Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/02/2002, LIAISON - PERFORMING ARTS CENTER COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2002 I RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATE�ZITEM # UWt. council timson REpont June 28, 2002 To: Council Colleagues From: Vice Mayor Jan Howell Marx Subject: Performing Arts Center Commission eting of June 27, 2002 At the Performing Arts Center Commission meeting on Thursday, June 27, 2002, a number of significant actions were taken relating to the budget. The first was to approve the creation of three reserve accounts,based on the new funding formula memorialized in the recently revised Operating Agreement. With the creation of the three accounts, the PAC budget reflects, for the first time,planning to meet future needs, including unanticipated operating needs. The first of these accounts is an Operating Reserve. Annual transfers will be made to this account until it has and retains abalance of$120,000. It is estimated that the target balance will be reached over the next four years,if allocations of$30,000 per year can be made and the reserve is not used during that time. The second is a Repair and Replacement Fund, which will receive transfers of$300,000 annually from the operating budget. Based on that level of transfer, the Commission projects being able to meet repair and replacement needs for at least the next nine years. The final reserve is a Maintenance Fund. Transfers from the operating budget will be made to this fund on an annual basis based on anticipated annual need. The next important action taken by the Commission was to formalize an annual budget preparation calendar. This calendar has been developed to synchronize with the City's budget process. Although the Commission approves a budget for the PAC each year,they will make rolling second year projections so that the City will have preliminary numbers to feed into the second year of our future Financial Plans. Finally, the Commission adopted the budgets for fiscal years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The PAC had been operating from a preliminary budget for the past fiscal year,waiting for ratification of the revised Operating Agreement. Now that the three partners have done so, the final budget could be approved, along with the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Copies of the operating budget assumptions,budget preparation calendar and executive summary are attached to this report. Also attached to the report is an exhibit showing ticket sales by zip code. It is heartening to see that sales to residents of San Luis Obispo constitute almost 43% of all ticket sales. While the PAC needs to be a regional and even statewide attraction to be successful, it is important to know that our City contributions have created a facility that does, indeed, gfit our local citizens. RECEIVED &KOUNCIL c cDo oiR [P<CAO El FIRE G FIN DIR JUL 0 9. 70n? 70RNEY G PW D RHIEF C� Ii�LERK/ORIG 0 POLICE CHF SLO CITY CLE D T HEADS ❑ REG DIR �'. D UTIL DIR a ❑ HR DIR r� PERFORMING.ARTS CENTER Operating Budget Consideration & Final Approval 2001/02 and 2002/03 1. Operating Agreement has been approved and signed by the Partners and is in the final stage of execution at the CSU Office of the Chancellor. Budget presentation attached assumes execution of the Agreement. 2. Consolidated budget is developed in consultation with the partner representatives according to an agreed upon budget calendar(see attached Budget Calendar). The budget is presented annually to the Commission and the University President for approval. • Action needed at today's meeting would include final approval of the 2001/02 and the 2002/03 budgets. 3. Partner assessments are based on consolidated budget requirements calculated as the sum of the Center budget for operations and reserves less revenue derived from operations. Reserves include an Operating reserve, Major Maintenance reserve, and Repair and Replacement reserve. • Assessment ratio per Operating Agreement~ • 2/3 California Polytechnic.State.University • 1/6 City of San Luis Obispo • 1/6 Foundation for the Performing Arts • Operating Budget. • Includes expenditures associated with the daily operation of the Center, inducting salaries; supplies; daily maintenance, utilities, etc Indudes revenues from Center events and associated activities • Operating Reserve • Purpose: To address