Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/1999, 1 - AGENDA ADDENDUM CONTRACT TO DELIVER ASPHALT LLA 20-99 LL ADJD 2353 BUSHNELL ST council agenba CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET Tuesday, May 49 1999 ADDENDUM: This item is hereby added to the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is approved on one motion. Council Members may pull consent items to be considered after Business items. C12. CONTRACT TO DELIVER ASPHALT. (MCCLUSKEY/704-06) RECOMMENDATION: 1) Authorize the City Administrative Officer to approve a bid package for a contract to deliver asphalt . 2) Authorize the City Administrative Officer to award a contract if the contract amount is within the budget available of$98,700. council 774 /-2.9 j acEnaa REpoRt t CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Michael D.McCluskey,Public Works Directorj�74� Prepared By: David Elliott,Administrative Analyst/ SUBJECT: Contract to Deliver Asphalt U CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the City Administrative Officer to approve a bid package for a contract to deliver asphalt 2. Authorize the City Administrative Officer to award a contract if the contract amount is within the budget available of$98,700 DISCUSSION Based on recommendations of the adopted Pavement Management Plan, the amount budgeted for asphalt each year in the Pavement Maintenance operating program was increased from $60,000 to $160,000. This increase was intended to cover additional downtown street repair, pothole repair, and pavement regrinding and resurfacing performed by the paving crew. The paving crew spent$61,300 on several small asphalt purchases during the summer and early fall of 1998 and has been waiting for the rain to stop and the weather to warm up before spending the remaining $98,700 on various paving projects. This money must be spent before the end of the fiscal year on June 30, 1999. Unfortunately the paving crew did not realize that it would have to wait this long and that this level of spending would require formal bidding procedures and Council approval. The earliest Public Works could get a bid package to the Council for approval would be the May 18, 1999 meeting. Even with a minimum 10-day bid period, it would be difficult to execute a contract before June 9, 1999. That procedure would leave the paving crew with only about three weeks in the fiscal year to use up almost$100,000 worth of asphalt, a nearly impossible task. To get a contract executed earlier, Public Works is proposing that the Council authorize the City Administrative Officer to approve the specification and bid package. This procurement will be a fairly routine materials acquisition. There are only three asphalt suppliers near enough to San Luis Obispo to bid on this contract. Council Agenda RVocts\Con=a to Deliver Asphalt C12-1 MNG AGENDA DATE ITEM # council memoizanaum April 29, 1999 F5AL. O CDD DIR 0*1R DIR TO: City Council O FI�iE CHIEF ,//,� N DIR FROM: John Dunn,City Administrative Offic / ' — O POLICE CHF Bill Statler,Director of Finance 1� O REC DIR0UTILDIRO PERS DI f3 SUBJECT: TRANSIT SYSTEM FINANCIAL DATA Council Member Schwartz recently requested historical information about the City's bikeway and transit systems (Attachment A). The following are responses to his request for transit system financial information: ■ Transit System Expenditures and Funding Sources. Attachment B summarizes transit system expenditures and funding sources since 1973-74, when transit operations began. This information was compiled based on a review of all audited financial statements for these years, and a selected review of budget documents where additional information was needed. Because of changes in financial reporting standards, some of the information for the earlier years is based on our best interpretation of what occurred. For an "apples to apples" comparison, we have prepared the same schedule,but adjusting all data to 1999 dollars(Attachment Q. As noted in the summaries, this data is exclusive of our Transportation Development Act(TDA) revenue contributions to SLOCOG and the regional transit system(SLORTA); we have included these contributions for the last four years at the end of Attachment B. It is also important to note that beginning in 1991, the City adopted a policy of allocating all of our TDA funds for alternative transportation purposes. This is rare among cities in California that control this revenue source: TDA revenues can also be used for street purposes, and most cities allocate some (if not most) of their TDA revenues for street purposes. When the Council adopted this policy, it reflected a transfer of about $300,000 annually from street to transit purposes. Lastly, service fees include Cal Poly contributions for free ridership for students, faculty and staff. This represents the largest component of service fee revenues; for example, of the $323,900 in service fees projected for 1998-99,$174,600 is from Cal Poly. ■ Start of the Transit System. Based on our review of past audited financial statements, transit operations began in 1973-74. ■ Transit Manager. The Transit Manager position was added in 1983-84. IN Regional Transportation Contributions. As noted above, this information is provided in Attachment B for the last four years. If you have any questions about this information,please call Bill Statler at extension 1 . RECEIVED 9 H:General ConeVondenccrrransit Financial History SLO CITU CLERK MEMO April 22, 1999 To: John Damn Attachment) From Ken Schw Re: Request for inf tion In order to prepare myself for the upcoming May 4 agenda item on the Downtown Access Plan, I need some additional information from staff Depending upon how records have been maintained,my requests could only take a few minutes to produce but if the records have not been kept sequentially, my requests may take a couple of hours to produce. In anticipation of possible public criticism that the city has not done enough to promote alternative forms oftransportation, I would like to have the following information: A. From Public Works/Tran ortation: D p4 1. A map of the city showing: ( 644c'/��"A' /''4) / G/4-1S y a. Those streets on which bicycle lanes have been dedicated, and b. Those places where a bice path has been established independent of a street. � 7 2. The total length(miles)of our existing(a)bike lanes and(b)bice paths (If we have not been keeping tabs of these totals as they have been added to our systems,then I would accept a reasoned estimate.) 