering and exiting the landfill has a greater potential to result in accidents; however, only one accident has been attributed to the landfill in the past 4 years. There is no evidence to suggest that additional truck traffic would substantially increase the potential for accidents, and the project does not include any design features that could contribute to such hazards. Additionally, Mitigation Measures 4.1 and 4.2, which relate to potential hazards along SR 59 as a result of increased landfill traffic, from the 1996 Highway 59 Landfill EIR are no longer considered necessary and are removed as an obligation of MCRWMA. The roadway volumes identified in the 1996 EIR, while considered accurate and appropriate at the time of the previous analysis, are substantially greater than currently measured and projected volumes. As a result, the potential hazards that may occur at higher traffic volumes would not occur as a result of the project or the previously evaluated expansion.
Impact 4.11-1: Inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Construction of the project would consume energy in the form of fuel for construction vehicles, but this energy consumption would be temporary. The proposed project would also extend the operational life of the landfill and would increase the daily traffic volume that is permitted. Considered in isolation, this would increase energy/fuel usage over the life of the landfill; however, the proposed project would allow additional waste disposal at the Highway 59 Landfill, thereby reducing the need for disposal trucks from Merced County to travel farther to more distant disposal facilities. No element of the project would result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
Aesthetics – Cumulative: The proposed project, in combination with cumulative development, would not make a considerable contribution to skyglow in the project vicinity because lighting currently exists on- site and no additional sources of lighting or glare are included as part of the project. While the proposed project would result in changes in the immediate viewshed, there would be no significant contribution to cumulative long distance views. Therefore, the project would not result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative visual resources impact.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Cumulative: By reducing impacts associated with project emissions to less than significant through the purchase of offsets consistent with SJVAPCD Rule 2201 requirements, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. In addition, the proposed project would not exceed established Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 1-17 Introduction Ascent Environmental
incremental thresholds for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risks. Furthermore, because the project would be consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan through compliance with the LMCM, and therefore SJVAPCD best performance strategies, and would purchase offsets for emissions consistent with the LMCM, the proposed project would not represent a considerable contribution to cumulative GHG impacts.
Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources – Cumulative: Because of the site-specific nature of geologic impacts and necessary compliance with uniform site development standards and construction standards, the proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to any cumulative impact related to geology and soils.
Hydrology and Water Quality – Cumulative: Because of the hydrologically-isolated nature of the existing landfill and the control and monitoring systems that would be expanded as part of the proposed project, construction and operation of the proposed project would not represent a substantial contribution to off- site hydrology and water quality conditions and would not be cumulatively considerable such that a new significant cumulative impact would occur.
Land Use and Agricultural Resources – Cumulative: Because the proposed project would not result in the loss of important farmland or conflict with existing planning efforts in Merced County, it would not have a considerable contribution to cumulative land use or agricultural resources impacts.
Noise – Cumulative: Because project-generated construction noise is exempt from county noise standards, the project’s short-term construction-generated noise would not result in a substantial contribution to a cumulative impact. In addition, long-term operation of equipment is expected to be the same as operation of equipment under existing conditions, and the proposed project would not result in additional noise sources from stationary equipment. Therefore, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact related to noise.
Utilities and Energy – Cumulative: Construction of the proposed project would increase energy usage related to fueling construction vehicles, but this energy consumption would be temporary. The proposed project would also extend the operational life of the landfill and would increase the permitted daily traffic volume. This would increase the total amount of energy usage over the life of the landfill; however, the proposed project would allow additional waste disposal at the Highway 59 Landfill, thereby reducing the need for disposal trucks within Merced County to travel farther to more distant disposal facilities. Therefore, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any cumulative impact related to utilities.
1.8.2 Significant Impacts Associated with Development of the Valley Fill Project
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Potentially Significant Effect: Impact 4.2-2: Generation of long-term criteria pollutant emissions. Implementation of the proposed project would result in long-term operational emissions that would exceed San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD’s) thresholds of significance or substantially contribute to concentrations that exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Impacts related to these long-term operational (regional) emissions would be potentially significant.
Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by MCRWMA that mitigate the significant effects on the environment.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-18 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Ascent Environmental Introduction
Facts in Support of Finding MCRWMA has adopted and will implement the following mitigation measure that will reduce impacts on long- term operational emissions to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-2 In accordance with SJVAPCD requirements, MCRWMA shall coordinate with SJVAPCD and purchase offsets for those emissions in excess of SJVAPCD thresholds established in Table 4-1 of Rule 2201. Offsets shall be purchased for stationary source emissions in excess of SJVAPCD emissions limits for the landfill, inclusive of the proposed project and for the entire life of the landfill. The timing of purchase of offsets shall be determined in cooperation with SJVAPCD and in accordance with Rule 2201 requirements.
With implementation of the above-listed mitigation, annual operational emissions associated with the proposed project would be offset. Because the potential stationary source emissions of the landfill would exceed the thresholds established in Rule 2201 with or without the project, MCRWMA would be required to purchase offsets for the entirety of stationary source emissions including the existing emissions and emissions associated with the proposed project. As a result, the potential net emissions associated with the project would be reduced to zero. The project would still generate criteria pollutant emissions from mobile sources, but these are not eligible for offsets pursuant to Rule 2201. After mitigation, these emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds and would be less than significant.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Effect: Impact 4.3-1: Nesting birds. Construction activities associated with relocation of buildings and associated outbuildings could affect nesting birds, if present, through direct mortality of eggs or young. Impacts to nesting birds would be a significant impact.
Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by MCRWMA that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding MCRWMA has adopted and will implement the following mitigation measure that will reduce impacts to nesting birds to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1: Nesting birds. Removal or relocation of existing buildings within the landfill site shall be conducted between September 1 and February 14, if feasible. If infeasible, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey within ten business days before removal or relocation of existing buildings to determine presence or absence of nesting birds. If no nesting birds are observed, no further mitigation is required so long as the building demolition or relocation commences within 10 days before the pre- construction survey. If building demolition or relocation does not commence within 10 days of the pre- construction survey or halts for more than 10 days, a new pre-construction survey will be required.
If nesting birds are observed within any buildings proposed for removal/relocation, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer to ensure construction activities do not directly affect birds or any active nest and no buildings will be removed or relocated until a qualified biologist verifies that the nestlings have successfully fledged and the nest is no longer occupied.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce significant impacts associated with nesting birds to a less-than-significant level by ensuring no active nests are destroyed or disturbed by construction activities.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 1-19 Introduction Ascent Environmental
Significant Effect: Impact 4.3-2: Special-status bats. The proposed project could affect roosting bats if they are roosting in buildings proposed for removal or relocation. Loss or injury to roosting bats would be a significant impact.
Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by MCRWMA that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding MCRWMA has adopted and will implement the following mitigation measure that will reduce impacts to special-status bats to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-2: Special-status bats. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 10 business days before removal or relocation of existing buildings. If no bats are observed, a letter report documenting the results shall be submitted to the applicant within 7 days following the survey and no further mitigation is required so long as the building demolition or relocation commences within 10 days following the pre-construction survey. If building demolition or relocation does not commence within 10 days of the pre-construction survey or halts for more than 10 days, a new pre-construction survey will be required.
If any bats are observed roosting within any buildings proposed for removal/relocation, then the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer and no buildings containing roosting bats shall be removed/relocated until a biologist has determined that the buildings are no longer occupied by the bats. If roosts of special-status bats are determined to be present and must be removed, a bat exclusion plan shall be prepared and implemented. The exclusion plan shall describe the method of exclusion, which may include the use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave but not re- enter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed by a bat expert to contain no bats. The bats will be excluded from the roosting site before the building is demolished or removed.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce significant impacts to roosting bats to a less-than- significant level by ensuring no roosting bats are injured or destroyed by construction activities.
CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Effect: Impact 4.4-2: Disturb archaeological resources and human remains. Based on the results of the archaeological records search and historic land evaluations conducted for the proposed project, there is one known historic-era archaeological resource and no known prehistoric archaeological resources on the project site. Ground-disturbing activities could result in discovery or damage of as yet undiscovered archaeological resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, or disturb previously unknown human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by MCRWMA that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding MCRWMA has adopted and will implement the following mitigation measure that will reduce impacts to archaeological resources and human remains to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2: Halt ground-disturbing activity upon discovery of subsurface archaeological features. 1. In the event that any prehistoric or historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including locally darkened soil (“midden”), that could conceal cultural deposits, are discovered
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-20 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Ascent Environmental Introduction
during construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to assess the significance of the find. If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist (i.e., because it is determined to constitute either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource), the archaeologist shall develop appropriate procedures to protect the integrity of the resource and ensure that no additional resources are affected. Procedures could include but would not necessarily be limited to preservation in place, archival research, subsurface testing, or contiguous block unit excavation and data recovery.
2. If the archaeologist determines that some or all of the affected property is a Native American cultural place, including a Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9) or a Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.993), the applicant shall implement potentially feasible procedures recommended by the archaeologist that would preserve the integrity of the site or minimize impacts to it, including any or a combination of the following:
Avoidance, preservation, and/or enhancement of all or a portion of the Native American Cultural Place as open space or habitat, with a conservation easement dedicated to the most interested and appropriate tribal organization. If such an organization is willing to accept and maintain such an easement, or alternatively, a cultural resource organization that holds conservation easements;
An agreement with any such tribal or cultural resource organization to maintain the confidentiality of the location of the site so as to minimize the danger of vandalism to the site or other damage to its integrity; or
Other measures, short of full or partial avoidance or preservation, intended to minimize impacts on the Native American Cultural Place consistent with land use assumptions and the proposed design and footprint of the development project for which the requested grading permit has been approved.
After receiving such recommendations, the Authority shall assess the feasibility of the recommendations and impose the most protective mitigation feasible in light of land use assumptions and the proposed design and footprint of the development project. The Authority shall, in reaching conclusions with respect to these recommendations, consult with both the project applicant and the most appropriate and interested tribal organization.
3. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, MCRWMA’s contractor shall immediately halt potentially damaging excavation within 50 feet of the burial and notify the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist to determine the nature of the remains. The coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (Health and Safety Code Section 7050[c]). Following the coroner’s findings, the archaeologist, and the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendent shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains and take appropriate steps to ensure that additional human interments are not disturbed. The responsibilities for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in California Public Resources Code Section 5097.94.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to less-than- significant levels because it requires the performance of professionally accepted and legally compliant Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 1-21 Introduction Ascent Environmental procedures for the discovery of previously undocumented significant archaeological resources and human remains. The presence of a Native American monitor on-site is not necessary because of the limited ground disturbance during the relocation and demolition of the ancillary buildings and the lack of proximity to Fahrens Creek (more than 1.6 miles). Additionally, no resources have been encountered during previous activities at the existing landfill and no prehistoric or ethnographic archaeological sites have been recorded.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Potentially Significant Effect: Impact 4.6-1: Exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials. Operation of a landfill inherently involves the storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials; however, systems are in place at the Highway 59 facility that are compliant with federal, state, and local laws to allow such handling in a way that is protective of people and the environment. No aspect of the proposed project would substantially change operations such that new or revised systems or procedures would be required. Hazardous materials would continue to be collected through the household hazardous waste program and sewage sludge would be added to the list of wastes accepted at the landfill, but the program would be managed with existing controls in place and in accordance with all applicable laws, including Title 27 of the CCR, as it is currently. Construction of the project, however, would include relocation of the aboveground storage tanks from their existing locations to the central portion of the landfill. In addition, based on an environmental records search, a historic diesel surface spill was identified on-site. Although construction (including demolition and relocation of facilities) would occur in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials, such activities would result in temporarily increased potential to expose people and the environment to these materials. This impact would be potentially significant.
Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by MCRWMA that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding MCRWMA has adopted and will implement the following mitigation measures that will reduce impacts associated with exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a: Prepare and implement a Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan. MCRWMA shall implement the following measures before demolition or relocation of the existing on- site facilities to minimize the risk of exposure to or accidental release of hazardous materials:
Prepare a Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan prior to construction for spills/emergencies that have the potential to occur during construction. This plan will identify measures to prevent accidental spills from leaving the area and methods and responsibilities for rapidly and safely responding to and cleaning up spills before neighboring properties are exposed to hazardous materials. All spills that occur at the site shall be addressed within 24 hours of discovery.
Require that any employee handling hazardous materials is trained in the safe handling and storage of hazardous materials and is trained to follow all applicable regulations with regard to such hazardous materials.
Identify a staging area outside environmentally sensitive areas in which hazardous materials will be stored during construction, in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-22 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Ascent Environmental Introduction
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b: Discovery of unknown contaminants. If currently unknown contaminated soils or other hazardous materials are discovered (as may be indicated by discolored soils, odors, other indications) during construction (including demolition activities associated with the household hazardous waste facility and the aboveground storage tanks), activity within the area of the find will be halted, the extent and type of contamination will be characterized, and applicable elements of the Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan will be executed. The plan will require remediation of contaminants and/or contaminated soils. The plan will be subject to the review and approval by DTSC, Central Valley RWQCB, or other agencies, as applicable, and shall be consistent with any applicable laws. Remediation can include in-situ treatment, disposal at an approved landfill, or other disposal methods, as approved by DTSC, CUPA, Central Valley RWQCB, and other appropriate agencies. Construction and operations can proceed within the subject area upon approval of and in accordance with the plan.
If unanticipated hazardous wastes are discovered during relocation of facilities, the contingency actions developed in the clean-up plan, such as use of a licensed hazardous material response contractor to characterize and dispose of the hazardous waste, will be implemented.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce significant impacts associated with exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level by developing and implementing procedures for handling accidental spills and unknown contaminates that may be discovered during construction.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION Significant Effect: Impact 4.10-2: Near-term (2020) intersection level of service impacts. With or without implementation of the proposed project, 2020 operating conditions at the SR 59/Bellevue Road intersection would degrade to an unacceptable LOS E during the a.m. peak period. While the proposed project would not, in and of itself, create a significant impact at this intersection, it would provide additional traffic volumes beyond conditions that would exist without the project and would increase delay at the intersection, resulting in a significant impact.
Finding Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding The proposed project would increase near-term traffic volumes at the SR 59/Bellevue intersection, which is expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E condition by 2020 with or without the proposed project. While the project would not, in and of itself, create a significant impact at this intersection, it would contribute trips that would increase delay at the intersection by 6.4 seconds. Because of the relatively small contribution of project-generated traffic at this intersection, installation of a signal at the intersection is considered infeasible and disproportionate to the level of impact of the proposed project.
Because signalization of SR 59/Bellevue Road is not currently a planned improvement and there are no plans to create a program or funding mechanism to collect proportionate-share fees to implement the improvement, installation of a traffic signal is considered infeasible.
No feasible mitigation or alternatives are available to reduce the above impacts to less than significant levels. As a result, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 1-23 Introduction Ascent Environmental
Significant Effect: Impact 4.10-4: Long-term (2035) intersection level of service impacts. With or without implementation of the proposed project in the long-term, operating conditions at the SR 59/Bellevue Road intersection would degrade to an unacceptable LOS F during the a.m. peak period. While the proposed project would not, in and of itself, create a significant impact at this intersection, it would provide additional traffic volumes beyond conditions that would exist without the project and would increase delay at the intersection, resulting in a significant impact.
Finding Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding The proposed project would contribute long-term traffic volumes to the SR 59/Bellevue Road intersection, which is expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the a.m. peak period without the project by 2035. While the project would not, in and of itself, create a significant impact at this intersection, it would contribute trips that could incrementally increase delay at the intersection, although average a.m. peak hour delay under 2035 conditions would not increase. Because of the relatively small contribution to traffic volumes at this intersection, installation of a signal at the intersection would be disproportionate to the level of impact of the proposed project and is considered infeasible.
As with the near-term condition, because signalization of SR 59/Bellevue Road is not a planned improvement and there are no plans to create a program or funding mechanism to collect proportionate- share fees to implement the improvement, installation of a traffic signal is considered infeasible.
No feasible mitigation measure or alternatives are available to reduce the above impacts to less than significant. As a result, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Significant Effect: Impact 4.10-5: Long-term (2035) roadway level of service impacts. With or without implementation of the project, LOS on SR 59 and Bellevue Road would degrade in the long- term. While three of the four study roadway segments would continue to operate acceptably, the segment of SR 59 between the landfill and Oakdale Road would degrade to LOS E, which is below Merced County and Caltrans LOS thresholds. While the proposed project would not, in and of itself, create a significant impact along this roadway segment, it would provide additional traffic volumes beyond conditions that would exist without the project and would further degrade LOS along this roadway segment. Therefore, this impact would be significant.
Finding Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding The proposed project would contribute to long-term increases in traffic along SR 59, and the roadway segment between the Highway 59 Landfill Entrance and Oakdale Road would function unacceptably under 2035 conditions with the proposed project. However, because of the relatively small contribution (0.1 percent increase in time spent following for northbound traffic along this segment) of the proposed project to traffic volumes at this intersection, installation of a passing lane, which would remedy the condition, would be disproportionate to the level of impact of the project and is infeasible.
Because installation of a passing lane is not currently a planned improvement, and there are no plans to create a program or funding mechanism to collect proportionate-share fees to implement the improvement, installation of a passing lane is considered infeasible.
No feasible mitigation measure or alternatives are available to reduce the above impacts to less than significant. As a result, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-24 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Ascent Environmental Introduction
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Significant Effect: Biological Resources – Cumulative. The proposed project could disturb areas that include special-status plant species, vernal pools, and habitat for special-status species, which are considered significant impacts without mitigation. Therefore, the project could make an incremental contribution to a cumulative impact on biological resources.
Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by MCRWMA that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding MCRWMA has adopted and will implement the following mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to biological resources to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1: Nesting birds. Removal or relocation of existing buildings within the landfill site shall be conducted between September 1 and February 14, if feasible. If infeasible, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey within ten business days before removal or relocation of existing buildings to determine presence or absence of nesting birds. If no nesting birds are observed, no further mitigation is required so long as the building demolition or relocation commences within ten days before the pre- construction survey. If building demolition or relocation does not commence within 10 days of the pre- construction survey or halts for more than 10 days, a new pre-construction survey will be required.
If nesting birds are observed within any buildings proposed for removal/relocation, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer to ensure construction activities do not directly affect birds or any active nest and no buildings will be removed or relocated until a qualified biologist verifies that the nestlings have successfully fledged and the nest is no longer occupied.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-2: Special-status bats. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 10 business days before removal or relocation of existing buildings. If no bats are observed, a letter report documenting the results shall be submitted to the applicant within 7 days following the survey and no further mitigation is required so long as the building demolition or relocation commences within 10 days following the pre-construction survey. If building demolition or relocation does not commence within 10 days of the pre-construction survey or halts for more than 10 days, a new pre-construction survey will be required.
If any bats are observed roosting within any buildings proposed for removal/relocation, then the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer and no buildings containing roosting bats shall be removed/relocated until a biologist has determined that the buildings are no longer occupied by the bats. If roosts of special-status bats are determined to be present and must be removed, a bat exclusion plan shall be prepared and implemented. The exclusion plan shall describe the method of exclusion, which may include the use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave but not re- enter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed by a bat expert to contain no bats. The bats will be excluded from the roosting site before the building is demolished or removed.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the project’s significant impacts associated with biological resources to a less-than-significant level by ensuring no active nests are destroyed or disturbed by construction activities and that no roosting bats are injured or destroyed by construction activities. Therefore, the incremental contribution of the proposed project to the cumulative impact on special-status species in the region would not be cumulatively considerable. The potential cumulative biological resources impacts of the proposed project are less than significant.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 1-25 Introduction Ascent Environmental
Significant Effect: Cultural Resources – Cumulative. Although no known archaeological or historical resources are located within the boundaries of the project site, and all project-related ground disturbance would occur within areas of previous disturbance and refuse disposal, the proposed project, in combination with other development in the region, could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource or unique archaeological resource. Therefore, the project could make an incremental contribution to a cumulative impact on cultural resources
Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by MCRWMA that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding MCRWMA has adopted and will implement the following mitigation measure that will reduce impacts to cultural resources to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2: Halt ground-disturbing activity upon discovery of subsurface archaeological features. 1. In the event that any prehistoric or historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including locally darkened soil (“midden”), that could conceal cultural deposits, are discovered during construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to assess the significance of the find. If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist (i.e., because it is determined to constitute either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource), the archaeologist shall develop appropriate procedures to protect the integrity of the resource and ensure that no additional resources are affected. Procedures could include but would not necessarily be limited to preservation in place, archival research, subsurface testing, or contiguous block unit excavation and data recovery.
2. If the archaeologist determines that some or all of the affected property is a Native American cultural place, including a Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9) or a Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.993), the applicant shall implement archaeologist potentially feasible procedures recommended by the archaeologist that would preserve the integrity of the site or minimize impacts to it, including any or a combination of the following:
Avoidance, preservation, and/or enhancement of all or a portion of the Native American Cultural Place as open space or habitat, with a conservation easement dedicated to the most interested and appropriate tribal organization. If such an organization is willing to accept and maintain such an easement, or alternatively, a cultural resource organization that holds conservation easements;
An agreement with any such tribal or cultural resource organization to maintain the confidentiality of the location of the site so as to minimize the danger of vandalism to the site or other damage to its integrity; or
Other measures, short of full or partial avoidance or preservation, intended to minimize impacts on the Native American Cultural Place consistent with land use assumptions and the proposed design and footprint of the development project for which the requested grading permit has been approved.