unforeseen cimumstances that would affect the operations of the Center. Transfer from the Operating Reserve would require agreement by the. Commis_sign. • Target reserve: $120,000 • Source of funds: • Annual transfer in accordance With approved budget- • Net result from operations after fiscal year end dose 1 06/24/02 rt • Major Maintenance Fund • Purpose: To address the major maintenance needs of the facility and equipment used in the operation of the Center. • Long-term needs are reviewed and the budget year needs updated. • Source of funds: • Annual transfer in.accordance with approved budget. Annual transfer'is expected to meet current year needs only. Repair and Replacement Fund • Purpose: To address the repair and replacement needs of the facility and equipment used in the operation of the Center. • Long-term needs are reviewed and the budget year needs updated. • .Source of funds: Annual transfer in accordance with approved budget. Budget includes budget year needs and a component to create a sinking fund to address future needs. 4. Financial Reporting • Annual report to the Commission of results from operations after fiscal year end dose and status of reserves. • Quarterly report to the.Commission of operating budget vs. expenditures 2 0624/02. PERFORMING ARTS CENTER ANNUAL BUDGET PREPARATION CALENDAR DUE DATE ACTION RESPONSIBILITY mid-January Submit operating revenue and PAG Director expenditure data for first draft of 2-year operating budget to Budget&Analytic Business Services(BASS) (Forecasts for current year, budget year plan, and estimates for year 2; including assumptions.) mid-January Submit proposed expenditures for Facility CP Facilities Services Daily Maintenance and Utilities for first draft of 2-year operating budget to BABS (Forecasts for current year, budget year plan,and estimates for year 2; including assumptions.) mid-January Submit proposed expenditures for PAC Director/Staff Maintenance and Repair(performance related)for first draft of 2-year consolidated budget to BABS (Forecasts for current year, budget year plan, and estimates for year 2; including assumptions.) mid-January Submit proposed expenditures for CP Facilities Services Maintenance and Repair Budget(facility related)for first draft of 2-.year consolidated budget to Finance (Forecasts for current year, budget year plan, and estimates for year 2; including assumptions.) Early February Prepare first draft of consolidated budget, CP Budget&Analytic Business including estimate of partner contribution Services(BABS) for BY and year 2. Transmit first draft to Vice.President for Administration and Finance Early February Transmit estimate of partner contribution Vice President for levels for BY based on first draft of Administration and Finance consolidated budget to City of SLO and FPAC Early February Distribute first draft of consolidated GABS budget to Commission Budget and Finance Subcommittee 3 06/24/02 PERFORMING ARTS CENTER ANNUAL:BUDGET PREPARATION CALENDAR(MM.) DUE DATE ACTION RESPONSIBILITY Early March Distribute 2nd draft of consolidated budget BABS to Commission Budget and Finance Subcommittee. Early April Present final draft of corisolidated budget BABS to Commission Budget and Finance Subcommittee June Present consolidated budget to PAC Director Commission for approval June Transmit consolidated budget approved by CCPACC the Commission to the President for approval. Late August Present net results from operations and BABS reserve fund balances to Commission Budget and Finance Subcommittee September Present net results from operations and PAC Director and the Vice reserve fund balances to the Commission President for Administration and Finance 4 06/24/02 § � / / & � � c � U. 0-0 _ � r- - - - Iq ■ � £ ■ E co co CD k - - - -- w cc 2 $ \ CO - _ CO � f - . . C CL 2CD & . -0) cz - R � c - -n C4 / � Im cm.r- C4 - Cl ` - - U. � § aE . E � �& R $ � / CD rl 43 / / 2 ; § .. 2I CC*4 A_ - - - /cwi CD m - - - \ . 7CM Co _ - ° ~ s Z - . t CDccCL . k $ m. . . oo < kE G 2 k e ® £ƒ E { k $ § 7 � § ` § fes ;E # LCL ° ° G + k z § LU \ � / - 0 d z btA k $ k Cl) § § $ ) K ° x ) 2 e =CL k � m ) . . § ~ EL 7 '04a > - _ _ e = 2 = a a e = . LL a 2 2 k2 r § Go CD C4B ' ' © k � C co Go � £ 2 % 04 , 04rL . . CF) Im 2 . cm k_ cli § u- § Sa06 . ■ ■ I a3 J / 2 $ ) \ % D ƒ § - 0 k# ) 2 - aQok Int k § f.