3. The year in which the first the city established its first bice lane- I remember it to be 1973,but I could be off a year or two in either direction. B. Proln Finance Department: 1. Total expenditures made to date on the City's public transportation system broken down as follows: a. Total expenditures from the City's General Fund; b. Total expenditures from Federal and/or State Grants; c. Fare-box receipts including finds received from those organizations granting free fare;e.g. Cal Poly. d. Net subsidy from"ayer finds. 2. The year in which the City initiated the public transit system- I remember to be 1974,but I could be off,a year or two in either direction here as well. 3. The year bus operations grew to the point where a Transit Manager position was established �I presume the costs ofthe Transit Manager and staffwill be included item(1)above. I am not sure what the City contributes,if anything,to the regional public transportation system,but if we do,that sum would also be useful to know. I presume that the costs of bus stop benches, shelters, signs, schedules,public relations, ads, etc. are all operational costs and do not represent a separate cost to the city. 4. Attachment. Transit System Expenditures and Funding Sources: 1973-74 to 1998-99 Historical Dopars Fiscal Year Expenditures Funding Sources Ending Operating Capital Total Service Fees Grants General Fund 1999 1,336,000 2,958,200 4,294,200 323,900 3,970,300 1998 1,229,800 908,500 2,138,300 319,900 1,818,400 1997 1,332,700 321,100 1,653,800 312,700 1,341,100 1996 1,282,900 40,800 1,323,700 339,300 984,400 1995 1,120,200 77,200 1,197,400 366,600 830,800 1994 1,029,000 687,600 1,716,600 335,700 1,380,900 1993 834,900 570,100 1,405,000 258,000 1,147,000 1992 623,700 270,100 893,800 209,900 683,900 1991 630,100 45,800 675,900 177,400 498,500 1990 626,400 626,400 168,800 457,600 1989 463,900 463,900 149,100 314,800 1988 369,400 835,900 1,205,300 139,900 1,065,400 1987 340,200 373,400 713,600 137,000 576,600 1986 463,800 194,200 658,000 116,600 541,400 1985 535,600 535,600 106,100 344,500 85,000 1984 600,900 197,600 798,500 52,800 660,700 85,000 1983 883,500 883,500 74,300 715,200 94,000 1982 555,700 555,700 120,900 288,700 146,100 1981 505,400 505,400 94,100 281,300 130,000 1980 419,900 419,900 97,900 254,000 68,000 1979 366,400 366,400 101,900 220,300 44,200 1978 296,700 296,700 38,400 55,400 202,900 1977 114,600 114,600 25,300 0 89,300 1976 115,700 115,700 2,500 0 113,200 1975 73,100 73,100 0 73,100 1974 1 13,800 1 13,800 0 1 13,800 Total 1 $ 14,764,100 1 $ 79480,500 $ 22,244,600 $ 3,803,000 $ 17,901,500 1 $ 5409100 ■ All data based on audited financial statements for each year except 1998-99,which is based on the budget. ■ The transit system was not accounted for as an enterprise fund until 1976-77. Prior to this,it was accounted for in the utility users tax fund. The use of a separate fund to account for this General Fund revenue source was also discontinued beginning in 1976-77. ■ Beginning in 1991-92,all TDA revenues are allocated for alternative transportation purposes. The data provided above is exclusive of regional transportation planing and transit costs;the following summarizes the Cit}�s contribution for this purpose for the last four years. Contributions to • • (SLORTA): Last Four Years Fiscal Year Ending SLOCOG SLORTA Total 1999 $ 64,800 $ 291,400 $ 356,200 1998 53,200 280,300 333,500 1997 50,800 281,200 332,000 1996 44,400 256,500 300,900 Attachment Transit System Expenditures and Funding Sources: 1973-74 to 1998-99 This summary is similar to the one presented in Attachment A,except that it provides all data in 1999 dollars for a better"apples to apples" comparison of expenditures and funding sources. 1999 Dollars Fiscal Year Expenditures Funding Sources Ending Operating Capital Total Service Fees Grants General Fund 1999 1,336,000 2,958,200 4,294,200 323,900 3,970,300 1998 1,250,300 923,700 2,174,000 325,200 1,848,800 1997 1,376,300 331,600 1,707,900 322,900 1,385,000 1996 1,365,200 43,400 1,408,600 361,100 1,047,500 1995 1,224,500 84,400 1,308,900 400,700 908,200 1994 1,156,400 772,700 1,929,100 377,300 1,551,800 1993 962,000 656,900 1,618,900 297,300 1,321,600 1992 742,000 321,300 1,063,300 249,700 813,600 1991 769,100 55,900 825,000 216,500 608,500 1990 807,800 0 807,800 217,700 590,100 1989 629,400 0 629,400 202,300 427,100 1988 524,600 1,187,000 1,711,600 198,700 1,512,900 1987 502,700 551,700 1,054,400 202,400 852,000 1986 695,300 291,100 986,400 174,800 811,600 1985 834,100 0 834,100 165,200 536,500 132,400 1984 968,900 318,600 1,287,500 85,100 1,065,300 137,100 1983 1,484,200 0 1,484,200 124,800 1,201,500 157,900 1982 968,200 0 968,200 210,600 503,000 254,600 1981 954,500 0 954,500 177,700 531,300 245,500 1980 886,800 0 886,800 206,700 536,500 143,600 1979 881,400 0 881,400 245,100 530,000 106,300 1978 780,000 0 780,000 100,900 145,700 533,400 1977 321,900 0 321,900 71,100 0 250,800 1976 341,900 0 341,900 7,400 0 334,500 1975 230,500 0 230,500 0 0 230,500 1974 48,700 0 48,700 0 0 48,700 Total S 18,551,500 S 8,496,500 S 27,048,000 S 41633,900 S 21,486,600 S 927,500 ■ All data based on audited financial statements for each year except 1998-99,which is based on the budget. ■ The transit system was not accounted for as an enterprise fund until 1976-77. Prior to this,it was accounted for in the utility users tax fund. The use of a separate fund to account for this General Fund revenue source was also discontinued beginning in 1976-77. ■ Beginning in 1991-92,all TDA revenues are allocated for alternative