DOCSLIB.ORG

Report – September 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report – September 2018 Agenda # 7-1 November 5, 2018 Meeting To: Board of Directors From: C. Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO Subject: Monthly Report – September 2018 Attached is a summary of monthly performance statistics for the Transportation, Maintenance, and Administration departments for September 2018 and a status update on progress made towards achieving FY 2019 Action Plan goals. September 13-14 I attended a meeting of the California Transit Association Executive Committee in San Diego.. September 22-25 I attended committee meetings and workshops at the American Public Transportation Association annual conference in Nashville, TN. Attachment #1 – Dashboard Performance Statistics September 2018 Attachment #2 – Operations Dept. Report – September 2018 Attachment #3 – Facilities & Maintenance Dept. Report September 2018 Attachment #4 – Administration Dept. Report – September 2018 Attachment #5 - FY 2019 Action Plan Update - September 2018 A complete detail of Monthly Performance Statistics can be viewed within the GM Report at http://www.mst.org/about-mst/board-of-directors/board-meetings/ PREPARED BY: _____________________________ Carl G. Sedoryk Blank Page MST Fixed Route ATTACHMENT 1 YTD Dashboard Performance Comparative Statistics September 2018 Fiscal Years 2017-2019 RidershipRidership 1,260,000 1,250,000 Goal = 1,255,067 1,255,067 1,240,000 passengers 1,230,000 1,244,768 1,220,000 1,210,000 1,220,252 Minimum = 1,192,314 1,200,000 1,190,000 passengers 1,180,000 1,170,000 1,160,000 FY 2017FY 2018 FY 2019 (Total passenger boardings) PassengersPassengers Per Hour 25.00 Goal = 20 passengers p/h 20.0020.00 15.00 17.21 17.28 16.59 Minimum = 15 passengers p/h 10.00 5.00 FY 2017FY 2018 FY 2019 (Passengers per hour of service) On Time Performance 95.0% 90.0% Goal = 90% on time 89.4% 85.0% 87.8% 85.2% 80.0% Minimum = 75% on time 75.0% 70.0% FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 (Percent of passengers within 5 minutes of scheduled arrival) Percentage of Service Delivered 100.00% Goal = 99% completed 98.00% 99.94% 99.88% 99.96% 96.00% Minimum = 95% completed 94.00% 92.00% 90.00% FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 (Percentage of scheduled trips completed) MST Fixed Route YTD Dashboard Performance Comparative Statistics September 2018 Fiscal Years 2017-2019 Fare Box Recovery Ratio 30% 29% Goal = 25% 25% 27% 20% 22% Minimum = 15% 15% 10% FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 (Ratio of passenger fares to total operating cost) Cost Per Revenue Hour $180.00 $160.00 Goal = $147.03 per RH $140.00 $120.00 $133.51 $100.00 $124.87 $140.77 $80.00 Maximum = $161.73 per RH $60.00 $40.00 $20.00 $- FY 2017 FY 2018FY 2019 (Total operating cost per hour of service) Miles Between Preventable Collisions 500,000 400,000 Goal = 200,000 Miles 300,000 362,509 390,239 200,000 Minimum = 100,000 Miles 100,000 168,295 - FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 (Total miles travelled between preventable collisions) Miles Between Road Calls 30,000 25,000 Goal = 15,000 Miles 26,800 20,000 20,656 15,000 21,330 Minimum = 7,000 Miles 10,000 5,000 - FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 (Miles travelled between mechanical failure) MST RIDES YTD Dashboard Performance Comparative Statistics September 2018 Fiscal Years 2017-2019 Ridership 45,000 40,000 Goal = 33,436 35,000 passengers 30,000 32,462 25,000 30,529 39,096 20,000 Maximum = 36,779 15,000 passengers 10,000 5,000 - FY 2017FY 2018 FY 2019 (Total cumulative YTD passenger boardings) Passengers Per Hour 2.50 Goal = 2.0 2.00 passengers p/h 1.50 1.94 1.50 1.48 Minimum = 1.8 1.00 passengers p/h 0.50 - FY 2017FY 2018 FY 2019 (Passengers per hour of service) On Time Performance 95.0% 90.0% Goal = 90% on time 89.8% 90.6% 85.0% 91.2% 80.0% Minimum = 80% on time 75.0% 70.0% FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 (Percent of trips within 15 minutes of scheduled arrival) One Way Trips 35,000 Maximum = 30,643 30,000 one-way trips 25,000 26,342 27,046 32,356 20,000 Goal = 27,857 15,000 one-way trips 10,000 5,000 - FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 (Total cumulative YTD one-wayone -way passenger trips complecompleted)ted) MST