� £J � 2 ) $ G / k § � w . N ONmnN M Q 'o co A O O 0 M Q to tD I, CO to ON M Q to to r, cO O O �•- Q - e- r- •- •- r- N N N N N N N N N N M M -• Q co 0 0 0 0 o M t n CD t A O Cl O Lo O O O M O I W O O t D O +m+ t0 0 0 0 CO Ct O M to to la O t0 Q Q O O O N O Q O Q CC m O Im O OO to CO C c% Om to 'o oiA OO to tJ6OQ Oto W W 9 co O t0 W0 t_ O N aD N O N N C-N M th In W N O CO- to O N LL') b Q t0 CO M 01 A A tq M'Q to Q.N Q O m Q tD N r M r Q v 0 O H Lf) O O Co Q O 'C w cOrJ N N M O O „m, LL C M f� C> O O 1 ccoo O O Oto V m N tO M .OM.. a � y E Cl O moo o ao m 0 00 0 0 , r W C co Q O O I-_ at •O R M N N ii r v m 0 C m V m tOo -O ccoo O O O co O OO r to O to r C ICJ t7 to eJ Q N W tl Q M �- r m, v N N N M C P, € E � o m. o - o - - oo'rua o o N t» d cc o o v- v Ai ton u�i rn o C6 Cq rz CT cli CN cm CIO co C N N V a F 0000 o rn000 tool o C) to O O O p O to O O O N O to m C O O t0 C N �.to O O �A O � � 09 r . E t;c0 Ld r.: a; O Iii e rZ U5 tri N 0) tri to y O N t0 r tD M to Q Mto a v a m m of m w m w m w � E E E � � �.s�� c c c c� o O° m e m =1 S, p tv tmi $ $ m i g o o 'o tip m p" ms S cd m mcd C6 cc LLL u- u- a m a c tUp t�q = x aW O A7 W a c a to Co CO E o° �L- fO W e w S %D CR R a a a m m o _ W m m N y m •wr v V 0 _ 2 IL C m Q Sq p •R m ao a o6 m W `y w 0 . c t7_C C N m m C J co X C m U m to m — m h . Z ,°r a F e CID � Co M F a m m @ L° o O O 0 2. •ON aU M to to A to CO O ' N M Q to w I� co O O In CO ^ co O •.., N N N N N N N N N N Cl) M W Llb Y1 , - 0 C( r [ i Sales for Christopher Cohan Center E ,a i" o 93116-93417 Goleta 94 0.122% 93301-93313 Bakersfield 182 0.237% 93401-93410 San Luis Obispo 32,781 42.640% 93402&93412 Los Osos 4,576 5.952% 93407 Cal Poly Donn Walk up/Student 6,159 8.011% 93420-93421 Arroyo Grande 4,694 6.106% 93422-93423 Atascadero 3,324 4.324% 93424 Avila Beach 780 1.015% 93426 Bradley 39 0.051% 93427 Bueliton 16 0.021% 93428 Cambria 2,145 2.790% 93430 Cayucos 786 1.022% 93432 Creston 145 0.189% 93433&93483 Grover Beach 1,497 1.947% 93436 Lompoc 489 0.636% 93440 Los Alamos 28 0.036% 93441 Los Olivos 51 0.066% 93442-93443 Morro Bay 2,152 2.799% 93444 Nipomo 1,129 1.469% 93445 Oceano 456 0.593% 93446-93447 Paso Robles 2,268 2.950% 93448-93449 Pismo Beach 2,384 3.101% 93451 San (Niguel 74 0.096% 93453 Santa Margarita 590 0.767% 9345493458 Santa Maria 2,640 3.434% 93452 San Simeon 29 0.038% 93460 Santa Ynez 28 0.036% 93463-93464 Solvang 42 0.055% 93465 Templeton 792 1.030% WA Santa Barbara 224 0.291% WA Southern California 954 1.241% WA Northern California 985 1.281% NIA Eastern California 346 0.450% WA No Zip Code on Acct 3650 4.748% WA Out of State Sales 312 0.406% WA Out of Country Sales 0 0.000% WA Misc.California 56 0.073% TOTAL 76,897 Cohan Center 67,078 9.819 76,897 Cal Poly Theatre18,585 1,452 20,037 Off Site 6,732 785 7,517 Totals 92,395 12,056 104,451 � N LL a 0 O � CA �. .._ .. m co .0 N N a0O_Of l7 O CD _ CW1 'p. C6 C $ V r OI CO CV. N CO Of. N O CO O M O O C7 m m O O aOn to GCi m COV fOOO 'R�_JII N: N� N OtCj m C� N OOI O t7 C wi CVI S T C'7 N V CJ z C L OI O r NN [A n- O O A N voi CO OI O C7. u�'i -�. �" C7 V v w � � �'� o C+� 2 2 !a m to C Iv: CO r Ch CO N "� M N {L O m ^ GD M N O O M �'N r aOO O V� d ~ C ^ tD W W CmO 1� 1n Ip�p�IIIppp����I�III�I�I'N C a Ocri O Cli C N � N tOJ O tOp CoO CNO C t7 th r v n O t7 Iv�D (� C O o a C 2 O VO CO N N CO CO N CLL.. 4. rn � MI o °� m C4 cS ,Ot p m olrn o v v con �I� m cc 16 lmn M v n Lq C`li_ rn o N. ccsi crio N n 0 OO N r' O N M� C7 Ch CF C COO h N V C CmC 'O , 0 0 O g c O N SAO O N pa m -Q . C LL • S U. m Q �C C� cm 4 3 C 9 C OCp 9 C a m cm O �m C= p w m -Pco C. O ''fQQ7 of @ W , O Cygol L pl W 'yWy E V LL E m Q C C LL Ti C rnm C Q. W df c, ry m L. w Laa � L = a m o IL a a m a a a m x m iv o W �- z AIR POLLUTION-" RED FILE CONTROL DISTRICT MEETING AGENDA CERTIFIED MAIL COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO �Z IJIITEM #J iu6v June 21, 20021 a SLO n: Bob Grimaila, Assistant Vice President - Environmental _ Union Pacific Railroad , 414 Dodge Street, Room 1206 Omaha, Nebraska 68179 SUBJECT: UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD - TRAIN ENGINE COMPLAINTS NOTICE of VIOLATION for NUISANCE - REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ACTION Dear Mr. Grimaila: The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (herein District) is contacting you regarding citizen complaints and concerns about smoke and odors from idling Union Pacific trains in and about the San Luis Obispo train station area. Due to on-going complaint