transportation purposes. CTLY O san Us OBisp0 Memo TO: Councilmember Schwartz via: John Dunn,City Administrative Officer Frons Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Wor"6)1- CC: Terry Sanville, Bill Staffer `_' �, Date: April 27, 1999 Re: Request for information-April 22, 1998 Attached is most of the information you requested in your April 22n0 memo. The remainder is being prepared by Bill Statler. As for the last two paragraphs of your request: The City contributes nothing to the regional public transportation system. Their system is funded "off the top" meaning that they have first rights to funding and we then and others get proportional shares. What does occur is that our share is decreased as the regional system expands. Thus there could be some interpretation that we contribute to the regional system by losing what we may have otherwise had for our own system,but that is not really the case due to the"off the top"funding mechanism. You presume correctly that the costs of bus stop benches,etc. are operational costs to the City. These are paid with Transit funding. However,we do on occasion receive FTA grants for bus stops, and due to the total cost involved,they are shown as capital improvement costs, rather than operating costs. I've attached your original memo with answers provided by Terry Sanville in the margins which refer to the specific attached documents. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Terry, Bill,or myself. 1:adnwVa=rsd,wartz&sr99-01 e C YC 71 X11 0 Page 1 't este ,I LV gkSX9 bW rDecember The City Council establishes the first Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) to determine the need for bus service in San Luis Obispo. April 1974 SLO Transit service begins on two routes (Routes 1 and 2)using 17-passenger microbuses. Half-hour service is provided to Cal Poly and the northern part of San Luis Obispo while other parts of town have hourly service. April 1975 A third route is added to serve the South Higuera Street corridor (Route 3). Three 21-passenger buses begin service. September 1977 Direct bus service between the downtown and Cal Poly begins (Route 5) us- ing a 45-passenger bus. January 1981 Route 4 is added to provide half-hour service to South Higuera Street (in conjunction with Route 3) and to the Laguna Lake area (in conjunction with Route 2). November 1982 Three 31-passenger buses begin service. F►,x�T March 1984 The City Council adopts the first Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)with a key objective to maximize patronage on SLO Transit. August 1988 The City completes construction of SLO Transit's bus maintenance yard on Prado Road. July 1991 The"Old SLO Trolley"begins service in downtown San Luis Obispo. January 1994 Two 44-passenger natural-gas powered buses begin service. . January 1995 Route 2 is eliminated, Route 3 is modified, and service on Routes 4 and 5 is increased to two-way half hour service. June 1996 For the first time, one million passengers ride SLO Transit in a single fiscal year. April 1997 Cash fares are raised from 50 cents to 75 cents, and pass prices are increased by 50 percent— the fust increases in 16 years. 6 JDCAO NCIL 0 CDD DIR MEETING AGENDA I- 0 FIN DIR DATE 4 STEM # IA(�� O 0 FIRE CHIEF AIR RESOURCES BOARD ORPY 0 PO DIR JORIO 0 POLICE CHF T TEAM 0 REC DIR PROPOSED REVISIONS TO _ 0 PERS DIR CALIFORNIA'S AGRICULTURAL BURNING G CONCEPT PAPER FOR DISCUSSION AT REGIONAL WORESHOPS (March 1999) To obtain this document in an alternative format,please contact the Air Resources Board's Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator at(916) 322-4505, TDD (916) 324-9531, or (800) 700-8326 for TDD calls from outside the Sacramento area. What regulation are we proposing to change? This paper describes the Air Resources Board's (ARB's) conceptual proposal for revising the existing regulations governing agricultural burning in California—the Agricultural Burning Guidelines found in Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations (sections 80100 through 80330). Agricultural burning refers to the intentional use of fire for vegetation management in areas such as agricultural fields, orchards, and wildlands like rangeland and forests. The planned use of fire on wildlands is generally referred to as prescribed burning. Upon adoption of an amended state regulation, the local air agency responsible under state law for managing the smoke impacts of agricultural burning would then be required to adopt and implement conforming programs and requirements. How does the current agricultural burning program work? The state agricultural burning guidelines are implemented by either the local air district or, in those air basins consisting of two or more districts, the Basinwide Air Pollution Control Council("basinwide council"). ARB has program oversight authority and makes bum/no-bum decisions for each region,unless this authority has been specifically delegated to the air district. The process for implementing the guidelines varies throughout the state. In all areas outside the Sacramento Valley,the program technically requires establishment of a daily cap on acreage available for burning. However, the program in practice uses an"all or nothing" approach—an unrestricted number of acres may be burned on a bum day and none may be burned on a no-burn day. State law also allows a district to authorize burning on no-bum days if denial of a bum permit`would threaten imminent and substantial economic loss." The air districts in the South Coast,San Diego, and Bay Area operate their own delegated programs and coordinate with the ARB,while other districts rely on the ARB to establish burn days and supply meteorological support. The San Joaquin Valley is in the process of reviewing its program and expanding its smoke management activities on a parallel track with ARB's Title 17 update. RECEIVED APR 2 9 1999 March 1999 1 SLO CITY CLERK ' t i _ L The Sacramepto Valley currently uses an allocation process when making decisions ardiag a culf&d burning. This system