HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/01/2002, LIAISON - APCD MEETING MEF`G AGEND�
DATE 21 ITEM# ►®a
iiiuiiiiiiiijiiil►jIIIPIIIIIIIIIIIIII' c o u n c i t baison izE p o izt -
aty o� san lu►s o�Ispo;0�FIce0 the city council
DATE: September 25, 2002
TO: Council
FROM: John Ewan(/
SUBJECT: APCD Meeting
• Awards were presented for pollution prevention. The City of San Luis Obispo has been
awarded for use of Bio Diesel fuel in all City diesel engines.
• Our current air quality monitoring is showing clean air over the last several years. We
are within one year of attainment status for air quality. Our clean air plan is working
locally, although we are still receiving air pollution from the valley. We have been a
non-attainment district since 1989.
• New state rules for airborne asbestos dust control practices. Asbestos is naturally
occurring in the coastal range. Projects in this area will have to be tested, and mitigations
put into place by the developer.
• Attached is a copy of correspondence related to engine idling by Union Pacific Railroad
at the San Luis Obispo station. The APCD staff has been very aggressive in this matter,
with excellent results.
OUNCIL D CDD DIR.
Gr9AO 0 FIN DIR
EY�CAO D FIRE CHIEF
rQTTORNEY 0 PW DIR
CYCLERK/ORIG D POLICE CHF
�EP DS-- E RTC DIR
G
0' UTIL DIR
Q E: HR DIR
COUNCIL Liaison Report.doc
r-
�� AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CERTIFIED MAIL
September 11, 2002
Brock Nelson, Director _
Environmental Field Operations - West
Union Pacific Railroad
10031 Foothills Blvd.
Roseville, CA 9574779
SUBJECT: Union Pacific Railroad (UPR) Response Letter dated September 4, 2002
Dear Mr. Nelson:
Thank you for your letter dated September 4, 2002. In the letter you stated UPR has further
analyzed the excessive idling and related problems and implemented operational changes
September 3, 2002 to reduce the length of time locomotives may be idling within the area of
concern. In addition, UPR continues to evaluate the potential installation of a compressor to
supply trackside air to eliminate the need for idling engines to maintain air pressure in the brake
lines. We appreciate your efforts to resolve this problem and believe that it is paying dividends:
the District haq received only one complaint since the July 15, 2002 meeting and none since the
September 3 operational changes.
A few items committed to by UPR at our July 15 meeting have not yet been completed,
including the following:
• Open communication with neighborhood residents in and around the San Luis Obispo
train station to listen to residents' issues with UPR operations and provide
information in return.
• Provide the District with data on train arrival and departure times for the last two
years in order to refine the diesel health risk assessment.
• Provide the District with a fact sheet on train versus truck emissions.
• Provide an outline of the interim steps taken to prevent further complaints and a
timeline and discussion on a more permanent solution.
RECEIVED
? � ' '002
• %r <
3433 Roberto Court • San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 • 805-781-5912 • FAX: 805-7 � CI i y CUUNCIL
info@slodeanairor; •:• www.slodeanainorg
''..`./rrn ur•,(,rn rnr;•r b•,!p.q,•r
Union Pacific Railroad
September 11, 2002
Page 2
Completion of these tasks will aid the District in responding to inquiries from the public and in
reporting on the situation to our Board of Directors. Thus,we ask that UPR complete the
remaining tasks by October 15, 2002. In addition, we would appreciate some preliminary
feedback on your analysis of the feasibility of installing a trackside air compressor,particularly
the technical problems you might be facing versus the cost savings you could experience from
reduced diesel fuel use if a grant from the District were available to help fund the compressor.
