The URL can be used to link to this page

CC SR 20150203 C Border Issues Status ReportMEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CAROLYNN PETRO, AICP, ACTING CITY MANAGE DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2015 SUBJECT: BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT Project Manager: Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Administrative Analyst RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the current report on the status of Border Issues. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This month's report includes: • An update on recent issues and events related to the Rancho LPG butane storage facility in Los Angeles (San Pedro); • An update on the proposed 4 -unit detached condominium project at 5883 Crest Road in Rolling Hills Estates; • An update on the proposed lot -split at 80 Saddleback Road in Rolling Hills; and, • A report on the proposed Gaffey Street Conceptual Plan in Los Angeles (San Pedro). BACKGROUND The following is the regular bi-monthly report to the City Council on various "Border Issues" potentially affecting the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. The complete text of the current status report is available for review on the City's website at: http.//palosverdes.com/►pv/planning/border issues/2015/20150203 Borderlssues StatusRpt.cfm C-1 MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report February 3, 2015 Page 2 DISCUSSION Current Border Issues Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro) On the early afternoon of Friday, December 5, 2014, Staff received an e-mail from Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners' Association President Jeanne Lacombe regarding an incident that her husband had just observed at the Rancho LPG facility. The e-mail stated: At approximately 12:35 pm today my husband Pete was on Westmont and Taper Avenue area and observed a massive burn off at the refinery next to Rancho Holdings and he was alarmed to see three large fountains of water shooting near the impound basin at the Rancho Holdings facility. Fearing for his safety and knowing they do not have any public notification system like sirens he immediately turned around and left the area. I would like to know what happened today. Was there an accidental release of butane? This facility has no warning system and we are uninsured for any damage that is caused by the Rancho facility and that is a huge concern for our community. Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council Ray Regalado subsequently asked Jacob Haik and Ryan Ferguson in Councilman Buscaino's office to find out what had happened at Rancho LPG. Mr. Ferguson then contacted Ron Conrow with Rancho LPG to inquire about the incident observed by Mr. Lacombe. Within less than two (2) hours of Mr. Ferguson's inquiry, Mr. Conrow responded as follows: 1 would recommend that Mr. Lacombe contact the refinery if he saw a massive burn off from their flare as we do not make responses for other facilities. With regards to Rancho, they were performing due diligence by testing fire suppression and all safety shutdown systems in the facility due to an electrical wiring issue associated with the recent heavy rainfall. The LAFD Station 36 and the SCAQMD was notified by the Facility Supervisor prior to testing the systems. All systems tested and worked as designed and both agencies were notified following testing. The 3 -fountains were the fire water cannons which can be maneuvered as needed from the control room. There was no product (butane/propane) release from the Facility as a result of fire/safety systems testing. For the record, Rancho has numerous vapor detectors located throughout the Facility as well as flame detectors. Any C-2 MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report February 3, 2015 Page 3 product alarms at 20% LEL and at 40% LEL the Facility Emergency Shutdown (ESD) automatically shuts down the entire facility immediately activates fire suppression systems and cannot be overridden by the Operator. Should such an event occur all ESD's must be manually reset by the Operator and then cleared on the Control Room PC to restart the facility. Per our Emergency Response Plan (ERP), should a product release occur the Operator will call 911 and responders will notify and direct the community as warranted. Mrs. Lacombe forwarded this response to Staff and to Councilmembers Campbell and Duhovic on the afternoon of Saturday, December 6, 2014 (see attached e-mail chain). Mrs. Lacombe states that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told her that the Fire Department and SCAQMD were not notified of this test in advance, as claimed by Mr. Conrow in his response to Mr. Ferguson. Later, on December 8, 2014, Mrs. Lacombe advised Staff that the flare observed by her husband was Rancho LPG's flare, not one at the adjoining ConocoPhillips refinery. The Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council (NWSPNC) was scheduled to hold its regular monthly board and stakeholder meeting on Monday, December 8, 2014, at Peck Park in San Pedro. Staff attended this meeting to see what additional information might be presented regarding the December 5t" incident at the Rancho LPG facility. Staff from Councilman Buscaino's office regularly provides information and fields questions from meeting attendees about issues of concern as a "standing" agenda item. Mr. Conrow was present for this portion of the agenda to discuss the incident and respond to questions. Mr. Conrow stated that the recent heavy rains head caused an electrical "short" at the facility. In order to make the necessary repair, the Rancho LPG facility had to be shut down temporarily. Mr. Conrow stated that the Los Angeles Fire Department and the AQMD were advised before the shutdown. Mr. Conrow stated that before the facility could be brought back "on-line," the fire safety and suppression systems for the facility needed to be tested. These were the "fountains of water" observed by Mr. Lacombe and others. In response to questions and discussion, it was clarified that the "massive flare" observed was Rancho LPG's flare, not one of the flares at the adjacent ConocoPhillips refinery. Mr. Conrow did not have any knowledge of the Rancho LPG flare in this incident (as it had been originally reported to him), although he pointed out that the burning of the Rancho LPG flare was "normal," and this could have been a part of bringing the facility back "on line" after the temporary shutdown. Mr. Conrow stated that Rancho LPG would notify Council District No. 15 in the event of similar testing or incidents at the facility in the future. Another flaring event occurred at the adjacent ConocoPhillips refinery on the evening of Monday, January 12, 2015. This event was unrelated to the Rancho LPG facility. C-3 MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report February 3, 2015 Page 4 In the past two (2) months, interested parties have continued to forward items regarding and related to the Rancho LPG facility via e-mail. Copies of these e-mails are attached to tonight's report. Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports. 5883 Crest Road Condominium Project, Rolling Hills Estates On December 1, 2014, the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the proposed 4 -unit residential project at 5883 Crest Road, located at the northeast corner with Highridge Road (see attached Staff report). The Planning Commission expressed a number of serious concerns with the proposed project, including the size, number and design of the proposed homes; the proposed site grading; and the justification for the requested General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Zone Text Amendment. A representative of the nearby Seabreeze homeowners' association in Rancho Palos Verdes expressed a number of objections to the project. Staff was also provided with a formal response to our comments on the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration (see attachments). At the conclusion of the meeting, the project proponent agreed to continue the matter to a future date uncertain in order to work with Rolling Hills Estates Staff to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports. 80 Saddleback Road Parcel Map, Rolling Hills The Rolling Hills Planning Commission was expected to review this application again and provide direction to Rolling Hills Planning Staff on December 16, 2014 (see attached Staff report). However, due to heavy rain that day, the Planning Commission was not able to complete its required field trip to the site. In addition, the biological survey for the property (see attachments) had just been completed, but not yet reviewed. Therefore, the public hearing was continued to January 20, 2015. At its January 20th meeting, the Rolling Hills Planning Commission considered the proposed lot split, and directed its Staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval to the Rolling Hills City Council. The Rolling Hills Planning Commission is expected to adopt this resolution on February 17, 2015. The Rolling Hills Planning Commission meets at 6:30 PM at Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274. Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports. New Border Issues Gaffey Street Conceptual Plan, Los Angeles (San Pedro) On November 19, 2014, Staff attended a joint meeting of the Planning and Land Use Committees of the Central and Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Councils. Among C-4 the items discussed is a proposal by the Los Angeles Neighborhood Alliance (LANI) to develop a conceptual plan for streetscape improvements along Gaffey Street between 13th Street and the terminus of the Harbor (1-110) Freeway. A copy of the streetscape concept design is attached, and additional information about the Gaffey Street proposal is available on the LANI website (http://Iani.org/projects/gaffev-street-conceptual-plan/). Among the most notable features of the concept design is the proposal to eliminate one (1) existing travel lane in each direction on Gaffey Street between 5th Street and the Harbor Freeway terminus, to be replaced by on -street parallel parking with permeable pavement. Landscaped medians would be added, sidewalks would be widened and curb "bulb outs" would also be installed at street intersections. As the City Council is aware, the Gaffey Street ramps are a primary access point to the Harbor Freeway for Rancho Palos Verdes residents, particularly those residing on the south and east sides of the City. Staff is particularly concerned that the concept design proposes to eventually reduce the northbound freeway on-ramp to a single lane. Staff is also concerned that the implementation of these "traffic calming" measures will shift north - south traffic in San Pedro to Western Avenue, which is already heavily impacted during peak -hour periods. At the November 19th meeting, many Neighborhood Council members, San Pedro residents and other area stakeholders shared our concerns about the proposed lane reductions. As a result of this meeting, it appeared to Staff unlikely that this component would make it into final plan for Gaffey Street. Another joint meeting of the Planning and Land Use Committees of the Central and Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Councils was held on January 8, 2015, for the purpose of discussing the lane -reduction proposal. This meeting generated a very large crowd of project opponents. At the outset of the meeting, 15th District Los Angeles City Councilmember Joe Buscaino announced that the lane reduction component of the project was "off the table" (see attached Daily Breeze articles). LAN I Staff and consultants then presented an overview of the remaining components of the plan, and announced that a final public workshop on the Gaffey Street Conceptual Plan would be held in late January or early February of 2015. Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports. Attachments: • E-mail chain regarding flaring incident at Rancho LPG facility (dated 12/6/14) • E-mails related to the Rancho LPG facility (miscellaneous dates) • RHE Planning Commission Staff report (dated 12/1/14) • Response to RPV Comments (received 12/1/14) • RH Planning Commission Staff report (dated 1/20/15) • RH Planning Commission Staff report (dated 12/16/14) C-5 Attachments (cont'd): • Biological survey for 80 Saddleback Road (received 12/17/14) • Gaffey Street Conceptual Plan • Daily Breeze articles regarding Gaffey Street Conceptual plan (published 1/7/15 & 1/9/15) MABorder Issues\Staff Reports\20150203_Borderlssues_StaffRpt.docx C-6 Kit Fox From: Lacombe <chateau4us@att.net> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 2:42 PM To: Jerry Duhovic; brian.campbell@cox.net; Kit Fox Subject: Fw: Incident at Rancho Holdings LLC - UPDATE Good afternoon, This is the official word from Ron Conrow. The EPA told me yesterday that Rancho did not contact the Fire Dept. nor the AQMD prior to the testing of the fountains. They also said that Mary Westling of the EPA will investigate the incident. Jeanne From: Pinto, Lisa Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 6:40 PM To: mailto:chateau4us(a)att.net Subject: Fw: Incident at Rancho Holdings LLC Hi, did you see this? -------------------------- Sent using BlackBerry From: Ronald Conrow [mailto:Ronald.Conrow@plainsmidstream.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 04:17 PM To: Pinto, Lisa; Zivkovic, Jennifer (Jennifer.Zivkovic@sen.ca.gov) <Jennifer.Zivkovic@sen.ca.gov>; eric.guerra@asm.ca.gov <eric.guerra@asm.ca.gov>; timothy.lippman@asm.ca.gov <timothy.Iippman@asm.ca.gov>; rkim@lacbos.org <rkim@lacbos.org>; Houterman, Justin <JHouterman@portla.org> Cc: dan.tillema@csb.gov <dan.tillema@csb.gov>; jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov <jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov>; lara.laramendi@mail.house.gov <lara.laramendi@mail.house.gov> Subject: FW: Incident at Rancho Holdings LLC FYI, Rancho's response to CD15. Please feel free to contact me should you require additional information. Regards, Western District Manager Plains LPG Services, LP 19430 Beech Avenue Shafter, CA 93263 Office: 661-368-7917 Cell: 661-319-9978 ronald.conrow@plainsmidstream.com C-7 From: Ronald Conrow Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 3:22 PM To: 'Ryan Ferguson' Cc: Jacob Haik; William Zankich; 'Hon. Rudy Svorinich, Jr.'; renee@svorinich.com Subject: RE: Incident at Rancho Holdings LLC Rya n, Thanks... things are going well with me. I would recommend that Mr. Lacombe contact the refinery if he saw a massive burn off from their flare as we do not make responses for other facilities. With regards to Rancho, they were performing due diligence by testing fire suppression and all safety shutdown systems in the facility due to an electrical wiring issue associated with the recent heavy rainfall. The LAFD Station 36 and the SCAQMD was notified by the Facility Supervisor prior to testing the systems. All systems tested and worked as designed and both agencies were notified following testing. The 3 -fountains were the fire water cannons which can be maneuvered as needed from the control room. There was no product (butane/propane release from the Facility as a result of fire/safety systems testing. For the record, Rancho has numerous vapor detectors located throughout the Facility as well as flame detectors. Any product alarms at 20%LEL and at 40% LEL the Facility Emergency Shutdown (ESD) automatically shuts down the entire facility immediately activates fire suppression systems and cannot be overridden by the Operator. Should such an event occur all ESD's must be manually reset by the Operator and then cleared on the Control Room PC to restart the facility. Per our Emergency Response Plan (ERP), should a product release occur the Operator will call 911 and responders will notify and direct the community as warranted. Regards, R" e4K IM# Western District Manager Plains LPG Services, LP 19430 Beech Avenue Shafter, CA 93263 Office: 661-368-7917 Cell: 661-319-9978 ronald.conrow@plainsmidstream.com This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. From: Ryan Ferguson[mailto:ryan.ferguson(�blacity.org] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 1:30 PM To: Ronald Conrow Cc: Jacob Haik Subject: Fwd: Incident at Rancho Holdings LLC • Hi Ron, Hope your week is going well. Just received the email below. Any information you can share is greatly appreciated. Thank you! Ryan M. Ferguson San Pedro Field Deputy Councilman Joe Buscaino Council District 15 City of Los Angeles (310) 732-4515 Begin forwarded message: From: Ray <rreg55(a�hotmail.com> Date: December 5, 2014 at 1:12:56 PM PST To: "chateau4us(cr�,att.net" <chateau4usgatt.net>, "Pinto, Lisa" <Lisa.Pintogmail.house.gov>, Noel Weiss <noelweissgca.rr.com>, Janet Gunter <arriane5gaol.com>, "michael.pickerg og v.ca.gov" <michael.pickerg ov.ca.gov>, "loryor anusc.edu" <lpryor @usc.edu>, "carl.southwell(c gmail.com" <carl.southwellggmail.com>, "MrEnvirlawgsbcglobal.net" <MrEnvirlawgsbcglobal.net>, Chuck Hart <det310@ uno.com>, "conniegrutter.us" <conniegrutter.us>, Jacob Haik <jacob.haikglacitYorg>, "rob.wilcoxglacitorg" <rob.wilcox(cr�lacit gr>, "maurice_l les e,boxer.senate.gov" <maurice lylesgboxer. senate. gov>, "kyle _chapmangboxer.senate. org" <kyle chapmangboxer.senate.org>, "laura schill ergboxer. senate. gov" <laura_schillerna,boxer.senate. gov>, "wesling marygepamail.epa. ov" <wesling marygepamail.epa.gov>, "helmlinger.andrewgepa.goy" <helmlinger.andrewgepa.gov>, "blumenfeld.jaredgepa.gov" <blumenfeld.'at red(cr�epa.gov>, "sally.magnanigdoj.ca.gov" <sally.magnani(cr�,doj.ca.gov>, "brian.hembachergdoi.ca.g_ov" <brian.hembachergdoj.ca.gov>, "b.campgcox.net" <b.cam12gcox.net>, "knightiim339gmail.com" <knightjim33ggmail.com>, "jerry.duhovicgrpv.com" <jerry.duhovicgrpv.com>, "niki.tennantgasm.ca.gov" <niki.tennant cgasm.ca.gov>, "jennifer.zivkovicgsen.ca.gov" <jennifer.zivkovicgsen.ca.gov>, "jennifer.lucchesigslc.ca.gov" ennifer.lucchesigslc.ca.gov>, "apadilla(a,coastal.ca. ov" <apadillancoastal.ca.gov>, "don.holmstromg,csb.gov" <don.holmstromgcsb.gov>, "dan.tillemagcsb.gov" <dan.tillema(cz�,csb.gov>"Beth.Rosenberggcsb.gov" <Beth.Rosenberggcsb.gov>, "Rafael.Moure-Eraso9csb.gov" <Rafael.Moure-Erasogcsb.gov>, "Mark.Griffon a,csb.gov" <Mark.Griffongcsb.gov>, "gknatz9Portla.org" <gknatzgportla.org>, "jody.iames ,sbcglobal.net" <jodyJamesgsbcglobal.net>, "marciesmiller a,sbcglobal.net" <marciesmiller cgsbcglobal.net>, "bonbon90731aggmail.com" <bonbon90731 gmail.com>, "richard.vladovicglausd.net" <richard.vladovicglausd.net>, "igornlagcox.net" <i ornla@cox.net>, Pat Nave <overbid2002gyahoo.com>, David Rivera <dlrivera@rp odigy.net>, "bill.ortongsen. ca. gov" <bill. ortongsen. ca. gov>, Rebekah Kim <rkim(cr�,lacbos.org> Cc: "boardgnwsanpedro.org" <boardgnwsanpedro.org>, "KitFgrpv.com" <KitF c "v.com>, Ryan Ferguson <ryan.fer ug songlacity.org>, Jacob Haik <iacob.haikglacity.org> Subject: Re: Incident at Rancho Holdings LLC C-9 Jacob and Ryan I just received this email regarding a possible incident at or near Rancho Holdings property. Can the Council office please advise as to what might have occurred at the time indicated in the email. Can an email go out to all listed above with any information and, Ryan, could you discuss this incident during your board report on Monday. I'm sure there will be questions. Thank you, Ray Regalado, President, NWSPNC Sent from Windows Mail From: chateau4us@att.net Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 1:11 PM To: Pinto, Lisa, Noel Weiss, Janet Gunter, michael.picker@gov.ca.gov, Ipryor@usc.edu, carl.southwell@gmail.com, MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net, Chuck Hart, connie@rutter.us, Jacob Haik, rob.wilcox@lacity.org, maurice Iyles@boxer.senate.gov, kyle chapman@boxer.senate.org, laura schiller@boxer.senate.gov, wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov, helm linger.andrew@epa.gov, blumenfeld.iared@epa.gov, sally.magnani@doi.ca.gov, brian.hembacher@doi.ca.gov, b.camp@cox.net, knightiim33@gmail.com, ierry.duhovic@rpv.com, niki.tennant@asm.ca.gov, iennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov, iennifer.Iucchesi@slc.ca.gov, apadilla@coastal.ca.gov, don. holmstrom@csb.gov, dan.tillema@csb.gov, Beth. Rosen berg@csb.gov, Rafael.Moure- Eraso@csb.gov, Mark.Griffon@csb.gov, gknatz@portia.org, iody.iames@sbcglobal.net, marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net, bonbon90731@gmaii.com, richard.viadovic@lausd.net, igornla@cox.net, Pat Nave, David Rivera, bill.orton@sen.ca.gov, Rebekah Kim Cc: board@nwsanpedro.org, KitF@rpv.com Dear all, At approximately 12:35pm today my husband Pete was on Westmont and Taper Avenue area and observed a massive burn off at the refinery next to Rancho Holdings and he was alarmed to see three large fountains of water shooting near the impound basin at the Rancho Holdings facility. Fearing for his safety and knowing they do not have any public notification system like sirens he immediately turned around and left the area. I would like to know what happened today. Was there an accidental release of butane? This facility has no warning system and we are uninsured for any damage that is caused by the Rancho facility and that is a huge concern for our community. 4 C-10 Thank you for investigating this incident. Jeanne Lacombe, President Rolling Hills Riviera HOA (310) 833-0444 C-11 Kit Fox From: Marcie Miller <marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:47 PM To: Ronald Conrow (RonaId.Conrow@plainsmidstream.com) Cc: Lacombe; Pinto, Lisa; Noel Weiss; Janet Gunter; michael.picker@gov.ca.gov; Ipryor@usc.edu; Carl Southwell; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; Connie; Jacob Haik; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; maurice_lyles@boxer.senate.gov; kyle_chapman@boxer.senate.org; laura_schiller@boxer.senate.gov; wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov; helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov; blumenfeld fared@epa.gov; sally.magnani@doj.ca.gov; brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>; Jerry Duhovic; niki.tennant@asm.ca.gov;jennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov; jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov; apadilla@coastal.ca.gov; don.holmstrom@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; Beth.Rosenberg@csb.gov; Rafael.Moure-Eraso@csb.gov; Mark.Griffon@csb.gov; gknatz@portla.org;jodyjames@sbcglobal.net; bonbon90731 @gmail.com; richard.vladovic@lausd.net; Terry & John Miller; pat nave; dlrivera@prodigy.net; bill.orton@sen.ca.gov; Rebekah Kim; board@nwsanpedro.org; Kit Fox Subject: Re: Incident at Rancho Holdings LLC Dear Mr. Conrow, Could you please respond to this request for information? What exactly transpired 11 hours ago at or near your bulk storage facility holding 26 million gallons of ultra -hazardous LPG and butane? Because Rancho LPG, LLC is located dangerously close to the thriving communities of San Pedro, Wilmington, Harbor Gateway, and Rancho Palos Verdes, as well as to the tens of thousands of longshoremen and women employed at the Port of Los Angeles, could you please clarify how people will be forewarned of impending doom, should there be a catastrophic release from the 40 plus year old tanks? Sure, if there is a strong earthquake, that alone will trigger acknowledgement that the tanks may have ruptured. This is obvious. But what I am seeking clarification about is Ms. Jeanne Lacombe's point. What if, on a beautiful, quiet day the tanks fail for whatever reason. How will civilians nearby be notified? Since you live in Shacter, California and not in the surrounding community, should I direct this question to a local manager or employee? Thank you in advance for helping to nail down this important information. Marcie Miller C-12 On Dec 5, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Lacombe <chateau4us2att.net> wrote: Dear all, At approximately 12:35pm today my husband Pete was on Westmont and Taper Avenue area and observed a massive burn off at the refinery next to Rancho Holdings and he was alarmed to see three large fountains of water shooting near the impound basin at the Rancho Holdings facility. Fearing for his safety and knowing they do not have any public notification system like sirens he immediately turned around and left the area. I would like to know what happened today. Was there an accidental release of butane? This facility has no warning system and we are uninsured for any damage that is caused by the Rancho facility and that is a huge concern for our community. Thank you for investigating this incident. Jeanne Lacombe, President Rolling Hills Riviera HOA (310) 833-0444 C-13 Kit Fox From: det310@juno.com Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 11:56 AM To: Rona ld.Conrow@ plainsmidstream.com; jacob.haik@lacity.org Cc: marciesmiller@sgcglobal.net; chateau4us@att.net; Lisa.Pinto@mail.house.gov; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; arriane5@aol.com; michael.picker@gov.ca.gov; Ipryor@usc.