increases the number of days when burning is owl;but IERts the number of acres that can be burned on a daily basis. Under this system, the ARB establishes a cap on the total acreage that can be burned in the air basin each day, based on atmospheric conditions. Then a basin-wide bum coordinator allocates acres (up to the cap) among the districts in the basin. The districts then allocate acreage among specific bum events. To minimize smoke impacts, real-time weather and air quality measurements are used to establish the acreage allocations and the timing and placement of the fires. This system is supported by fees on agricultural burners to support monitoring sites, meteorological services, and the basin-wide coordinator. Why are we proposing changes to the program? The existing program has generally been effective in managing agricultural burning with the current levels of prescribed burning for wildland management. However,we believe it is both necessary and timely to reevaluate the regulation to improve the statewide smoke management program for the following reasons: • Land managers—defined here as entities that administer, direct, oversee, or control the use of public or private land, including the application of fire to the land—are planning significant increases in prescribed burning for California. The smoke management system needs to be improved to effectively address these increases and minimize the impact on public health and welfare. • Short-term, high-impact smoke episodes have resulted from agricultural burning (including prescribed burning). These episodes can produce very high concentrations of inhalable particulate matter in downwind communities. Certain populations, including children,the elderly, exercising adults, and those suffering from asthma or bronchitis are especially vulnerable. Particulate matter can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause and aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body's ability to fight infections. Community health studies also link exposure to particulate matter with premature death in people with existing heart or lung disease. • Prescribed fire and other types of agricultural burning have the potential to affect California's ability to meet the health-based air quality standards for particulate matter and the upcoming federal regulations to improve visibility in national parks. • California's air regulators, along with many of its forestry management and fire protection agencies, agree that improvements to the current program can be made to optimize management of California's natural resources while minimizing smoke impacts. March 1999 2 Who would be responsible for oversight and implementation of the improved program? The ARB would continue in its oversight role,provide overall program guidance and approval, establish regional burn/no-burn decisions, establish a daily maximum acreage that can be burned in each region(a`bap'), and monitor large and sensitive burns. Responsibility for program implementation would lie with either the individual air district or,.for those air basins consisting of more than one district, the basinwide council. Successful implementation would require close coordination with federal, state, and private land managers; fire protection agencies; the timber industry; farmers; and ranchers. How are we proposing to change the agricultural burning program to improve smoke management? The primary element of the improved program would shift all areas of the state to a regional acreage allocation system. This system would be implemented by the individual air district or basinwide council as described in its approved Bum Implementation Plan. The ARB, or the regional authority designated in the Burn Implementation Plan,would establish a daily maximum cap for each region,based on atmospheric conditions. This cap would cover all types of agricultural burning(not just prescribed fires on forest and range lands)within the region. The district or basinwide council would then coordinate the allocation of acres to individual burners within the region. This program would maximise the number of days available for burning by minimizing the number of no-bum days,but would strictly cap the amount that may be burned each day. This cap would be based on the expected ability of each region to accommodate smoke without significantly impacting air quality. The regulation would also provide a mechanism for districts to establish their own program for forecasting and setting daily caps for the region that includes daily coordination with the ARB. What would be the main elements of a regionally coordinated approach? In general,this approach is based on the Sacramento Valley program, in which growers, air districts, and ARB work closely together to successfully manage burning of agricultural waste during the fall season. The proposed revisions would be as follows: • Each air district or basinwide council would establish a Regional Burn Coordination Center("Regional Center"). These Regional Centers would consist of, at a minimum, a meteorologist and burn coordinator assigned to that region by the air district or basinwide council. These functions may be performed by independent contractors, or district or other public agency personnel. March 1999 3 r • Each district or basinwide council would develop a Bum Implementation Plan,which must be approved by the ARB. The ARB could accept,reject, or modify these Bum Implementation Plans,based on criteria to be defined in the revised regulation. Each Bum Implementation Plan would describe the district or basin smoke management program and: describe the process for establishing the size, location and timing of the bums to minimi e smoke impacts; apportion responsibilities for implementing the Bum Implementation Plan among the appropriate entities (`regional designees', which would include the Regional Center and may also include district personnel, basinwide council personnel, and/or other appropriate designated individuals or