If you have any questions please contact me or Karen Brooks, Manager of Compliance and
Enforcement at (805) 781-5912:
Very truly yours,
*YoAr---
LARRY 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
ft:tenforce\`arenl ord%kbdirltritrainsWpremaintasks.dm
Q Q 7 ❑ �q 1�pq
to p n `t
o y 7y b wt o
o c � o, to � 7. w
INK
y to �' y tr to b Ci' O G ^N G� ^7 !^�►. C y. 0 y N O 10p A•
_ N
'
^ E
�' �• �, Fy ,ty' n S' ° P tD C C M T m N @-
12 ma l -
{f .o0CD q rK
ny to N» p ° e •• T o � y to w ro p
0 5'oa o ff H a s v a o m
i 7y y O � C M� V► �� O m O. ^ r.
m
C ° b m n• w. cGi'. �• E c o cX '
o p a 0 5" y c°u �..� a E w is m
CL
o m tr o g p o a
.jrn m. T E, 0 S.SIs �; ..,.. v F, w Cc 5 p t
m ^
`G o• m• y o o O y
v =. 9 c 29 � � mnmtc co
C7 co 0;� C ti
O .n
c
m •� F
n' 0. co
c 3 c o to 3 = o 00 0 = n
m 3 y
rrr ;�- .3... �• O. n7 3 r ,_,� r m OQ• O. y l-J. CLQ
to CD s z
pr
"-,: J.. F •„ "�. X O O a,• �. to o -, h o ;
•O fD N ? N w N 0 O'. d .n' O .0 n �' t�E CLro C `G n m �• to o
y
go
m c6
''•••.`�,y A 7 O. O w ^n n 7 O'N = y O. 3 O N
ct "a co 0
° x ° 010 — v w ° c omo no �
m ° S 0 to o o y a —
—
o 0 to c 3 0to 3 •C M E to 0 �a o 0 ° 0 n,c e �
K R ° '� ^ .�•. O 7C•
rLO 9 o m00 3 =-r a3fp0 � � O
C y p, �.� L'+ O 3 > > 7 S. O. 3 Z�- w �f
fo
E _ CL 0 °°
06 0
C7
yi° ° = ° '^ oX � m . .-
•Q!
O wN'N OQcr m O
UQ 0
X H oc Do
oc s = a to t cc y
4
1
t
O+ d N
•�`v` s r
=0 60 o
�5 Co
z Q }
oo
j moo N /
r aFiz N
N fD IL �,
V o
�j .°. mom?• R c a w to 3 w O v C °
u 3
CD 0 � -. o 3 is o
to
s o a � w
` ° c ° n C• b `� I•
w "-, Crn
. ''cc° CZ. NJ
n �' o m ba X y Q. to < v' c O O
m W (D n n'• W CO w q t 05
� ° ° � � c ° � cm• oh R°
C,
H n c S 3 C c o' y o `� �.1' cot co ?. tul o
cm - ? S 07 m-- ' -00
? y A � (CIS, a n
O'
co
Et (
c s � o' Co o m CD 0
3 cr ° 'O o o rJ a. CD p R.n ^ Sf D, co
ON o m ° s n n m co m c v fD w c CD. a
°awp1 � 5. � _a & oma � 5• y• n N2io 6 E o
f O cr
O' C S _7 � `=. n CD � O < p1 f9 O Ft N ° � n c �
• t " n (D < A ^ ° d O S 7 (ND .^. O 3 C w °� O Q n �'
� � � H o 5OQ
' Cm _s4N $ '• y oo ° m _CJ� ��e.
m . CD CD
CL CD
In r
ts
w
< Al� GOA g 7o 5 O. RD 'o < 5' a •ln co d >v m o or d
= fC O 'O 'n7 CD 0• n d n m < n 5' (D ? per{ O 3 fD y m Od•W O W < m (o �,
0 .m.. m m -� m S • C (D < (D O n 0 y' '� x. n C d CD a d C
1 m 3 m a e < + N = c c d c N
O m_
0-0 m y C -* m ,
—.7 �' y �'�' N fe 7_• ry w m () E O O. O S " m y N N —0. y , R C O y jA� 4+.•.—"-.