RIDES YTD Dashboard Performance Comparative Statistics September 2018 Fiscal Years 2017-2019 Fare Box Recovery Ratio 12.0% Goal = 11% 1.9% 8.0% Measure Q 12.8% 4.5% Fare Box Minimum = 10% 4.0% 8.7% 4.5% 0.0% FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 (Ratio of passenger fares to total operating cost) Cost Per Revenue Hour $100.00 $90.00 Goal = $82.14 per RH $80.00 $70.00 $76.43 $60.00 $50.00 Maximum = $90.35 per RH $40.00 $48.21 $51.67 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 $- FY 2017 FY 2018FY 2019 (Total operating cost per hour of service) Miles Between Preventable Collisions 120,000 100,000 Goal = 110,000 Miles 80,000 86,149 91,168 60,000 93,236 Minimum = 100,000 Miles 40,000 20,000 - FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 (Total miles travelled between preventable collisions) Miles Between Road Calls 110,000 Goal = 60,000 Miles 90,000 70,000 82,460 70,465 50,000 Minimum = 30,000 Miles 30,000 38,737 10,000 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 (Miles travelled between mechanical failure) MST Fixed Route Financial Performance Comparative Statistics Month of September 2018 FY 2017-2019 MST Fixed Route Total Revenue YTD Actual and Budget $11,100,000 $11,000,000 $11,014,371 $10,900,000 $10,800,000 $10,700,000 $10,600,000 $10,665,813 $10,500,000 $10,400,000 $10,300,000 Minimum 95% $10,200,000 $10,100,000 YTD Actual YTD Budget MST Fixed Route Total Expenses YTD Actual and Budget $11,800,000 $11,600,000 $11,400,000 Maximum 105% $11,200,000 $11,000,000 $10,800,000 $11,014,371 $10,600,000 $10,400,000 $10,200,000 $10,350,126 $10,000,000 $9,800,000 $9,600,000 YTD Actual YTD Budget MST RIDES Financial Performance Comparative Statistics Month of September 2018 FY 2017-2019 MST RIDES Total Revenue YTD Actual and Budget $1,400,000 $1,380,000 $1,375,842 $1,360,000 $1,375,211 $1,340,000 $1,320,000 $1,300,000 $1,280,000 Minimum 95% $1,260,000 YTD Actual YTD Budget MST RIDES Total Expenses YTD Actual and Budget $1,550,000 $1,500,000 $1,536,968 $1,450,000 Maximum $1,400,000 105% $1,350,000 $1,375,842 $1,300,000 $1,250,000 YTD Actual YTD Budget ATTACHMENT 2 October 19, 2018 To: Carl Sedoryk, General Manager / C.E.O. From: Robert Weber, Chief Operating Officer Cc: MST Board of Directors Subject: Transportation Department Monthly Report − September 2018 FIXED ROUTE BUS OPERATIONS: System Wide Service: (Fixed Route & On Call Services): Boarding statistics indicate that ridership decreased by 4.00% in September 2018, (406,048), as compared to September 2017, (422,979). For the Fiscal Year – to date passenger boardings have decreased by 2.77% as compared to last Fiscal Year. Productivity decreased slightly from September of last year (17.3) to 17.0 passengers per hour in September of this year. Supplemental / Special Services: September 1-3: In support of the annual Monterey County Fair, MST deployed supplemental services to transport attendees to the event, which was held at the Monterey County Fair Grounds. The service transported 12,893 passengers during the three day event - increasing by 68% from last year’s event, (7,663). September 21 – 23: In support of the annual Monterey Jazz Festival, MST deployed supplemental services to transport attendees to the event, which was held at the Monterey County Fair Grounds. The service transported 11,717 passengers during the three day event – increasing by 1.45% from last year’s event (11,550). System Wide Statistics: . Ridership: 406,048 . Vehicle Revenue Hours: 23,866 . Vehicle Revenue Miles: 398,197 . System Productivity: 17.0 Passengers Per Vehicle Revenue Hour . One-Way Trips Provided: 34,527 Time Point Adherence: Of 134,023 total time-point crossings sampled for the month of September, the Transit Master system recorded 22,419 delayed arrivals to MST’s published time-points system-wide. This denotes that 83.27% of all scheduled arrivals at published time-points were on time. (See MST Fixed-Route Bus ~~ On Time Compliance Chart FY 2018 - 2019.) Note: Service arriving later than 5 minutes beyond the published time point is considered late. The on-time compliance chart, (attached), reflects system wide “on- time performance” as a percentage to the total number of reported time-point crossings. Cancelled Trips: As listed below, there were a total of ten (10) cancelled trips for the month of September for both directly operated and contracted services: Total Trips Provided: 34,527 Category MST MV % Accident 1 0 10% Mechanical 1 1 20% Staffing Shortage 4 0 40% Traffic 0 1 10% Unknown 1 1 1 20% Totals 7 3 100% 1 Insufficient information available- additional research required. Documented Occurrences: MST Coach Operators are required to complete an occurrence report for any unusual incident that occurs during their work day. The information provided within these reports is used to identify trends, which often drive changes in policy or standard operating procedures. The following is a comparative summary of reported incidents for the month(s) of September 2017 and 2018: September- September- Occurrence Type 17 18 Collision: MST Involved 11 12 Employee Injury 1 1 Medical Emergency 1 2 Object Hits Coach 1 4 Passenger Conflict 9 8 Passenger Fall 3 6 Passenger Injury 0 1 Other 4 1 Near Miss 0 2 Fuel / fluid Spill 3 2 Unreported Damage 0 2 Totals 33 41 CONTRACTED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES: MST RIDES ADA / ST Paratransit Program: Preliminary boarding statistics for the MST RIDES program reflect that for the month of September there were 12,774 passenger boardings.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Monterey County
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of Monterey County Salinas River The Salinas River consists of more than 75 stream miles and drains a watershed of about 4,780 square miles. The river flows northwest from headwaters on the north side of Garcia Mountain to its mouth near the town of Marina. A stone and concrete dam is located about 8.5 miles downstream from the Salinas Dam. It is approximately 14 feet high and is considered a total passage barrier (Hill pers. comm.). The dam forming Santa Margarita Lake is located at stream mile 154 and was constructed in 1941. The Salinas Dam is operated under an agreement requiring that a “live stream” be maintained in the Salinas River from the dam continuously to the confluence of the Salinas and Nacimiento rivers. When a “live stream” cannot be maintained, operators are to release the amount of the reservoir inflow. At times, there is insufficient inflow to ensure a “live stream” to the Nacimiento River (Biskner and Gallagher 1995). In addition, two of the three largest tributaries of the Salinas River have large water storage projects. Releases are made from both the San Antonio and Nacimiento reservoirs that contribute to flows in the Salinas River. Operations are described in an appendix to a 2001 EIR: “ During periods when…natural flow in the Salinas River reaches the north end of the valley, releases are cut back to minimum levels to maximize storage. Minimum releases of 25 cfs are required by agreement with CDFG and flows generally range from 25-25[sic] cfs during the minimum release phase of operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Resources of the Del Monte Forest Special-Status Species
    BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE DEL MONTE FOREST SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES DEL MONTE FOREST PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN Prepared for: Pebble Beach Company Post Office Box 1767 Pebble Beach, California 93953-1767 Contact: Mark Stilwell (831) 625-8497 Prepared by: Zander Associates 150 Ford Way, Suite 101 Novato, California 94945 Contact: Michael Zander (415) 897-8781 Zander Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables and Plates 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................1 2.0 Overview of Special-Status Species in the DMF Planning Area...............................2 2.1 Species Occurrences...............................................................................................2 2.2 Special-Status Species Conservation Planning ......................................................2 2.3 Special-Status Species as ESHA ............................................................................7 3.0 Special-Status Plant Species ......................................................................................9 3.1 Hickman's Onion ....................................................................................................9 3.2 Hooker's Manzanita..............................................................................................10 3.3 Sandmat Manzanita ..............................................................................................10 3.4 Monterey Ceanothus.............................