After receiving such recommendations, the Authority shall assess the feasibility of the recommendations and impose the most protective mitigation feasible in light of land use
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-26 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Ascent Environmental Introduction
assumptions and the proposed design and footprint of the development project. The Authority shall, in reaching conclusions with respect to these recommendations, consult with both the project applicant and the most appropriate and interested tribal organization.
3. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, MCRWMA’s contractor shall immediately halt potentially damaging excavation within 50 feet of the burial and notify the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist to determine the nature of the remains. The coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (Health and Safety Code Section 7050[c]). Following the coroner’s findings, the archaeologist, and the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendent shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains and take appropriate steps to ensure that additional human interments are not disturbed. The responsibilities for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in California Public Resources Code Section 5097.94.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the project’s significant impacts associated with archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level because it requires the performance of professionally accepted and legally compliant procedures for the discovery of previously undocumented significant archaeological resources and human remains. Therefore, the incremental contribution of the proposed project to the cumulative impact on archaeological resources in the region would not be cumulatively considerable. The potential cumulative cultural resources impacts of the proposed project are less than significant. Significant Effect: Hazards and Hazardous Materials – Cumulative. The proposed project has the potential to result in accidental spill or release of hazardous materials related to relocation of the household hazardous waste facility and aboveground storage tanks, or the discovery of previously unknown contaminants during construction, which are considered significant impacts without mitigation. Therefore, the project could make an incremental contribution to a cumulative impact on hazards and hazardous materials.
Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project by MCRWMA that mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Finding MCRWMA has adopted and will implement the following mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to hazards and hazardous materials to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a: Prepare and implement a Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan. MCRWMA shall implement the following measures before demolition or relocation of the existing on- site facilities to minimize the risk of exposure to or accidental release of hazardous materials:
Prepare a Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan prior to construction for spills/emergencies that have the potential to occur during construction. This plan will identify measures to prevent accidental spills from leaving the area and methods and responsibilities for rapidly and safely responding to and cleaning up spills before neighboring properties are exposed to hazardous materials. All spills that occur at the site shall be addressed within 24 hours of discovery.
Require that any employee handling hazardous materials is trained in the safe handling and storage of hazardous materials and is trained to follow all applicable regulations with regard to such hazardous materials.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 1-27 Introduction Ascent Environmental
Identify a staging area outside environmentally sensitive areas in which hazardous materials will be stored during construction, in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b: Discovery of unknown contaminants. If currently unknown contaminated soils or other hazardous materials are discovered (as may be indicated by discolored soils, odors, other indications) during construction (including demolition activities associated with the household hazardous waste facility and the aboveground storage tanks), activity within the area of the find will be halted, the extent and type of contamination will be characterized, and applicable elements of the Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan will be executed. The plan will require remediation of contaminants and/or contaminated soils. The plan will be subject to the review and approval of DTSC, Central Valley RWQCB, or other agencies, as applicable, and shall be consistent with any applicable laws. Remediation can include in-situ treatment, disposal at an approved landfill, or other disposal methods, as approved by DTSC, CUPA, Central Valley RWQCB, and other appropriate agencies. Construction and operations can proceed within the subject area upon approval of and in accordance with the plan.
If unanticipated hazardous wastes are discovered during relocation of facilities, the contingency actions developed in the clean-up plan, such as use of a licensed hazardous material response contractor to characterize and dispose of the hazardous waste, will be implemented.
Through continued implementation of practices at the existing landfill and implementation of the above- listed mitigation, the proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact related to hazards or hazardous materials. The potential cumulative impact of the proposed project on hazards and hazardous materials are less than significant.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CEQA (PRC Section 21081.5) and the CEQA Guidelines (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 Sections 15091(d) and 15097) require public agencies “to adopt a reporting and monitoring program for changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” An MMRP is required for the proposed project because the EIR identifies potentially significant adverse impacts related to project implementation, and mitigation measures have been identified to reduce those impacts. The MMRP is attached hereto as Attachment A.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-28 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. MCRWMA proposes to approve the project despite certain significant and unavoidable adverse impacts identified in the Valley Fill Project EIR.
The entire EIR includes: (1) the Draft EIR and appendices, and (2) the Final EIR, which includes responses to comments, corrections and revisions to the Draft EIR, and one appendix. MCRWMA published the Final EIR on May 1, 2016.
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
The EIR identifies significant and potentially significant but mitigable impacts to the following environmental resources: air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, and hazards and hazardous materials. Mitigation measures are available to reduce each of these impacts to a less-than- significant level, and MCRWMA has adopted such measures.
The EIR also identifies significant and unavoidable impacts for the Valley Fill Project related to traffic and transportation (project level and cumulative).
BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT
2.2.1 Meet Waste Disposal Demands
The project would allow MCRWMA to meet projected waste disposal needs for Merced County. Disposal needs are expected to increase from an existing level of 900 average daily tons to approximately 2,125 by 2035 and beyond. The projected increases in peak daily and average tonnage are based on anticipated regional population growth and on measured increases in average and peak daily tonnages accepted at the Highway 59 Landfill over the past several years. This includes an annual countywide growth rate of 1.5 percent and a total population growth of 106,000 between 2015 and 2035 as stated in the San Joaquin Valley Demographic Forecasts 2010 to 2050, which was prepared for the Fresno Council of Governments in 2012 and addressed growth in eight counties, including Merced County.
The proposed project would incrementally increase the maximum daily tonnage and associated traffic over the next 20 years to accommodate population growth and demand for local solid waste disposal capacity; expand the solid waste disposal footprint by 3 percent (7.8 acres) within the currently active area of the landfill; increase the height of the existing disposal area by 50 feet to allow continued operation for an additional 11 to 15 years within the currently permitted solid waste facility boundary. The landfill is currently projected to reach capacity in 2065. The proposed project would extend the operational life of the landfill to sometime between 2076 and 2080. The project would ensure the availability of solid waste disposal capacity in Merced County for the foreseeable future while accommodating additional demands for disposal resulting from regional growth.
2.2.2 Conserve Resources
The primary purpose of the proposed project is to increase the disposal capacity of the landfill in a manner that conserves natural resources by limiting new land disturbance and is environmentally superior to the
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 2-1 Introduction Ascent Environmental
current plan for disposal area expansion (Phase 6) and to constructing a new landfill facility. Disposal in Phase 6 would require excavation of more than 2,500,000 cubic yards of soil, whereas the proposed project would require excavation of approximately 32,000 cubic yards, a substantially lower soil volume and footprint area. Implementation of the Valley Fill project would provide sufficient near-term capacity to delay activation of Phase 6B until approximately 2035. By that date, it is anticipated that all of the heavy equipment required for excavation of soil would meet Tier 4 emissions standards (requiring that emissions of PM and NOx be reduced substantially as compared to Tier 1-3 standards). MCRWMA’s existing fleet meets Tier 1-3 standards.
As compared to the current disposal expansion plan, implementation of the proposed project would achieve the following, which would:
Reduce the volume of soil to be excavated in the near-term by 2,468,000 cubic yards;
Reduce near-term air emissions (dust and diesel emissions) associated with reduced excavation (approximately 98 percent reduction);
Increase the permitted design capacity of the landfill by 19 percent with a 3 percent increase in waste footprint;
Increase the permitted design capacity of the landfill by approximately 6,857,000 cubic yards without expanding the facility boundary; and
Extend the life of the landfill by approximately 15 years without expanding the facility boundary.
In addition, by expanding disposal capacity within the existing landfill footprint, impacts on environmentally sensitive resources associated with expansion of the landfill footprint or construction of a new landfill facility would be avoided. The proposed project would avoid impacts and consumption of resources associated with installation of new infrastructure and substantial grading that would be required to expand the footprint of the existing landfill or construct a new landfill facility. Development of a new landfill on a previously undeveloped site would require substantially more construction than use of the existing landfill site and there is greater potential for disturbance of resources with undeveloped sites. Therefore, construction of a new facility would have a greater potential to affect air quality and GHG emissions; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and mineral resources; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and agriculture resources; noise; traffic and transportation; visual resources; and utilities.
2.2.3 Minimize Net Fiscal Effects
The Valley Fill Project would allow continued operation of the existing Highway 59 Landfill for an additional 11 to 15 years within the currently permitted solid waste facility boundary. A primary purpose of the proposed project is to increase the disposal capacity of the landfill in a manner that is economically superior to the currently planned disposal in Phase 6 or construction of a new landfill facility. Postponing the planned disposal in Phase 6 through implementation of the proposed project would realize substantial near-term savings (the cost of Valley Fill Project is less than 30 percent of the cost of Phase 6B) by reducing the volume of soil to be excavated in the near-term by 2,468,000 cubic yards and extending the life of the landfill by approximately 15 years without expanding the facility boundary. Furthermore, extending the life of the existing landfill rather than constructing a new landfill facility would avoid substantial costs associated with purchasing additional land, permitting and mitigation, and construction. The Valley Fill Project will, therefore, minimize the net fiscal effects on rate payers and taxpayers while achieving long-term waste disposal goals.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-2 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Ascent Environmental Introduction
CONCLUSION Having reduced the effects of the project by adopting all feasible mitigation measures, and balancing the benefits of the project against the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, MCRWMA hereby determines that the specific overriding social, environmental, and economic benefits of the project set forth above outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse effects of the project on the environment. MCRWMA finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth above constitutes a separate and independent basis for finding that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and warrants approval of the project.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project 2-3 Introduction Ascent Environmental
This page intentionally left blank.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-4 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project
Attachment Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project
4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority (MCRWMA) prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that identified potentially significant impacts related to: air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and traffic and transportation. The EIR also identifies mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts to less-than- significant levels, or that would eliminate these impacts all together, except for traffic (short-term impact to an intersection and long-term impacts to an intersection and a roadway segment), which would remain significant and unavoidable.
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (PRC Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091[d] and 15097, respectively) require public agencies “to adopt a reporting and monitoring program for changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is required because the EIR identifies potential significant adverse impacts related to the project implementation, and mitigation measures have been identified to reduce those impacts. Adoption of the MMRP would occur along with approval of the project.
4.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This MMRP has been prepared to ensure that all required mitigation measures are implemented and completed in a satisfactory manner before and during project construction and operation. The MMRP may be modified by MCRWMA during project implementation, as necessary, in response to changing conditions or other refinements; however, modifications to the mitigation measures may not occur without subsequent environmental impact assessment.
The attached table has been prepared to assist the responsible parties in implementing the mitigation measures. The table identifies individual mitigation measures, monitoring/mitigation timing, person/agency responsible for implementing each measure, and monitoring and reporting procedures. It also provides space to confirm implementation of the mitigation measures. The numbering of mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence found in the EIR.
4.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Unless otherwise specified herein, MCRWMA is responsible for taking all actions necessary to implement the mitigation measures under its jurisdiction according to the specifications provided for each measure, and for demonstrating that the action has been successfully completed. MCRWMA, at its discretion, may delegate implementation actions or portions thereof to a licensed contractor or other designated agent, but it remains ultimately responsible for implementation.
As required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, MCRWMA or its designee is the custodian of documents and other material which constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the action on the project was based.
Inquiries should be directed to: The location of this information is:
Jerry Lawrie Merced County Regional Waste, Management Authority Environmental Resource Manager 7040 North Highway 59 Email: [email protected] Merced, California 95348
Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Final EIR 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental
MCRWMA is responsible for overall administration of the MMRP and for verifying that staff members and/or the construction contractor has completed the necessary actions for each measure. MCRWMA may designate a project manager to oversee implementation of the MMRP. Duties of the project manager include the following:
ensure routine inspections of the construction site are conducted by appropriate MCRWMA staff; check plans, reports, and other documents required by the MMRP; and conduct report activities;
serve as a liaison between MCRWMA and the contractor or project applicant regarding mitigation monitoring issues;
complete forms and maintain reports and other records and documents generated for the MMRP; and
coordinate and ensure that corrective actions or enforcement measures are taken, if necessary.
The responsible party for implementation of each item will identify the staff members responsible for coordinating with MCRWMA on the MMRP.
4.3 REPORTING
MCRWMA shall, or may require the contractor to, prepare a monitoring report upon completion of the project describing the compliance of the activity with the mitigation measures. Information regarding inspections and other requirements shall be compiled and explained in the report. The report shall be designed to simply and clearly identify whether mitigation measures have been adequately implemented. At a minimum, each report shall identify the mitigation measures or conditions to be monitored, whether compliance with the mitigation measures or conditions has occurred, the procedures used to assess compliance, and whether further action is required. The report shall be presented to the MCAG Governing Board.
4.4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN TABLE
The columns in the attached MMRP table are described below:
Mitigation Measure – Provides the verbatim text of the adopted mitigation measure
Timing – Identifies the time frame in which the mitigation will be implemented.
Implementing Party/Agency – Identifies the party responsible for implementation.
Enforcement/Monitoring Party/Agency – Identifies the party responsible for enforcing compliance with the requirements of the mitigation measure.
Monitoring Frequency – Identifies the frequency of monitoring of mitigation measure implementation to be undertaken by the enforcement/monitoring party/agency.
Dated Signature for Verification of Compliance – Provides space for the person (either project manager or his/her designee) responsible for verifying compliance with the requirements of the mitigation measure to sign off on such compliance.
Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority 4-2 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Final EIR Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Enforcement/ Dated Signature Timing of Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Monitoring for Verification Initial Action Party/Agency Frequency Party/Agency of Compliance 4.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation Measure 4.2-2: In accordance with SJVAPCD requirements, MCRWMA shall coordinate with SJVAPCD and To be determined in MCRWMA SJVAPCD One time purchase offsets for those emissions in excess of SJVAPCD thresholds established in Table 4-1 of Rule 2201. Offsets cooperation with shall be purchased for stationary source emissions in excess of SJVAPCD emissions limits for the landfill, inclusive of the SJVAPCD and in proposed project and for the entire life of the landfill. The timing of purchase of offsets shall be determined in accordance with Rule cooperation with SJVAPCD and in accordance with Rule 2201 requirements. 2201 requirements 4.3 Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 4.3-1: Removal or relocation of existing buildings within the landfill site shall be conducted between No less than 10 days MCRWMA MCRWMA One time September 1 and February 14, if feasible. If infeasible, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within prior to construction ten business days before removal or relocation of existing buildings to determine presence or absence of nesting birds. If no nesting birds are observed, no further mitigation is required so long as the building demolition or relocation commences within ten days before the pre-construction survey. If building demolition or relocation does not commence within 10 days of the pre-construction survey or halts for more than 10 days, a new pre-construction survey will be required. If nesting birds are observed within any buildings proposed for removal/relocation, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer to ensure construction activities do not directly affect birds or any active nest and no buildings will be removed or relocated until a qualified biologist verifies that the nestlings have successfully fledged and the nest is no longer occupied. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2: A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within ten business days before No less than 10 days MCRWMA MCRWMA One time removal or relocation of existing buildings within the project site. If no bats are observed, a letter report documenting the prior to construction results shall be submitted to the applicant within 7 days following the survey and no further mitigation is required so long as the building demolition or relocation commences within 10 days following the pre-construction survey. If building demolition or relocation does not commence within 10 days of the pre-construction survey or halts for more than 10 days, a new pre-construction survey will be required. If any bats are observed roosting within any buildings proposed for removal/relocation, then the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer and no buildings containing roosting bats shall be removed/relocated until a biologist has determined that the buildings are no longer occupied by the bats. If roosts of special-status bats are determined to be present and must be removed, a bat exclusion plan shall be prepared and implemented. The exclusion plan shall describe the method of exclusion, which may include the use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave but not re-enter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed by a bat expert to contain no bats. The bats will be excluded from the roosting site before the building is demolished or removed.
Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Final EIR 4-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental
Table 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Enforcement/ Dated Signature Timing of Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Monitoring for Verification Initial Action Party/Agency Frequency Party/Agency of Compliance 4.4 Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 4.4-2: Halt ground-disturbing activity upon discovery of subsurface archaeological features: During construction Construction MCRWMA As 1. In the event that any prehistoric or historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including locally contractor needed/up darkened soil (“midden”), that could conceal cultural deposits, are discovered during construction, all ground-disturbing on activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to observance assess the significance of the find. If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist (i.e., because it is determined to constitute either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource), the archaeologist shall develop appropriate procedures to protect the integrity of the resource and ensure that no additional resources are affected. Procedures could include but would not necessarily be limited to preservation in place, archival research, subsurface testing, or contiguous block unit excavation and data recovery. 2. If the archaeologist determines that some or all of the affected property is a Native American cultural place, including a Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (Public Resources Code Section 5097.9) or a Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site (Public Resources Code Section 5097.993), the applicant shall implement archaeologist potentially feasible procedures recommended by the archaeologist that would preserve the integrity of the site or minimize impacts to it, including any or a combination of the following: Avoidance, preservation, and/or enhancement of all or a portion of the Native American Cultural Place as open space or habitat, with a conservation easement dedicated to the most interested and appropriate tribal organization. If such an organization is willing to accept and maintain such an easement, or alternatively, a cultural resource organization that holds conservation easements; An agreement with any such tribal or cultural resource organization to maintain the confidentiality of the location of the site so as to minimize the danger of vandalism to the site or other damage to its integrity; or Other measures, short of full or partial avoidance or preservation, intended to minimize impacts on the Native American Cultural Place consistent with land use assumptions and the proposed design and footprint of the development project for which the requested grading permit has been approved. After receiving such recommendations, the Authority shall assess the feasibility of the recommendations and impose the most protective mitigation feasible in light of land use assumptions and the proposed design and footprint of the development project. The Authority shall, in reaching conclusions with respect to these recommendations, consult with both the project applicant and the most appropriate and interested tribal organization. 3. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, MCRWMA’s contractor shall immediately halt potentially damaging excavation within 50 feet of the burial and notify the County Coroner and a professional archaeologist to determine the nature of the remains. The coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she
Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority 4-4 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Final EIR Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Enforcement/ Dated Signature Timing of Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure Monitoring for Verification Initial Action Party/Agency Frequency Party/Agency of Compliance must contact the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (Health and Safety Code Section 7050[c]). Following the coroner’s findings, the archaeologist, and the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendent shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains and take appropriate steps to ensure that additional human interments are not disturbed. The responsibilities for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in California Public Resources Code Section 5097.94. 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a: Prepare and implement a Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan. MCRWMA shall implement Prior to demolition MCRWMA MCRWMA One time the following measures before demolition or relocation of the existing on-site facilities to minimize the risk of exposure to and relocation of or accidental release of hazardous materials: existing facilities Prepare a Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan prior to construction for spills/emergencies that have the potential to occur during construction. This plan will identify measures to prevent accidental spills from leaving the area and methods and responsibilities for rapidly and safely responding to and cleaning up spills before neighboring properties are exposed to hazardous materials. All spills that occur at the site shall be addressed within 24 hours of discovery. Require that any employee handling hazardous materials is trained in the safe handling and storage of hazardous materials and is trained to follow all applicable regulations with regard to such hazardous materials. Identify a staging area outside environmentally sensitive areas in which hazardous materials will be stored during construction, in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b: Discovery of unknown contaminants. If currently unknown contaminated soils or other During construction MCRWMA DTSC, CUPA, As hazardous materials are discovered (as may be indicated by discolored soils, odors, other indications) during and Central needed/up construction (including demolition activities associated with the household hazardous waste facility and the aboveground Valley RWQCB on storage tanks), activity within the area of the find will be halted, the extent and type of contamination will be observance characterized, and applicable elements of the Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan will be executed. The plan will require remediation of contaminants and/or contaminated soils. The plan will be subject to the review and approval of DTSC, Central Valley RWQCB, or other agencies, as applicable, and be consistent with any applicable laws. Remediation can include in-situ treatment, disposal at an approved landfill, or other disposal methods, as approved by DTSC, CUPA, Central Valley RWQCB, and other appropriate agencies. Construction and operations can proceed within the subject area upon approval of and in accordance with the plan. If unanticipated hazardous or non-conforming wastes are discovered during relocation of on-site facilities, the contingency actions (including training of site personnel to visually recognize hazardous materials and use of a licensed hazardous material response contractor to characterize and dispose of hazardous waste) developed in the clean-up plan will be implemented.
Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Final EIR 4-5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental
This page intentionally left blank.
Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority 4-6 Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Final EIR
Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project Notice of Public Hearing
Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Thursday, May 19, 2016 3:00 PM City of Merced Council Chambers 678 West 18th Street Merced, California
Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority (MCRWMA) invites you to attend a public hearing on the Highway 59 Landfill Valley Fill Project (Valley Fill Project). The purpose of the meeting is for MCRWMA, as lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to consider the reasonably foreseeable and potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the Valley Fill Project, as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearing House No. 2014061081), and consider certification of the Final EIR as adequate under CEQA. If found to be adequate, and after certification, the MCRWMA will consider approval of the Valley Fill Project and adoption of the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.