c , .ni 7 A• O m O .+ O Cl CD '••y n 0 3'
A (� O 0' O E d 2 y N �. ?. S. Z ° R •A N -mi -0 le
LAq }
cr
ro. �. m w. d C N 0 C N (O➢� m rp 0' N `t
1 (v � '� y y m 0 S M. fD m (D b0 < .`< y t" m (? C ";, y CD A m r
c n m m d . 0° (0D ' ° < f u Sz
n �. (moi . CD c+ 5 X ° S w' n- fD`C
O C ;CL 3 m n p, 0•y m ap < m 3 n Fr 1p �' p ^ O O N (D d d d cr d �7
Oni E ° N N N n p, n co O p• q •m+ 0• N :�. 3 O d 7
a CD (3D ? g' �7 C y O
d (� (gyp`To 6 -1 ..� �(• C N d 710 '-'1 C y .ap N � O' £ O S
m
�• Oy R m rn N N .mS. .i.C °' C Cl C D.' _ ° m aro 0 = y tD -
o - n n
C `O^ d C a<" 5. ^ E 7 c c on ([ni H ^ o 1 m N 3,
< _ = O� = O �•..^_ y _, O x W a Q ^ O b O. d N 1
m tT- m d C 0. 0• ,-' (D N 7 O 5' !y �' < d .y (�D m
(nom ° w 3 ° 3 ° � n dN; 0 (20tf 5' = > f
ti p i .. y O m d 5 as
s2, de O (p •O. a" n 0. 5 ti UC 0, �. r., N 3, t7
(D 3• N n '� T N ° c E m to
0 m 5' r n fD, o 0 0 3 c r
N w• m E O y
1 _
r...{_�... - .
[o c to zC (1 5 F < N - 0 m m m b 6 �' + 0 n 3 3 ro a
0 C � .ro � � � O .n•. ^1' _ � O 6. 7 m (3D (D S � 2 m O ^ O
Q 9 ,� .� S 7 0 � y ^ - �C C 0 O d 7 d C V f
< fD Q
° 9 y �• ID
a k ��' m o' o m ° °� n"�' n N. a. co o 21
m ? v X ° o av7 (°D 9 0 o ..ro. o p o "
r T 3 E oa d h o (� S 3 n N H c T o v m °' � ro n rr1
�° O O N ai o (D O O -°i p 3 < m O N " O O N c a
i u o o c a a' 0 7C CD r� 0 3 l o d o' o �D
co Coco
a o n m ^mN s 0 Fr
c �' 5 b m c
n ' cn O• (� S C\�, .� ° CL OrQ
N �. 5' 0• 0. ? C d'fl
ti w < C(: y t S o w .y °c r w $ n > = soy »v H o (°�
o m s CD
°, n� m 0 0 �. N �; c r w y O N �. 'T, j
. _ ._. •a n S C R G N d A• C 7" O ... N C H D ?• m m y '� O n ,n 0 0
._
rL
Sj
00 ` 0 ° c 2 0 to w o ° k o n o w s
{ 0 3 m 4v S c o W � 0 00 (o +? o o ° � m � w o m m c
-o 0 3. o. o. 3 o 00 ' o ° n < ° o c 5' a. a
0EL
�_ p
II S to `h N S _• N S n d (D fD f Q n
A n ° CD H d o y y n
` i
• mow,- - .. _�
Transcription from 10/1/02 Council Meeting
Location: Council Chamber
Meeting type: Regular
Statement from Peg Pinard
Thank you very much I am Peg Pinard and I am a County Supervisor in San Luis Obispo
representing you on October 9t' as well as a major portion of the unincorporated areas
surrounding the city and other cities. Before I begin my presentation what I'd like to say
since I was here in 1994 and the mayor at that time I would like to priorly to my comments
correct some of the statements that were said. For one, the comment was made we lost a lot
of money when we didn't agree to the numbers in 1994. The reality was we would have
been spending $30 million dollars to get $400,000 for the women's shelter. As it was we
became an urbanized area at that time and were qualified not only ourselves but every other
city in the county and the unincorporated areas as well for millions upon millions of dollars
from community development block grant money so we didn't spend a dollar to get a penny
and we ended up, by good planning and what not, being able to qualify everybody in the
county for a lot more money with the CDBG program. I think it's important to remember
that the costs are what's not being spoken of here. I haven't seen it in the staff reports. I
haven't seen anybody talk about it but in 1994 just to accommodate 5,000 we were given,
and this was an article in the TT as well as backed up by staff so they did their own
investigation, it was over $30 million dollars to just accomplish that 5,000 housing. That's
the true cost of what we're saying when we talk what the impacts are. The other point that
was made "not required to build" we just have to show where we are going to have it.