agencies; indicate what seasons the Regional Center would be active and what process would be used for bum management"off-season"; describe the process for reporting information to the ARB on planned and unplanned wildland fires;bum totals for the previous day; and other information needed by the ARB to establish regional caps for the following day, develop an emission inventory, and ensure that the smoke management plan is being implemented successfully; and describe the process for coordinating bums with other regions and states. • The district or basinwide council Bum Implementation Plan would identify the specific regional designees to perform the following tasks: — establish the daily cap if regional delegation is desired; — coordinate bum projects with other centers and states; — issue bum permits; — allocate acreage among bum projects on a daily basis,within the cap set by the ARB or the regional designee; — review and approve the bum registrations and smoke management plans submitted by land managers; — coordinate with land managers to determine the optimal timing, location, and size for individual bum projects; and — determine, for individual bum projects, if it is appropriate to allow burning in specific areas on no-burn days, with an effective procedure for determining that microclimate conditions will allow burning without adverse smoke impacts. March 1999 4 What general requirements would apply under the proposed program? • Land managers would register yearly with the regional designee all planned bum projects of greater than oto be determined] acres, including areas considered for potential naturally ignited wildland fires. It would also be possible to register burns at a later date. Registration information would include, at a minimum, the planned season and acreage for the fire and information as to how post-bum evaluations will be made available to the regional designee. • For each prescribed fire listed in the registration, land managers would need to concurrently submit a Smoke Management Plan to the regional designee. This Smoke Management Plan would include information such as: — identification of contingency measures if smoke impacts occur,which may include methods to stop the bum; — actions to minimize fire emissions; — public notification and exposure reduction measures; and — types of air quality and meteorological monitoring appropriate for the burn. • We are not proposing to require that growers prepare Smoke Management Plans for crop and orchard burning because Title 17 and district regulations already define specific requirements and procedures to reduce smoke from these activities. • The regional designee would make 24-hour and 48-hour burn/no-burn determinations for small bums. The ARB or the regional designee would make these burn/no-bum determinations for large bums, overnight burns, or bums in sensitive locations. • For bums falling within certain criteria established for size or distance from sensitive locations (as documented in the Bum Implementation Plan), the land manager would need to request and receive an"affirmative confirmation"the morning of a planned bum event from the regional designee or the ARB, confirming that the bum may still be ignited. Planned bum events with 24-hour and 48-hour approval must still receive an affirmative confirmation the morning of the planned bum. For multi-day bums, it would be necessary to receive an affirmative confirmation each day of the burn event. • Each regional designee would report to the ARB for each fire the number of acres burned on the previous day and any known smoke impacts. • The land manager conducting the prescribed bum would make available to the regional designee a post-burn evaluation indicating the success of the prescribed bum within one month of the bum. Included would be information such as unexpected occurrences that might have impacted the bum decision, any complaints received, total acreage burned, and an evaluation of the success of the smoke management prescription methods used to reduce emissions from the burn. The regional designee would forward some or all of the information to the ARB as agreed upon in the Bum Implementation Plan. March 1999 5 r r What would be the procedures for wildfires? • Wildfires starting on a no-bum day would be presumed to be out of prescription. These fires would be declared wildfires and would need to be suppressed unless the land manager and the regional designee agree that it is appropriate to allow the wildfire to continue. In that case, the regional designee would give approval for the fire to continue, with the same requirements as a prescribed fire. Any wildfire of greater than[to be determined]acres would be reported to the regional designee by the land manager. This report would include the estimated size of the fire,the control date, and information on anticipated smoke impacts. • A wildfire would be allowed to continue if. (1) it starts on a bum day; (2) it is covered by an approved smoke management plan;mid(3) it complies with the prescription in the smoke management plan. If the fire complies with these conditions,the land manager would register that specific fire and submit a smoke management plan to the regional designee and the ARB as soon as possible,but no later than 72 hours after the fire is first observed. The land manager would then continue to submit daily bum requests, as required for prescribed fires. Additional information may be requested by the regional designee or the ARB,such as the daily anticipated growth in the area to be burned, maximum allowable size or perimeter, anticipated duration, and smoke impact modeling for the bum. What would be the monitoring requirements for prescribed burns? • The district,basinwide council, or the ARB could require a land manager to monitor weather and/or air quality prior to and during wildland burns of greater than 250 acres per day or wildland bums near smoke-sensitive sites such as: populated areas, hospitals, schools,nursing homes, airports, roads, campgrounds; — Class