This public hearing will also serve to consider removal of Mitigation Measures 4.1 and 4.2 as included in the 1996 Highway 59 Landfill Expansion EIR (1996 EIR). Mitigation Measures 4.1 and 4.2 in the 1996 EIR required dedication of additional right-of-way and construction of acceleration and deceleration lanes to accommodate safe turning movements under cumulative (future) conditions. However, the traffic volumes anticipated in the 1996 EIR, while considered reasonable and appropriate at the time of preparation of that analysis, are now understood to have overestimated potential volumes along SR 59. Because traffic volumes projected in the 1996 EIR are significantly higher than what has materialized, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1 and 4.2 adopted as part of the 1996 EIR is no longer considered necessary for the purposes of mitigating traffic hazard impacts and such mitigation measures are being considered for removal.
The Final EIR is available for public review online at http://www.mcagov.org/233/Valley- Fill-Project and at Highway 59 Landfill (7040 North Highway 59, Merced, California 95348). Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a), a copy of the Final EIR has also been provided to all commenting public agencies at least 10 days prior to consideration of certification of the Final EIR. Copies of the Final EIR will also be available at the public hearing.
Questions about the public hearing should be directed to Mr. Jerry Lawrie, MCRWMA Environmental Resource Manager, at (209) 723-4481 ext. 20.
ITEM 7 MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAY 12, 2016
TO: MERCED COUNTY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
FROM: NADIA GONZALEZ, FINANCIAL SERVICES MANAGER
RE: MERCED COUNTY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY FINANCIAL REPORTS
SUMMARY
Attached for your review is the Profit and Loss Budget vs. Actual Report for the second quarter ended March 31, 2016. The Pooled Investment Summary Report for the period ended March 31, 2016 is likewise included. These numbers are unaudited.
If you have any questions regarding this staff report, please contact Nadia Gonzalez at 723-4481 x 19 or [email protected].
REQUESTED ACTION
For information only.
Attachments: Profit and Loss Budget vs Actual Report for the third quarter ended March 31, 2016 Pooled Investment Summary Report for the period ended March 31, 2016 MCRWMA Profit/Loss Budget vs Actual For the Nine Months Ended Thursday, March 31, 2016 (Unaudited) Variance 7/1/2015 - Budget Remaining Remaining 3/31/2016 07/01/15-06/30/15 Balance Budget %
Revenue Facility Fees-Disp $8,687,803 $10,019,900 $1,332,097 13.29% Reimbursed Services 47,124 62,800 $15,676 24.96% Other Sales 82,033 17,800 ($64,233) (360.86%) Misc. Revenue 90,805 50,000 ($40,805) (81.61%) Interest 100,457 50,000 ($50,457) (100.91%) Total Revenue 9,008,222 10,200,500 $1,192,278 11.69%
Operating Expenses
Total Employee-Related Expenses 535,193 791,007 $255,814 32.34%
Other Operating Expenses General Liability Ins 208,611 215,000 $6,389 2.97% Clothing/Personal Supply 14,564 17,600 $3,036 17.25% Janitorial Expense 19,443 29,000 $9,557 32.96% Equipment Maintenance/Repair 193,605 326,600 $132,995 40.72% Equipment Fuel/Oil/Supplies 163,445 582,500 $419,055 71.94% Structures & Grounds Maintenance 99,922 269,000 $169,078 62.85% Tools & Instruments 738 9,000 $8,262 91.80% Dues, Subscriptions & Membership 5,326 7,513 $2,187 29.11% Operations - Cash Over/Short (513) 500 $1,013 202.60% Operations - Bank Charges 6,198 7,500 $1,302 17.36% Office Expense - General 27,390 43,500 $16,110 37.03% MCAG Staff Cost 1,698,496 2,208,538 $510,042 23.09% Professional/Special Svcs 467,126 753,735 $286,609 38.03% Information Services 40,929 86,200 $45,271 52.52% Interest Expense 3,881 6,902 $3,021 43.77% Testing Lab/Medical/Misc 2,486 5,500 $3,014 54.80% Publications/Advertise 1,725 4,000 $2,275 56.88% Equipment Lease/Rent 99,760 172,997 $73,237 42.33% Rent Expense:Grounds/Imprvmt/Structure 5,837 7,000 $1,163 16.61% Special Department Expense:Other 44,187 65,000 $20,813 32.02% Software 25,700 50,000 $24,300 48.60% State Solid Waste Fees 325,836 363,581 $37,745 10.38% Travel Expense 10,854 20,000 $9,146 45.73% Training 2,379 10,000 $7,621 76.21% Communication 17,061 23,460 $6,399 27.28% Electric Utility Service 47,400 83,000 $35,600 42.89% Closure and postclosure expense* 150,000 $150,000 100.00% Total Other Operating Expenses 3,532,383 5,517,626 $1,985,243 35.98%
Additional Expense Section Principal Pymt/2007 Bond 1,586,000 $1,586,000 100.00% Interest Pymt/2007 Bond 294,514 589,029 $294,515 50.00% Fixed Assets 13,296 44,000 $30,704 69.78% Total Additional Expense Section 307,810 2,219,029 $1,911,219 86.13%
TOTAL OPERATING AND ADDITIONAL EXPENSES 4,375,386 8,527,662 $4,152,276 48.69%
Net Income (Loss) $4,632,836 $1,672,838 ($2,959,998) (176.94%) MERCED COUNTY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY POOLED FUNDS INVESTMENT SUMMARY 03/31/2016
% Rate of % Rate of Account Balance Return QTD Return YTD
Wells Fargo Bank - Operating Fund $ 4,038,311 0.180 0.270 County of Merced Investment 18,016,321 0.790 0.805 LAIF Investment 2,821,763 0.377 0.353
Total Bank and Investment Balances $ 24,876,396
MCRWMA TOTAL BY FUND
0.03% 0.00% 0.63% Operating
27.82% 7.62% EE Hlth Ded 3.48% JPA Operations
SDI 0.02% EE Retirement Cont
Liab. Ins. 16.23%
32.81% 59 Closure
BW Closure 11.34% Capital
LAIF Investment
ITEM 8
TRANSIT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY FOR MERCED COUNTY
April 21, 2016
MINUTES
The regular meeting of the TRANSIT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY FOR MERCED COUNTY held on Thursday, April 21, 2016, at the County of Merced, Board of Supervisors Chambers, 2222 M Street, Merced, CA was called to order by Chair Kelsey at 3:19 P.M.
DIRECTORS PRESENT Rodrigo Espinoza Deidre Kelsey Daron McDaniel Michael McGlynn for Jerry Antonetti Jerry O’Banion Joe Oliveira Jim Price Stan Thurston Mike Villalta Hub Walsh
DIRECTORS ABSENT John Pedrozo
GUESTS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC Gary Brizzee, City of Los Banos Tom Dumas, Caltrans District 10 Louise Farley, Senator Anthony Cannella’s Office Greg Love, NELLC Albert Perez, National Express Transit Jose Ramirez, San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Diana Westmoreland-Pedrozo, Citizens Advisory Committee
STAFF PRESENT Matt Fell, Transportation Manager Nadia Gonzalez, Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Rich Green, Transit Manager Joy Gort, Administrative Assistant II Emily Haden, Legal Counsel Marjie Kirn, Executive Director Robin Lamas, Administrative Assistant II Christina Smith, Chief Financial Officer Brooks Stayer, Director, Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Marty Yerrick, Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority
8. Consent Agenda
a. Minutes of the March 17, 2016 Transit Joint Powers authority for Merced County meeting c. Transfer of Compressed Natural Gas Buses to the City of Elk Grove d. Planning Memorandum of Understanding between Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County and MCAG e. Reallocation of Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account Funds for Purchase of Three Paratransit Replacement Buses Director Thurston moved to approve the Consent Agenda items a, c, d and e with a correction to consent agenda item a, noting that Director Oliveira was not present. Seconded by Director Price. Ayes – Directors Walsh, McDaniel, Kelsey, O’Banion, Price, McGlynn, Oliveira, Espinoza, Villalta, Thurston Noes – None MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
b. Transfer of Compressed Natural Gas Buses to the City of Turlock and the City of Visalia Director Thurston moved to approve Consent Agenda item b. Seconded by Director Price. Ayes – Directors Walsh, McDaniel, Kelsey, O’Banion, Price, McGlynn, Oliveira, Espinoza, Villalta, Thurston Noes – None MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. Oral Report – Transit Monthly Update
Rich Green gave the Transit monthly update.
10. Contract for Design Services for the Bus Maintenance Facility
Director O’Banion moved to authorize the Executive Director to enter into a contract for Design, Engineering and Surveying Services for the Bus Maintenance Facility in the amount of $210,000.00. Seconded by Director Oliveira. Ayes – Directors Walsh, McDaniel, Kelsey, O’Banion, Price, McGlynn, Oliveira, Espinoza, Villalta, Thurston Noes – None MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. Fiscal Year 2016/17 Operating and Capital Projects Budgets
Director Oliveira moved to approve the Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County Budget for Fiscal Year 2016/17. Seconded by Director Thurston. Ayes – Directors Walsh, McDaniel, Kelsey, O’Banion, Price, McGlynn, Oliveira, Espinoza, Villalta, Thurston Noes – None MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS OF THE TRANSIT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY FOR MERCED COUNTY, THAT PORTION OF THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 3:38 P.M.
/ s / Joy Gort Administrative Assistant II
ITEM 10
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAY 12, 2016
TO: TRANSIT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY FOR MERCED COUNTY
FROM: CHRISTINA SMITH, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
RE: TRANSIT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY FOR MERCED COUNTY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR JULY 2015– MARCH 2016
DISCUSSION
Attached for your review is the Profit and Loss Budget versus Actual report for the period July 2015 through March 2016.
If you have any questions regarding this staff report please contact Christina Smith at 723.3153 x 304 or [email protected].
REQUESTED ACTION
For information only.
Attachment: Profit and Loss Budget vs. Actual report for the period July 2015 through March 2016
Transit JPA P L Budget vs. Actual 3rd Quarter FY 2015-16 Unaudited Variance Actual Budget Remaining Remaining 7/1/15-03/31/16 July -June 16 Balance Budget % Income State Transit Assistance (26,710) 1,411,184 1,437,894 101.89% Local Transp. Funds 8,000,000 6,732,536 -1,267,464 -18.83% GASBInterest Adjustment Interest 8,153 7,000 (1,153) - -16.48%0.0% Federal Agencies CMAQ 53,210 1,481,866 1,428,656 96.41% FTA Cec 5311 - Rural 617,919 617,919 100.0% FTA 5307-Merced 2,888,911 2,565,126 (323,785) -12.62% Subtotal - Federal Agencies 4,664,911 1,722,790 36.93% 97210-GeneralFarebox Revenues Operations 819,855 1,463,448 643,593 43.98% Taxi Script 41 54,400 54,360 99.93% Misc Other-UC MERCED 179,573 339,900 160,327 47.17% Misc Other-Asset Sale 17,500 (17,500) 0.0% Special Services 1,840 0 (1,840) 0.0% Transfer In - PTMISEA & CalEMA funds 10,061,353 10,061,353 100.0% Total Income 11,942,373 24,734,732 12,792,359 51.72% Gross Profit 11,942,373 24,734,732 12,792,359 51.72% Expense Prof & Special Svc 4,462,279 9,163,743 4,701,464 51.31% Communications - IS 65,026 82,950 17,924 21.61% Janitorial Expense 2,593 7,100 4,508 63.49% Insurance - Gen Liability 35,561 48,000 12,439 25.91% Maint Equipment 1,198,241 2,320,000 1,121,759 48.35% Maint - Equip Fuel 810,802 2,250,000 1,439,198 63.96% Maint-Structures 8,538 20,920 12,382 59.19% Membership 4,009 4,600 591 12.85% Marketing & Promotions (CMAQ) 100,000 100,000 100.0% Office Expense 4,987 13,900 8,913 64.12% Rents & Leases - Struct 72,172 103,800 31,628 30.47% Trans & Travel 11,625 16,100 4,475 27.8% Utilities 13,134 37,700 24,566 65.16% Special Department 83,750 322,700 238,950 74.05% LCTOP - Training & Promo Program 181,866 181,866 100.0% Total Expense 6,772,717 14,673,379 7,718,796 52.6% Net Operating Profit (Loss) 5,169,656.3
Fixed Asset-Capital Costs 5,293,985 10,061,353 4,767,368 47.38%
Net Income (124,329) 0 (124,329)
Page 1
ITEM 12a
MCAG GOVERNING BOARD
April 21, 2016
MINUTES
The regular meeting of the MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS GOVERNING BOARD held on Thursday, April 21, 2016, at the County of Merced, Board of Supervisors Chambers, 2222 M Street, Merced, CA was called to order by Chair Kelsey at 3:38 P.M.
DIRECTORS PRESENT Rodrigo Espinoza Deidre Kelsey Daron McDaniel Michael McGlynn for Jerry Antonetti Jerry O’Banion Joe Oliveira Jim Price Stan Thurston Mike Villalta Hub Walsh
DIRECTORS ABSENT John Pedrozo
GUESTS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC Gary Brizzee, City of Los Banos Tom Dumas, Caltrans District 10 Louise Farley, Senator Anthony Cannella’s Office Greg Love, NELLC Albert Perez, National Express Transit Jose Ramirez, San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Diana Westmoreland-Pedrozo, Citizens Advisory Committee
STAFF PRESENT Matt Fell, Transportation Manager Nadia Gonzalez, Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Rich Green, Transit Manager Joy Gort, Administrative Assistant II Emily Haden, Legal Counsel Marjie Kirn, Executive Director Robin Lamas, Administrative Assistant II Christina Smith, Chief Financial Officer Brooks Stayer, Director, Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Marty Yerrick, Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority
3. Oral Communications
Diana Westmoreland-Pedrozo thanked the Board for the opportunity to serve on the Citizens Advisory Committee and stated it has been a pleasure.
4. Recognition of Diana Westmoreland-Pedrozo and Mike Nelson for their participation on the Citizens Advisory Committee
Chair Kelsey presented Diana Westmoreland-Pedrozo with a certificate of recognition for her dedicated service on the Citizens Advisory Committee for the last eight years and thanked her for her valued input during that time. Mike Nelson was also recognized but was unable to attend the meeting.
12. Caltrans Report
Tom Dumas gave the report from Caltrans and handed out the Mile Marker magazine.
Tom commended Robin Lamas on her hard work and years of service at MCAG and wished her well on her retirement.
13. Consent Agenda
a. Minutes of the March 17, 2016 MCAG Governing Board meeting b. Merced County Association of Governments Budget Amendments for Fiscal Year 2015/16 c. Miscellaneous Funds Budgets for Fiscal Year 2016/17 d. Planning Memorandum of Understanding between MCAG and Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County e. Draft Formal Amendment No. 13 to the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program f. Reappointment of Citizens Advisory Committee Representative g. Recommendation of the Anna Maria Fuentes Scholarship Selection Committee Director O’Banion moved to approve the Consent Agenda with a correction to consent agenda item a, noting that Director Oliveira was not present. Seconded by Director Walsh. Ayes – Directors Walsh, McDaniel, Kelsey, O’Banion, Price, McGlynn, Oliveira, Espinoza, Villalta, Thurston Noes – None MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. Information/Discussion Only
a. Minutes of the April 13, 2016 Technical Review Board meeting b. Letter to California High Speed Rail Authority c. MCAG Newsletter d. MCAG Governing Board Calendar for 2016
So noted.
15. Public Hearing – Draft Air Quality Conformity Analysis
Matt Fell stated that the draft Air Quality Conformity Analysis was released for a 30 day public review and comment period that began on April 13, 2016 and will end on May 13, 2016. Matt stated that a public hearing is required to receive comments regarding the draft Air Quality Conformity Analysis.
Public Hearing Opened: 3:46 p.m. Public Hearing Closed: 3:47 p.m.
No public comments were made during the public hearing.
16. Fiscal Year 2016/17 Final Work Program and Budget
Director Oliveira moved to approve the MCAG Fiscal Year 2016/17 Work Program and Budget. Seconded by Director Walsh. Ayes – Directors Walsh, McDaniel, Kelsey, O’Banion, Price, McGlynn, Oliveira, Espinoza, Villalta, Thurston Noes – None MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
17. Revised Transportation Expenditure Plan
Marjie Kirn gave a brief review on the Revised Transportation Expenditure Plan.
After a lengthy discussion, Director Price moved to reconsider the previously approved action and submit the revised Transportation Expenditure Plan to the cities and county for their individual actions. Seconded by Director Oliveira. Ayes – Directors Walsh, McDaniel, Kelsey, O’Banion, Price, McGlynn, Oliveira, Thurston Noes – Villalta, Espinoza MOTION CARRIED.
18. Regional Transportation Impact Fee Study - Update
Matt Fell gave an update on the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Study.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS OF THE MCAG GOVERNING BOARD, THAT PORTION OF THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:28 P.M.
/ s / Joy Gort Administrative Assistant II ITEM 12b
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAY 12, 2016
TO: MCAG GOVERNING BOARD
FROM: NATALIA AUSTIN, ANALYST
RE: UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS FINDING OF FACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017
BACKGROUND
In accordance with the Transportation Development Act (TDA), at least one public hearing is required to gather testimony from the public on unmet transit needs in Merced County. The Social Services Transportation Advisory Council of Merced County (SSTAC) held six public hearings: in the City of Atwater on March 22, 2016 at 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM , in the City of Merced on March 24, 2016 at 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM and in the City of Los Banos on April 5, 2016 at 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM .
Public testimony is gathered and staff evaluates the testimony using the MCAG Governing Board adopted definitions of “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet”. Staff provides an evaluation of the public testimony to the SSTAC for consideration. The SSTAC makes an Unmet Transit Need – Finding of Fact recommendation directly to the MCAG Governing Board for action. TDA statute requires that any “Unmet Transit Need” that is determined to be “Reasonable to Meet”, must be met before any funds are expended for non-transit uses, such as street and road projects.
According to Section 99401.5(c) of the Public Utilities Code: “The fact that an identified transit need cannot be fully met based on available resources shall not be the sole reason for finding that a transit need is not reasonable to meet.”
The SSTAC has the following three options when recommending an Unmet Transit Need - Finding of Fact to the MCAG Governing Board:
• There are no unmet transit needs; or • There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet; or • There are unmet transit needs, including needs that are reasonable to meet.
SSTAC EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
The SSTAC met on April 19, 2016 and evaluated all public comments received as part of the unmet transit needs process. The SSTAC determined that there are no unmet transit needs.
The SSTAC recommends the MCAG Governing Board adopt Resolution No. 2016/05-19-01 with a finding of fact for FY 2016/17 that there are no unmet transit needs.
MCAG staff concurs with the SSTAC recommendation.
MCAG has prepared an analysis and recommendations report for the Unmet Transit Needs process for FY 2016-2017. It includes a summary of the findings for potential unmet needs, an analysis of the size and location of groups likely to be dependent on transit, and the methods and materials used in the unmet needs process.
To view the full report please visit http://www.mcagov.org/DocumentCenter/View/740.
If you have any questions regarding this staff report please contact Natalia Austin at 723-3153 x319 or [email protected].
The Technical Review Board concurs with the requested action.
REQUESTED ACTION
Adopt: a. Resolution No. 2016/05-19-01 with a Finding of Fact that there are No Unmet Transit Needs; and b. Approve the Unmet Transit Needs Report FY 2016/2017.
Attachments: Resolution No. 2016/05-19-01 Definitions of the Terms Unmet Transit Needs and Reasonable to Meet Unmet Transit Needs Report FY 2016-2017
RESOLUTION NO. 2016/05-19-01
RESOLUTION OF THE MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS GOVERNING BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVING A FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017 FINDING OF FACT FOR UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS OF MERCED COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) is designated the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Merced County, with the responsibility to administer the Transportation Development Act (TDA); and
WHEREAS, The Joint Powers Authority for Merced County (TJPA) provides public transportation services in Merced County to the general public through the operation of Merced County Transit - The Bus ; and
WHEREAS, Merced County Transit - The Bus proposes to serve, at a minimum, all claimant areas of Merced County at the level of public transportation services that are reasonable to meet as defined by the MCAG Governing Board; and
WHEREAS, the MCAG Governing Board has adopted definitions of unmet transit needs and reasonable to meet by Resolution 1997-3/20/1 on March 20, 1997 in accordance with Public Utilities Code (PUC) Division 10, Part 11, Chapter 4, Article 8, Section 99401.5; and
WHEREAS, MCAG has established a Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) and has consulted with such council pursuant to Section 99238 of the PUC; and
WHEREAS, the SSTAC conducted six public hearings in Merced County to gather public testimony concerning said public transit needs in conformance with PUC Division 10, Part 11, Chapter 4, Article 3, Section 99238.5.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Merced County Association of Governments , after consideration of said public hearings testimony and the recommendation of the SSTAC, adopts the following finding of fact:
There are no unmet transit needs.