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY California State Parks (CSP) has prepared this General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Carmel Area State Parks (CASP) to cover four separate park units located in Monterey County just south of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea: two classified units of the State Park System - Point Lobos State Natural Reserve (Reserve) and Carmel River State Beach (State Beach, and two unclassified properties - Point Lobos Ranch Property (Point Lobos Ranch) and Hatton Canyon Property (Hatton Canyon). T he park lands were acquired at different times Existing Proposed Park and for different purposes beginning in 1933 with the Reserve Units/Properties Units west of State Route (SR) 1. Acquisition of Carmel River State Point Lobos State Point Lobos State Beach began in 1953. The eastern parcel of the Reserve was Natural Reserve Natural Reserve added in 1962. Other parcels were soon added to the Reserve Carmel River State New State Park - north of Point Lobos and to the State Beach at Odello Farm. A Beach Coastal Area General Plan was adopted in 1979 for the Reserve and State Point Lobos Ranch New State Park - Beach. Point Lobos Ranch was later acquired by CSP in 1998 and Property Inland Area Hatton Canyon was deeded to CSP from the California Hatton Canyon New State Park - Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in 2001. This General Property Hatton Canyon Area Plan will supersede and replace the 1979 General Plan for the Reserve and State Beach, and include a new general plan for Point Lobos Ranch and Hatton Canyon.
    [Show full text]
  • Abies Bracteata Revised 2011 1 Abies Bracteata (D. Don) Poit
    Lead Forest: Los Padres National Forest Forest Service Endemic: No Abies bracteata (D. Don) Poit. (bristlecone fir) Known Potential Synonym: Abies venusta (Douglas ex Hook.) K. Koch; Pinus bracteata D. Don; Pinus venusta Douglas ex Hook (Tropicos 2011). Table 1. Legal or Protection Status (CNDDB 2011, CNPS 2011, and Other Sources). Federal Listing Status; State Heritage Rank California Rare Other Lists Listing Status Plant Rank None; None G2/S2.3 1B.3 USFS Sensitive Plant description: Abies bracteata (Pinaceae) (Fig. 1) is a perennial monoecious plant with trunks longer than 55 m and less than 1.3 m wide. The branches are more-or-less drooping, and the bark is thin. The twigs are glabrous, and the buds are 1-2.5 cm long, sharp-pointed, and non- resinous. The leaves are less than 6 cm long, are dark green, faintly grooved on their upper surfaces, and have tips that are sharply spiny. Seed cones are less than 9 cm long with stalks that are under15 mm long. The cones have bracts that are spreading, exserted, and that are 1.5–4.5 cm long with a slender spine at the apex. Taxonomy: Abies bracteata is a fir species and a member of the pine family (Pinaceae). Out of the fir species growing in North America (Griffin and Critchfield 1976), Abies bracteata has the smallest range and is the least abundant. Identification: Many features of A. bracteata can be used to distinguish this species from other conifers, including the sharp-tipped needles, thin bark, club-shaped crown, non-resinous buds, and exserted spine tipped bracts (Gymnosperms Database 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • WHISLER WILSON RANCH Monterey, California CAMPING FEASIBILITY REPORT November 2013
    WHISLER WILSON RANCH Monterey, California CAMPING FEASIBILITY REPORT November 2013 Contents INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District . 2 Purpose of the Whisler Wilson Ranch Acquisition . 5 Site Context . 5 PHYSICAL ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 7 Existing Conditions Mapping . 8 Planning Considerations . 22 MARKET ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 25 Introduction . 26 Population Trends . 28 School Enrollment Trends . 31 Recreational Demand . 35 Recreational Supply . 39 SOCIO-POLITICAL ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 53 Public Input . 54 Socio-Political Context . 64 FEASIBILITY RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 71 Recreational Use Spectrum . 72 Financial Analysis . 79 Estimated Construction Costs . 88 Next Steps . 91 SURVEY RESPONSES .......................................................................................................................... 93 | iii 1 INTRODUCTION Project Background • Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District • Purpose of the Whisler Wilson Ranch Acquisition • Site Context | 1 Context San