history from train activity, close proximity to residential communities and the potential harmful health effects caused by toxic air contaminants in diesel exhaust, I have been instructed by the District Board of Directors to reach a resolution on this issue without delay. Below is an outline of the past history of the train complaints, current complaint information, Notice of Violation, and issuance of a Proposition 65 Discharge Report. An immediate response is requested. BACKGROUND The District has been investigating visible emissions violations and smoke and fume complaints against Union Pacific Railroad for five years. District records show that complaints against train engines regarding excessive smoke and fumes had been received as early as 1975. Prior to 1993, the District issued three Notices of Violation to Southern Pacific Lines for excessive visible emissions (smoke) from train engines in operation at various locations around San Luis Obispo County. Excessive smoke problems were resolved by correcting engine component problems (fuel injectors, fuel pumps, turbo chargers). In 1993, the District received additional complaints specifically regarding smoke and fumes from idling engines at the San Luis Obispo station. These engines would idle for long periods of time, often in excess of several hours, adjacent to residential homes. Southern Pacific (SP) was issued a Nuisance Warning Letter in August 1993. At that time Southern Pacific agreed to work with the District to resolve idling engine smoke problems. Southern Pacific has had a policy of shutting down unattended non-working trains after 30 minutes. This policy was flexible enough to allow SP attended train engine activities that included the 45-minute to an hour nominal "warm-up" time of engines. Track problems and engine/train difficulties were understood to be exempt from this policy. / 14Z pp�� ii OUNCIL 0 CDD DIR i IM0 IK110 ® i9 AO O FIN DIR CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF rCA'7TORNEY 0 PW DIR z0oz z 0 lir LERK/ORIG 0 POLICE CHF P. .HEADS ❑ REC DIR 3433 F:oberto Court • San Luis Obispc, C,�. 93�G I • 00 5-7?:-59 I% • FAX `'sQ � ❑ UTIL DIR BBAI303U -Ie1 df( 1.IrdGCC1.[,;t d ;:, :nrJ ,i,:c:: St.%z.us 0UTDIR Union PacifcRailroad June-21, 2002 Page 2 of S In June 1994, the District issued a second Nuisance Warning Letter due to continuing complaints against SP at the San Luis Obispo station. SP replied that operational difficulties with a new engine type were responsible for the continuing complaints and asked that the District work with SP staff during this period of time. A SP communication flyer was distributed to the train crews regarding engine shutdown and the SP Trainmaster, Rusty Smith, worked with the train engineers to resolve idling problems. After the June 1994 Nuisance Warning Letter, the District continued to receive complaints regarding SP engines at the San Luis Obispo station. Because of the number of complaints, the District's concern regarding excessive smoke and related health concerns and a review of the lack of SP compliance in the matter, the District issued a Notice of Violation for Nuisance on June 29, 1995. In July 1995 San Luis Obispo station neighborhood residents, Southern Pacific's Trainmaster, Jim McIntyre, local elected officials and District staff met to discuss the problems and possible solutions, Southern Pacific committed to work with neighborhood residents on the idling problem and agreed to strictly enforce the shutdown and "no idling zone" policy at the San Luis Obispo station. After a testing period, a formal policy and procedure was finalized and submitted to the District by Southern Pacific on February 8, 1996. Implementation of the policy and procedure resulted in a sharp drop in ccrnpiaints regarding the idling train engines: from 58 complaints in 1995 to 18 in 1996 and ? in 1997; however, complaints began to rise again in 1998. From January 1993 through January 1999, the District received 29 complaints regarding smoke, nuisance odors and health concerns from Union Pacific engines idling excessively at the Sar. Luis Obispo Station and along Highway One in Oceano. This resulted in the District issuing a Notice of Violation For Nuisance on March 12, 1998. At that time, Union Pacific agreed to honor the February 1996 Southern Pacific and District agreement. This 1996 Policy and Procedure included working with the