The foregoing Resolution was introduced at the regular meeting of the Governing Board of the Merced County Association of Governments, held on the 19th day of May, 2016 by ______, who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by ______, and which was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______Marjie Kirn, Executive Director Deidre Kelsey, Chairperson Merced County Association of Governments Merced County Association of Governments
DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS and REASONABLE TO MEET
UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS
An unmet transit need is an inadequacy in the public transit services, specialized transit/paratransit services and private transportation services for those persons recognized as transportation disadvantaged so as to provide themselves with the essentials necessary to maintain a minimum standard of living, as expressed through the public hearing process.
The transportation disadvantaged are those individuals who do not operate an automobile because of youth, advanced age or mental or physical impairment; and those persons who are not elderly or handicapped and who are unable to operate an automobile for reasons of low income.
The term unmet transit needs shall include transit or specialized transportation services identified in the Regional Transportation Plan, the Transit Service Plan, a finding of an unmet need by the MCAG Governing Board, or in the compliance plan for the Americans with Disabilities Act that have not been implemented or funded.
REASONABLE TO MEET
1. The new, expanded, or revised transit service, if implemented or funded, would allow the operator to meet farebox and revenue ratios as required under Public Utilities Code, Division 10, Part 11, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 99268 and would not cause the operator to incur expenses in excess of the maximum allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds; and
2. The new, expanded, or revised transit service is needed by, and will benefit, either the general public, the transportation disadvantaged, or the elderly and disabled population as a whole and support exists through the public hearing process or other means of communication; and
3. The new, expanded, or revised transit service must be safe to operate, and there must be adequate roadways and turnouts for transit vehicles; and
4. The new, expanded, or revised transit service, in conforming with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, will not impose an undue financial burden on the transit operator if complementary paratransit services are subsequently required; and
5. The new, expanded, or revised transit service will not adversely effect the overall system's measure of efficiency and effectiveness, such as average passenger load per hour, average cost per passenger hour, passengers per mile, cost per mile, and cost per hour; and
6. Implementation of the new, expanded, or revised service will be considered reasonable if the projected average cost per ride, by type of service can be provided at a cost no higher than 10% above the average existing cost per passenger by type of service within Merced County for a period no longer than one operating year.
UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS
FY 2016-2017
Analysis and Recommendations Report TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
Summary ______1 Unmet Transit Needs Process ______5 Existing Conditions ______10 Transportation Services in Merced County ______21 Unmet Transit Needs Assessment ______27 Appendix ______45
UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017 Summary
BACKGROUND Each year, pursuant to the California Transportation Development Act (TDA), the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG), as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency and Metropolitan Planning Organization for Merced County, is required to identify any unmet transit needs that may exist in Merced County. Should any unmet transit needs be identified, a further determination must be made to establish whether or not those needs are “reasonable to meet.” In accordance with state law, TDA funds must be allocated first to unmet transit needs, which are found to be reasonable to meet, before any remaining funds can be allocated to local jurisdictions for non-transit purposes. At a minimum, the annual unmet transit needs finding process requires MCAG to conduct the following:
1. Establish or maintain a Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) to participate in the identification of unmet transit needs and determine whether those identified needs are reasonable to meet. The composition of the SSTAC is set forth in statute and consists of representatives of the following members: a. One representative of potential transit users who is 60 years of age or older. b. One representative of potential transit users who have a disability. c. Two representatives of the local service providers for seniors, including one representative of a social service transportation provider if one exists. d. Two representatives of local social service providers for those with disabilities, including one representative of a social service transportation provider, if one exists. e. One representative of a local social service provider for persons of limited means. f. Two representatives from the local consolidated transportation services agency, designated pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 15975 of the Government Code, if one exists, including one representative from an operator, if one exists.
2. Coordinate with the SSTAC and MCAG Governing Board to determine definitions for both “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet.”
3. Identify transit needs, which have been considered as part of the transportation planning process.
4. Hold at least one public hearing to receive public comments regarding unmet transit needs.
5. Meet with SSTAC members to identify potential unmet transit needs, and analyze those transit needs using the MCAG Governing Board’s adopted definitions of “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” (adopted definitions provided on Pages 6 and 7 of this report). As part of the “reasonable to meet”
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 1 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017 determination, MCAG staff and the SSTAC must consider whether or not a transit operator can reasonably accommodate an unmet need and still maintain the required fare box ratio established under the TDA.
6. Adopt by resolution a finding regarding transit needs that may be reasonable to meet. The MCAG Governing Board makes one of the following three possible findings: a. There are no unmet transit needs, or b. There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet, or c. There are unmet transit needs, including transit needs that are reasonable to meet.
If it is found that there are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet, those transit needs must be met before any TDA funds can be allocated for other purposes.
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS FOR THE FY 2016-2017 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ASSESSMENT On May 19, 2016, the MCAG Governing Board adopted Resolution 2016/05-19-01, approving this report and finding of fact for Fiscal Year 2016-2017:
“There are no unmet transit needs".
Six public hearings were held to gather public comments regarding potential unmet transit needs in Merced County. MCAG staff and the SSTAC reviewed nearly sixty comments to determine if there were any unmet transit needs. Six of the comments received as part of the unmet transit needs hearing process were considered to be potential unmet transit needs. After the application of the Merced Governing Board’s adopted definitions of “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” and carefully analyzing transit ridership data for Merced County Transit (The Bus), it was determined by the SSTAC and MCAG staff that there were no unmet transit needs for Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
At the meeting of the SSTAC on April 19, 2016, the SSTAC recommended the MCAG Governing Board adopt by resolution a finding of fact for Fiscal Year 2016-2017:
“There are no unmet transit needs”.
The potential unmet transit needs that were evaluated and their findings for FY 2016-2017 are as follows:
• EXTEND SERVICE HOURS IN THE EVENINGS FOR ATWATER, WINTON, LIVINGSTON, AND PLANADA ROUTES Finding: Transit ridership data showed that after 7:00 PM on weekdays, transit ridership on all routes is below four passengers per hour. Transit ridership in the evenings is too low to warrant extending transit service hours (See Appendix Sections m, r - Merced County Transit Ridership Analysis Charts). – Not an unmet need.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 2 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
• EXTEND SERVICE HOURS ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY Finding: On weekends, transit ridership is well below four passengers per hour on all routes. After 5:00 PM transit ridership makes a significant decrease. Transit ridership on weekend evenings is far too low to warrant extending transit service hours (See Appendix Sections m, r - Merced County Transit Ridership Analysis Charts) – Not an unmet need.
• INCREASE FREQUENCY OF THE L ROUTE TO EVERY HOUR Finding: Buses on the L Route can be crowded at certain times in the day. Some commenters suggested that increasing the frequency of the buses on the L route would alleviate this problem. The operator is working on finding the best solution for this by analyzing transit ridership data. The solution may include increasing the frequency of the buses on the L route. (See Appendix Section m) – Not an unmet need
• HAVE ONE COMMUTER ROUTE LEAVE MERCED AFTER 8:00 PM Finding: In the evenings, transit ridership declines on all routes. Having one commuter route leave Merced after 8:00PM might not be justified since evening ridership is already low. However, the operator may consider fulfilling this request after further analyzing ridership data. (See Appendix Sections s, t, u – Transit Ridership After 8PM) – Not an unmet need
• INCREASE FREQUENCY OF BUSES IN PLANADA Finding: After analyzing transit ridership for the P route, it is apparent that transit ridership is low in Planada. On the weekdays, on average, one to four passengers per day are being picked up or dropped off at bus stops in Planada. Only at the bus stop at the El Gallito Bakery, is there slightly higher ridership with an average of five to nine passengers per day. On the weekends, there is on average, fewer than one passenger per day being picked up or dropped off in Planada. Low transit ridership in the Planada area does not warrant increasing the frequency of buses in Planada. (See Appendix Sections n, o - Merced County Transit Ridership Maps – Planada Weekday/Weekend 2015-2016) – Not an unmet need
• ADD BUS SERVICE TO EL CAPITAN HIGH SCHOOL SO LOW INCOME PARENTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MERCED CAN GET TO THE SCHOOL MORE CONVENIENTLY Finding: El Capitan High School Attendance Boundary does include area in South Merced that have low income residents. That area is south of Highway 99 and west of Highway 59. Using Remix, transit planning software, it was estimated that extending an existing transit route to include transit service to El Capitan High School would cost an additional $50,631per year. Also, in the 1.5-mile distance between Cardella Road and the high school, there is very low ridership potential since there is no commercial development or medium-high density residential dwellings nearby.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 3 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Commenters indicated that parents on the south side of Merced may need transportation to El Capitan High School if their student was sick, sent home for disciplinary reasons, or for parent-teacher conferences. It was concluded that these types of trips are too unforeseeable and infrequent to justify the cost of continuous scheduled transit service. It was also determined that transit service to El Capitan school would not benefit the transportation disadvantaged population in Merced County as a whole. (See Appendix Sections q, v, w – El Capitan High School Attendance Area Demographics Map, Extend Route to El Capitan Cost Estimate, Extend Route to El Capitan Map) – Not an unmet need
CONCLUDING REMARKS In summation, even though there were no unmet transit needs determined for Fiscal Year 2016-2017, challenges with achieving improved mobility in a region that is made up of both urban and rural areas will persist. However, MCAG will continue to work with Merced County Transit (The Bus), the SSTAC, social service agencies, and County residents to progressively enhance the transit system in Merced County. It is in MCAG’s 2016-2017 Overall Work Program to update the Short Range Transit Plan which will help guide transit service improvements in Merced County in the future. In the interim, the comments received as a result of the unmet transit needs process have provided valuable insight on the overall condition of the transit system in Merced County and will be noted by Merced County Transit to aid in making improvements and changes wherever possible.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 4 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017 Unmet Transit Needs Process
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS Unmet transit needs became an annual focus of transportation planning agencies in 1978, when the Transportation Development Act (TDA) was changed to require a specific transit finding that there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet before local TDA funds could be allocated for other non- transit purposes.
The following outlines MCAG’s currently adopted unmet transit needs assessment process, pursuant to the requirements established in the TDA:
Prior to making any allocation not directly related to public transportation services, specialized transportation services, or facilities provided for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicycles, or any allocation for purposes of subdivision (f) of Section 99400, MCAG must annually do all of the following:
• (a) Consult with the social services transportation advisory council established pursuant to Section 99238. • (b) Identify the transit needs of the jurisdiction which have been considered as part of the transportation planning process, including the following: 1. An annual assessment of the size and location of identifiable groups likely to be transit dependent or transit disadvantaged, including, but not limited to, the elderly, the disabled, including individuals eligible for paratransit and other special transportation services pursuant to Section 12143 of Title 42 of the United States Code, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and persons of limited means, including, but not limited to, recipients under the CalWORKs program. 2. An analysis of the adequacy of existing public transportation services and specialized transportation services, including privately and publicly provided services necessary to implement the plan prepared pursuant to Section 12143(c)(7) of Title 42 of the United States Code, in meeting the transit demand identified pursuant to paragraph (1). 3. An analysis of the potential alternative public transportation and specialized transportation services and service improvements that would meet all or part of the transit demand. 4. An analysis of the need to acquire or lease vans and related equipment for a farmworker vanpool program pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 99400. This analysis is only required, however, upon receipt by the transportation planning agency of a request of an interested party identifying a potential need.
• (c) Identify the unmet transit needs of the jurisdiction and those needs that are reasonable to meet. The transportation planning agency shall hold at least one public hearing pursuant to Section 99238.5 for the purpose of soliciting comments on the unmet transit needs that may exist within the jurisdiction and that might be reasonable to meet by establishing or contracting for new public transportation or specialized transportation services or by expanding existing services. The definition adopted by the
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 5 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
transportation planning agency for the terms “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” shall be documented by resolution or in the minutes of the agency. The fact that an identified transit need cannot be fully met based on available resources shall not be the sole reason for finding that a transit need is not reasonable to meet. An agency’s determination of needs that are reasonable to meet shall not be made by comparing unmet transit needs with the need for streets and roads. • (d) Adopt by resolution a finding for the jurisdiction, after consideration of all available information compiled pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), and (c). The finding shall be that (1) there are no unmet transit needs, (2) there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet, or (3) there are unmet transit needs, including needs that are reasonable to meet. The resolution shall include information developed pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) which provides the basis for the finding. • (e) If the transportation planning agency adopts a finding that there are unmet transit needs, including needs that are reasonable to meet, then the unmet transit needs shall be funded before any allocation is made for streets and roads within the jurisdiction. • (f) The transportation planning agency shall not allocate funds for purposes of subdivision (f) of Section 99400 until all of the capital and operating funds necessary to meet unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet are allocated. The transportation planning agency shall not reduce funding to existing public transportation services, specialized transportation services, or facilities for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicycles in order to allocate funds for purposes of subdivision (f) of Section 99400. The transportation planning agency shall not allocate funds under subdivision (f) of Section 99400 if the allocation replaces other federal, state, or local funds used to fund commuter vanpools by a county, city, transportation planning agency, or transit district.
DEFINITION OF “UNMET TRANSIT NEED” AND “REASONABLE TO MEET” On March 15, 1990, the MCAG Governing Board adopted definitions of “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet”. However, to better meet the needs of the community and assess the effectiveness of the transit system in Merced County, those definitions were revised. Therefore, on March 20, 1997, the MCAG Governing Board adopted by resolution amended definitions of “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet”. The definitions are as follows:
Unmet Transit Needs: An unmet transit need is an inadequacy in the public transit services, specialized transit/paratransit services and private transportation services for those persons recognized as transportation disadvantaged so as to provide themselves with the essentials necessary to maintain a minimum standard of living, as expressed through the public hearing process.
The transportation disadvantaged are those individuals who do not operate an automobile because of youth, advanced age or mental or physical impairment; and those persons who are elderly or handicapped and who are unable to operate an automobile for reasons of low income.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 6 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
The term unmet transit needs shall include transit or specialized transportation services identified in the Regional Transportation Plan, the Transit Service Plan, a finding of an unmet need by the MCAG Governing Board, or in the compliance plan for the Americans with Disabilities Act that have not been implemented or funded. Reasonable to Meet: 1. The new, expanded, or revised transit service, if implemented or funded, would allow the operator to meet fare box and revenue ratios as required under Public Utilities Code, Division 10, Part 11, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 99268 and would not cause the operator to incur expenses in excess of the maximum allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds; and
2. The new, expanded, or revised transit service is needed by, and will benefit, either the general public, the transportation disadvantaged, or the elderly and disabled population as a whole and support exists through the public hearing process or other means of communication; and
3. The new, expanded, or revised transit service must be safe to operate, and there must be adequate roadways and turnouts for transit vehicles; and
4. The new, expanded, or revised transit service must be safe to operate, and there must be adequate roadways and turnouts for transit vehicles; and
5. The new, expanded, or revised transit service will not adversely affect the overall system’s measure of efficiency and effectiveness, such as average passenger load per hour, average cost per passenger hour, passengers per mile, cost per mile, and cost per hour; and
6. Implementation of the new, expanded, or revised service will be considered reasonable if the projected average cost per ride, by type of service, can be provided at a cost no higher than 10% above the average existing cost per passenger by type of service within Merced County for a period no longer than one operating year.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 7 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL (SSTAC) As previously identified, TDA regulations require MCAG to annually consult with the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) to identify the region’s transit needs prior to making any allocation of TDA funds not directly related to public transportation services or facilities provided for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicycles. Pursuant to the TDA, Section 99238(c)1‐3 of the Public Utilities Code specifically identifies the SSTAC’s responsibilities:
(c) The social service transportation advisory council shall have the following responsibilities:
1. Annually participate in the identification of transit needs in the jurisdiction, including unmet transit needs that may exist within the jurisdiction of the council and that may be reasonable to meet by establishing or contracting for new public transportation or specialized transportation services or by expanding existing services.
2. Annually review and recommend action by the transportation planning agency for the area within the jurisdiction of the council which finds by resolution, that (A) there are no unmet transit needs, (B) there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet, or (c) there are unmet transit needs, including needs that are reasonable to meet.
3. Advise the transportation planning agency on any other major transit issues, including the coordination and consolidation of specialized transportation services.
In accordance with the TDA requirements, MCAG works the SSTAC to identify and analyze any potential unmet transit need against the MCAG Governing Board’s adopted definitions of “unmet transit need” and “reasonable to meet”.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 8 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS FY 2016-2017
Representative Name Agency TDA (PUC) Representative Area
Local service provider for seniors, including Adult and Aging Services - 1 a Alexandra Pierce one representative of a social service Human Services Agency transportation provider, if one exists Local service provider for seniors, including b Sonya Sivero Riggs Ambulance Service one representative of a social service transportation provider, if one exists 2 Delois Hamilton Senior Transit Rider Transit user who is 60 years of age or older Center of Vision Enhancement Margaret Buchmann- 3 (COVE) Disabled transit rider Garcia
Transit Manager - Local consolidated transportation service 4 a Rich Green - Chair Merced County Transit agency representative, including one The Bus representative from an operator, if one exists
Transit Operator – Local consolidated transportation service b Albert Perez agency, including one representative from an National Express operator, if one exists Local social service provider for the disabled, Lynn Downum-Hanzal – Resources for Independence 5 a including one representative of a social Vice Chair Central Valley (RICV) service transportation provider, if one exists. Local social service provider for the disabled, b Vacant including one representative of a social service transportation provider, if one exists. Merced Co Human Services Local social service provider for persons 6 Victor Nazario Agency of limited means
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 9 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017 Existing Conditions
Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 99401.5, the following sections briefly provide an analysis of Sections 1‐4 of the TDA’s unmet transit needs assessment process.
SIZE AND LOCATION OF GROUPS LIKELY TO BE DEPENDENT ON TRANSIT As identified in a previous section of this report, during each year’s unmet transit needs assessment process, prior to making any allocation not directly related to public transportation services, MCAG must make an assessment of the size and location of identifiable groups likely to be transit dependent or transit disadvantaged, including, but not limited to, the elderly, those with disabilities (including individuals eligible for paratransit and other special transportation services pursuant to Section 12143 of Title 42 of the United States Code (the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101, et seq.)), and persons of limited means, including, but not limited to, recipients under the CalWORKS program. Utilizing available data from the 2010-2014 American Community Survey(ACS) Five-Year Estimates and the 2010 Decennial Census, the following sections identify the size and location of population groups likely to be transit dependent.
For the purposes of this assessment, transit‐dependent population groups consist of the following classifications: • Elderly – Individuals who are age 65 years or older; • Disabled – Non-institutionalized, civilian members of the population who may be unable to operate vehicles or utilize certain modes of public transportation due to physical or mental disabilities; and • Persons of Limited Means – Individuals who are defined by the federal government as having an income below the poverty threshold
GENERAL POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR MERCED COUNTY According to the 2010-2014 ACS Five-Year Estimates, Merced County’s current population is 261,609. There are six incorporated cities in Merced County. As identified in Figure 1, below, the City of Merced is the largest incorporated city in Merced County, accounting for 31% of the County’s total population. The City of Los Banos is the second largest city, accounting for 14% of Merced County’s total population. The City of Atwater accounts for 11% of Merced County’s total population, ranking as third largest city in the County. Merced County’s unincorporated community areas, which, combined, account for 35% of the County’s total population. Figure 1 illustrates the current population breakdown of Merced County.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 10 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Figure 1: Population in Merced County
Population in Merced County
Santa Nella 1,164 Le Grand 1,823 South Dos Palos 2,464 Planada 4,465 City of Dos Palos 5,023 City of Gustine 5,610 Delhi 9,918 Winton 11,774 City of Livingston 13,461 City of Atwater 28,686 City of Los Banos 36,626 City of Merced 80,490
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000
Population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Merced County is made up of urban and rural areas. The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas: “urbanized areas” of 50,000 or more people and “urban clusters” of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people. According to the 2010 Census Summary File 1, the total number of people living in urbanized areas in Merced County is 161,757 and 57,526 people living in the urban clusters. 36,510 people live in the rural areas. See Figure 2: Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters in Merced County: 2010.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 11 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Figure 2: Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters in Merced County: 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010
ASSESSING TRANSIT DEPENDENCY BY AGE As stated in the beginning of this section, the TDA identifies elderly populations to be potentially transit dependent. For the purposes of this section’s analysis, individuals considered to be elderly are 65 years of age or older. According to the 2010-2014 ACS Five-Year Estimates, 26,115 individuals in Merced County are identified as elderly, accounting for approximately 10% of the County’s total population. With 7,382 individuals, the City of Merced has the highest population of
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 12 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017 elderly individuals in the County, followed by the City of Los Banos, with an elderly population of 3,450 and the City of Atwater’s elderly population of 3,014. See Figures 3-5.
Figure 3: Elderly Population in Merced County
Total Elderly Population in Merced County
Other Unincorporated Areas 7,607 City of Merced 7,382 City of Los Banos 3,450 City of Atwater 3,014 City of Livingston 1,202 City of Gustine 710 Delhi 710 Winton 611 City of Dos Palos 590 Planada 353 Le Grand 204 South Dos Palos 198 Santa Nella 84 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
Elderly Population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 13 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Figure 4: Concentration of Elderly Population by Place (Age 65 and Over)
Concentration of Elderly Population
14% 13% 12% 11% 12% 11% 10% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 5% 4% 2% 0%
Percentage of Elderly Population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Figure 4 above shows that the City of Gustine has the highest concentration of residents over the age of 65, with 13%, while Winton has the lowest, with 5%.