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; connie@rutter.us;jacob.haik@lacity.org; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; maurice_lyles@boxer.senate.gov; kyle_chapman@boxer.senate.org; laura_schiller@boxer.senate.gov; wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov; helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov; blumenfeld fared@epa.gov; sally.magnani@doj.ca.gov; brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>; Jerry Duhovic; niki.tennant@asm.ca.gov; jennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov; jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov; apadilla@coastal.ca.gov; don.holmstrom@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; Beth.Rosenberg@csb.gov; Rafael. Moure- Eraso@csb.gov; Mark.Griffon@csb.gov; gknatz@portla.org; jodyjames@sgcglobal.net; bonbon90731@gmail.com; richard.vladovic@lausd.net; igornla@cox.net; overbid2002@yahoo.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; bill.orton@sen.ca.gov; rkim@lacbos.org; board@nwsanpedro.org; Kit Fox Subject: Fw: Re: Incident at Rancho Holdings LLC Your silence on this matter says much about how your feel about the concerns of the community. It's almost 24 hours since the incident. Not a word of response to those inquiring. If this was a'routine' matter such as a test, it would have been nice to know. If it was a failure of your equipment that successfully prevented a possible disaster, it would have also been nice to know. Bottom line - the established procedures in this type of situation is inadequate and irresponsible. Those of us who know the 'facts' regarding the potential for a catastrophic event by Rancho LPG wonder why those in an official position continue to keep us in the 'dark' even though you were specifically asked to let us know what happened at Rancho on the 5th of December. A mere phone call would have provided the answer. Our homeowners live in the shadow of your hazardous facility and would be impacted by even a small event at Rancho. By the way, was the Police Department or Fire Department informed? Chuck Hart, President, San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- From: Marcie Miller <marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net> To: "Ronald Conrow (Ronald. Conrow@plainsmidstream.com) " <Ronald.Conrow@plainsmidstream.com> Cc: Lacombe <chateau4us@att.net>, "Pinto, Lisa" <Lisa. Pinto@mail.house. gov>, Noel Weiss <noelweiss@ca.rr.com>, Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>, michael.picker@gov.ca.gov, 1pryor@usc.edu, Carl Southwell <carl.southwell@gmail.com>, MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net, det3I0@juno.com, Connie <connie@rutter.us>, Jacob Haik <jacob.haik@lacity.org>, rob.wilcox@lacity.org, maurice_lyles@boxer.senate.gov, kyle _chapman@boxer.senate.org, laura_schiller@boxer.senate.gov, wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov, helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov, blumenfeld.jared@epa.gov, sally.magnani@doj.ca.gov, brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov, Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>, knightjim33@gmail.com, jerry.duhovic@rpv.com, niki.tennant@asm.ca.gov, jennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov, jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov, apadilla@coastal.ca.gov, don.holmstrom@csb.gov, dan.tiliema@csb.gov, Beth.Rosenberg@csb.gov, Rafael.Moure-Eraso@csb.gov, Mark.Griffon@csb.gov, gknatz@portla.org, jody.james@sbcglobal.net, bonbon9073 I @gmail.com, richard.vladovic@lausd.net, Terry & John Miller C-14 <igornla@cox.net>, pat nave <overbid2002@yahoo.com>, dlrivera@prodigy.net, bill.orton@sen.ca.gov, Rebekah Kim <rkim@lacbos.org>, board@nwsanpedro.org, KitF@rpv.com Subject: Re: Incident at Rancho Holdings LLC Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 23:46:46 -0800 Dear Mr. Conrow, Could you please respond to this request for information? What exactly transpired 11 hours ago at or near your bulk storage facility holding 26 million gallons of ultra -hazardous LPG and butane? Because Rancho LPG, LLC is located dangerously close to the thriving communities of San Pedro, Wilmington, Harbor Gateway, and Rancho Palos Verdes, as well as to the tens of thousands of longshoremen and women employed at the Port of Los Angeles, could you please clarify how people will be forewarned of impending doom, should there be a catastrophic release from the 40 plus year old tanks? Sure, if there is a strong earthquake, that alone will trigger acknowledgement that the tanks may have ruptured. This is obvious. But what I am seeking clarification about is Ms. Jeanne Lacombe's point. What if, on a beautiful, quiet day the tanks fail for whatever reason. How will civilians nearby be notified? Since you live in Shacter, California and not in the surrounding community, should I direct this question to a local manager or employee? Thank you in advance for helping to nail down this important information. Marcie Miller On Dec 5, 2014, at 1:1 l PM, Lacombe <chateau4usgatt.net> wrote: Dear all, At approximately 12:35pm today my husband Pete was on Westmont and Taper Avenue area and observed a massive burn off at the refinery next to Rancho Holdings and he was alarmed to see three large fountains of water shooting near the impound basin at the Rancho Holdings facility. Fearing for his safety and knowing they do not have any public notification system like sirens he immediately turned around and left the area. I would like to know what happened today. Was there an accidental release of butane? This facility has no warning system and we are uninsured for any damage that is caused by the Rancho facility and that is a huge concern for our community. C-15 Thank you for investigating this incident. Jeanne Lacombe, President Rolling Hills Riviera HOA (310) 833-0444 The #1 Worst Carb Ever? Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar (Don't Eat This!) FixYourBloodSugar.com C-16 Kit Fox From: Carolynn Petru Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1:06 PM To: Kit Fox Subject: FW: Pacific Pipeline Systems, LLC Clean Water Act Settlement I Enforcement I US EPA ..... Plains All American Pipeline Hi Kit — It doesn't appear that you were copied on this email. CP From: Janet Gunter [mailto:arriane5@aol.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 12:20 PM To: agordon@sco.ca.gov; lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; jacob.haik@lacity.org; timothy.lippman@asm.ca.gov; eric.guerra@asm.ca.gov; jennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov; justin.houterman@portla.org; "rkim rkim"@lacbos.org; ryan.ferguson@lacity.org; octaviano.rios@lacity.org; dan.tillema@csb.gov; CC; doane.liu@lacity.org; don.holmstrom@csb.gov; Rafael.Moure-Eraso@csb.gov; southers@price.usc.edu; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; mark.stormes@lacity.org; mwilson@dir.ca.gov Cc: cicoriae@aol.com; alsattler@igc.org; mattk@forestethics.org; fmillarfoe@gmail.com; carl.southwell@gmail.com Subject: Pacific Pipeline Systems, LLC Clean Water Act Settlement I Enforcement I US EPA ..... Plains All American Pipeline Rancho LPG just had an incident at their facility a few days ago. One of our residents called the EPA and the official was told when he contacted Rancho's manager, Ron Conrow, "...safety shutdown systems in the facility due to an electrical wiring issue associated with the recent heavy rainfall." Our resident urged the EPA to follow up on investigating this since the story seems curious. There was a simultaneous "flaring" event at the Phillip's 66 facility just behind Rancho LPG ..... and Rancho's fountains (Bellagio like) were drenching the facility's tanks. As you see in the article below..... problems have arisen on Plains properties both in Canada and in the US. We continue to hold our breath here in anticipation of one at Rancho LPG because the risks are so extreme. Whether this recent incident was a small snafu or not .... it is a reminder of the fact that there is great jeopardy and risk exposure at Rancho .... and "accidents" happen. Our luck is not going to last forever. Janet G Pacific Pipeline Systems, LLC Clean Water Act Settlement (WASHINGTON, DC - 01/20/10) Pacific Pipeline Systems LLP, a Long Beach, Calif. -based oil transport company, has agreed to pay a $1.3 million civil penalty and discontinue the use of a section of pipeline through an unstable section of mountains to resolve a Clean Water Act violation, the Justice Department and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today. On this page: C-17 • Overview and Location of Facilities • Violations • Injunctive Relief • Pollutants Addressed • Environmental Effects • Civil Penalty • Comment Period Overview and Location of Facilities Pacific Energy Partners was sold to Plains All American Pipeline, LP (Plains) in 2oo6. Plains, based in Houston, is a publicly traded master limited partnership (MLP) engaged in the transportation, storage and marketing of crude oil, refined products and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). The Partnership is also engaged in the development and operation of natural gas storage facilities. Plains handles on average over 3 million barrels per day of crude oil, refined products and LPG. The stretch of pipeline addressed in this settlement is in the Angeles and Los Padres National Forests between Bakersfield, Calif. and Los Angeles. Violations On March 23, 2005, Pacific's pipeline ruptured and discharged 3,393 barrels (142,5o6 gallons) of light blend crude oil, much of which entered into Posey Creek and Pyramid Lake, via Posey Cove, in violation of Sections 311(b) and 3o1(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Pyramid Lake is used as a drinking water reservoir, recreational waterway and electric power source. The buried pipeline ruptured when a landslide fell on it during a rain storm, in an area known to be prone to landslides. This was the ninth in a series of landslides at that time, but the first to rupture the pipeline in the area. Injunctive Relief In November 2009 Pacific shut down the portion of its pipeline that travels through Forest Service lands where landslides occur. As long as the pipeline remains closed, no further action is required. If Pacific wants to reopen this portion of the pipeline, it must first complete the following tasks: • Develop a work plan to perform increased oversight to address risks, including increased aerial and ground inspections following rain events, and coordinated personnel efforts before and during significant storm events to determine whether to operate or shut down the facilities. C-18 • Hire an independent third party (ITP) to review work plans for work to be performed pursuant to the consent decree, and implement any EPA -approved recommendations or modifications from the ITP. Relocate specified above -ground sections of the pipeline into permanent below -ground locations. These locations were temporarily installed after prior landslides. • Study and repair a segment of the Old Ridge Route road base that was affected by Pacific's operations and its facilities, including analysis regarding the efficacy of support piers and walls, and the feasibility of repairing the Old Ridge Route road surface with concrete paving. • Relocate and bury 250 feet of pipe. Lower or relocate 12 sections of exposed pipe. If necessary repair and cover 28 feet of exposed pipe in a creek bed. Lower 240 feet of exposed pipe, and relocate foo feet of exposed pipe at the bottom of a steep ravine. • Identify a project manager to oversee injunctive relief requirements and act as point of contact with EPA. If the pipeline is reopened, Pacific must also implement the work plans associated with this work for three years after initial re -opening of the pipeline, and submit annual reports to EPA. Pacific must also not make material changes to its Integrity Management Plan, or to any facilities, that, as may be determined by EPA, are less protective of waters or adjoining shorelines within the jurisdiction of 33 U.S.C. § 1321 without prior written approval from EPA. Pollutants Addressed The oil spill addressed by this settlement is 3,393 barrels of oil (142,506 gallons) Environmental Effects