    [Show full text]
  • PALO CORONA REGIONAL PARK Monterey, California General Development Plan DRAFT May 2017 LIST of FIGURES Figure 1: Palo Corona Regional Park and Context
    PALO CORONA REGIONAL PARK Monterey, California General Development Plan DRAFT May 2017 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Palo Corona Regional Park and Context . 4 Figure 2: Parking at Main Entry . 17 Figure 3: South Bank Trail . 17 Figure 4: PCRP and Adjacent Open Space Properties . 19 Figure 5: Topography and Slope Analysis . 21 Figure 6: Soil Types . 22 Figure 7: Watersheds and Hydrology . 25 Figure 8: Vegetation Communities . 26 Figure 9: Opportunities and Constraints Diagram . 34 Figure 10: To Be Developed . XX Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District . 3 Palo Corona Ranch Acquisition . 3 Palo Corona Regional Park General Development Plan . 5 Site Context . 5 SITE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................... 7 Summary of Existing Studies . 8 Off-Site Assessment . .. 16 On-Site Assessment . 20 Opportunities and Constraints . 35 PUBLIC OUTREACH ............................................................................................................................ 43 Initial Focus Group Meetings . 44 Open House and Public Forum . 50 Additional Focus Group Meetings . 54 HIGHEST AND BEST USE ................................................................................................................... 59 Trails and Public Access Plan . XX Recreational Uses . XX Support Facilities and Special
    [Show full text]
  • Wallflower 2020 5-6 CNPS
    The Newsletter of the California Native Plant Society Monterey Bay Chapter Erysimum menziesii https://chapters.cnps.org/montereybay/ May/June 2020 Using Native Plants To help with broom at Monterey’s Quarry Park, please contact Al Washburn at [email protected] for Fire Resistant Landscapes Volunteer in your State Park May 9, May 20, June 12, and General Meeting Speaker: Greg Rubin June 20. Go to [email protected] or 574- 9008 for details. Far from being the fire-bombs often depicted in the media, a native landscape can be an ecologically responsible You may find more stewardship opportunities on our approach to creating effective defensible space. Having had chapter’s website at https://chapters.cnps.org/montereybay/ over two dozen properties experience major fire events in FIELD TRIPS & EVENTS (registration info on the last page) San Diego county, not a single home was lost. Intrigued by ALL FIELD TRIPS, EVENTS, ETC. ARE SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION his success, the US Navy picked Greg's company to conduct DUE TO COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS UNKOWN AT THE TIME OF a five-year research study into the effectiveness of California PUBLICATION. PLEASE CHECK ON MEETUP OR OUR WEBSITE TO native landscapes as enhanced defensible space. Greg’s Co- LEARN OF ANY CANCELLATIONS. Principle Investigator was Dr. Jon Keeley, one of the world's foremost fire ecologists. Greg will cover the startling Wednesday, May 6 Field Trip conclusions from the research, as well as general principles Limekiln State Park Trails, CNPS Members Only for successful native landscape design, installation, and The drive is a long one but, oh, so beautiful! On this CNPS maintenance.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction
    Carmel Area State Parks General Plan and Environmental Impact Report 1-1 Chapter 1 Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION The Carmel Area State Parks (CASP) consist of two classified units, Point Lobos State Natural Reserve (Reserve) and Carmel River State Beach (State Beach), and two unclassified properties, Point Lobos Ranch Property (Point Lobos Ranch), and Hatton The Coast Canyon Property (Hatton Canyon). These classified units and Fog will marry land and sea properties have their own defining characteristics, are in close and cloak each one in mystery. geographic proximity to each other, and will be functionally Whilst sunlight parts the playful mist interconnected, so the CASP units are considered together in this Wind blows each a farewell kiss. General Plan. The General Plan presents the long-term And hidden there, from you and me, management needs of the four places by defining the framework The answers lie eternally. for resource stewardship, interpretation, facilities, operations, and visitor experiences in each. Unit-specific discussions and proposed - Fred Brown, courtesy of Point Lobos goals and guidelines are provided to address site-specific issues, Foundation opportunities, and management strategies. Synergies, similarities, and common goals and guidelines that are generally applicable to all four units together are identified as “parkwide” and provided where appropriate in the plan. 1.1 Location and Regional Context The CASP units are located on California’s central coast, about 125 miles south of the San Francisco Bay Area and approximately 1 to 3 miles south of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (Figure 1-1). Access to CASP is provided primarily by regional highways, State Route (SR) 1 and SR 156 from U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • REQUEST for QUALIFICATIONS No
    REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS No. C08E0019 Architectural and Engineering Professional Services for Projects in the California State Park System November 2008 State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Acquisition and Development Division State of California Request for Qualifications No. C08E0019 Department of Parks and Recreation Architectural and Engineering Professional Services Acquisition and Development Division for Projects in the California State Parks System TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SECTION 1 – GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Type of Professional Services......................................................................................... 3 1.3 RFQ Issuing Office .......................................................................................................... 5 1.4 SOQ Delivery and Deadline ............................................................................................ 5 1.5 Withdrawal of SOQ.......................................................................................................... 6 1.6 Rejection of SOQ ............................................................................................................ 6 1.7 Awards of Master Agreements ........................................................................................ 6 SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK 2.1 Locations and Descriptions of Potential Projects ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PLF -- General Plan Principles and Options
    PLF -- General Plan Principles and Options General Principles 1. Maintain and strengthen Point Lobos State Natural Reserve as a Reserve. 2. Dramatically reduce risks to public safety along Highway 1 and within the Reserve. 3. Open the A.M. Allan Ranch (sometimes referred to as the “Point Lobos Ranch”) to uses that are broader than but generally compatible with those at the PLSNR - to include a residential science/nature camp for youth and possibly adults. 4. In collaboration with others, develop a network of trails linking publicly accessible lands from the Carmel River to Point Lobos and the A.M. Allan Ranch and beyond. 5. Open Carmel River State Beach lagoon trails to the public in ways that recognize the fragile nature of the lagoon ecosystem and also protect the ocean environment. 6. Support concession or other revenue-generating arrangements that strengthen both the financial and the environmental sustainability of the state parks encompassed by the General Plan. Additional revenues should be directed first to environmental mitigation and sustainability. Options to Implement General Principles 1. Maintain and strengthen PLSNR as a Reserve: • Wherever possible, move parking out of the viewshed (e.g., Bird Island, Cypress Grove/Sea Lion Point) and into areas out of sight (e.g., Rat Hill) and/or outside the Reserve. (A minority of the PLF board would like to go further and eliminate cars, except for those with disabilities, within the Reserve. They would use shuttle visitors from parking lots at the A.M. Allan Ranch.) • Aggressively cut back invasive plants and where appropriate also encroaching pine forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Monterey County Planning Department Projects Decided 2011