Figure 5, shows geographic concentrations of residents over age 65, which constitutes approximately 10% of the total County population. The darker colors reflect a higher percentage of elderly population, while lighter colors reflect a lower percentage.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 14 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Figure 5: Distribution of Elderly Population in Merced County by Census Tract
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates As shown on the map above, Merced County has a moderate percentage of seniors throughout, with a few areas of dense elderly population in Merced, Snelling and Hilmar.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 15 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
ASSESSING TRANSIT DEPENDENCY BY DISABILITY According to the U.S. Census Bureau, respondents who report anyone of having the following six disability types, are considered to have a disability: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, or independent living difficulty. In the 2010-2014 ACS 5-Year Estimates, it was determined that approximately 16% of the total civilian noninstitutionalized population within Merced had a disability. Of the 16% with a disability, 4.6% of them are over the age of 65. As shown below in Figure 6, Merced has the highest number of disabled persons, followed by Atwater and Los Banos respectively.
Figure 6: Disabled Population in Merced County by Place
Disabled Population in Merced County 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0
Total Disabled Population Disabled Population Over 65
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Figure7, shows geographic concentrations of disabled residents. The darker colors reflect a higher percentage of disabled population, while lighter colors reflect a lower percentage.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 16 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Figure 7: Distribution of Disabled Population in Merced County by Census Tract
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
As shown on the map above, Merced has a high concentration of disabled population in certain areas, while the percentage of disabled population around Dos Palos and most of Los Banos is very low.
ASSESSING TRANSIT DEPENDENCY BY INCOME (PERSONS OF LIMITED MEANS) The 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) provides a 4‐year (2010‐2014) estimated breakdown of a sample population group of individuals in Merced County whose income was determined to be below the federal poverty level. The ACS data estimates that as of 2014, approximately 25%, or 65,552 individuals, of Merced County’s population were identified as
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 17 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017 persons of limited means. 3,376 of those persons living below the poverty level are over the age of 65. The community of Santa Nella has the overall highest concentration of persons living below the poverty level with nearly 40% of its residents having that classification. However, Santa Nella’s poverty-stricken population accounts for less than 1% of Merced County’s total poverty-stricken population. Snelling had the lowest percentage of persons living below the poverty level overall and has zero persons over the age of 65 that are living below the poverty level. See Figure 8 below.
Figure 8: Percentage of Persons Living Below Poverty Level in Merced County by Place
Persons Living Below Poverty Level in Merced County 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Percentage of Persons Living Below Poverty Level Percentage of Persons 65 Years and Over Living Below Poverty Level
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
The following map shows the concentration of persons living below poverty level by census tract. Darker colors reflect a higher percentage of disabled population, while lighter colors reflect a lower percentage.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 18 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Figure 9: Distribution of Persons Living Below the Poverty Level in Merced County by Census Tract
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
As shown on the map above, Merced has areas south of Highway 140 that has a high percentage of persons living below the poverty level, 50% or higher. Los Banos and Atwater also have some areas with a moderately high percentage of persons living below the poverty level.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 19 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
TRANSIT DEPENDENT CENSUS TRACTS Based on 2010-2014 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Figure 10, below, identifies the key census tracts in Merced County that have a higher probability of having populations that are transit dependent. This map takes into account all three factors analyzed in the sections above: senior population, disabled population, and population living below the poverty level (the three factors that determine transit dependence). The tracts shaded in blue have either the highest concentrations of seniors, or persons with disabilities, or persons living below the poverty level. These potentially transit dependent census tracts are shaded in blue below.
Figure 10: Geographic Location of Persons with a Higher Probability of Transit Dependence
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
The highest concentrations of potentially transit dependent persons are located within the urban areas of Merced and Atwater as well as some rural areas in Snelling and Hilmar.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 20 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017 Transportation Services in Merced County
MERCED COUNTY TRANSIT (THE BUS) Merced County Transit (The Bus) is Merced County’s single public transportation service provider administered and governed by the Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County. The Authority is made up of an eleven-member board of elected officials: one each from the cities of Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston, Los Banos, and Merced California, along with five members of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Merced, California.
The Bus currently runs 20 fixed routes and provides paratransit service all over Merced County with operating hours of 5:00 AM – 11:00 PM on weekdays and 7:00AM – 7:00PM on weekends.
Seven of the fixed routes run in the City of Merced. These routes service major corridors such as G Street, M Street, R Street, V Street and Highway 59, with the routes extending as far north as Yosemite Avenue and as far south as Childs Avenue. There are also connection points to major commercial areas, healthcare facilities, Merced College, UC Merced and low-income service providers, such as the Merced County Human Services Agency.
In Atwater, there are three fixed bus routes that provide service along Winton Way, Bellevue Road, and Buhach Rd. These routes also provide connections to shopping centers, like Target and Wal-Mart, and health-care facilities, such as the Castle Clinic.
Two fixed bus routes provide service throughout Los Banos with connections at the community center, major commercial areas along Highway 152, Merced College (Los Banos Campus) and healthcare facilities.
There are five fixed commuter routes that connect Atwater, Delhi, El Nido, Livingston, Los Banos, Planada, Turlock (Stanislaus County) and Winton to the City of Merced.
Three deviated fixed routes provide transit service to the rural communities of Dos Palos, Gustine, Santa Nella, Stevinson and Hilmar. The bus may deviate from the route up to ¾ of a mile to make pick-ups for both ADA and general riders at a higher fare.
MERCED COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICES STATISTICS
Table 1: Merced County Transit Service FY 2015-2016
TRANSIT SERVICE PASSENGERS REVENUE MILES REVENUE HOURS Fixed Routes 874,056 1,993,151 122,283 Para-Transit 78,001 453,173 26,368 Total 952,057 2,446,324 148,651
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 21 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Figure 11: Merced County Transit Service: Fixed Routes and Paratransit
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that all public transit buses be accessible to individuals with disabilities. Currently, all buses used by the transit provider in Merced County (The Bus) meet this requirement. The front of every bus has priority seating for seniors and disabled riders. All buses have lift mechanisms to assist riders in wheelchairs or with other mobility impairments to board. In addition, Merced County Transit (The Bus) provides complementary paratransit services to individuals with disabilities who cannot use fixed-route bus service. This service is demand-response and curb-to-curb service provided within a ¾-mile boundary around all fixed-route transit services. All buses used for paratransit by The Bus are lift-equipped.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 22 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Reduced Fares Seniors, age 62 or older, ADA-certified persons, and Medicare card holders can ride any fixed-route bus for half the regular cash fare at any time on The Bus. In addition, the following agencies purchase bus fares from The Bus and distribute them (in some cases at no charge) to their clients or students.
AARP Day Out Merced County Public Health Dos Palos – Oro Loma School Aegis Medical Systems Merced Disability Advocacy Team District Amtrak Golden Valley Health Center Merced Medical Center Area Agency on Aging Human Services Agency Merced Seniors Club Aspira Net Los Banos Chamber of Commerce Merced Union High School District Los Banos Housing Authority Resources for Independence Central BI Inc Section 8 Valley Building Healthy Merced Ahead/United Way Senior Cherishes Communities Center of Vision Merced City School District UC Merced Transportation Enhancement Challenge Merced College WorkNet Central Valley Regional Merced County Mental Health Center Merced County Office of CVTC Education
COORDINATED TRANSIT SERVICE PLAN The Public Transit – Human Services Coordinated Plan was adopted by MCAG in July 2009 in response to requirements established by SAFETEA-LU. This document outlines existing public and private social service transportation systems within Merced County and offers strategies for improvement of transportation service through increased coordination and consolidation.
SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS Various social service providers throughout Merced County offer specialized transportation service for their clients. These services tend to address the needs that public transit cannot reasonably meet, including evening service, non-emergency medical transport, and job training transport, to name a few. MCAG regularly inventories the various area transit providers to prevent duplication of services and thereby the waste of resources.
MERCED COUNTY AREA AGENCY ON AGING The Senior Transportation Program provides transportation funding subsidy to disabled and older adults, 60 years of age or older. Monthly bus passes are available for purchase at a discounted price. Limited number of free bus passes also available.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 23 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Average daily attendance is 8 of which approximately 2 require transportation services.
Transportation budget - $50,000 for bus passes. Funding sources are derived from local general funds, minimal donations, and the California Department of Aging.
ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE • TRI-COUNTY MEDICAL TRANSPORT Tri County Medical Transport operates out of Reedley CA, in Fresno County. The company works with many insurance companies. The services cover the following counties: Fresno, Tulare, Kings, Kern, Merced and Madera. They provide a non-emergency service for clients who require daily transportation to varying doctor’s appointments as well as dialysis visits. Tri County carries a variety of vehicles which can range from wheelchair accessible vans and minivans to non-wheelchair accessible cars. The company started out with 5 vehicles in a 15,000 square foot facility, but is now operating with over 80 vehicles and an 86,000 square foot location. With over 100 current employees they have their own mechanic shop, call center, dispatch center, billing department.
• COMFORT CARE MEDICAL TRANSPORT Comfort Care Medical Transport operates out of Merced, CA in Merced County. It is a provider of non- emergency transportation services for all sectors of the community. Ambulatory transport services are provided to patients who are able to ambulate with or without assistance transitioning in and out of the passenger seat of a vehicle. Wheelchair transport service and non-emergency gurney transport is also available to facilitate patient discharge from hospitals or taking patients from nursing homes to medical appointments.
• AKAMAI MEDICAL TRANSPORT Akamai Medical Transport provides non-emergency medical transportation in the Merced area.
• JK MEDTRANS JK Medtrans provides non-emergency medical transportation in the Merced area.
YOSEMITE AREA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (YARTS) Each year, the already substantial number of visitors to Yosemite National Park increases. Travel demand to and from the Park is tremendous during peak periods. In order to plan better public transportation, several of the counties that serve as access points to the park have individually studied transit systems. However, recognizing the importance of working together and pooling resources, these counties have formed a means by which they can more closely coordinate transit activities.
In 1999, a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for the provision of transit service in the greater Yosemite Region was formed by Mariposa County, Merced County, and Mono County. The YARTS JPA is governed by a three- member Board of Commissioners. A county supervisor is appointed to the board of commissioners from
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 24 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017 each of the member counties. This board determines transit service plans, operating and capital budgets, transit fare structure and capital improvement programs. In May of 2000 YARTS began providing transit service throughout the Yosemite Region.
The YARTS JPA has adopted the following mission:
YARTS will provide a positive alternative method of access to Yosemite National Park, carrying visitors, employees and residents. YARTS service is not intended to replace auto access or trans-Sierra travel, but is intended to provide a viable alternative that offers a positive experience, emphasizing comfort and convenience for riders while guaranteeing access to the Park.
YARTS contracts with MCAG for staffing to administer and manage the transit service. MCAG performs all accounting and billing functions for the JPA, administers construction contracts for bus stops, and prepares outreach materials including schedules, route maps, and pamphlets.
VIA CHARTER LINES VIA Charter Lines provides charter services to private groups as well as limited regional fixed route service from Merced to Yosemite National Park. VIA maintains a fleet of approximately 20 coaches and 5 large vans.
GREYHOUND BUS LINES The Greyhound Trailways bus lines are a combined national bus carrier providing service in and through the county. Bus depots are located in Merced and Los Banos. Some of the scheduled buses leaving these two depots will make drop-offs at other cities within the county.
PASSENGER RAIL The San Joaquin Corridor (Bakersfield to Oakland and Sacramento) is a major transportation resource between Southern and Northern California and boasts the fifth highest ridership of any Amtrak service in the country. It serves a vital function in providing intercity service within and between cities in California’s Central Valley.
The 363-miles of the San Joaquin Corridor carry intercity passenger rail and freight service, with connections to commuter rail services in Stockton. The current operating schedule includes six daily round trip trains: four between Oakland and Bakersfield and two between Sacramento and Bakersfield. All trains run between Stockton and Bakersfield. In order to provide the six-frequency service between all points on the route, connecting buses are provided between Stockton and Sacramento for trains serving Oakland - Bakersfield; and for trains serving Sacramento - Bakersfield, connecting buses are provided between Stockton, Oakland and San Francisco. The average run time between Oakland and Bakersfield is 6 hours and 13 minutes with an overall average speed, including station dwell time, of 50 miles per hour. Between Sacramento and Bakersfield, the average run time is approximately 5 hours and 19 minutes with an overall average speed of 53 miles per hour. The maximum track speed on the San Joaquin Corridor is 79 miles per hour.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 25 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Amtrak operates the San Joaquin line under provisions of its contracts with the BNSF and UPRR. Predominant right-of-way ownership is by the BNSF which owns the 276 miles of track from Port Chicago to Bakersfield. The UPRR owns 39 miles at the north end of the route between Oakland and Port Chicago and 49 miles in the segment between Stockton and Sacramento.
ADEQUACY OF EXISTING SERVICE The adequacy of existing public transportation services and specialized transportation services can be considered a subjective term. However, after reviewing the fact that the Merced County Transit (The Bus) provides transit service to nearly every community in Merced County, and is compliant with ADA, State and Federal regulations, combined with specialized transportation services available to the elderly and disabled populations, it could be said that transportation service in Merced County is adequate.
MCAG has an unmet transit needs process which reviews any public comments received with the SSTAC members and the Merced County public transit provider. MCAG meets with the SSTAC annually to evaluate the adequacy of the region’s current transit operations as it relates to transportation disadvantaged persons and identify any unmet transit needs that may or may not be reasonable to meet. The region’s public transit provider continues to survey the public for feedback and adjusts the service accordingly to feasibly meet any identified unmet transit need or operational issues throughout the year.
In May 2012, the MCAG Governing Board adopted the Merced County Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to assess the current public transportation service in Merced County and provide a blueprint for the development of future services through FY 2016/2017. It is planned in MCAG’s Overall Work Program for FY 2016/2017 to update the SRTP. This will help to determine the adequacy of the existing transit service and identify areas for expansion and improvement in the future. The SSTAC will provide valuable contributions to this upcoming SRTP update process.
FARMWORKER VANPOOL ANALYSIS There exists within Merced County a vanpool program that services the needs of the farmworkers that reside within the county. The California Vanpool Authority (CalVans) is a ridesharing service that is tailored to the needs of commuters who cannot travel between home and work with local fixed-route or demand- response service. On March 21, 2013, MCAG entered into an agreement to form a Joint Powers Authority and became a member of CalVans. Currently, there are two vans assigned by CalVans to provide service to workers who live or work in Merced County.
MCAG has not received any request from an interested party identifying a direct need for vans or equipment needed for a farmworker vanpool program. As part of the unmet transit needs assessment process, no further analysis is required. However, MCAG will continue to coordinate with CalVans, and social service providers to identify if any future needs in this particular area are present, and determine feasible means to address those needs.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 26 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017 Unmet Transit Needs Assessment
During this year’s unmet transit needs assessment, staff received a total of 57public comments regarding potential unmet transit needs in the region. Based on the Merced County Governing Board’s adopted definitions of “unmet transit need” and "reasonable to meet", no unmet transit needs were identified.
PUBLIC OUTREACH Pursuant to TDA regulations, MCAG is required to conduct at least one public hearing to receive potential unmet transit needs from the public. To provide more opportunities for potential transit‐dependent populations to discuss their transit needs, MCAG staff along with the SSTAC conducted six public hearings at the following locations and times:
UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARINGS LOCATIONS FOR FY 2016-2017
Table 2: Unmet Transit Needs Hearings Location and Time
NUMBER IN LOCATION AND TIME ATTENDANCE*
City of Atwater Council Chambers, 3/22/2016, 3:00 PM 13
City of Atwater Council Chambers, 3/22/2016, 6:00 PM 9 City of Merced Council Chambers, 3/24/2016, 3:00 PM 25 City of Merced Council Chambers, 3/24/2016, 6:00 PM 23 Los Banos Community Center, 4/5/2016, 3:00 PM 17 Los Banos Community Center, 4/5/2016, 6:00 PM 11 * Number in Attendance does not include MCAG staff or SSTAC members
Below is a list of places where the public hearings were publicized:
• Notice of the six public hearings were circulated in the Merced Sun-Star, and the Los Banos Enterprise one month prior to the hearings (See Figure 12) • Notice of the six public hearings was posted at Merced Civic Center, Atwater City Hall and Los Banos City Hall • Special flyers (in English and Spanish) were posted at the: a. Merced Civic Center b. Atwater City Hall c. Los Banos City Hall d. Los Banos Community Center e. Merced County Association of Governments
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 27 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
f. Merced Transpo g. Merced County Human Services Agency h. Center of Vision Enhancement (COVE) – Merced i. Resources for Independence, Central Valley (RICV)
• Special flyers (in English and Spanish) were mailed by COVE to those on their mailing lists • Notice and information regarding the hearings was posted on mcagov.org and MCAG’s Facebook page • Notice and information regarding the hearings was posted on mercedthebus.com and The Bus’s Facebook page • Announcements (in English and Spanish) regarding the hearings were made on all buses • JPEG images of the special flyers (in English and Spanish) were emailed to all Citizen Advisory Committee members for their personal distribution • Information, schedules and flyers regarding the hearings were included in the meeting agendas for MCAG’s Committees, including the Citizen Advisory Committee, Technical Planning Committee, Technical Review Board, Social Services Transportation Advisory Council and Merced County Governing Board in March 2016. Figure 12: Proof of Publication of the Unmet Transit Needs Hearings Notice
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 28 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
The special flyers (in English and Spanish) were two-sided and contained information about the hearing dates and locations, background information regarding the purpose of the hearings and unmet transit needs, and how residents could personally participate in the unmet transit needs process. See Figures 13- 16. Bus service was provided to and from the hearings at no charge. However, Merced County residents did not have to attend a hearing to submit a comment. In addition to attending one of the six public hearings, Merced County residents were able to submit their comments by email or phone until Wednesday, April 6, 2016.
At all six hearings, a Spanish language interpreter was available. A handout (in English and Spanish) was given to each person in attendance to briefly give an explanation of the hearing process and to show clearly how to participate in the hearings. This helped to inform each attendee of what to expect at the hearing and helped to lessen confusion and apprehension, especially if they had never participated at a public hearing before. See Figures 17, 18.
Before each hearing began, Rich Green, Transit Manager of the Bus and Social Service Transportation Advisory Council member, gave a presentation regarding the current transit system, including the transit budget, ridership, and new route revisions proposed for August 2016.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 29 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Figure 13: Unmet Transit Needs Hearings Flyer 2016 – English Front Side
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 30 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Figure 14: Unmet Transit Needs Hearings Flyer 2016 – English Back Side
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 31 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Figure 15: Unmet Transit Needs Hearings Flyer 2016 – Spanish Front Side
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 32 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Figure 16: Unmet Transit Needs Hearings Flyer 2016 – Spanish Back Side
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 33 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Figure 17: Unmet Transit Needs Handout 2016 - English
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 34 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Figure 18: Unmet Transit Needs Hearings Handout 2016 - Spanish
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 35 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
ANALYSIS OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS The following tables provide a summary of the public comments that were received. Six of the public hearing comments were considered by the SSTAC to be a potential unmet need. The SSTAC applied the MCAG Governing Board adopted definition of “unmet transit need” and “reasonable to meet” to those six comments and determined that for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 there were no unmet needs. MCAG staff concur with the SSTAC’s finding. See Table 3.
Table 3: SSTAC Analysis of Potential Unmet Transit Needs FY 2016 - 2017
The rest of the comments received were determined to be operational issues. While not identified as unmet transit needs, these comments are noted and have been provided to the transit operator to address as part of evaluating and improving the transit system. In the following table, the comments relating to operational issues are listed by topic. See Table 4.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 36 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
Table 4: Unmet Transit Needs Hearings Public Comments Summary – Operational Issues
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 37 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 38 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 39 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 40 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 41 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 42 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 43 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017
All comments in their original form as well as maps and ridership data that was considered by the SSTAC during the FY 2016 -2017 unmet transit needs assessment process will be included in the Appendix of this document. Agenda items and minutes of the meetings held by the SSTAC this year will also be included in the Appendix.