Oil spills are known to cause both immediate and long-term harm to human health and ecosystems. Oil prevents oxygen in water and can suffocate wildlife. Oil emulsions may stick to the gills of fish or coat and destroy algae or other plankton. Floating oil may reduce water exposure to the circulation of oxygen and, in conjunction with emulsified oil, interfere with photosynthesis. Oil slicks can kill birds, contaminate food sources, reduce animal and plant reproduction and contaminate nesting habitats. Oil spills can cause long-term effects years later even if the oil remains in the environment for a relatively short period of time. Petroleum oils can also undergo oxidation and polymerization reactions and can form tars that persist in the environment for years. These harms will be prevented by EPA's Section 311 enforcement efforts and this settlement agreement. Please see EPA's Emergency Management pages for more information about the effects of chemicals hazardous substances and oils on the environment. C-19 Civil Penalty Pacific Pipeline Systems, LLC will pay a penalty of $1,300,000 to resolve its liability for CWA Section 311(b) and 3o1(a) violations related to the spill. The penalty will be paid to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Comment Period The proposed settlement, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is subject to a 3o -day public comment period and final court approval. Information on submitting comment is available at the Department of Justice website. For additional information, contact: Cheryl Rose Senior Attorney Water Enforcement Division Office of Civil Enforcement - OECA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2242A) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. (202) 564-4136 rose.cheryl a epa.gov Andrew Helmlinger Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street ORC-3 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 972-3904 helmling_er.andrewP epa.gov 4 C-20 Kit Fox From: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 10:41 PM To: det310@juno.com; connie@rutter.us; Jody fames@sbcglobal.net; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; darzavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; amartinez@earthjustice.org; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobaI.net; mandm8602@att.net; burlingl02@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; billharris2275@gmail.com; cicoriae@aol.com; alsattler@igc.org; mattk@forestethics.org; lljonesin33@yahoo.com; james@randomlengthsnews.com; ksmith@klct.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; chateau4us@att.net; hvybags@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com; Kit Fox; CC; don.holmstrom@csb.gov; Rafael.Moure-Eraso@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; cjjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; jwilliamgibson@ca.rr.com; bonbon90731 @gmail.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; fxfeeney@aol.com; johngoya@westoceanmd.com Subject: An article about "The Man whose warnings of Bhopal's Threat to Thousands that was ignoredl ................ Very reminiscent of Rancho LPG The same old story ...... and one must wonder if we will be forced to suffer the same fate. Read it .... the story is alarmingly familiar. http://ibnlive. in.com/news/bhopal-gas-tragedy-the-man-who-tried-to-expose-u pion-carbide-and-the-warnings-that-were- ignored/517060-3-236. html C-21 Bhopal gas tragedy: The man who tried to expose Union Carbide and the warnings that w... Page 1 of 5 NEWS CJ COMPARE INDIA STATES w Live SA vs WI (ODI) SA 279/8 (48.2) 0 LATEST ELECTIONS INDIA MOVIES CRICKETNEXT TRI -SERIES TECH BIGG BOSS SPORTS BUZZ MORE INDIA India Global India Blog Education Photos Video Tripura Manipur Nagaland Meghalaya Mizoram More IBNLIVE s INDIA » MADHYA PRADESH Dec 09, 2014 at 04:13pm IST Bhopal gas tragedy: The man who tried to expose Union Carbide and the warnings that were ignored Rupa hree Nanda, CNN-IBN 275 68 ,` 0 @ibn Top Ranked MBA School Forbes Top 5% of Best U.S. Colleges Apply Now For a $2,600 Scholarship! chooseredlands.com/MBA—Business Ads by Google New Delhi: Journalist Rajkumar Keswani shot into fame in the aftermath of the Bhopal gas tragedy in 1984. His passionate stories in 1982, warning of the disaster waiting to happen %A, a ignored. Keswani was so convinced about the threat the pesticide plant of UCIL posed to b oal that he wrote to the then chief minster Arjun Singh, all the members of the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh and even petitioned to the Supreme Court and yet nothing moved. Keswani's was a solitary voice that was ignored. The Bhopal gas tragedy struck six months after Keswani wrote his last article. Speaking to CNN-IBN's Rupashree Nanda, Keswani revists some defining moments of the world's worst industrial disaster: Why did the Bhopal gas tragedy happen: It happened because of the greed of corporates like Union Carbide to make money, it happened because we live in such a corrupt system where the government works hand in hand with big corporate houses and helps them to violate the laws. Had they followed all the safety systems provided by the law as required, this would not have happened. Why is not a question, why was it allowed to happen is the question? Our political bosses in the country are more concerned about their own well being than of people. They can sell people. Human lives have no value. They are more concerned about themselves, their families and their party. #bhopal gas tragedy#union carbide #warren anderson #ucil LATEST All I Filter http://ibnlive. in. com/news/bhopal-gas-tragedy-the-man-who-tried-to-expose-union-carbide... Cl /R015 BUSINESS India will become a country of :; -- opportunities, says PM Modi 12 •- minutes ago INDIA Bullet News: Catch the day's top stories 14 minutes ago ...................................... � _...................... I............gm ..........,..... POLITICS 4 Women safety central issue, not full statehood for Delhi: Kiran - - - Bed! 25 minutes ago ". _ INDIA http://ibnlive. in. com/news/bhopal-gas-tragedy-the-man-who-tried-to-expose-union-carbide... Cl /R015 Bhopal gas tragedy: The man who tried to expose Union Carbide and the warnings that w... Page 2 of 5 Warnings that were ignored: more » __._ - _ ..... _ Social Stream In 1978, there was a fire in the Union Carbide plant and it was in the Naphthol store. At that Trending at CNN -ISN News time people had no idea. A large crowd had gathered and even I was one of those in the crowd. This company was better identified with the torch cells, Eveready batteries, not with the AS Breaking Views - Rajdeep Sardesai n kind of chemicals they were using and not with the kind of products like Sevin and temic. It was Good Luck Dr Bedi< known to people dealing with agriculture but not to the common man. The UCIL had a great Dr Kiran Bedi is an accomplished woma one I respect and admire. A few years a, I reputation in Bhopal because it was the only multinational operating here and, those who were was a media representative at the Natio I working with Carbide (UCIL) were treated with utter respect. Hence, there was little scope for Police Academy... doubt about Union Carbide. There was a question. The sky was covered by dark cloud. There Read more x was a bad smell. In 1981, a friend, Mohammad Ashraf who was working with Union Carbide et ig got exposed to Phosgene and died. That was the alarm (for me) from where I started working Ibnlive on it. It was tough because I had no science background. I found 2 persons who were fired - England vs Australia Live Cricket Sco : _, Bashirullah and Shankar Malvia. They helped me to get a foothold there. With all manuals and ENG vs AUS Quick Scorecard, Sydney... confidential reports, it was nine months before I could write my first piece in 1982. After going Get England vs Australia Live Cricket SJe through all information, one basic fact stuck with me was that Phosgene and MIC were heavier 9 9 from Sydney Cricket Ground (SCGyd y only on IBNLive.com. Read latest cricket than air and something which is heavier would come down and settle doNn. When I found that news and update... such huge quantity is being stored and there were three tanks, then I wrote my first piece Read more saying, "Bachayiye huzoor, is sheher ko bachayiye" (Sir save the city), giving all the details 1 14 h 69 had. - - - IBNLive But when I did that, it went unheeded. There was no response from government. As an Messenger of God', says Dera chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim afterthought, I feel that people could not believe it because there has been no precedence of Dere Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram this kind. Even my circulation was very limited. It did not have an impact. I wrote another Rahim Singh on Friday said there was article with an alarming and sensational headline, "Bhopal sitting on top of volcano". I nothing objectionable in his film 'MSG - Messenqer of God' and that the... attempted another time because lives of people were at stake. I was angry with myself. I had Crowaynews Full screen seen from inside that all safety norms had been bypassed. Even pipelines were not in very° good shape. That was dangerous. I did my second piece on October 1 and on October 5 there was a small leak inside the plant. Methyl IsoCyanate (MIC) did leak. That was controlled within limits. But it did impact nearby population and people had to escape to save Ilves. But, because it was contained so quickly, police did not register a case, there were no complaints. If at all it was investigated, it was investigated by the factories inspector. It was not a big deal, , r it was not even reported in the local media properly. So I did my third piece on October 8 and I ! t narrated the story of what happened that night. I said this is an indication of things to come - wrote a headline, "Na samjhoge to mit hi jaoge" (If you don't understand, then you will be SEiCJ4� P&C?W i wiped out). Everyone would try and convince me that what you say will never happen. You are wrong. We know better that you. The factory inspector suggested if I had any problems with Carbide (UCIL) I could talk. I wrote a letter to the then chief minister Arjun Singh to constitute a committee and to save the city. I went to members of state assembly and I persuaded them to r raise it in assembly and it was raised. The concerned minister informed the house that he had MOSTPOPULAR TOP NEWS visited the factory, (and assured the house that) there will be water curtains that will contain the gas leak if it happened. When some members insisted why not shift the factory? Someone see global sell off Jan; slow said it was not a piece of stone! Then I sent a petition to the Supreme Court in 1982 itself and paced reforms a worry: Ambit just got an acknowledgement. I left Bhopal for a year. Cabinet approves ordinance on When I returned, once again I started working on same story. After six months, I did a longer Coal, Insurance Bill piece for Jansatta on the June 16, 1984. The Editor Mr Prabhas Joshi gave it a great display That was just six months before the disaster. Even after that when nothing happened, I felt that this is the most that I could have done. Before I could think of anything else, came the illfated December. When Warren Anderson visited Bhopal. When Warren Anderson arrived and was arrested, he was taken to the Union Carbide guest house at Shamla hills. A large number of journalists had reached and I was one of those. There was a huge wall and no one was allowed into the guest house where Anderson was. I climbed the wall to look into the Carbide guest house. 