I areas(national parks and wilderness areas); or nonattainment areas for state or federal ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter air quality standards. This information would be provided to the regional designee at least one day before bum ignition and on a daily basis during the bum. Information such as wind speed and direction, ambient temperatures, and air quality between the fire and the nearest smoke- sensitive site could be included. For larger fires, additional monitoring may include information from radar wind profilers, remote automated weather sites, air quality sites, and include telemetry to allow real-time access by the regional designee and the ARB. If you have questions regarding revisions to California's Agricultural Burning Guidelines, please contact Mr. Bill Wilson at(916) 324-9747 or by e-mail at wwilson a.arb.ca.gov. March 1999 6 MEETING AGENDA TO: Councta ' - AIR POLLUTION DATE ITEM # I' FROM: .. John Ewan-: CONTROL DISTRICT r�por' RE: Liaison Repot# COUNTY OF SAN 1l,'IS OBISPO EA1 ❑ CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR TO: INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS ❑ FIRE CHIEF '7 ❑ PW DIR RIG ❑ POLICE CH FROM: BOB CARR,APCO AM t7 REC DIR O UTIL DIR G PERS DIR DATE: APRIL 15, 1999 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON APCD PROJECTS, PROGRAMS AND ISSUES Those of you who have been on the APCD Board for some time may recall that I have tried to keep Directors informed of important matters by periodically updating an 'APCD issues Paper.' The last update,however, was done some time ago so this will almost be like starting anew. I will be more timely in my updates in the future. Please call me at 781-5912 or 781-5920 if you have questions,comments or suggestions. 1. Budget Preview: The 1999/2000 draft budget is ready for release. It will be mailed to each of you for review and comments or questions. It is fairly consistent with recent budgets,but we are requesting additional temporary help to assist with the Unocal Avila Beach and Guadalupe Oil Field workload, and an upgrade of an Intermediate Typist Clerk position to Senior Clerk. Two bathrooms in the rear of the building have no heat and it has been freezing back there this winter, so,we arc proposing a heating unit to serve them. Permit revenue has declined, but has been offset to some degree by the recovery of costs related to the two remediation projects. The General Reserve will have a draw of$106,000 to fund the match needed for the Board-approved Carl Moyer Fund grant. 2. Avila Beach Remediation Project: All of the planning and preparation has finally been completed and we arc into the actual project. The excavation itself seems to be going quite well,especially given the recent weather conditions. Monitoring, sampling and analysis have gone pretty well but there have been a few glitches; adjustments are being made where needed. Data is being reported on the web site on a regular basis,and there have been no monitored indications of any problems of concern to date. However,since the affected soil is being removed there are periods when petroleum odors can be smelled in many areas of Avila Beach. We are still awaiting final direction from the Chair regarding expenditure of the Avila Beach Air Quality Mitigation Fund; and work is being done to give us a detailed estimate of project emissions so the mitigation fund amount can be calculated. 3. Guadalupe Oil Field Remediation Project: This project is moving slowly due to the discovery of PCB's in some of the oil-contaminated soil. Options for remediation are being explored, and the land farming pilot project continues. We are preparing to move ahead with seeking projects to offset the air quality impacts from the remediation process. 4. Enforcement and Compliance:We have finally reached a settlement agreement with the State Chancellors Office and three contractors regarding asbestos abatement violations that occurred during the Cal Poly Utilidor Project. $10,000 has come to the District to recover our costs and S 10,000 has gone to Cal Poly to help fund the free student bus program: in addition, contractor employees working at Cal Poly are required to take asbestos abatement training. The Union Pacific idling train problems seem to have subsided but the Company has not responded to our efforts to settle the public nuisance violations. UP seems to be causing the same kind of problems in other areas of the state. Back yard burning,especially on the Nipomo Mesa,has been very troublesome I. I Iii I'� • J..11 LUIS I_.'�I'`hn ' ' ''1faI • J. -:,; I 5';I) • rIC3•'BIGii51C:1(.:CrLCS..•:3.p: ....v,.sib,IFv:d.<<�.i:L oy Apr-27-99 09:40A slo county aped 805 781 1002 P .03 APCD Board-April Issues Update April 15, 1999 Page 2 this burn season,with many,many complaints, and many instances of people burning illegally. People's health has been seriously jeopardized as a result. 5. Rules Under Consideration at this Time: District staff is currently working on two rules that should be coming to the Board in FY 1999/2000. They are Industrial Glues and Adhesives,and Backyard Burning; the hearing schedule is uncertain at this time but we expect to be ready in July or September. Staff will be recommending revisions to the Back Yard Burning rule that should result in alternative disposal methods being used in place of burning,such as green waste programs and mulching. We are working with IWMA and County Engineering to make sure the transition works, and a public outreach effort is under development. It is unclear at this point whether changes to Title 17, Agricultural Burning Guidelines,will necessitate revisions to our Agricultural Burning rule. 6. East County MoniloringlTransport: Staff has been evaluating the potential and advisability of adding an East County Monitoring station to our network. This will be presented with the budget at the May meeting as an option. The most difficult issue seems to be whether we can find a site that is likely to capture air quality and meteorological events that will demonstrate transport. We have confirmation from ARB staff that they will have someone at your July 21 Board meeting to brief you on their findings regarding the transport question. District staff have made presentations at the Paso Robles and Atascadero City Councils regarding the transport question and poor air quality in 1998. We hope to do the same again after the results of the study are available. 