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 44 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FY 2016-2017 Appendix
• SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA – MARCH 16, 2016 a. Minutes of July 30, 2015 SSTAC meeting b. MCAG Staff Report – Review of Unmet Transit Needs Process FY 2016-2017 c. Definitions of the Terms – Unmet Transit Needs and Reasonable to Meet d. 2016 Unmet Transit Needs Hearings Schedule e. Unmet Transit Needs 2016 – Public Hearings Flyer
• SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA – APRIL 19, 2016 f. Minutes of March 16, 2016 SSTAC meeting g. MCAG Staff Report – Unmet Transit Needs FY 16/17 h. Definitions of the Terms Unmet Transit Needs and Reasonable to Meet i. Unmet Transit Needs Summary Table – Potential Unmet Needs – FY 2016-2017 j. Unmet Transit Needs Summary Table – Operational Issues – FY 2016 – 2017 k. Unmet Transit Needs Hearing Public Testimony FY 2016-2017 l. Unmet Transit Needs Public Testimony Letter m. Merced County Transit Ridership Analysis Charts n. Merced County Transit Ridership Map – Planada Weekday 2015 – 2016 o. Merced County Transit Ridership Map – Planada Weekend 2015-2016 p. Merced County Transit Planada Commuter Route Schedule q. El Capitan High School Attendance Area Demographics Map
• OTHER DATA CONSIDERED DURING SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING – APRIL 19, 2016 r. Merced County Transit Ridership Analysis – All Routes s. Transit Ridership After 8PM (7pm – 8pm) Map t. Transit Ridership After 8PM (9pm – 10pm) Map u. Transit Ridership After 8PM (10pm-11pm) Map v. Extend Route to El Capitan Cost Estimate w. Extend Route to El Capitan Map
• SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES – APRIL 19, 2016
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS | PAGE | 45
ITEM 12c
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAY 12, 2016
TO: MCAG GOVERNING BOARD
FROM: TY PHIMMASONE, PLANNER
RE: DRAFT FORMAL AMENDMENT NO. 14 TO THE 2015 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - SCOPE AND FUNDING CHANGE FOR MERCED CONGESTION MITIGATION AIR QUALITY BIKE PATH PROJECT
BACKGROUND
In November 2010, the MCAG Governing Board had approved the programming of the region’s Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) monies to fund the City of Merced’s Bear Creek Bike Path Project.
The project has not obtained federal environmental clearance, and has been in an ongoing environmental review status since August 2011. Federal environmental clearance must be obtained prior to requesting authorization to construct. To avoid any further delays, and to ensure the project can proceed with design and construction, the City has altered the scope of the project by narrowing the project boundaries. The northern section of the project will remain the same with the elimination of the southern section along Bear Creek. Eliminating the southern section of the project will avoid the environmental concerns, and any issues with right-of-way and easement acquisitions.
Per the City of Merced’s request:
• Project title change from “Bear Creek Bike Path” to “Westerly Bike Path Connection.”
• Revised project scope description: “The bike path will be a Class I concrete 10-12 feet wide bike path, which will run from the existing Buena Vista Bike Path over Black Rascal Creek, along Highway 59, and will connect the Michael O’Sullivan Bike Path along the BNSF R/R Tracks. Included are the construction of one new bridge and three new ADA ramps, and the removal of existing asphalt bikeway.”
• Construction cost revised to $1,125,015 (CMAQ = $995,976; City = $129,039) to reflect the reduced scope and current estimate. The original construction cost, as previously programmed, was $1,440,000 (CMAQ = $1,267,200; City = $172,800).
Projects and programs, which are federally funded, must be programmed in the FTIP in order to have access to these funds. Any updates or changes to these federally-funded projects/programs for 2015 FTIP Federal Fiscal Years (FFYs: 2014/15 – 2017/18) must be “amended” into the FTIP. In case the MCAG Board approves the changes, staff has prepared Formal Amendment No. 14 (Type No. 3 – Exempt Projects) to revise the programming.
If you have any questions regarding this staff report please contact Ty Phimmasone at 723.3153 x 309 or [email protected].
REQUESTED ACTION
Adopt Formal Amendment No. 14 to the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program, which programs the revised scope and budget for the City of Merced’s Bike Path Project.
Attachments: Revised preliminary cost estimate Map depicting original project scope Map depicting revised project scope Resolution 2016/05-19-02
ORIGINAL SCOPE
BEFORE THE MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 2016/05-19-02
In the Matter of: RESOLUTION ADOPTING the Merced County Association of Governments 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Amendment 14
WHEREAS, the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) is a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Metropolitan Planning Organization, pursuant to State and Federal designation; and
WHEREAS, federal planning regulations require Metropolitan Planning Organizations to prepare and adopt a long range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for their region; and
WHEREAS, federal planning regulations require that Metropolitan Planning Organizations prepare and adopt a Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for their region; and
WHEREAS, the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Amendment 14 has been prepared to comply with Federal and State requirements for local projects and through a cooperative process between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans), principal elected officials of general purpose local governments and their staffs, and public owner operators of mass transportation services acting through the Merced County Association of Governments forum and general public involvement; and
WHEREAS, the 2015 FTIP Amendment 14 listing is consistent with: 1) the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan; 2) the 2014 State Transportation Improvement Program; and 3) the Corresponding Conformity Analysis; and
WHEREAS, the 2015 FTIP Amendment 14 contains the MPO’s certification of the transportation planning process assuring that all federal requirements have been fulfilled; and
WHEREAS, the 2015 FTIP Amendment 14 meets all applicable transportation planning requirements per 23 CFR Part 450; and
WHEREAS, projects submitted in the 2015 FTIP Amendment 14 must be financially constrained and the financial plan affirms that funding is available; and
WHEREAS, the 2015 FTIP Amendment 14 is consistent with the adopted Conformity Analysis for the 2015 FTIP and the 2014 RTP; and
WHEREAS, the 2015 FTIP Amendment 14 does not interfere with the timely implementation of the Transportation Control Measures; and
WHEREAS, the 2015 FTIP Amendment 14 conforms to the applicable SIPs; and
WHEREAS, the documents have been widely circulated and reviewed by MCAG advisory committees representing the technical and management staffs of the member agencies; representatives of other governmental agencies, including State and Federal; representatives of special interest groups; representatives of the private business sector; and residents of Merced County consistent with public participation process adopted by MCAG; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that MCAG adopts the 2015 FTIP Amendment 14.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that MCAG finds that the 2015 FTIP Amendment 14 is in conformity with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments and applicable State Implementation Plans for air quality.
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by MCAG this 19th day of May, 2016.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution of the Merced County Association of Governments duly adopted at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th of May, 2016.
Signed: Signed:
______Marjie Kirn, Executive Director Deidre Kelsey, Governing Board Chair Merced County Association of Governments Merced County Association of Governments
ITEM 13a
TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING
May 11, 2016
MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Technical Review Board, held at the City of Livingston, 1416 C Street, Livingston, CA was called to order at 12:15 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT Gary Brizzee, City of Los Banos Scott DeMoss for Jim Brown, Merced County Darrell Fonseca, City of Dos Palos Steve Carrigan, City of Merced Odi Ortiz, City of Livingston Scott McBride for Frank Pietro, City of Atwater Sean Scully, City of Gustine
MEMBERS ABSENT None
OTHERS PRESENT Matt Fell, MCAG staff Nadia Gonzalez, Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Rich Green, Transit staff Steven Martinez, Caltrans Stephen Qualls, League of California Cities Brooks Stayer, Director, Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Marty Yerrick, Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority
1. Introductions
So noted.
2. Oral Communication
None.
3. Minutes of the April 13, 2016 Technical Review Board meeting
Darrell Fonseca moved to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2016 Technical Review Board meeting. Seconded by Scott McBride. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Caltrans Report
Steven Martinez gave the report from Caltrans.
MERCED COUNTY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
5. Minutes of the April 21, 2016 Regional Waste Management Authority Board meeting
So noted.
6. Oral Report – Monthly Update
So noted.
7. Highway 59 Landfill – Valley Fill Project
Scott McBride moved to recommend the Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority adopt Resolution No. 2016/05-19-03 and Resolution No. 2016/05-19-04. Seconded by Scott DeMoss. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority Financial Reports
So noted.
TRANSIT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY FOR MERCED COUNTY
9. Minutes of the April 21, 2016 Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County Meeting
So noted.
10. Oral Report – Monthly Update
So noted.
MCAG GOVERNING BOARD
11. Information/Discussion Only
a. Minutes of the April 21, 2016 MCAG Governing Board meeting b. Active Transportation Program – Cycle 3 c. Commute Connection Progress Report – 2016 d. Bike to Work Month – May 2016
So noted.
12. Regional Transportation Plan Amendment 1
Scott DeMoss moved to recommend the MCAG Governing adopt the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan Amendment 1 and the corresponding Air Quality Conformity Analysis. Seconded by Steve Carrigan. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. Unmet Transit Needs Finding of Fact for Fiscal Year 2016/2017
Scott McBride moved to recommend the MCAG Governing Board: a. Adopt Resolution No. 2016/05-19-01 with a Finding of Fact that there are No Unmet Transit Needs; and a. Approve the Unmet Transit Needs Report FY 2016/2017. Seconded by Odi Ortiz. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. Local Transportation Fund Apportionment for Fiscal Year 2016/17
Scott McBride moved to recommend the MCAG Governing Board approve the Local Transportation Fund apportionment schedule for Fiscal Year 2016/17 and authorize staff to forward claim forms to the local jurisdictions. Seconded by Darrell Fonseca. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
15. Draft Formal Amendment No. 14 to the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program – Scope and Funding Change for Merced Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Bike Path Project
Scott McBride moved to recommend the MCAG Governing Board adopt Formal Amendment No. 14 to the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program, which programs the revised scope and budget for the City of Merced’s Bike Path Project. Seconded by Darrell Fonseca. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16. Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies
Darrell Fonseca moved to recommend the MCAG Governing Board direct staff to: a. Schedule a public meeting to hear public comments regarding the proposed removal of the call boxes; and b. Develop a plan to remove the under-utilized call boxes and upgrade any that remain. Seconded by Scott DeMoss. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
17. Reappointment of Citizens Advisory Committee Representative
This item was pulled from the agenda as it had been presented at the last MCAG Governing Board meeting and was approved.
18. Oral Report – League of California Cities Update
Stephen Qualls gave the League of California Cities report.
19. Oral Report - Jurisdictions
So noted.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 1:15 P.M. ITEM 13b
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAY 12, 2016
TO: MCAG GOVERNING BOARD
FROM: TY PHIMMASONE, PLANNER
RE: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM – CYCLE 3
BACKGROUND
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) consolidates the existing programs, which include Federal Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and State Highway Account.
The goals of the Active Transportation Program are to: • Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking; • Increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users; • Advance the active transportation efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals; • Enhance public health, including reduction of childhood obesity; • Ensure that disadvantaged communities (DAC) fully share in the benefits of the program (maps will be shown to depict these areas); • Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users.
The current ATP Cycle 3 includes funding for fiscal years 19/20 and 20/21 totaling approximately $240 M. The ATP fund is distributed as follows:
• 10%: Small urban and rural areas with populations of 200,000 or less: o Caltrans will review applications and will recommend projects for the California Transportation Commission’s (CTC) awards and allocations; o In Cycle 1, there were two Merced County projects awarded from this pot.
• 50%: Statewide competitive pool: o Caltrans will review applications and will recommend projects for the California Transportation Commission’s (CTC) awards and allocations.
• 40%: Large MPO’s in urban areas with populations > 200,000: o MCAG does not qualify for this distribution.
CYCLE 3 SCHEDULE
ATP Cycle 3 Call for Projects opened April 15, 2016. The deadline for application submittal is June 15, 2016.
• Call for projects April 15, 2016
• Submittal deadline June 15, 2016
• Staff recommendation for statewide and small urban & rural pots October 28, 2016
• CTC adoption of statewide and small urban & rural programs December 8, 2016
RESOURCES
The following link is to the ATP Cycle 3 application and guidance. There’s a posted PowerPoint presentation that addresses the application form and guidance.
• http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/cycle-3.html
Successful applications for cycles 1 and 2 are available on Caltrans’ ATP website:
• http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP/2015_Project_Apps.html o Merced: Active Transportation / Safe Routes to School Plan o Merced County: Walnut Ave Complete Street Upgrade, Segment 2 Lobo Ave Complete Street
• http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP/2014_Project_Apps.html o Merced: State Highway 59 Multi-Use Path Crossing of BNSF RR Between Cooper Avenue and Olive Avenue o Merced County: Walnut Ave Complete Street Upgrade, Segment 1
REQUESTED ACTION
For information only. COMMUTE CONNECTION
PROGRESS REPORT | JANUARY - MARCH, 2016
LONG TERM STRATEGIC MARKETING PLAN -
PHASE I COMPLETE!
The first phase of the marketing effort concentrated on acquiring feedback from stakeholders, users and employers through interviews, focus groups and surveys. Phase II will include branding, website design and marketing plan. Some key takeaways below from phase I: Need more awareness on program and incentives Many found convenience as an obstacle to considering an alternative The Commute Connection name doesn’t resonate with alternative transportation Need for more investment from employers - time, money, flexibility Need for youth education
MYCOMMUTECONNECTION.COM USER SUMMARY
TOP CHANNELS Audience
Social Email User Sessions 3% 6% 2,202 Direct Pageviews 27% 16,495 TOTAL USERS Referral New Visitors 63% 6,258 58%
(includes users living outside Returning Visitors the tri-county area) 42%
PROGRAM ACTIVITY BY COUNTY
Added Jan—Mar, 2016 Total
San Joaquin Stanislaus Merced San Joaquin Stanislaus Merced System Users 136 40 8 3492 1590 360 Vanpools 9 6 0 90 30 9 Vanpool Subsidies Processed 160 62 14 284 101 31
EMPLOYER OUTREACH HIGHLIGHTS
PROGRESS REPORT | January – March, 2016
SAN JOAQUIN UOP Receives ECO Award Commute Connection launched the first ECO (Excellence in Commuter Options) Award in San Joaquin County. The award is an opportunity to recognize employers that have implemented strategies to promote sus- tainable transportation options to employees. There are many employ- ers doing great things to help employees find better transportation op- tions and this year, the University of the Pacific was recognized. Com- mute Connection has been working with the University for over 10 years and each year the employer aims to increase the number of par- ticipants through events, promotions and infrastructure such as pre- ferred parking signs.
STANISLAUS
Partnership with the Stanislaus Alliance Across the 3 counties, Economic Development agencies are becoming a key partner in connecting large employers with Commute Connection. The Stanislaus Alliance recently launched a new initiative to assist companies in pooling their season labor force from one season to the next – meaning these employees will need transportation options from one job to the next! As a member of this team, Commute Connection will be serving as a resource to roughly a dozen large employers throughout Stanislaus county, including Amazon, Seneca Foods, Bronco Wines, and more.
MERCED South Dos Palos Head Start
While Head Start works fundamentally with children, many of the parents in the families they serve need help in getting to work, school, and their appointments. Staff at Head Start contacted Commute Connection to learn about resources that would benefit these parents, and in turn help the children of the community to remain in a stable situation. They were thrilled to know that they could find all of the resources in one place at MyCommuteConnection.com, rather than referring parents to any num- ber of websites in search of a solution.
commuteconnection.com LL EETT’’SS RRIIDDEE Win $500 Bike to your favorite local bike shop to Valleybikecommute.com Work 1.800.52.SHARE M AY 2 0 16 Pledge to bike or walk
SAN JOAQUIN • STANISLAUS • MERCED
ITEM 13e
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAY 12, 2016
TO: MCAG GOVERNING BOARD
FROM: CHRISTINA SMITH, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
RE: MCAG FINANCIAL REPORT FOR JULY 2015 – MARCH 2016
DISCUSSION
Attached for your review is the Profit and Loss Budget versus Actual report for the period July 2015 through March 2016. Also attached is the Pooled Investment Summary Report for the period ending March 31, 2016.
If you have any questions regarding this staff report please contact Christina Smith at 723.3153 x 304 or [email protected].
REQUESTED ACTION
For information only.