1 was just trying to look inside, I think it http://ibnlive.in.com/news/bhopal-gas-tragedy-the-man-who-tried-to-expose-union-carbide..'1 /16/2015 Bhopal gas tragedy: The man who tried to expose Union Carbide and the warnings that w... Page 3 of 5 was Mark Fineman from Philadelphia Inquirer who said, "Rajkumar come down, come down. Log lr, sv use froFacm using social pk as C, you must switch from using Facebook as City of Rancho Anderson is already gone, I just spoke to American embassy and they have organized it." Palos Verdes, CA to using Facebook as Rancho Palos Verdes. Anderson was received by the district magistrate and the superintendent of police at the airport, and midway he was politely informed that he was arrested. He started shouting, he was taken not to the police station not to the court but to his guest house. From there he made a call to the American Embassy. The American Embassy got into action and someone (name not clear) at the Ministry of External Affairs was contacted, then the Home Ministry, then the PMO. Rajiv Gandhi was then campaigning in Harda for elections and Arjun Singh was with him. Arjun Singh left instruction with local administration and was gone. When Rajiv Gandhi returned, Arjun Singh got instructions to release from the PMO because there was lot of pressure from the American embassy. Hence they provided him a state aircraft and he was sent back to Delhi the very same evening. When Anderson reached New York, he held a press conference and he said, "I was treated with utmost courtesy and respect, they were very nice to me, I have no complaints, it was done for my safety!" Listen, the PMO cannot act on his own without the PM's consent. Because, in absence of the PM, they did not pass on any instructions. Only after Rajiv Gandhi reached Delhi, the instructions passed. Justice Kochar Commission yet to submit report, Anderson dead In 1985, a commission was appointed which was headed by Justice NK Singh. It had been working for a year but once the state government found out that it was going to nail their guilt they abandoned it midway. Again, after a long gap, another commission was set up. But the cases are already decided, the main accused are dead. When Anderson died, people were saying one accused has died. Call me a cynic, nobody is going to be punished now. Mr K who was representing the victims has died, Justice Deb who passed an interim order died, KB Rai Choudhury died, thousands of victims have died, lawyers, judges and even Keshub Mahindra is an old man. By the time the case comes to a conclusion and a call is made from this court, there will be no answer because everybody would be dead. I am sure they will all die a natural death. Our legal system is such that you can make it go merry go round. Puri saluted Anderson while he was leaving! Collective failure It is not A, B or C who has failed. We have failed collectively. Judiciary if it cannot decide a case involving half a million lives, what do you say about this? What do you say about CBI which could not properly investigate and represent? What do you say of political bosses who helped Carbide get away? They asked for $3.3 billion and accepted $470 million! Look at the medical fraternity. In those areas the quacks have become rich because real doctors never attended to the victims. Even properly qualified doctors had no clue. Everyone over here has flourished and prospered except the gas victims. We simply fail to learn. Just one example - 25 years after this disaster, in 2010, 1 was working on a documentary for ESPN on playgrounds around Union Carbide where children play. They get diseases and no one is bothered. Had you learnt any lessons, this would not have happened. They entered into a settlement with a figure of 3000 deaths when by their own admission, they had acknowledged 15,000. Now there is a case is pending in front of the Supreme Court that looks for more compensation because the money that was actually meant for 3000 death cases and 1.5 lakh injury case - was actually distributed among 15,000 death cases and half a million people. Learning is not in our culture. We just talk of learning, but we don't learn. 275 0 68 0 0 More from this section http://ibnlive.in.com/news/bhopal-gas-tragedy-the-man-who-tried-to-expose-union-carbide.. CAl2015 Bhopal gas tragedy: The man who tried to expose Union Carbide and the warnings that w... Page 4 of 5 14 minutes ago 30 minutes ago 35 minutes ago Bullet News: Catch the day's top I am not trying to play god in the This is a serious charge by the stories movie: Dera Chief Censor board chief: Congress From Around The Web From Around the Web • Obama's Snack Comments Upstage White House Nutrition Dinner (Roll Call) • Have You Ever Wondered Where Your Last Name Comes From? (Archives) • Top 29 Most Powerful Armies In The World Right Now (Shockpedia) • Why 30 Percent of CIOs Say They Feel Sidelined in Their Businesses (CIO) • In showing off its new toys, China isn't playing nice (Nikkei Asian Review) • 4 ways to retire with plenty of money (TheStreet) 18 Comments w More from IBNIive • Dear Sakshi Maharaj, as long as every Hindu woman has even one kid who laughs at your speech, we will be ok: Bollywood reacts on BJP leader's speech • Sunny Deol turns teacher for child artist Ruhanika Dhawan • Shilpa Shetty: I'm enjoying my motherhood; no time for acting Look of the day: Kangana Ranaut looks elegant in settu sari • Show us proof of coercion, I&B Ministry asks Censor Board ex -chief Samson • Jennifer Lopez was uncomfortable filming sex scenes for'The Boy Next Door Recommended by b ,.F .. Croods_aravik Even today, nothing has been changed. All around the country, mega power project are coming up, getting environmental clearance by giving corruption to the corrupt officials of our country. It won't be a surprise for us, if such kind of accidents happen again. Swaraj_Chahiye . And BJP Govt. got donations from Dow Chemicals to keep mouth shut. Another case of getting transparency funding 100%. Take a lead from AAP. i!s q^nm�ar•t �r✓o^ delr.tc�1 http://ibnlive.in.com/news/bhopal-gas-tragedy-the-man-who-tried-to-expose-union-carbide...Cl /?672015 Bhopal gas tragedy: The man who tried to expose Union Carbide and the warnings that w... Page 5 of 5 Follow us Politics I India I Movies I IBN South I Cricket I Photos I Videos I World I Business I Sports I Blogs I Tech I Latest News I Talk I Sitemap I Football I News I Books I Chat I Apps I TV I Live TV I South India Masand Review I Tennis I Golf I Formula One I Tech Toys I Documents I Newsletters I Health I Popular Newstopics I Team I Event I People I City I IBNLive Articles I Online Shoppng in India I Get Online Study Material I Sample Papers I RD Sharma Solutions I Get free NCERT Solutions I India News I Think India About Us I Disclaimer I Contact Us I Feedback I Complaint Redressal I Advertise With Us I Live Stock Market News I India's Premier Technology Guide ( Privacy Policy I Hindi News I RSS Feeds I Kids education and games site I Firstpost I History India I MTV India CNN name, logo and all associated elements ® and © 2013 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. All rights reserved. CNN and the CNN logo are registered marks of Cable News Network, LP LLLP, displayed with permission. Use of the CNN name and/or logo on or as part of CNN-IBN does not derogate from the intellectual property rights of Cable News Network in respect of them. Copyright © 2013 IBNLive.in.com —All rights reserved C-26 http://ibnlive. in. com/news/bhopal-gas-tragedy-the-man-who-tried-to-expose-union-carbide... 1/16/2015 Kit Fox From: Marcie Miller <marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 11:32 PM To: Janet Gunter Cc: det310@juno.com; connie@rutter.us; jody james@sbcglobal.net; darzavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; amartinez@earthjustice.org; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; mandm8602@att.net; burlingl02@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; billharris2275@gmail.com; cicoriae@aol.com; alsattler@igc.org; mattk@forestethics.org; lljonesin33@yahoo.com; james@randomlengthsnews.com; ksmith@klct.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; chateau4us@att.net; hvybags@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com; Kit Fox; CC; don.holmstrom@csb.gov; Rafael.Moure- Eraso@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; cjjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; jwilliamgibson@ca.rr.com; bonbon90731@gmaii.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; fxfeeney@aol.com;johngoya@westoceanmd.com Subject: Re: An article about "The Man whose warnings of Bhopal's Threat to Thousands that was ignoredl ................ Very reminiscent of Rancho LPG Janet, Thank you for sharing this really interesting reflection. frightening and shameful. There are many parallels that can be drawn - all of them Something I never thought of before is who stands to prosper from a Bhopal -like catastrophe at the Rancho facility. What comes to mind is the Gulf BP blowout/coverup. Halliburton was at fault for its shoddy construction, but Halliburton walked away with HUGE profits from contracts to fix it. It sickens me to think of what the future holds. Who sits on the Rancho AKA Plains Board of Directors? Who has heavily invested in Plains? For one, the CITY of LOS ANGELES. LACERS (city retirement plan) was invested in Petrolane, then Amerigas, then Rancho and Plains Exploration. Perhaps THAT's why the City of Los Angeles rubber stamps whatever Rancho says. It is time for the City to divest in Plains! Then and only then will LA officials see the light. I am sure most people receiving this email have retirement plans with massive investment in Plains. Think about this, good folks. When everything goes to hell at the Rancho facility -----so goes your retirement plan. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 8, 2014, at 10:40 PM, Janet Gunter <arriane5(a�aol.com> wrote: The same old story ...... and one must wonder if we will be forced to suffer the same fate. Read it .... the story is alarmingly familiar. C-27 http://ibnIive. in.com/news/bhopal-gas-tragedy-the-man-who-tried-to-expose-u pion-carbide-and-the- warnings-that-were-ignored/517060-3-236. html Ci -28 Kit Fox From: Ronald Conrow <Ronald.Conrow@plainsmidstream.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:04 AM To: Kit Fox Cc: Carolynn Petru; rreg55@hotmail.com; ryan.ferguson@lacity.org;jacob haik Oacob.haik@lacity.org); William Zankich Subject: RE: Last night's meeting Attachments: NWSPNC-COP Flare Event -September 2012.pdf, Random Lengths -Flare 02072013_RC Quote.pdf Kit, No problem. As explained last night I was under the weather dealing with bronchial asthma issues as a result of the nice air quality in Bakersfield. Please understand Rancho was not trying to play word games such as the "it depends on what the meaning of the word is ... is". I was asked to provide CD15 with an explanation of the reported "massive flaring event at the refinery and 3 -water fountains at Rancho" and that is what I did. If there was a flaring event at the Refinery, it would be inappropriate for me to issue any comments. Attached is an article from the Random Lengths concerning a definite flaring event at Rancho on 01/30/2013 and was originally sent to you on 02/14/2013. As illustrated in the article, Rancho provided a clear explanation for the flaring event that was due to a malfunction of a pressure control device on tank T-1. Also, in the article officials from both the EPA and SCAQMD clearly state Rancho is permitted to flare because Rancho does not emit sulfurs or significant amounts of toxic air contaminants (TAC's) and thus not required to report flaring events. However, since that event, Rancho has made it a practice to contact both the LAFD 36 and SCAQMD should we have a shutdown resulting in a possible flaring event or in the case of 12/05/2014 the shutting down plant operations to troubleshoot and/or repair safety systems which could include plant gas detection, flame detection, fire suppression, emergency shutdown controls (ESD's), emergency back-up generator and flare. Once these systems were tested and verified to operate as designed the facility operations were then restarted and both LAFD and SCAQMD were notified. Subsequently, I notified the EPA was notified, but this is not a requirement. As discussed last night, in the future, Rancho will also contact CD15 and Mr. Regalado the President of NWSPNC to make them aware of such events. They can then be the conduit for responding to community inquiries. That being said, you should know I was shown recent comments I made that were subsequently altered and then multi-bulleted via e-mail by a known activist. This is why we will not respond directly to certain folks. One more thing about flaring events. As I stated last night, flaring events while possibly alarming to the community are typically a positive sign for facilities such as refineries. Although indicative of a process issue within the facility, it also signifies that safety systems operated as designed. Also attached, from the minutes of the NWSPNC meeting (public record) from 10/08/2012 are comments from Mr. Chris Chandler, then the refinery manager at the Phillips 66 to explain to the NWSPNC a massive and lengthy (several days) flaring event at the refinery. His explanation of what exactly a flaring event typically means is outstanding. Finally, the Rancho Facility is manned 24/7. In the future please do not hesitate to contact the Facility number 310-833- 5275 for information or myself at the contact numbers listed in my footer. Regards, R" e4*WO Western District Manager Plains LPG Services, LP 19430 Beech Avenue Shafter, CA 93263 C-29 Office: 661-368-7917 Cell: 661-319-9978 ronald.conrow@plainsmidstream.com This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. -----Original Message ----- From: Kit Fox [mailto:KitF@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 6:21 AM To: Ronald Conrow Cc: Carolynn Petru; rreg55@hotmail.com Subject: Last night's meeting Dear Mr. Conrow: I want to apologize to you for my rude behavior towards you at last night's NWSPNC meeting. The personal and work difficulties that I'm dealing with right now are no excuse for my unprofessional conduct as a representative on the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Sincerely, Kit Fox Sent using OWA for Whone C-30 Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council October 8, 2012 Board and Stakeholder Meeting Minutes Peck Park, 6:00pm 1. Call to Order: President Diana Nave called the meeting to order at 6.00 pm and welcomed those in attendance and encouraged them to participate. Approximately 25 stakeholders were present. 