7. Public Events: Several District staff recently spent a rainy Saturday at the County Schools Environmental Education Day. In spite of the rain it was a successful day,due in no small part to some innovative activities staff had planned for the students. We have participated in this event for several vcars now. We are preparing for Earth Day on April 24, Clean Air Month in May, Bike to Work Wcck May 17 -21, and Pollution Prevention Week in September. 8. Office Information System (DIS): OIS is being used by staff and working well; although there are certainly 'growing pains' associated with learning the new system while at the same time de-bugging it. We have been fortunate to have one of the contract programmers available to us during this implementation phase, and Duane Inglish,our former systems analyst, has been working as temporary help for 10 hours each week to help out with OIS implementation and to assist his replacement, Lary Bolef,in getting to know our system. We will lose this support in a few weeks. In the meantime great progress is being made and the 'OIS Team' provides instruction to staff on a weekly basis. 9. Personnel: Gary Willey and Paul Reitz attended the annual Engineering Seminar at Asilomar this month; both found it to be very educational, Mark Elliott and Tim Fuhs are training this week to upgrade asbestos abatement certification, adding inspection and sampling; Ed Virgin,our Safety Coordinator is attending a two day safety course sponsored by the County. Larry Allen recently completed his fifteenth year with the District and Kim Johnson her twentieth. At the Board meeting in March 1 introduced Larry Bolef who replaced Duane Inglish as our computer specialist, and now we are losing another member of our family - Lyn Reardon-Smith has been with the District for ten years and with the County thirteen; she is leaving us to accept a position with the City of Arroyo Grande; Lym is anexcellent employee and will be missed immensely. R:MPCMOB•.%rPSI'%BOARDVSUF.a99.R WC council "�I.c j acEnba Report i C ITY OF SAN LUIS 0 S I S P 0 FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared By: John Shoals,Associate Planner SUBJECT: LLA 20-99 (COUNTY MAP NO. SLAL 99-006): LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MAP WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2353 BUSHNELL STREET; SCOTT LATHROP- APPLICANT AND HELEN MILSAP-PROPERTY OWNER; R-2-S ZONE. CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt Draft Resolution"A," approving the lot line adjustment map including minor exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations,based on required findings and subject to conditions. DISCUSSION Situation/Proiect Description The project is a lot line adjustment map to consolidate portions of six existing lots into three lots, including exceptions to the subdivision regulations. The property site is comprised of six legal lots of record between Bushnell and Bishop Streets, adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and tracks (Lots 10 through 15 in Block "C" of Maymont Addition to the City of San Luis Obispo according to a map filed April 9, 1888, in Book B at page 91 of Maps). These existing lots are non-conforming because they either have less area; width or depth than required in the City's Subdivision Regulations. The reason for the lot line adjustment application is to improve the non-conformity of the existing lots, and to create three parcels that are more suitable for development and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Data Summary Addresses: 2353 Bushnell Street Applicant: Scott Lathrop Property Owner: Helen M. Millsap Zoning: R-2-S Medium Density Residential with a special considerations overlay General Plan: Medium Density Residential Environmental Status: Categorically Exempt - Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15305a). 1-1 LLA 20-99 (Lathrop) 2353 Bushnell Street Page 2 Site Description The triangular-shaped site is approximately 23,000 square feet in size and zoned R-2-S. It is presently vacant and has an average cross slope of about 9%. The surrounding area is a mix of single-family homes and condominiums. Evaluation The Subdivision Map Act limits a local agency's review of a lot line adjustment to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to local zoning and building ordinances. 1. Subdivision Requirements and Exceptions Since the site is zoned R-2-S,the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment must comply with the minimum lot area and dimension standards for that zone as specified in the City's Subdivision Regulations. Those standards include:a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet(sq.ft.),a minimum lot width of 60 feet,a minimum lot depth of 90 feet,and a 3-to-1 depth-width ratio. Following is a discussion of where each proposed parcel meets the lot area and dimension requirements,and what exceptions are being requested for each parcel. Parcel 1 (7,770 sq.ft.)is 120 feet wide with an average depth of 65 feet(its side lot lines are 31 and 99 feet long). This parcel meets the lot area and lot width requirements,but needs an exception to meet the lot depth requirement(90 feet). Due to the angle of the South Pacific Railroad right-of- way in relation to Bushnell Street, there is no practical way for this parcel to meet the lot depth standard. The only way would be to merge the six lots into one parcel. This alterative would not work as the City's lot merger requirements do not apply to two of the existing lots(Lots 13 and 14) because each of these lots have an area, width, depth and