    Monterey County Planning Department Projects Decided 2011 Big Sur Project Title: Fash Victoria R Tr Description File No: PLN100168 Combined Development Permit to allow: 1) Coastal Administrative Permit for an addition over 10% of existing floor area for the construction of a 689 square foot studio, exercise room, office, and bathroom Decision Date: 01/27/2011 with 197 square foot patio to an existing 3,655 square foot single family dwelling with an attached 496 Entitlement: Combined Development Permit square foot garage and Design Approval (colors and materials to match existing); and grading consisting Location: 36492 Hwy 1 Monterey of approximately 145 cubic yards of cut; 2) Coastal Development Permit for development within 50 feet of a coastal bluff; and 3) Coastal Administrative Permit for development on a man-made slope exceeding Status: Condition Compliance 30%. The property is located at 36492 Highway 1, Monterey (Assessor's Parcel Number (as of 1/17/12) 243-251-009-000), Big Sur Land Use Plan area, Coastal Zone. Project Title: Big Sur Preservation Alliance Llc Description File No: PLN100493 Amendment to a previously approved Coastal Development Permit (PLN070512) for a Lot Line Adjustment between four legal lots of record consisting of one 81.43 acre parcel (Parcel 1, Assessor's Decision Date: 03/10/2011 Parcel Number 422-011-025-000), one 147.5 acre parcel (Parcel 2, Assessor's Parcel Number Entitlement: Lot Line Adjustment 422-011-026-000), one 59.9 acre parcel (Parcel 3, Assessor's Parcel Number 422-011-028-000), and one Location: 62245 Hwy 1 Big Sur 54 acre parcel (Parcel 4, Assessor's Parcel Number 422-011-029-000) merging into three lots consisting of one 228.9 acre parcel (Parcel A), one 59.9 acre parcel (Parcel B), and one 54 acre parcel (Parcel C), Status: Condition Compliance respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Visitor Impacts on Coastal Bluff Erosion at Point Lobos State Natural Reserve
    Assessment of visitor impacts on coastal bluff erosion at Point Lobos State Natural Reserve Sean Noble January 2016 California State University Monterey Bay California State Park And The Point Lobos Foundation Acknowledgements We would like to thank: - Marsha Grand and the Richard Grand Foundation - Point Lobos Foundation - Stephen Bachman & California State Parks staff - Dr. Doug Smith & the CSUMB Watershed Geology Lab - Naval Post Graduate School Remote Sensing Center - Elizabeth Koch This is primarily the work of CSUMB graduate student intern Sean Noble, working under the supervision and support of State Parks staff. i Executive Summary Point Lobos State Natural Reserve (PLSNR) is home to a diverse array of natural resources. Its iconic land and seascapes, varied ecosystems, and rich cultural history have inspired countless visitors during its 83 years as part of the California State Park System. However, with the rapidly increasing popularity of PLSNR, California has struggled to balance maintaining public access with ensuring the protection and preservation of PLSNR’s sensitive resources. Starting with the 1935 Master Plan by the Olmsted Brothers, the land management goals have been to preserve the natural condition of PLSNR, and to minimize signs of human presence. The current condition of PLSNR demonstrates that these goals are not being met. With increasing visitor use, PLSNR is being “loved to death”, and these fragile natural resources are being lost. The goal of this study is to assess the vulnerability of PLSNR to human activity, survey visitor impact to the coastal areas, and to make land management recommendations based on the collected findings. To determine the vulnerability of PLSNR to human activity, we conducted a literature review and we analyzed geologic and environmental data relevant to PLSNR.
    [Show full text]