2, Roll Call: Board members in attendance were: Scott Allman, Bob Bryant, Gary Buss, Daniel Dixon, Craig Goldfarb, Cynthia Gonyea, John Greenwood, Carolyn Grayson, Laurie Jacobs, Katie Marrie, Diana Nave, Raymond Regalado, Barbara Schach, George Thompson and Laureen Vivian. Excused: Pete Burmeister. Vacant youth seat. 3. Presentation by Science Center (LAUSD): Chris Torres, Chief of Staff from Dr. Vladovic's office provided information: Dr. Vladovic has intervened to get the science center to stay open for another year. Budget cuts will affect the Center and many other programs next year. An RFP will be released to the public to see if any funding can be found. Pat Nave Suggested a contest involving the community in naming the center. Diana Nave suggested setting up a foundation. 4Phillips 66 & AQMD: Chris Chandler was in attendance to explain in person the recent flaring event at the refinery. He introduced several staff members who were also in attendance to assist with the reporting of the issue. A power point presentation was shown about the company. He explained that on September 15" there was a complete loss of electrical power which is a very significant event for the refinery and required that the refinery Shut down. Back up power is used for the critical instruments etc. The flares are safety devices. The emergency response team does monitoring during the event. The reason for the power loss according to DWP was the failure of an underground cable. It takes about 7 days to completely restart the entire refinery. The event impacts regional fuel supply. The AQMD representative also gave a short presentation on air quality as it relates to this type of flaring event. 5. Reports from Public Officials: Congresswoman Janice Hahn: Congresswoman Hahn was in attendance and comn'Writed on the following: * She shared that she had come across an old article frorn 2004 in the More Safi Pedro which provided an overview of what the Northwest San Pedro NC was involved with at that time. * Hahn is a member of the Homeland Security and Small Business Committees: Port Security is her number one priority in Congress. Container scanning is something she will keep pushing for. She created the Port Caucus (bi-partisan) to discuss the issues of our nation's seaports and was able to pass her first bill (passed by 419 to 11). It assesses the port security for gaps. * Small Business Committee: Fiahn's office is working with srnall business owners. She introduced a bill that reduces the amount of paperwork to apply for a loan (from 12 pages to 2). She presented legislation to raise the cap for credit union loans. She is working on connecting small businesses with the international trade industry to export goods. C-31 Rancho LPG daring Event Underscores Community Concerns Details are belatedly coming out regarding an initially unreported flaring event at Rancho LPG on Wednesday, January 30. The incident was brought to our attention by longtime homeowner activist Andrew Mardesich, who took smart- phone photos of the event early that morning. In response to inquiries from community activist Janet Gunter, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Mary Westing contacted Rancho regarding the event, and forwarded the response. they received. Ron Gonrow, the Western District. Manager for Rancho's corporate parent, Plains All American wrote, "The flaring event occurred at approximately04:30'on 01/30/2033 and lasted approximately lQ-minutes. A transmitter on (bu- tane) storage tank T-1 malfunctioned resulting in a pressure control valve release from the tank to the flare." He went on to say, "Another reviewof our per- 6ts our environmental and operations staff con- firmed Rancho is not required to report a flaring event and we'are not aware of any Rule require- ment for LPG iacilitles to do so." - , Wesling confirmed that there was no federal duty to report, but noted that state regulations differ, 5hein turn notified the AQMD and the LA Fire Department. There Was also unrelated main- tenahce work on Naval. Fuel Depot pipelines go- ing on that same week. .. "They had a flare. It's permitted by AQMD for use in emergencies, to.safely burn excess pro- pane gas," AQMD spokesman Sam Atwood told Random Lengths. "They did not notify us, and they are not required to notify us,' he said, ex- plaining that the notification rule specifically tar- gets argets sulfur emissions. "Ensuring the safety of the residents of the 15th District is my top priority," said Councilmem- ber Joe Buscaino. 'The Chief Legislative' Analyst has been compiling a comprehensive report in response to questions raised by myself and other members of the Public Safety Committee, which I expect it to be complete in late February, and discussed in an upcoming Committee meeting in March. I look forward to advancing this investiga- tion, and`I encourage residents to stay engaged and participate in this open, transparent and public prodess. C-32 Kit Fox From: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:21 PM To: det310@juno.com; connie@rutter.us; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; amartinez@earthjustice.org; darzavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; brian.parrelli@gmail.com; fbmjet@aol.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; burling102@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; ksmith@klct.com; Kit Fox; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; john@nrcwater.com; leneebilski@hotmail.com; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; chateau4us@att.net; hvybags@cox.net; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; Lara.Larramendi@mail.house.gov; joethedoor@sbcglobal.net; tonna@cope- preparedness.org; Lonna@copss-ca.org; jancperry@icloud.com; gkracov@yahoo.com; gk@gideonlaw.net Subject: fyi re: Rancho LPG ......another reminder of their incredible hazard.... think "25 Million gallons" https://in. newshub.org/10-killed-13-critical-in-massive-blaze-after-truck-hits-Ipg-tanker-7913810. htmI C-33 10 killed, 13 critical in massive blaze after truck hits LPG tanker - NewsHub Page 3 of 12 • U_ganda • U_K • YxpaiHa (Ukraine) • uI-)U71 (United Arab Emirates) • United States • Uru uay • Venezuela • Viet Nam (Vietnam) • &JI (Yemen) • Zimbabwe • q�tface • FACEBOOK • VK • GOOGLE+ • TWITTER • TFTq :N • hd a 10 killed, 13 critical in massive blaze after truck hits LPG tanker 10 killed, 13 critical in massive blaze after truck hits LPG tanker g Tweet +� 0I Save 560 C-34 https://in.newshub.org/10-killed- l 3-critical-in-massive-blaze-after-truck-hits-lpg-tanker-79... 1/16/2015 10 killed, 13 critical in massive blaze after truck hits LPG tanker - NewsHub Page 4 of 12 JAIPUR: Ten people were killed and 13 critically injured in the blaze that followed the collision of an LPG transporting tanker with a truck packed with motorcycles on Saturday night near Jaipur rural's Chandwaji village, police said on Sunday. The explosion was so intense that some bodies were found in the agricultural farms next to the roadside as the day broke. Some bodies were charred beyond recognition in the vehicles which caught fire following the explosion. Nearly nine trucks and a car were gutted. Six bodies were identified till Sunday evening. Majority of the deceased are truck drivers and their helpers. The traffic on the highway remained disrupted for nearly 10 hours. Police said that the traffic was diverted from Harmara after the mishap; however, hundreds of people were left stranded till early morning with the queue of vehicles going up to 5km on both sides of the accident spot. The police said that the fire was contained by about 5am on Sunday with the help of over a dozen fire tenders. The police had a tough time in trying to pull charred bodies out of vehicles. "We could collect only bones and body parts of some victims. The body parts were found scattered around in the morning," a police office said. "We are trying to identify the agency transporting the inflammable substance. We have lodged an FIR in connection with the mishap. Prima facie, it has come up that the truck carrying motorcycles negligently hit the tanker carrying LPG from behind. It caused a leakage following which the explosion took place. Nearly 10 vehicles on both sides of the road caught fire in the explosion," the officer said. Thirty-year old Neetu Sharma undergoing treatment at the burns ward of the Sawai Man Singh hospital with 15% burns is repeatedly asking for her husband. She is not alone. Her two children Somya and Abhay, who are also undergoing treatment in the same ward for burns are asking the same questions. But nobody has the courage to tell them the truth that the father of two children was charred to death. The death toll in Express Highway mishap after an oil tanker exploded following an accident near Jaipur rural's Chandwaji area, mounted to 10 on Sunday as seven more people died of burns in the hospital. Neetu Sharma the wife of one of the deceased Radha Mohan Sharma is also among the injured along with her two kids Abhay (11) and Somya (08). At the burn ward of SMS hospital, Prakash Sharma, uncle of Somya (08) and Abhya (11) pleaded, "Please don't tell Neetu Sharma, my bhabhi (sister-in-law) that her husband Radha Mohan Sharma is no more. Since wee hours she has been asking for him. The doctors have put her sedatives." Two wheelers that melted in the inferno caused by a collision at national highway on Saturday. https://in.newshub.org/10-killed- l 3-critical-in-massive-blaze-after-truck-hits-lpg-tanker-79...0,1 /16/2015 10 killed, 13 critical in massive blaze after truck hits LPG tanker - NewsHub Page 5 of 12 Prakash said that some relatives were attending the injured while some were at the village as this family has lost a 5 -year-old kid and a 32 -year-old man. With tears in his eyes, Prakash said, "Bachcheylagatar pooch raheyhain papa kahanhai, kyakahoon?" (Kids are repeatedly asking where their father is, what do I tell them). "We have told her that he too is undergoing treatment," added Prakash. Recalling the nightmare Neetu said, "We work for Sankalp, a furniture manufacturing company. We first went to Anokha village where we have our recently purchased house and from there we boarded a company truck which was supposed to take us to Eani, our ancestral village. Suddenly, we heard a blast like sound and spotted inferno coming towards the driver of the mini truck. I fainted and during early morning found myself in the hospital," said Neetu. #r : timesofindia.indiatimes.com ch Tweet Save URL -�IT Z�r3 IIS L>T 3ft it� ur 3 r I �r I VW WTTr 3l� i42a C-36 https://in.newshub.org/10-killed- l 3-critical-in-massive-blaze-after-truck-hits-lpg-tanker-79... 