frontage equal to at least 80% of the minimum required in the Subdivision Regulations. Parcel 2 is 56 feet wide, 115 feet deep on average and 6,453 sq.ft.in area. This parcel meets the lot area and depth requirements,but needs an exception to meet the lot width requirement (60 feet). While this parcel does not meet the minimum lot width requirement, it is consistent with other developed properties on the same street. A majority of those properties are about 47 feet wide and 125 feet deep(see Attachment 5). Parcel 3 is a comer lot and has different lot area and dimension requirements than the other two parcels. City Subdivision Regulations require that the lot area for a comer lot be 15% larger than otherwise required(6,000 sq. ft. normally required; 6,900 sq. ft.required for a corer lot),and the lot width be 10 feet wider than otherwise required (60 feet normally required; 70 feet required for a comer lot). Parcel 3 is 60 feet wide, 147 feet deep on average and 8,828 sq.ft. in area. This parcel meets the requirements for lot area and depth, but needs an exception to meet the lot width 1-2 LLA 20-99 (Lathrop) 2353 Bushnell Street Page 3 requirement. While this parcel does not meet the minimum lot width requirement,it is consistent with other developed properties in the immediate area. A majority of those properties,including comer lots,are 47 feet wide(see Attachment 5). SLO Municipal Code Chapter 16.48(subdivision regulations)outlines the process for consideration of subdivision exceptions. The code stipulates that subdivision exceptions shall be concurrently reviewed with the tentative map and acted on by the City Council. City Subdivision Regulations (Section 16.48.020)state that before any exception is authorized,all of the following findings shall be made: a) That the property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in Title 16 of the Municipal Code(Subdivision Regulations);and b) That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification;and c) That the modification will not be detrimental to the public health,safety and welfare,or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity;and d) That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the city. Comment: Staff finds that all of the required findings can be made to support granting an exception to the subdivision regulations. First, the shape of the property is affected by the angle of the railroad right-of-way in relation to Bushnell Street making it impractical to conform with the strict application of the Subdivision Regulations. Second, it is staffs opinion that granting this modification will improve the condition of the existing non-conforming lots making them more suitable for residential development. Cost to the subdivider was not considered in staff s evaluation of the project. Third,with the requested exceptions,the resulting parcels will be consistent with the lot area and dimensions of other properties along Bushnell Street and in the immediate area. Therefore,granting this modification will not be detrimental to the public health,safety and welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. Fourth, granting the modification will improve the non-conformity of the existing non-conforming lots and meets the intent of the City's Zoning Regulations(Section 17.12.020)which is to provide for the reasonable use of non-conforming lots. The project meets all other R-2 zone property development standards including density requirements. Finally,the proposed lot line adjustment will result in the creation of three parcels that are more suitable for development and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. 1-3 LLA 20-99(Lathrop) 2353 Bushnell Street Page 4 2. Easements The lot line adjustment map shows a right-of-way easement and slope easement (on Parcels 2 and 3) that were granted to the City for the purpose of realigning Bishop Street to cross the railroad tracks and connect to South Street. Based on a revised Circulation Element, the current easements are not needed to accommodate the planned new alignment of Bishop Street. Therefore, the City is agreeing to quitclaim the existing easements in exchange for a smaller easement area because the Bishop realignment will now go straighter than previously planned. The Public Works Department supports revising the easement area and does not believe that the location of the new easement will affect development of this property. The precise location of the new easement is shown in Attachment 6, and will be recorded as part of the building permit process. 3. Zoning Regulations Any future development on the resulting parcels will be required to comply with the R-2 zone density requirements and property development standards,including lot coverage,building height, building setbacks and parking. Comment: If the requested subdivision exceptions are approved, the resulting parcels would comply with the City's Subdivision and Zoning Regulations. Staff would note that since the site carries a special considerations overlay (due to the site's proximity to the railroad tracks), development of these properties will require approval of an administrative use permit to analyze potential noise impacts,and to assure compliance with the R-2 development standards. CONCURRENCES As previously mentioned, the Public Works Department Engineering Division supports the quitclaim of the existing easements in exchange for a smaller slope easement along Bishop Street. The Utilities Department indicates that there are adequate public utilities (water lines) present at or near the site. Community Development Building Division is recommending that prior to any construction on the lots that a soils report be required to analyze the fill soils previously placed on the site, and to deiennine if there is any soil contamination. The Fire Department and Pacific Gas and Electric have no concerns with the proposed lot line adjustment at this time. These departments comments have been included as conditions of approval. FISCAL IMPACTS None 1-4