neighborhood residents on idling problems, strictly enforcing the'shutdown of engines and the '`no idling zone" policy. Further, Union Pacific agreed to include,a southern "no idling zone" for the Bullock Lane area south of Orcutt Road in San Luis Obispo. Union Pacific also agreed to limit the use of engine powered (refrigerated) cars operating adjacent to residences to prevent nuisances and health concerns. Union Pacific declined to install and use any brake auxiliary air systems and/or mechanical devices to enable shutdown of locomotive engines without compromising brake safety: Implementation of these measures again resulted in a substantial drop in complaints during the subsequent two years. However, as shown in the table below, complaints are now on the rise again. DISTRICT INVESTIGATION OF CURRENT COMPLAINTS AND UNION PACIFIC RESPONSE The table below contains the current complaint history from 1998 through May 2002. As shown, with less than half the year gone the District ;has already received more complaints during.20Q2 than we received in each of the preceding three years. ` ' `` 1 , Union Pacific Railroad June 11, 2002 Page 3 of 5 Union Pacific Complaints 1998 through May 2002 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 28 6 3 8 10 Recent investigations by District staff have found the 1996 policy and procedure to be rendered ineffective by the current practices of the train crews. Locomotive engines are now being idled outside the originally established "no idle zone" in an area immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood (north of SLO train station and the Sinsheimer Park area). Excessive idling for 12 to 24 hours has been documented, resulting in a series of complaints from an entirely new set of residents impacted by the smoke and odors from idling trains.. Union Pacific Trainmaster Les Sack responded initially to the District's investigation and identified three circumstances that have resulted in idling trains: 1. Track maintenance is occurring further up the line so he holds the train at the station until that is complete; or 2. An engine needs servicing; or 3. There is a problem getting a replacement crew to take over from the crew that left the train idling. When the train is held for a certain length-6f time the crewleaves for home and a replacement crew must be found. If no local crew is available a crew from another area, often Bakersfield, must be found and brought to San Luis Obispo. Currently, there is plenty of work to do in the Bakersfield area and, as a result,not many Bakersfield crewmembers are willing to travel to San Luis Obispo to work. When asked why the trains must be left idling; Mr. Sack explained that the engines are idled to retain air pressure for the brakes so the trains will not roll. Also, if the engines are turned off for more than 4 hours at a time, Federal law requires the crew to conduct a thorough check over the entire train prior to restarting. This takes approximately 2 hours, and appears to be the primary reason the idling engines have been parking just outside of the no-idle zone. This enables a new crew, once it arrives, to immediately depart,which saves.Union Pacific time. Unfortunately, this method of.handling the situation is needlessly exposing nearby residents to harmful diesel particulates, smoke and nuisance odors from the idling engines. ISSUANCE OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION As indicated-above, interacting with Union Pacific personnel regarding these complaints is a long process often ending without satisfactory resolution, giving the appearance that Union Pacific.is not concerned about the situation. Further, Union Pacific has not shown an interest in listening to and working with the affected residents to help resolve the idling engine.issues and is violating the intent, if not the letter, of the 1996 Policy and Procedure. Thus, the District must take action and formally notice Union Pacific that these complaints are.in violation of District Union Pacific Railroad June 21, 2002 Page 4 cf.i Rule 402 Nuisance; and the California Health & Safety Code Section 41700 (Nuisance). The District requests that Union Pacific Railroad: 1. Formally respond to the Notice of Violatiori (attached) within 10 days of the receipt of this letter. For your information, a brochure describing the settlement of violations is included. 