1/16/2015 Kit Fox From: Carolynn Petru Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 2:36 PM To: Kit Fox Subject: FW: Response to Rancho LPG/Conrow / Gunter -Rancho worst case "fabrication" Attachments: RMP_worst_case_(1).doc; Sierra_Club_Ltr_to_EPA_and_DHS_re_EO_13650_finl_(1).pdf; Earthjustice_Letter_to_EPA_re_Rancho_Faiclity_9-8-2014.pdf; forest ethics letter to slc.docx Hi Kit - FYI - in case you didn't already receive this. CP From: Janet Gunter [mailto:arriane5@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 3:35 PM To: jacob.haik@lacity.org; timothy.lippman@asm.ca.gov; eric.guerra@asm.ca.gov; jennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov; justin.houterman@pola.org; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; rkim@lacbos.org; ryan.ferguson@lacity.org; octaviano.rios@lacity.org; dan.tillema@csb.gov; CC; doane.liu@lacity.org; don.holmstrom@csb.gov; Rafael.Moure- Eraso@csb.gov; lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu; southers@price.usc.edu; agordon@sco.ca.gov; det310@juno.com; igornla@cox.net; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; mark.stormes@lacity.org; mwilson@dir.ca.gov Cc: cicoriae@aol.com; alsattler@igc.org; mattk@forestethics.org; fmillarfoe@gmail.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; amartinez@earthjustice.org; carl.southwell@gmail.com; marguello@psr-la.org Subject: Fwd: Response to Rancho LPG/Conrow / Gunter -Rancho worst case "fabrication" THIS IS IMPORTANT.... PLEASE READ! Hello to you all from Rancho Ron Conrow's "cause celeb", Janet Gunter! After receiving this email below, I knew that it was very important that I should respond to set the record straight for all who could be deceived by Mr. Conrow's (Rancho LPG/Plains Midstream Canada/Plains All American) very twisted and illogical diatribe. This "cause celeb" (aka me) has been involved for over twenty years now in advocacy on numerous issues related to local injustices that have gone unnoticed and unattended by local politicians and agencies. Some of the efforts engaged in have been successful (ie. the China Shipping lawsuit on port pollution and aesthetic losses) and won in court. Other efforts have assisted in improvements with things like community policing, port aesthetic enhancements, and even the removal by the port of LA of the hazardous Westway Chemical facility. There is a long line of efforts that I have been involved in, some successful.... some not. Reason why I do it? .... Simple .... I care. It is important for Mr. Conrow to note that I was engaged with many others pressing for the relocation of the Amerigas/Rancho LPG facility long before Plains Midstream Canada aka Plains All American Pipeline took ownership in 2008. In fact, we know that Plains was well aware of the controversy and adversity facing Amerigas from not only myself, but the community, at the time of their purchase. One of Plains own CEO's had advised against the purchase of Amerigas based on his own personal knowledge of the public's concerns, fears, and previous demonstrations against it. Ms Gunter has never "LIED" about anything with regard to Rancho LPG. My experience is that the truth is always your greatest strength in such fights, and that is particularly so in this one. I rely on hard research and the experience of a very qualified and learned resource pool of experts who have stepped up after discovering the incredibly high risks posed by this massive butane/propane gas facility. Perhaps, Mr. Conrow is simply unaware or never questioned the reason "why" Phillips 66 (located only a few hundred feet from Rancho LPG) reported to the EPA (under RMP conditions) that their company's "worst case radius of impact" is 2 miles from their largest "single" 5 million gallon butane tank! This is opposed to Rancho LPG's reporting from one of their two single 12.5 million gallon butane tanks at 1/2 mile???? How and why would such a discrepancy exist???? The reason is found in the FEDERAL REGISTER from an action on May 26,1999. This action was taken (just C-37 one month prior to EPA regs becoming final) as a means to settle a pending EPA lawsuit from the American Petroleum Institute who was seeking a more relaxed worst case reporting standard from hazardous facilities that offered a form of "passive safety mitigation". Hence, the adoption of this policy by the EPA and the settlement of the proposed API lawsuit. This settlement allowed LPG facilities to use a calculation designed by the EPA for "toxics", that assumes, because of "passive mitigation" that a release "stops" after 10 minutes! The justification for this weaker risk calculation isn't given. Ms. Rutter has submitted a FOIA request for the Docket associated with the API settlement, but, has has not received it. The problem (as it relates specifically to Amerigas/Rancho LPG) is that the EPA "accepted" passive safety mitigation measure, (included in their RMP) an "impound basin" ....meant to capture the "liquid contents" of an entire 12.5 million gallon butane tank, is completely "non-responsive"! The problem here relates to the scientific properties of butane gas. Liquefied Petroleum Gas only remains in that "liquid" form when it is refrigerated. While in the refrigerated butane tank, this gas will remain in "liquid form". Herein lies the issue; Once this "liquefied" gas leaks out of a ruptured refrigerated tank, it will quickly "vaporize" upon exposure to ambient air temperature and expand in volume over 200 times its volume as a "liquid"!! This means that the safety mitigation measure, "the impound basin" would, in actuality, capture less than 1 % of the volume of a 12.5 million gallon butane gas tank upon rupture! This massive vaporous cloud of gas (because this vapor is "heavier" than air) will overflow the basin, hugging the ground, flowing into the street and flood channel and seeking any spark of ignition. So, while the EPA has "accepted" this reporting as in "compliance" it is completely erroneous in its very "minimized" reporting of any "true" radius of impact. The EPA's proper calculation for estimation of worst case (without including the reduction offered by the useless impound basin as mitigation) is attached. This calculation has been carefully researched and then calculated by one of our community team experts, Connie Rutter. Connie holds a masters in chemistry and worked as an oil industry environmental consultant for decades. Connie served time as Chair of industry committees and boards and has been highly respected by the industry. The result of the appropriate calculation for worst case blast radius of impact from a 12.5 million gallon butane tank is 3.15 miles. Please see the attachment for entire formula, calculation and result in entirety. The formula is from The EPA "RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance" Dated May, 1996. The formula for LPG is from the first page of Appendix C, from the April 15, 1999 version of the Guidance. Ms. Rutter also wanted me to clarify that the EPA worst case scenarios are not "approved" as Mr. Conrow implies. The worst case scenario RMP is submitted to the EPA by hazardous facilities but are "not" inspected by the EPA for their accuracy or approval. The only time they are reviewed is upon inspection of a facility and used as a means of investigation of properties involved. I just yesterday received the following youtube statement by Commissioner Moure-Eraso of the Chemical Safety Board. Please take the 6 minutes to watch this. It will certainly help you all to understand this Rancho LPG situation and the chronic need to prevent "preventable" disasters. Rancho LPG is the "poster child" for CSB concerns about existing deficient safety regulations at such hazardous facilities. It is particularly worrisome with Rancho LPG due to its unique location in such a densely populated region, and in such a bustling economic hub of US commerce. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZirRB32gzU So, while Mr. Conrow (& Rancho LPG lobbyists & Plains Officials) wishes to lose you in petty spin and speculation about what I and Ms. Miller might say and do through character assasinations..... it is important for all of you to stay focused on the real issue at hand and the true facts. How safe are the hundreds of thousands of people (entrusted to your leadership) and the infrastructure of the Ports of LA and Long Beach if there is a terrorism attack, a severe earthquake, or accident at Rancho LPG? 25 Million Gallons of liquefied petroleum gas (the stored energy equivalent of over 50 atomic bombs) is probably not totally "safe" anywhere. But, these tanks sitting within mere feet of pre-existing homes and schools, in an existing earthquake rupture zone of mag. 7.3 (a convergence of multiple faults in a region) in tanks built in 1973 (without LA City building permits at the time) to a seismic substandard of 5.5-6.0 (containing the stored energy equivalent of over 50 atomic bombs), on land designated by USGS as "landslide" and "liquefaction" areas, in tanks that can be penetrated by a rocket launched grenade or high power rifle, and surrounded on the north and east sides by a multitude of refinery tanks, marine oil terminals and above a hornets nest of chemical pipelines (offering the potential for a horrendous "cascading failure event") seems to be .....at the very least ........ crazy". Now let's just look at this Plains organization structure that has taken such umbrage at our community protest action. According to its FERC filings, Plains All American Pipeline.... parent company to Plains Midstream Canada and Rancho LPG.. indicates that Rancho LPG, a Limited Liability Corporation, is "insolvent" as an independent entity. According to the latest filing, Rancho LPG owes in excess of $50 million to its parent company. Also, Plains Midstream Canada (the owner of record of Rancho LPG) has been recently charged with two of the largest oil spills in Canada. The question of "insurance" has come up repeatedly. The entire Plains company is said to hold congregate policies that total $500 million. Consider that the San Bruno gas explosion took out less than a city block and has resulted in costs exceeding $2.5 Billion thus far. The Port of LA's most recent terminal expansion project (a single terminal) cost over $500 million. It becomes very clear (without even the benefit of a comprehensive risk analysis) that there is extraordinary liability costs associated with this facility and its operations. It is interesting to take note of Mr. Conrow's initial greeting to Councilman Buscaino's deputy, Mr. Haik, regarding his recent LA City trip to China. He wonders if it was "enlightening". This is no doubt in reference to China's "need" for the C-38 LPG that Mr. Conrow's company offers. We say, great..... conduct your hearty business. But, not at the expense of our lives and our infrastructure. Rancho LPG/Plain's profits and/or any trickle effect of that upon our economy must be carefully weighed and measured against the grave loss potential that its business presents. That assessment has very obviously been ignored. It's time to begin that process with honesty and with public safety as the priority. The probability of a catastrophe at Rancho LPG increases day by day Janet Gunter -----Original Message ----- From: Ronald Conrow [mailto:Ronald.Conrow@plainsmidstream.