Attachments: Profit and Loss Budget vs. Actual report for the period July 2015 through March 2016 Pooled Investment Summary Report for the period ending March 31, 2016
MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS P L Budget vs. Actual 3rd Quarter FY 2015-16 Unaudited
Variance Actual Budget Remaining Remaining 7/1/15-3/31/16 July -June 16 Balance Budget % Income Other Revenue 3,268 (3,268) 0.0% LTF Planning 133,000 153,275 20,275 13.23% FHA-Metro Plan (PL) 372,812 1,033,640 660,828 63.93% SB45 / RIP 214,741 214,741 100.0% SAFE 1,920 3,842 1,922 50.03% TDA Admin 62,100 66,270 4,170 6.29% RTIF 874 3,842 2,968 77.25% Caltrans Sustainable transportation Plng Grant 625,000 625,000 100.0% Fed Transit Adm-Sec 5303 77,422 127,000 49,578 39.04% Contributions 132,200 132,200 - 0.0% RWMA 1,852,656 2,507,405 654,749 26.11% TJPA 742,106 1,168,821 426,715 36.51% Local Contracts 48,776 80,000 31,224 39.03% MDSS 1,551 4,310 2,759 64.02% YARTS 215,265 395,498 180,233 45.57% AVA 1,562 3,842 2,280 59.34% Total Income 3,645,512 6,519,686 2,874,174 44.08% Gross Profit 3,645,512 6,519,686 2,874,174 44.08% Expense Salary & Benefits 3,316,382 4,886,115 1,569,733 32.13% Professional Services 181,719 1,198,170 1,016,451 84.83% Professional Serv.Audit 23,000 24,500 1,500 6.12% Maint. & Fuel Equip.Auto 388 5,501 5,113 92.94% Data/IS Service 15,618 25,000 9,382 37.53% Maint Structure 4,719 8,000 3,281 41.01% Utilities 9,968 13,000 3,032 23.32% Insurance Other 14,259 44,500 30,242 67.96% Membership 7,176 14,000 6,824 48.74% Trans. and Travel 13,868 50,200 36,332 72.38% Special Dept Expense 103,092 104,300 1,208 1.16% Publications 448 2,500 2,052 82.09% Office Expense/General 16,985 31,500 14,515 46.08% Communications 4,638 5,400 762 14.11% Household Expense-Janit 4,792 9,500 4,708 49.56% Rents & Leases-Equip. 13,239 21,500 8,261 38.42% Fixed Asset 14,916 76,000 61,084 80.37% Total Expense 3,745,207 6,519,686 2,774,479 42.56%
Net Ordinary Income (Loss) (99,695) 0 99,695 MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERMENTS Pooled Bank and Investment Balances March 31, 2016
% Rate of % Rate of Account Balance Return QTD Return YTD Wells Fargo Bank - General Checking $ 2,310,739 0.180 0.180 Wells Fargo Bank -YARTS 453,855 0.180 0.180 Wells Fargo Bank -TJPA 3,449,704 0.180 0.180 Wells Fargo Bank-Saving Account 2,513,489 0.180 0.180 LAIF Investment 1,512,913 0.460 0.460 County of Merced Investment 19,683,270 0.800 0.800 Total Bank and Investment Balances $ 29,923,970
POOLED INVESTMENTS
53,348 646,306 489,615 MCAG - General Fund 106,995 1,477,029 STAF SEF 7,059,531 4,651,763 LTF RTIF - 2,027,489 SAFE AVA YARTS - General 9,021,242 3,496,644 10,337 883,671 Transit - General Transit - LTF Transit- LTF Capital Transit - PTMISEA Transit - Cal-EMA MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERMENTS Pooled Bank and Investment Balances March 31, 2016 Cash and Investments by Fund Total MCAG - General Fund 53,348 STAF 646,306 SEF 106,995 LTF 1,477,029 RTIF 4,651,763 SAFE 2,027,489 AVA 10,337 YARTS - General 883,671 YARTS - PTMISEA - Transit - General 3,496,644 Transit - LTF 9,021,242 Transit- LTF Capital - Transit - PTMISEA 7,059,531 Transit - Cal-EMA 489,615 - Total Pooled Governmental Funds 29,923,970
MDSS - Robo Bank - Non-Profit 184,346 Total all Cash and Investments 30,108,316
MDSS Bank and Investment Balances Robo Bank - MDSS 51,727.61 Robo Bank - Savings AMF Scholarship 29,355.01 Robo Bank - Certificates of Deposit 103,263.77 Total MDSS 184,346.39 Merced CountyAssociation of Governments Check Register Third Quarter 1/1/2016 - 3/31/2016
Date Paid To Vendor Check # Payment 1/7/2016 AT&T UVERSE 6932 $111.43 1/7/2016 TESEI PETROLEUM, INC. 6933 $31.13 1/7/2016 AMPO 6934 $821.81 1/7/2016 AT&T Mobility 6935 $178.38 1/7/2016 AT&T-MCAG 6936 $237.75 1/7/2016 Blaine Incorporated 6937 $151.00 1/7/2016 Bob's Community Pest Control 6938 $40.00 1/7/2016 Ceridian Benefit Services 6939 $42.68 1/7/2016 Dan's Cleaning -MCAG 6940 $675.00 1/7/2016 Fresno Council of County Gov 6941 $2,909.00 1/7/2016 GreatAmerica Leasing 6942 $257.70 1/7/2016 HOFFMAN SECURITY 6943 $120.00 1/7/2016 JD Sanders Company, LLC- MCA 6944 $375.00 1/7/2016 JORGENSEN CO. - MCAG 6945 $118.82 1/7/2016 Lincoln Life Insurance 6946 $1,324.36 1/7/2016 Pitney Bowes-MCAG 6947 $447.41 1/7/2016 SHRED-IT USA-MCAG 6948 $17.75 1/7/2016 Siemens Industry-SAFE 6949 $2,596.00 1/7/2016 Stacie Dabbs-MCAG 6950 $117.52 1/7/2016 Townsend Public Affairs 6951 $1,250.00 1/7/2016 United way 6952 $123.75 1/7/2016 Urban Initiatives-MCAG 6953 $22,400.00 1/7/2016 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 6954 $1,048.72 1/20/2016 APEX TECHNOLOGY MGMT, INC. 6955 $15,022.04 1/20/2016 Berkshire Hathaway Homestate 6956 $21,409.99 1/20/2016 CBA Administrators 6957 $1,153.54 1/20/2016 Confertel 6958 $5.10 1/20/2016 Costco Wholesale 6959 $237.51 1/20/2016 Haden Law Office- MCAG 6960 $6,175.00 1/20/2016 ICMA Retirement Trust - 401 6961 $50,993.97 1/20/2016 ICMA Retirement Trust - 457 6962 $3,909.00 1/20/2016 Kings View -MCAG 6963 $100.00 1/20/2016 Marjorie Kirn 6964 $362.25 1/20/2016 Nationwide Retirement Soluti 6965 $6,110.00 1/20/2016 Pacific Gas & Electric-MCAG 6966 $323.87 1/20/2016 Price, Paige & Company-MCAG 6967 $1,905.00 1/20/2016 Vantagepoint Transfer Agents 6968 $510.00 1/20/2016 Spriggs-MCAG 6969 $1,461.28 1/20/2016 VIEW POINT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 6970 $375.00 1/20/2016 County Data Processing- IS-M 6971 $2,874.00 1/21/2016 Anthony J Mccarthy 6973 $762.47 1/22/2016 Berkshire Hathaway Homestate 6974 $37,700.00 1/27/2016 CITY OF LOS BANOS RECREATION 6975 $250.00 1/27/2016 GEIL INTERPRISES, INC. 6976 $629.79 1 Merced CountyAssociation of Governments Check Register Third Quarter 1/1/2016 - 3/31/2016
Date Paid To Vendor Check # Payment 1/27/2016 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION 6977 $3,829.09 1/27/2016 PARKER'S ACE HARDWARE 6978 $7.01 1/27/2016 SHERYL ROY 6979 $280.00 1/27/2016 Blue Shield of California 6980 $65,212.08 1/27/2016 Bob's Community Pest Control 6981 $40.00 1/27/2016 Costco Wholesale 6982 $138.18 1/27/2016 Merced County Times- MCAG 6983 $85.00 1/27/2016 Reserve Account 6985 $950.00 1/27/2016 San Joaquin COG 6986 $4,922.76 1/27/2016 Siemens Industry-SAFE 6987 $2,596.00 2/5/2016 APEX TECHNOLOGY MGMT, INC. 6988 $6,462.00 2/5/2016 AT&T UVERSE 6989 $110.80 2/5/2016 LEADERSHIP COUNSEL FOR JUSTI 6990 $1,000.00 2/5/2016 AFLAC 6991 $1,040.44 2/5/2016 AT&T Mobility 6992 $178.95 2/5/2016 AT&T-MCAG 6993 $229.74 2/5/2016 Ceridian Benefit Services 6994 $42.68 2/5/2016 Fresno Council of County Gov 6995 $1,806.00 2/5/2016 GreatAmerica Leasing 6996 $257.70 2/5/2016 ICMA Retirement Trust - 401 6997 $17,147.51 2/5/2016 ICMA Retirement Trust - 457 6998 $1,295.00 2/5/2016 Leap Carpenter Kemps 6999 $52,646.45 2/5/2016 Lincoln Life Insurance 7000 $1,805.33 2/5/2016 Nationwide Retirement Soluti 7001 $4,178.00 2/5/2016 Premier Access 7002 $5,568.73 2/5/2016 Vantagepoint Transfer Agents 7003 $170.00 2/5/2016 The Hartford 7004 $2,163.00 2/5/2016 Townsend Public Affairs 7005 $1,250.00 2/5/2016 United way 7006 $112.50 2/5/2016 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 7007 $1,048.72 2/19/2016 REMIX SOFTWARE, INC. 7008 $16,360.00 2/19/2016 TESEI PETROLEUM, INC. 7009 $13.47 2/19/2016 Berkshire Hathaway Homestate 7010 $21,409.99 2/19/2016 County Data Processing- IS-M 7011 $55.00 2/19/2016 Confertel 7012 $89.44 2/19/2016 Custom Electric 7013 $100.61 2/19/2016 Haden Law Office- MCAG 7014 $8,375.00 2/19/2016 ICMA Retirement Trust - 401 7015 $17,132.10 2/19/2016 ICMA Retirement Trust - 457 7016 $1,295.00 2/19/2016 Kings View -MCAG 7017 $40.00 2/19/2016 Merced Data Special Services 7018 $6,036.08 2/19/2016 Nationwide Retirement Soluti 7019 $4,278.00 2/19/2016 Pacific Gas & Electric-MCAG 7020 $200.78 2/19/2016 Vantagepoint Transfer Agents 7021 $170.00 2 Merced CountyAssociation of Governments Check Register Third Quarter 1/1/2016 - 3/31/2016
Date Paid To Vendor Check # Payment 2/19/2016 Siemens Industry-SAFE 7022 $2,596.00 2/19/2016 Vision Service Plan 7023 $986.89 3/4/2016 WAGEWORKS 7024 $128.75 3/4/2016 AFLAC 7025 $1,064.44 3/4/2016 City of Atwater Police Dept. 7026 $5,511.43 3/4/2016 Blaine Incorporated 7027 $60.00 3/4/2016 Blue Shield of California 7028 $64,058.93 3/4/2016 Bob's Community Pest Control 7029 $40.00 3/4/2016 California Highway Patrol 7030 $108.69 3/4/2016 City of Gustine 7031 $1,782.64 3/4/2016 City of Los Banos Code Enfor 7032 $11,623.07 3/4/2016 Costco Wholesale 7033 $189.37 3/4/2016 GreatAmerica Leasing 7034 $257.70 3/4/2016 ICMA Retirement Trust - 401 7035 $17,249.69 3/4/2016 ICMA Retirement Trust - 457 7036 $1,295.00 3/4/2016 Lincoln Life Insurance 7037 $1,198.47 3/4/2016 Livingston Police Dept.-AVA 7038 $6,058.32 3/4/2016 City of Merced Code Enforce 7039 $10,292.57 3/4/2016 Nationwide Retirement Soluti 7040 $4,278.00 3/4/2016 Premier Access 7041 $5,307.68 3/4/2016 County of Merced Public Heal 7042 $12,706.22 3/4/2016 Reserve Account 7043 $950.00 3/4/2016 Vantagepoint Transfer Agents 7044 $170.00 3/4/2016 Vision Service Plan 7045 $986.89 3/11/2016 AT&T UVERSE 7046 $110.80 3/11/2016 TESEI PETROLEUM, INC. 7047 $15.87 3/11/2016 WAGEWORKS 7048 $3,211.48 3/11/2016 AT&T Mobility 7049 $178.99 3/11/2016 AT&T-MCAG 7050 $255.01 3/11/2016 Berkshire Hathaway Homestate 7051 $21,409.99 3/11/2016 Ceridian Benefit Services 7052 $42.68 3/11/2016 Confertel 7053 $26.13 3/11/2016 Kings View -MCAG 7054 $80.00 3/11/2016 Merced Sun Star-MCAG 7055 $37.20 3/11/2016 Townsend Public Affairs 7056 $1,250.00 3/11/2016 US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 7057 $1,048.72 3/24/2016 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION 7058 $1,914.54 3/24/2016 WAGEWORKS 7059 $802.87 3/24/2016 Haden Law Office- MCAG 7060 $2,381.50 3/24/2016 ICMA Retirement Trust - 401 7061 $18,599.06 3/24/2016 ICMA Retirement Trust - 457 7062 $1,295.00 3/24/2016 Marjorie Kirn 7063 $950.00 3/24/2016 Pacific Gas & Electric-MCAG 7064 $113.36 3/24/2016 Vantagepoint Transfer Agents 7065 $170.00 3 Merced CountyAssociation of Governments Check Register Third Quarter 1/1/2016 - 3/31/2016
Date Paid To Vendor Check # Payment 1/15/2016 California State Disbursemen 400075 $396.00 1/15/2016 California State Disbursemen 400076 $272.31 1/15/2016 Franchise Tax Board-MCAG 400077 $186.50 1/11/2016 JP Morgan-MCAG BBE5Q9NKLXWW $7,256.38 1/29/2016 California State Disbursemen 400078 $396.00 1/29/2016 California State Disbursemen 400079 $272.31 1/29/2016 Franchise Tax Board-MCAG 400080 $186.50 2/12/2016 California State Disbursemen 400081 $396.00 2/12/2016 California State Disbursemen 400082 $272.31 2/12/2016 Franchise Tax Board-MCAG 400083 $186.50 2/11/2016 JP Morgan-MCAG BBECJPH6RBWW $1,583.08 2/26/2016 California State Disbursemen 400084 $396.00 2/26/2016 California State Disbursemen 400085 $272.31 2/26/2016 Franchise Tax Board-MCAG 400086 $186.50 3/11/2016 California State Disbursemen 400087 $396.00 3/11/2016 California State Disbursemen 400088 $272.31 3/11/2016 Franchise Tax Board-MCAG 400089 $186.50 3/10/2016 JP Morgan-MCAG BBEGG2DS7CWW $4,457.87 3/17/2016 Nationwide Retirement Soluti R91004055714098 $4,278.00 3/25/2016 California State Disbursemen 400090 $396.00 3/25/2016 California State Disbursemen 400091 $272.31 3/29/2016 Nationwide Retirement Soluti R91004058134737 $4,303.00 1/31/2016 EMPLOYEES DAJ000000512 $238,291.73 1/31/2016 HSA PP 1 & 2 DAJ000000513 $185.36 1/31/2016 FUTA DAJ000000514 $1,050.49 2/11/2016 Employees DAJ000000559 $115,025.87 2/25/2016 Employees DAJ000000560 $113,238.24 2/29/2016 HSA Cont (Marija Prgomet) DAJ000000561 $185.36 3/31/2016 EMPLOYEES PAYROLL DAJ000000596 $119,460.41 3/31/2016 EMPLOYEES PAYROLL DAJ000000597 $108,445.38 3/31/2016 EMPLOYEE HSA DAJ000000598 $92.68
4
ITEM 14
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAY 12, 2016
TO: MCAG GOVERNING BOARD
FROM: MATT FELL, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING MANAGER
RE: REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AMENDMENT 1
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) adopted in September 2014 includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as required by state law. Since the SCS did not meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target for 2035 set by the state, MCAG must either prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) which does meet the target, or modify the SCS to meet the target. The APS or SCS is reviewed by the California Air Resources Board (ARB).
The MCAG Governing Board appointed an RTP/APS Steering Committee to provide guidance on the process of developing an APS and the next RTP. The Committee met monthly from April through October 2015. The committee:
• developed a public outreach strategy and outreach partnerships; • developed a survey tool which got over 400 responses; • reviewed measures which could result in the additional reductions necessary to achieve the targets; and • developed policy recommendations to the Governing Board.
The Committee recommended to the MCAG Governing Board to amend the existing RTP instead of submitting an APS. Staff consulted with the Air Resources Board, who are in agreement that an RTP amendment is appropriate.
In August 2015 the MCAG Governing Board directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Regional Transportation Plan to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy which meets the greenhouse gas reduction targets and to bring back the amendment to the Board for approval.
PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
A draft RTP amendment was released for review and comment from November 12, 2015 through January 7, 2016. Three public hearings were held in November and December 2015. Three comments were received and they are attached. In general they are asking for more details on the recommended specific MCAG Actions (below and on page 67 of the final draft) or for changes in land use Scenario “C”. Changes to land use scenario C are beyond the scope of this RTP Amendment. It will require a full RTP update and new environmental document to examine alternative land use scenarios and a comprehensive public and committee process will be employed. The next RTP update process will begin in Fiscal Year 2016-2017. The specific actions 1 through 6 identified below, if approved, will be performed as part of the RTP update process and/or in parallel with it.
AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS
Since RTP Amendment 1 assumes growth scenario “C” instead of scenario “B” in the adopted plan, a new Air Quality Conformity Analysis was required to meet federal air quality regulations. The Draft Conformity is available for review and comment through May 13, 2016. A public hearing was held on April 21, 2016. The document is available on request and at the MCAG office and on the website: http://www.mcagov.org/DocumentCenter/View/729.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
This RTP amendment will not require a modified environmental document since the land use assumption (scenario “C”) is still one of the scenarios in the RTP environmental document and since the regional capacity increasing project list is not changed.
AMENDMENT – SUMMARY OF CHANGES
The draft RTP amendment:
• in the “Sustainable Communities” chapter (the SCS), changes the future land use assumption from “Blueprint” scenario “B” to a more compact growth pattern (scenario “C”); • in the Funding chapter, assumes revenues from the state’s Cap & Trade programs that were not assumed in the adopted RTP; • in the Vision chapter, under #12 “Sustainable Communities”, adds policies and goal statements supporting compact growth scenario “C” and alternative transportation which help reduce GHG; and • as a result, the RTP/SCS achieves the greenhouse gas emission reduction target set by the state.
The following specific MCAG Actions are recommended in the SCS:
1. Establish and implement a complete streets policy by December 2016. 2. Develop a sustainable planning and infrastructure grant program to help jurisdictions implement the SCS by December 2017. Use existing and new revenue sources to fund this program. 3. Conduct a needs and opportunities assessment by December 2017. 4. Re-evaluate project selection policy and criteria by December 2016, for use in developing the next full update of the RTP. 5. Update the Public Participation Plan by December 2016. 6. Re-evaluate and update the definitions of “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” by March 2017.
The proposed final draft RTP amendment is enclosed with changes highlighted in yellow.
If you have any questions regarding this staff report please call Matt Fell at 723.3153 x 320 or [email protected].
The Technical Review Board concurs with the requested action.
REQUESTED ACTION
Adopt the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan Amendment 1 and the corresponding Air Quality Conformity Analysis.
Attachment: Comments Received
Enclosure: 2014 Regional Transportation Plan Amendment 1
January 7, 2016
Matt Fell, Transportation Manager Merced County Association of Governments 369 West 18th Street Merced, CA 95340
Sent via email
Re: Comments on MCAG’s RTP Amendment Draft
Dear Mr. Fell, MCAG Governing Board, and MCAG staff:
Thank you for the opportunity not only to provide comments on the Regional Transportation Plan (“RTP”) Amendment Draft (“the Amendment” or “the Draft”) for Merced County, but also for including us, as well as other health, social justice, and environmental advocates, on the Alternative Planning Strategy (“APS”) Steering Committee in 2015. We offer the following comments on the Draft in order to strengthen the health and sustainability of Merced County and all its residents.
The changes in the RTP Amendment add sustainable communities’ policies and a different Scenario for growth and investment throughout the County. We support the new policies, which bring smart growth, equity, and transportation justice to the residents of Merced County. But, the Scenario presented in the Amendment is problematic for multiple reasons, one of which is that it is at odds with several of the new policies that support sustainable communities.
Sustainable Communities’ Policies
The Amendment to the RTP adds a new section “Sustainable Communities” under the Goals and Policies section in the chapter entitled “Vision.” The goal of these new policies is to “[r]educe per capita greenhouse gas emissions through compact growth and alternative transportation strategies.”1 The policies are as follows:
1. Prioritize infill and growth in existing communities. 2. Prioritize funding for complete street projects on existing corridors. 3. Explore funding sources to incentivize jurisdictions (including a grant program). 4. Conduct a needs assessment and link it to the countywide health assessment. 5. Re-evaluate project selection criteria. 6. Prioritize vanpools and ridesharing. 7. Emphasize and explain “co-benefits” of implementing SB 375 in addition to meeting GHG reduction targets. 8. Public participation improvements. 9. Improve access to public transit in rural and urban areas.2
1 Regional Transportation Plan Sustainable Communities Strategy for Merced County 2014-2040, Amendment 1. Page 18. 2 Id. at 18-20.
A subcommittee was formed from the APS Steering Committee which guided the determination of language for these nine policies. While the subcommittee determined the language, the Steering Committee as a whole decided upon the general policies to be included in this section. These policies were a collaborative effort designed to create policies and programs that reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions through more compact growth and alternative transportation strategies, such as more transportation options and increased access to opportunity and basic services.
In addition to the policies that will support the sustainability and health of Merced County residents, the Merced County Association of Governments (“MCAG”) has committed to certain actions to uphold the policies, and they are included in the Draft as follows:
1. Establish and implement a complete streets policy by December 2016. 2. Develop a sustainable planning and infrastructure grant program to help jurisdictions implement the SCS. Use existing and new revenue sources to fund this program. 3. Conduct a needs and opportunities assessment in Fiscal Year 2016-17. 4. Re-evaluate project selection policy and criteria by December 2016, for use in developing the next full update of the RTP. 5. Update the Public Participation Plan by July 2016. 6. Re-evaluate and update the definitions of “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet.”3
These policies and programs are also consistent with State law and will promote a healthier, more vibrant Merced County. Therefore, we are supportive of the policies presented in this section and look forward to working with MCAG staff and County residents to implement them.
Scenario C
The selected Scenario C does not maximize the potential benefits of the RTP/SCS because it does not allow for investment in many of Merced County’s underserved communities and undermines the policies discussed above. Scenario C’s anticipated growth patterns are at odds with policies included in the RTP, limit the potential benefits of RTP implementation, and fail to leverage opportunities for strategic growth and investment in existing communities, while simultaneously allocating growth to undeveloped lands.
Inconsistency with Policies The growth patterns in the presented Scenario C are inconsistent with the policies added to the RTP. The first policy, which prioritizes infill and growth in existing communities, explicitly lists both “existing cities and unincorporated communities.”4 This policy is also consistent with State law, AB 857 (Wiggins, 2002),5 which prioritizes development in infill opportunities, rather than in undeveloped lands without adequate infrastructure, and as such must remain a priority for Merced County.
Inequality of Investment in Cities vs. Existing Unincorporated Communities Scenario C disproportionately directs growth to incorporated cities over existing, unincorporated communities. While this strategy combats sprawl and GHG emissions, the RTP could be even more effective by including existing unincorporated communities in infill development strategies. Many infill opportunities exist in Merced County in all communities, regardless of incorporation status. Lack of anticipated growth and investment in existing communities will limit their viability in the years to come. For example, three new jobs are projected for the unincorporated community of Le Grand between 2008, the baseline, and 2035 – less than one new job a decade. The incorporated city of Dos Palos and the
3 Id. at 67. 4 Id. at 18. 5 Available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_0851-0900/ab_857_bill_20020829_enrolled.html
unincorporated community of Winton have approximately the same number of households in the baseline year of 2008; however, for Scenario C 2035 projections, the number of households in Dos Palos increases by 54% and in Winton it increases by less than 19%. There is no basis in the RTP for placing growth disproportionately in cities as compared to existing, established unincorporated communities.
Greenfield Development Over Investment in Existing Communities Additionally, this Scenario anticipates over 23,000 new persons to move to the UC Merced campus and community between 2008 and 2035. While we support the idea of student housing on campus, creating a new community around the campus will only serve to exacerbate GHG emissions in the area, and will divest resources away from existing communities. Furthermore, there is insufficient information as to the scope and scale of this new community, as well as the extent to which resources, such as water, are available to serve the area without negatively impacting already existing communities.
Inadequate Data to Support Informed Review Appendix N, a new appendix added to this draft of the RTP, includes a “[c]omparison of population and jobs assumptions in RTP scenarios ‘B’ and ‘C.’”6 In the Appendix, the projected growth is divided into three categories: incorporated, UC Merced campus plus UC community, and unincorporated (remainder of county). This presentation of data is overly general and clouds an informed review of projected population growth by geography. MCAG maintains anticipated population, households, and employment growth broken out by community – both incorporated cities and most of the unincorporated communities. This information is not included in either the appendix or the amended RTP and is only available upon request. It also bears noting that this more illustrative data includes an allocation of growth to “other unincorporated areas,” and does not further explain where those are and/or whether that growth will be in existing communities or emerging communities.
Because MCAG did not provide the full set of data in the documents provided – the RTP Draft and the Appendix N – public participation and feedback, as well as decision making on the Amendment by the Governing Board, is not fully informed. The fact that such data exists and is available is unnoted in the Draft, so it is likely that the public and the Governing Board remain unaware that such data is available. The lack of transparency with the growth projection data is unacceptable.
* * * * *
Had more time been spent on data analysis for the numbers that make up Scenario C, growth could have been directed to all existing communities in Merced County and still meet GHG reduction targets. We appreciate your consideration of our comments and analysis before making a decision to accept or reject the proposed RTP Amendment.
Questions or concerns regarding this comment letter may be directed to Kaylon Hammond, Policy Coordinator at Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, at [email protected] or (559) 387-4440.
Sincerely,
Kaylon Hammond, Policy Coordinator Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
6 Regional Transportation Plan Sustainable Communities Strategy for Merced County 2014-2040 Amendment 1 Appendix N.
January 7, 2016
Matt Fell, Transportation Manager Merced County Association of Governments 369 West 18th. St. Merced, CA 95340 Via e-mail: [email protected]
Re: Draft Amendment #1 to the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
Dear Mr. Fell:
The Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) appreciate the opportunity to submit these joint comments on the proposed Amendment 1 to the 2014-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (hereafter “RTP Amendment”) under consideration by the Merced County Association of Governments (“MCAG”). Sierra Club representatives also greatly appreciated the opportunity to serve on the committee charged with developing the Alternative Planning Strategy that eventually became the proposed RTP Amendment.