2. Take immediate action to prevent further nuisance and health concern complaints. 3. Meet with the District within 14 bays of the receipt of this letter to discuss interim resolution of the_complaints and a long-term solution to prevent further occurrences. This should include detailed discussion regarding potential installation and use of a brake auxiliary air system and/or mechanical devices to enable shutdown of locomotives and locomotive engines without compromising brake safety. DIESEL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS In 1995, California identified diesel particulate matter (diesel Pivl) as a toxic air contaminant based.on its potential to cause cancer and other adverse lieaith effects. In audition to Pivl. emissions.F•om diesel-fueled engines include over 40 other cancer causing substances. Overall, emissions from diesel engines are responsibic for the majori[y o;7;he airhorne ca;cer tisk in California. Exposure to diesel particulate presents a signjlicart cancer risk and .:an also result in none1 racer health effects such as asthma and bronchitis. Cinder District rules imPlerncating State and Federal law: the District Board has established a ten in.a rni'llion sib tificance threshold for excess :cancer risk. Emission sources predicted to cause heaith.nsks above this level are required to reduce their risk to acceptable levels. The District has performed a preliminary heaith risk assessment.that n:odcled one loconnot;ve engine idling 12 hours per day each day for one year on the tracks adjacent to the current complainant neighborhood. Using these assumptions, the estimated.excess cancer risk e::ceeds our 10 in a million threshold in both the immediate andsurrounding neighborhoods. Of further concem-is the close proximity of other sensitive sites to the modeled areas,including a hospital and medical office center, a high school, a senior center and a city park. The District's analysis is a screening level tool to determine the potential for significant health risk. It is up to Union. Pacific to perform a more refined analysis, using District guidelines, to provide a more accurate determination of the potential health risks to area residents. if Union Pacific chooses not to perform that analysis, the District's screening level analysis showing significant.health risks will be used to require Union Pacific to take all actions necessary to reduce that risk.to acceptable levels. Finally, Califomia's Proposition 65 —the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1956 (Health and Safety Code 25249.5) states that no person in the course of doing business shall knowingly discharge or release a chemicai known to the state to cause cancer. Additionally the Act provides (Health and Safety Code 25249.6) for clear and reasonable warning about that exposure. Union Pacific has illegally discharged diesel particulate, a listed toxic air contaminant; Union Pacific Railroad June 21, 2001 Page 5 of 5 in excess of the District's cancer risk significance threshold. Please advise us regarding your efforts to comply with the noticing requirements of Proposition 65 It is the District's duty to report this illegal discharge under the Act to the Health Officer of the County of San Luis Obispo, the District's Board of Director's, and to the California Air Resources Board. SUMMARY It is unacceptable for Union Pacific to continue to expose community residents to excessive and harmful diesel particulates, smoke and nuisance odors. We ask that you respond to these concerns in a timely manner, but no later than 10 days from the receipt of this letter. As soon as possible please contact Karen Brooks, Manager of Compliance and Enforcement at (S05) 781- 5912 to schedule a meeting within 14 days of receipt of this letter. If you have any questions please contact me at (805) 7S 1-5912. Very truly ,yours, LARR ' ALLEN Air Pollution Control Officer attachments cc: Paul E. Jacobs, California Air Resources Board Tony Ferrara, Chair, Air Pollution Control District Board of Directors Shirley Bianchi, Chair, County of San Obispo Board of Supervisors Peg Pinard, County of San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors, APCD Board John Ewan, San Luis Obispo City Council Betty Sanders, Chair, County Health Commission Dr. Gregory Thomas, County Health Officer Raymond A. Biering, District Counsel Les Sack, Union Pacific Trainmaster HAENFORCEIKPRENIWORMKBDIRLL rrnuNune02.doc