That's not my understanding of what HCD is leading towards. You are required I mean
that's like saying were going to do a be., We're going to zone this but we don't really intend
to build it. Once you have to show where you will build it you have entitlement that goes
with that and any subsequent owner/developer will be entitled to be able to push that point
and actually build that so lets not precede under that where we're going to kind of play a
shell game. I think you need to be at all times above board about what you're doing. And
the other thing to set the record straight was this whole issue about the numbers and
percentages. When we talked to HCD in 1994 and we talked about the inequality not the
inequality the absurdity of the rates that they were using and Andrew gave you an excellent
rundown of that, you know what their answer was? Do you remember that? We said this
isn't reality we haven't grown like this. Their response was the State of California is not
reality based. OK? I mean alright and then just last month, and Steve Devencenzi was there
with me, we talked to the Housing Community Development Director about this inequality
with Monterey and some of the other counties how they have twice the population and only
half the allocation and they came up with another one "we're not concerned with being
fair". All right, so I think your claim to wanting to maintain your own integrity is that
arbitrary and capricious acts are never things that we need to be able to build public policy
on and in fact that is the very area where these agencies are vulnerable. Now I would like to
say one more thing and these are my comments now. When we say we rejected the
numbers in 1994 do you know that's only half of the story? The rest of the story is we said
that we wanted to maintain local control over our own governments and own bills that's the
part that's not being said here and I think we need to step back from what HCD has
accomplished. Do you realize that because of all the stuff that has gone on behind the
i
I
scenes that none of our legislators paid attention to. City upon city is arguing with each
other about how much each should have. We've got the county and cities at odds. You
know what they've succeeded.They have managed to pit individual areas against individual
areas and meanwhile they've taken control. Do you see what's happened? You're being
manipulated to jump to their numbers and it won't end. Don't think that just because you've
been given an allotment this time that you can somehow solve it. In fact,the more you solve
it the bigger the number is going to get next time. That's another one of the absurdities that
go into it. The ones that had some of the lesser amounts of allotments were because they
had their growth control in place for a long time so their numbers were different. Now the
absurdity is in the fact that we're being challenged and that we are being asked to go along
with the numbers which means you are giving them your control your local control. Now
there have been a lot of issues here presented about housing and they're right. Every one of
them are right. Cal Poly is a problem. Where did the housing not happen that we put into
the general plan? We developed a very aggressive housing element in response to their
challenge about what our responsibility was in 1994. Do you know what, if I can just again,
we put in the most stringent inclusionary housing that was to my knowledge anywhere in
the state. We said if we're going to annex new land that is the cheapest land we will ever
see so we want not your money, we want you to provide the housing and we got a letter
back from HCD at that time saying that they objected to that because that was real low cost
housing. That was housing to be set aside in perpetuity and real. They sent a letter back
saying that it was (put) too many constraints on development. Someone must definitely
look at what their motivations are and as one of the other speakers said, over 2,000 of these
5,000 are going to be rich peoples homes. That's not where we're heading. Now I will
charge you, as being one who was here with the housing element, where are the secondary
units above the commercial that you allowed? Where are the inclusionary housing for all of
the other annexations that we've made? I saw some but I haven't seen all of them. There
are so many programs that we set up that are not being enacted and that's a whole other
discussion ok but that's a discussion we need to have here locally and I wish these same
people who are saying that they're in other areas and that we need more of the housing here
would be down here when you allow a 5,000 square foot development to go without
providing any housing when it was originally proposed to have housing with it and I am
referring of course to the Copeland Project. Now, I just implore you, do not give up your
right to be able to have a remedy if the legislation is approved. If all if cities are unhappy,
counties are unhappy — there was a law put into place that you're having to live with well
you know by golly if the legislators didn't do their job from 1994 then it is up to the people
for some kind of initiative of the unity with the cities and the counties to undo that law and
that's where you need to be spending your energy undoing the insanity that somebody who
was neither elected, will not pay the bills and doesn't represent you is going to know better
what you should do then you do yourselves. Alright? Maintain that ability to if the
legislation is able to be effective that you have not already pre-agreed the numbers to which
you will be accountable and held to.