Although the RTP Amendment as drafted represents an important step forward for Merced County, Sierra Club and the Center believe the proposed amendment can and should be strengthened. The following comments discuss our recommendations for additional policy detail, more specific commitments and timelines for implementation, and data adequate to support the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB’s”) review of whether the RTP as amended will meet greenhouse gas reduction targets established pursuant to SB 375 (Government Code section 65080, subdivision (b)(2)).
I. Goal 12 Should Be Strengthened Through Provision of Additional Policy Detail As Well As Firm Commitments and Specific Timelines for Implementation.
Sierra Club and the Center recommend that several of the objectives and policies listed under proposed Goal 12 of the RTP be strengthened as follows.
Policy 12.1: Prioritize infill and growth in existing communities: Policy 12.1 should include a commitment to develop and adopt, by a date certain, specific “infill strategies” to further guide the current RTP process. As part of developing these “infill strategies,” the Governing Board should commit to consideration of the following at a minimum: (1) creation and adoption of a Transit Oriented Development policy; (2) development of a grant program to help update General Plans to direct growth to infill areas; and (3) development of policies to support allocation of growth to existing communities (including unincorporated legacy communities) and identifying funding to support this growth through specific, financially constrained transportation projects. Policy 12.3: Explore funding sources to incentivize jurisdictions (including a grant program): We appreciate not only the statement of policy, but also the firm commitment expressed in the RTP Amendment, to develop a sustainable planning and infrastructure grant program. (RTP Amendment at p. 67.) We recommend that the RTP also include a date certain by which the Governing Board will adopt the sustainable planning and infrastructure grant program.
Policy 12.4: Conduct a needs assessment and link it to the countywide health assessment: We appreciate that the RTP Amendment contains a firm commitment to conduct a needs and opportunities assessment in FY 2016-17. The RTP Amendment, however, should provide additional detail as to how MCAG will commit to use the assessment to guide future actions, such as by identifying and prioritizing transportation and infrastructure investment needs in Merced County and its municipalities, especially in disadvantaged communities and neighborhoods.
Policy 12.5: Re-evaluate project selection criteria: We appreciate that the RTP Amendment contains a firm commitment to re-evaluate project selection policy and criteria by December 2016. (RTP Amendment at p. 67.) However, the RTP Amendment should include reductions in vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) as an additional, specific project evaluation criterion. The RTP Amendment also should provide more detail or performance measures regarding how MCAG will “emphasize” the new criteria in the project selection process. For example, the RTP Amendment should specify how much weight the additional criteria will be given relative to other project selection criteria, and how the performance of projects as a whole will be ranked. We would further recommend that the RTP Amendment specifically commit to (1) use the revised criteria to prioritize transportation funding based on VMT reduction or an equivalent metric, and (2) explore alternatives to planning decisions based on level of service (“LOS”).
Policy 12.6: Prioritize vanpools and ridesharing: The RTP Amendment should provide more details on how much funding will be granted, under what criteria, and by when.
Policy 12.9: Transit: We appreciate the firm commitment in the RTP Amendment to re-evaluate and update the definitions of “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet.” (RTP Amendment at p. 67.) However, the RTP Amendment itself should define “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet,” or at least commit to re-evaluating and updating these definitions by a date certain. The RTP Amendment also should provide more detail and performance standards for how and when the agency will improve access to and provide funding for additional transit.
II. The RTP Amendment Should Include Both Specific Policies and Sufficient Data to Support Its Conclusions Regarding Achievement of SB 375 Targets.
The RTP Amendment must make clear that MCAG is committing to the specific transportation and land use measures outlined in Appendix N. These measures form the basis of the document’s conclusion that SB 375 targets will be met. Inclusion of these measures in an appendix alone may not adequately convey MCAG’s commitment to these measures unless they are also included, or at least explicitly referenced (along with a firm commitment to implementation), in the RTP Amendment itself.
The RTP Amendment also must include the data and documentation necessary for CARB to evaluate the greenhouse gas reductions claimed in the “APS Scenario – GHG reductions worksheet” included in the Appendix N materials. It is not clear that the assumptions and modeling underlying these reductions have been included in Appendix N. Without sufficient evidentiary support, it may be difficult for CARB to evaluate whether the RTP Amendment will achieve compliance with greenhouse gas reduction targets under SB 375.
Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments. Sierra Club and the Center look forward to continuing to work with the Governing Board and staff of MCAG on developing and implementing a sustainable transportation future for Merced County.
Very truly yours,
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Kevin Bundy
SIERRA CLUB
Gary Lasky
745273.3
ITEM 15
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAY 12, 2016
TO: MCAG GOVERNING BOARD
FROM: MATT FELL, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING MANAGER
RE: LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND APPORTIONMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016/17
BACKGROUND
Local Transportation Funds (LTF) are derived from ¼ cent of the general sales tax collected statewide. The state returns the sales tax revenues to each county's LTF. These funds are sent directly to the Merced County Auditor-Controller's office. Each year, MCAG receives a letter from the Auditor-Controller's office informing staff of the LTF estimate available for distribution for the next fiscal year.
California's Transportation Development Act (TDA) statute funds a wide variety of transportation programs, including planning and program activities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, community transit services, public transportation, and bus and rail projects. Providing certain conditions are met, counties with a 1970 population under 500,000 may also use the LTF funds for local streets and roads, construction and maintenance. The key is that transit needs must be funded first before any TDA funds can be used for local streets and roads, construction and maintenance projects.
The amount of Local Transportation Fund monies available to be claimed is contingent upon the Transportation Development Act annual unmet transit needs process. If unmet needs are identified and are reasonable to meet, these needs must be addressed before LTF funds are expended for non-transit uses such as streets and roads rehabilitation.
UNMET NEEDS PROCESS
Unmet Transit Needs hearings were held during March and April 2016 and the MCAG Governing Board will consider making a determination at its May 2016 meeting. As detailed in a previous item on your agenda, the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) met on April 19, 2016 and recommended the MCAG Governing Board adopt a finding of fact for FY 2016/17 that there are no unmet transit needs.
FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 LTF DISTRIBUTION
The Auditor-Controller's estimate for Fiscal Year 2016/17 is $8,100,000 (see attached letter). Administrative and Planning Expenses are taken off the top by the Auditor-Controller and by MCAG. The Transit Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) and Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) are requesting funds for transit service. After their requests, there will be $2.69 million available for local jurisdictions to use and this money will be distributed by formula according to each jurisdiction’s share of the total county population. The proposed LTF apportionment schedule is:
Auditor-Controller’s Estimate of LTF for FY 2016/17 $8,100,000 County Auditor-Controller administrative cost $3,250 MCAG administrative expense $77,400 MCAG planning portion $398,400 Transit Joint Powers Agency Needs $4,732,536 YARTS Operating Needs $200,000 Remaining LTF to distribute to local jurisdictions $2,688,414
With the distribution to the local jurisdictions by population being:
Jurisdiction Population* % of total Share of LTF Atwater 29,023 10.90 $293,183 Dos Palos 5,023 1.88 $50,741 Gustine 5,618 2.11 $56,751 Livingston 13,735 5.16 $138,747 Los Banos 37,145 13.95 $375,229 Merced 81,722 30.70 $825,534 Unincorporated 93,868 35.27 $948,229 Total 266,134 100.00 $2,688,414 * source: Department of Finance, “E-1 Cities, Counties, and the State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change”, May 1, 2015, http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/Estimates/
If you have any questions regarding this staff report please call Matt Fell at 723-3153 x 320 or [email protected].
REQUESTED ACTION
Adopt Resolution 2016/05-19-05 approving the Local Transportation Fund apportionment schedule for Fiscal Year 2016/17 and authorize staff to forward claim forms to the local jurisdictions.
Attachments: Resolution 2016/05-19-05 Auditor-Controller’s LTF estimate dated February 2, 2016
RESOLUTION NO. 2016/05-19-05
RESOLUTION OF THE MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS GOVERNING BOARD APPROVING APPORTIONMENT SCHEDULE FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND (LTF) MONIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017
WHEREAS, Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) is designated the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Merced County; and
WHEREAS, the Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County (TJPA) provides consolidated transit service throughout Merced County, and provides public transportation services to the general public; and
WHEREAS, The TJPA as the transit service provider for Merced County proposes to serve, at a minimum, all claimant areas of Merced County within their jurisdictions at the level of public transportation services that are reasonable to meet as defined by the MCAG Governing Board; and
WHEREAS, Specific efforts undertaken by MCAG in the transportation planning process and approval of the unmet transit needs process were previously approved by the MCAG Governing Board in Resolution in May 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) provides mass transit service in the Yosemite region, including Merced County, and provides public transportation services to the general public; and
WHEREAS, The Merced County Auditor/Controller claims $3,250 for administration of the LTF Apportionment distribution for FY 15/16 pursuant to PUC, Division 10, Part 11, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 99233.1 administration allocations; and
WHEREAS, MCAG claims $77,400 for administration for FY 15/16 LTF apportionment funds pursuant to PUC, Division 10, Part ll, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 99233.1 administration allocations and $398,400 for planning pursuant to PUC, Division 10, Part 11, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 99233.2 planning and programming allocation; and
WHEREAS, after the above needs there are funds remaining, which can be distributed to local jurisdictions for transportation purposes including street and road maintenance;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Transportation Funds (LTF) apportionment schedule for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 is:
County Auditor-Controller administrative cost $3,250 MCAG administrative expense $77,400 MCAG planning $398,400 Transit Joint Powers Agency Needs $4,732,536 YARTS Operating Needs $200,000 City of Atwater $293,183 City of Dos Palos $50,741 City of Gustine $56,751 City of Livingston $138,747 City of Los Banos $375,229 City of Merced $825,534 Merced County $948,229 Total $8,100,000
The above resolution was approved by the Merced County Association of Governments on May 19, 2016 by ______, who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by ______and which was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
APPROVED:
______Marjie Kirn, Executive Director Deidre Kelsey, Chair Merced County Association of Governments Merced County Association of Governments Governing Board
ITEM 16
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAY 12, 2016
TO: MCAG GOVERNING BOARD
FROM: MARJORIE KIRN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RE: SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES
This item was continued at your last meeting.
BACKGROUND
Existing law authorizes the establishment of a Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) in any county if the Board of Supervisors of the county and the city councils of a majority of the cities within the county adopt resolutions providing for the establishment of the service authority. Once approved, a service authority can impose a fee of $1 per year on vehicles registered in the counties served by the service authority. The moneys received by a service authority can be used for the implementation, maintenance, and operation of a motorist aid system of call boxes and the moneys received by a service authority in excess of what is needed for that system to be used for additional motorist aid services, including, among other things, changeable message signs and lighting for call boxes. There is a requirement that the Department of Transportation and the Department of the California Highway Patrol review and approve plans, and amendments to plans, for implementation of a motorist aid system of call boxes.
A recently chaptered amendment to the SAFE legislation authorizes the use of those moneys for traveler information systems, Intelligent Transportation System architecture and infrastructure, and other transportation demand management services, and safety-related hazard and obstruction removal. (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB516). In 1996, the MCAG Governing Board authorized the formation of the SAFE and the implementation of a Call Box Program.
• Phase 1 of the call box program was implemented May 25, 2000 with the installation of 70 call boxes along Highway 152 and Interstate 5 within Merced County. • Phase II of the call box program was implemented July 17, 2001 with the installation of 18 call boxes on Highway 99 between the Merced/Stanislaus County line and the City of Livingston. • Phase III proposed the installation of 30 call boxes on Highway 99 between the City of Livingston and the City of Merced to be implemented to correspond with freeway upgrading and construction. This did not occur. • Phase IV proposed the installation of 12 call boxes on Highway 99 south of the City of Merced to the Merced/Madera County line to be implemented to correspond with freeway upgrading and construction. This did not occur.
DISCUSSION
With the prevalence of cell phones, the use of the call boxes in Merced County has diminished to the point where they are basically obsolete and not useful to the traveling public. See article: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/call-664586-boxes-motorists.html.
In addition, if the call boxes are to remain in use, they will need to be upgraded to a 3G cell phone technology at a cost of $750 - $1000 per call box. Staff proposes having a public meeting to propose the removal of the call boxes and obtain public feedback. If there is no public opposition, the intent will be to work with Caltrans and the CHP to proceed with the call box removal process. The current maintenance contract includes an option for permanently removing of the boxes.
As far as what to do with the remaining SAFE funding, once the expenses for the removal and/or upgrade of the remaining call boxes are accounted for, is up for discussion. At your last meeting two ideas were suggested:
1. Using these funds for the 911 calls from cell phones for freeway emergencies, as these calls are being directed to the local dispatch agency versus CHP. 2. Implementing a “safety-related hazard and obstruction removal” or litter removal program along the highways, hiring our homeless population. The City of Bakersfield implemented a similar program in Kern County that can be used as a model for Merced County.
At this time, I requesting direction from the TRB and the Governing Board to pursue the removal of some or all of the call boxes from the highways in Merced County. This may take up to 6 months to a year. Once this is done, we can assess the remaining balance and annual revenue and decide how to proceed.
REQUESTED ACTION
Direct staff to: a. Schedule a public meeting to hear public comments regarding the proposed removal of the call boxes; and b. Develop a plan to remove the under-utilized call boxes and upgrade any that remain.
ITEM 18
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAY 12, 2016
TO: MCAG GOVERNING BOARD
FROM: MARJORIE KIRN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RE: PROPERTY PURCHASE AGREEMENT
BACKGROUND
At the previous Governing Board Meeting, staff was given direction to proceed with the purchase of the property located at 357 W. 18th Street which is next door to MCAG’s main office.
DISCUSSION
Attached for your review is the draft Purchase and Sale Agreement prepared by our legal counsel. The cost for this purchase is included in the Fiscal Year 2016/17 OWP - Budget.
REQUESTED ACTION
Review and direct staff to finalize the Purchase Agreement and complete the purchase for the Fiscal Year 2016/17.
Attachment: Purchase and Sale Agreement
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Preamble This Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Agreement”), dated May ___, 2016, is made by and between Jeff and Betty Denno, as trustees of the Jeffrey C. and Betty C. Denno Family Trust, herein called “Seller”, and Merced County Association of Governments, a California Joint Powers Authority, herein called “Buyer” [collectively the “Parties”], and is entered into with reference to the following: A. Seller holds fee title to the land and improvements located in the City of Merced, State of California, at 357 West 18th Street, identified by assessor’s parcel number 031-072-015, and more fully described in Exhibit A (the “Property”). B. Seller obtained a written appraisal of the property by William Spriggs, which valued it at Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), and has provided a copy of said appraisal to Buyer. The appraisal, dated February 16, 2016, is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. C. Seller has offered the Property to Buyer and Buyer has agreed to purchase the Property on the terms and conditions contained herein. Buyer’s Board of Directors approved the transaction on April 21, 2016, and will consider final approval at its meeting on May 18, 2016. THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. SALE OF PROPERTY Subject to the terms and conditions of this Purchase and Sale Agreement, Buyer agrees to purchase the Property from Seller and Seller agrees to sell the Property to Buyer.
1 ARTICLE 2. ESCROW Escrow has been opened with TransCounty Title as escrow holder, escrow number 16-00699-DMK. Escrow is scheduled to close on July 1, 2016. ARTICLE 3. PURCHASE PRICE Purchase Price Section 3.01. The total purchase price for the Property shall be Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), and is all cash.
Payment of Purchase Price and Reimbursement for Appraisal Section 3.02. Buyer shall pay to Seller the purchase price, $200,000.00, on close of escrow, and shall reimburse Seller $1,000.00, for the cost of the appraisal. ARTICLE 4. TAXES/ASSESSMENTS, FEES, AND RECORDING COSTS Taxes/Assessments Section 4.01. All property taxes, assessments, and other items referred to in paragraph 22 of the Purchase Agreement shall be prorated between Buyer and Seller as of close of escrow on July 1, 2016. Fees, Recording Costs and Documentary Transfer Tax Section 4.02. Buyer and Seller shall each pay escrow, document preparation fees and title insurance policy costs as is customary in Merced County. There are no broker’s fees. Buyer shall pay Documentary Transfer Tax. ARTICLE 5. DEFAULT Seller’s Default Section 5.01. The following shall constitute a default by Seller: 1. Failure to cooperate in effectuating the terms of this Purchase and Sale Agreement; and
2 2. Failure to deliver the Property in the manner and condition contemplated by the Parties. Buyer’s Default Section 5.02. The following shall constitute a default by Buyer: 1. Failure to cooperate in effectuating the terms of this Purchase and Sale Agreement; and 2. Failure to pay all or any part of the purchase price. Remedies Section 5.03. In the event of default by either party, the non-defaulting party shall be entitled to all remedies now or hereafter allowed by law. ARTICLE 6. MISCELLANEOUS Contract Not Contingent Section 6.01. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Purchase and Sale Agreement, there are no contingencies save for approval by Buyer of the Preliminary Title Report. The Property is being sold “As Is”. Delays Section 6.02. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Purchase and Sale Agreement, should the performance of any act required by this Contract to be performed by either Buyer or Seller be prevented or delayed by reason of any act of God, strike, lockout, labor trouble, inability to secure materials, restrictive governmental laws or regulations, or any other cause except financial inability not the fault of the party required to perform the act, the time for performance of the act will be extended for a period equivalent to the period of delay and performance of the act during the period of delay will be excused; provided, however, that nothing contained in this section shall excuse the performance of any act rendered difficult or impossible solely because of the financial condition of the party required to perform the act.
3 Attorney's Fees Section 6.03. Should any litigation or arbitration be commenced between the Parties concerning the Property, the Purchase and Sale Agreement, or the rights and duties of either in relation thereto, the party, Buyer or Seller, prevailing shall be entitled, in addition to such other relief as may be granted, to a reasonable sum as and for attorney's fees and costs, including the cost of arbitration, if any, which shall be determined by the court or arbitrator. Governing Law and Venue Section 6.04. This Purchase and Sale Agreement, and all matters relating to it, shall be governed by the laws of the State of California in force at the time any need for interpretation of this Purchase and Sale Agreement. Venue of any action shall be in the Superior Court of California, County of Merced. Binding on Heirs and Successors Section 6.05. This Purchase and Sale Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the Parties. Partial Invalidity Section 6.06. Should any provision of this Purchase and Sale Agreement be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be either invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Purchase and Sale Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unimpaired by the holding. Sole and Only Agreement Section 6.07. This Purchase and Sale Agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement between Buyer and Seller respecting the Property, the sale of the Property to Buyer, or the sale terms herein specified, and correctly sets forth the obligations of Buyer and Seller to each other as of its date. Any agreements or
4 representations respecting the Property, its sale to Buyer by Seller, or any other matter not expressly set forth in this instrument are null and void. Execution in Counterparts Section 6.08. This Purchase and Sale Agreement may be executed in counterparts and each counterpart shall be deemed for all purposes to be an original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same agreement. Arbitration Section 6.09. The Parties desire to avoid the expense and delay associated with litigation and therefore agree to submit any and all disputes which cannot be resolved by a good-faith effort to meet and confer to binding arbitration pursuant to the following terms. Except as set forth in this provision, despite the fact that such binding arbitration is pursuant to contract, it shall be conducted based on California rules of judicial arbitration. There shall be one arbitrator. If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, he or she may be chosen from the then- active list of arbitrators maintained by the Merced County Superior Court. The party seeking arbitration shall commence the case with a letter request which shall set forth, in clear and concise terms, the nature of the dispute and shall further list three names from the above-mentioned list of arbitrators agreeable to the requesting party. The other party shall select one of the listed attorneys or submit a list of three names to the requesting party, who may select one of the other parties’ listed attorneys. If the parties cannot agree on the arbitrator, either may petition the court for appointment. The arbitrator shall set the matter for hearing within thirty (30) days of his or her appointment. Following the hearing, the arbitrator shall issue a decision within ten (10) days. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding and may be enforced as a judgment in the Merced County Superior Court.
5 Executed on May ____, 2016.
SELLER:
By______Jeffrey C. Denno, Trustee of the Jeffrey C. Denno and Betty C. Denno Family Trust
By______Betty Denno, Trustee of the Jeffrey C. Denno and Betty C. Denno Family Trust
BUYER:
Merced County Association of Governments
By______Marjorie Kirn, Executive Director
6 EXHIBIT A
Real property located at 355/357 W. 18th Street, Merced, Merced County, California, described as follows:
Northwesterly half of Lot 10 in Block 147, as shown on the map entitled, “SUPPLEMENTAL MAP TO TOWN OF MERCED”, originally recorded March 4, 1889, in Vol. 1 of Maps, page 12, and now appears in Vol. 2 of Maps, page 12, Merced County Records; said Northwesterly half of said Lot 10 being that portion of said Lot line northwesterly of a line through the center of said Lot 10 parallel with a line between Lots 9 and 10 and extending from 18th Street to the alley in said Block.
APN: 031-072-015
7