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 1:44 PM To: jacob haik (jacob.haik@lacity.org) Cc: timothy.lippman@asm.ca.gov; eric.guerra@asm.ca.gov; Zivkovic, Jennifer (Jennifer.Zivkovic@sen.ca.gov); Houterman, Justin; 'Hon. Rudy Svorinich, Jr.'; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; rkim@lacbos.org; ryan.ferguson@lacity.org; Doane Liu; octaviano.rios@lacity.org; dan.tillema@csb.gov; cc@rpv.com Subject: Gunter—Rancho worst case fabrication Jacob, I trust your trip to China with Councilman Buscaino and Mayor Garcetti was fruitful and enlightening? Welcome back to the USA. As is our custom, Rancho has endeavored to keep CD15 informed concerning the dissemination of false information by community activists about the Facility. Attached are letters from Janet Gunter and Marcie Miller which claim that Rancho has used the "toxics" formula for calculating the "worst case" scenario and thereby has submitted an inaccurate offsite impact blast radius to endpoint. These letters were posted and downloaded from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes website under Border Issues for the December 02, 2014 City Council meeting. As is their prerogative, the City of RPV allows posting of such information without vetting for accuracy. As you know, the City of RPV has no jurisdiction over the Rancho facility. Furthermore, Rancho's "worst case" scenario vetted by the EPA using proprietary EPA software clearly shows it does not impact any residents of RPV, including Eastview, the closet community to the Facility. It is important to note, Ms. Gunter is making this claim knowing that it is in fact false! Also, attached are the "search results" downloaded from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) website which shows six different FOIA requests made by Janet Gunter to the EPA indicating the dates submitted, tracking number, and phase (closed/open). I would like to draw your attention to Tracking Number EPA -R9-2014-002842. The web page shows that 73 records (documents) were released to Ms. Gunter by the EPA under this request. The actual list of the 73 documents is not printable, however, the entire list can be viewed on the FOIA webpage. At the conclusion of this attachment is a letter from Enrique Manzanilla of the EPA informing Ms. Gunter of the documents released to her under EPA -R9-2014-002842. The final attachment is an e-mail correspondence from EPA Region 9 Attorney Andrew Helmlinger and Plains third party legal counsel Cliff Mc Farland dated December 10, 2013 and is part of the 73 documents released to Ms. Gunter. This legal to legal correspondence is in response to an e-mail from me to Mary Wesling of EPA Region 9 concerning prior bulleted e-mails by Janet Gunter where she states Rancho's "worst case" is 3+ miles using EPA 3 C-39 calculations. As a result, I requested the EPA review and calculate the accuracy of Rancho's "worst case" as submitted in our RMP. EPA Attorney Helmlinger clearly states the EPA has in fact calculated Rancho's RMP to be 0.5 miles based upon the EPA regulatory formula. Helmlinger further states that it is "not 3.0 miles as Ms. Gunter asserts". It should be noted this is legal to legal validation of Rancho's "worst case" scenario. Therefore, any claim that Rancho's "worst case" is greater than 0.5 miles is erroneous and to state Rancho has used the "toxics" formula is false and not in accordance with EPA regulation 40CFR68. Using EPA parameters and methodologies within the regulation, site specific information is entered into EPA proprietary software RMP* Comp which automatically calculates the results. Additionally, butane is listed in RMP* Comp drop down selection category box as a flammable and not a toxic. RMP* Comp does not allow the user to enter the wrong product classification information and continue with the offsite calculation. It is certainly within any citizens right to exercise the FOIA process to acquire information from federal agencies. However, it is shameful to have requested and acquired the information via FOIA and to disregard the facts. Moreover, it is disingenuous for anyone to continue disseminating false information in order to generate fear -mongering within the local community with the sole purpose of giving relevance to their own "cause celeb". Per law, Rancho's RMP as vetted by the EPA as being accurate is on file for public review at the LAFD/CUPA office in downtown Los Angeles. Please advise should CD15 require additional information on this subject matter or anything related to the Rancho LPG Holdings Gaffey Street facility. Regards, Ron Conrow Western District Manager Plains LPG Services, LP 19430 Beech Avenue Shafter, CA 93263 Office: 661-368-7917 Cell: 661-319-9978 ronald.conrow@plainsmidstream.com This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. 4 C-40 The formula is from The EPA "RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance" Dated May, 1996. The formula for LPG is from the first page of Appendix C, from the April 15, 1999 version of the Guidance. Dmi = 0.0081 x (0.1 x Wlb x HCf/HCTN7)A"' This is known as TNT equivalency. Dmi is the distance in miles to the overpressure point of 1 psi Wlb is the weight in pounds of 12.5 million gallons of butane or 12.5 Mgal x 4.85 lb/gal or 60.7 million lbs. HCf is the heat of combustion of butane or 45719 kjoules/Kg HCTNT is the heat of combustion of TNT or 4680 kjoules/Kg 1/3 means to take the cube root of the number in the equation Substituting in the formula gives Dmi = 0.0081 x (0.1 x 60,700,000 lb x 45719/4680)A1/3 Dmi = 0.0081 x (6070000 x 9.77)A1/3 Dmi = 0.0081 x 59300000A1/3 Dmi = 0.0081 x 390A1/3 Dmi = 3.15 miles C-41 ICLUB S I E RR.A ....._FOUNDED 1892 Palos Verdes - South Bay Group I Angeles Chapter October 29, 2014 Environmental Protection Agency Docket ID: EPA -HQ -OEM -2014-0328 Department of Homeland Security Docket No: DHS -2013-0075 eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov Re: Executive Order 13650 Ladies and Gentlemen: We are the Palos Verdes -South Bay Regional Group of the Sierra Club. We attended a September 10, 2014 meeting hosted by Congressman Waxman's office at which Department of Homeland Security and EPA staff fielded the public's questions and concerns about the Rancho LPG tanks at 2110 North Gaffey St. in San Pedro. For some 40 years, residents have expressed concern regarding the propane and butane tanks situated within 1,000 feet of residences and schools. As Professor Bob Bea, a risk policy expert at UC Berkeley, has said of this Gaffey St. location, multiple factors pile on to increase the risks of a catastrophic event. Concerns have been elevated by the fact that the tanks are aging, the area is "due" for a serious earthquake, and, as Department of Homeland Security's David Wulf confirmed at the September 10 meeting, the Rancho LPG site is designated as a high risk target of terrorism. EPA enforcement staff indicated that they are limited in what they can do by the regulations that exist today, acknowledging that their regulations may not be adequate to address concerns the public raised regarding the propane and butane stored at the site. We are making a number of recommendations to the Working Group charged with implementing Executive Order 13650 with the Rancho LPG facility in mind: LPG storage tanks are located in a concentrated area of highly flammable liquids and gases, including butane tanks, propane tanks, refinery tanks, and marine oil terminals, within close proximity (1,000 feet or less) to residences, schools, businesses and parks, on a serious earthquake fault. There also are numerous potential ignition sources nearby, including internal combustion engines and flares. Recommendation 1: Identify existing high risk facilities at which the optimal means of preventing a large scale catastrophe in the event of a system failure would be to convert the site to a less risky operation and move the high risk operations to a location more remote from homes and schools. Factors that should be considered in addition to proximity to densely populated urban areas are special circumstances such as proximity to earthquake faults and proximity to other flammables, explosives, and ignition sources. Recommendation 2: Adopt regulations to ensure that hazardous chemical facilities are not built or allowed to remain in close proximity to homes and schools. The May 2014 Report for the President on Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security --A Shared Commitment states, "There was agreement among facility owners and operators, plant workers, community members, environmental and union organizations of the importance of prevention of risks including the benefits of implementing safer alternatives where possible." The single step that is guaranteed to minimize the risk to human life from a system failure, be it accidental, act of terrorism, or natural event would be to move existing hazardous chemical facilities and site new facilities far from neighborhoods and schools. Yet, nowhere on the lists of priorities in the Report for the President is it recommended that high risk facilities storing or processing volatile chemicals be required to be sited, relocated if inappropriately placed currently, in locations remote from residences, schools, and other receptors. P.O Box 2464 • Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274 (@ Printed on Recycled Paper C-42 Recommendation 3: Adopt regulations that require a single Federal agency to take ultimate responsibility to implement regulations and policies that bring us into the modern era of densely populated cities and increased threats of terrorism --a single Federal agency that will exert oversight to ensure that hazardous chemical facilities are not built or allowed to remain situated in close proximity to homes and schools. In the case of Rancho LPG, local land use planning and oversight failed the community and there is no one stepping up to take responsibility. Local leaders, community members, and environmental organizations all seem to acknowledge that the solution to the risks attendant to Rancho LPG's operations is to move the operations to a remote location. Yet we need a higher authority committed to actually getting it done. Recommendation 4: Mandate insurance coverage that truly reflects costs associated with a worst case scenario. In reading a CA State Lands Commission staff report generated recently in connection with a matter involving Rancho LPG, it appears that the insurance policies in place total $500 million. That is apparently the entire coverage for the parent company and all of its subsidiaries including Rancho LPG. The blast radius for an event at Rancho LPG has been estimated between 0.5 and 3 miles. The Port of LA is within 0.5 miles of Rancho LPG and its newest terminal build out has cost in excess of $500 million. Add the costs of loss of life, residences, schools, businesses all within the blast radius and, clearly, $500 million of insurance is not adequate. Recommendation 5: Adopt regulations to better address environmental hazards of LPG. In particular, amend Table 3 to Section 68.130 to reduce the reportable quantity for flammable substances. Currently, the list of regulated flammable substances and threshold quantities for accidental release prevention presumes that all flammables are comparable, notwithstanding that some petroleum products, such as LPG, are more volatile, have lower flash points, and will vaporize, then ignite without dissipating because of the vapor cloud's density relative to air. Even small leaks can result in severe injuries, yet operators who have had small, accidental releases are not required to report them. Thus, the public and enforcement agencies will not learn of the history of accidents until an accident is so large as to be catastrophic. Recommendation 6: Amend 40 CFR Part 68 to eliminate the mitigation fallacy which allows an impound basin that would contain the spill of liquid contents of an LPG tank to serve as passive mitigation in a worst case analysis. LPG is maintained as a liquid in its pressurized or chilled tank conditions. When exposed to ambient air temperatures, it vaporizes and expands in volume. At Rancho LPG, an impound basin equivalent in size to the volume of one liquid butane storage tank at that site --12.5 million gallons -- enabled Rancho to use a calculation for its worst case which decreased the predicted area to be affected to 1/36th of the result of the formula previously required by EPA in its Guidance document. The impound basin would be wholly inadequate to contain a release of the butane tank's contents, as the butane would expand in volume 200 fold when exposed to ambient air temperature. An explosion resulting from the overflowing gas vapor finding an ignition source has the potential to have devastating consequences not only to nearby residents and schools but to the Port of LA because existing regulations fail to account for the chemical's properties. Recommendation 7: Overhaul regulations 1) to ensure that volatile, flammable materials such as LPG, while differing from extremely hazardous carcinogens, are nonetheless identified for their extremely hazardous properties and the risks they pose to human life and the environment, 2) to establish a level of exposure for such materials at which any additional release triggers facility shut down, and 3) to ensure that even releases during transport are required to be reported in writing and become part of the public record. Sincerely, /s Eva Cicoria Chair, Conservation Committee Sierra Club Palos Verdes -South Bay Group /s Al Sattler Chair, Executive Committee Sierra Club Palos Verdes -South Bay Group P.O Box 2464 • Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274 G) Printed on Recycled Paper C-43 ICE ALASKA CALIFORNIA FLORIDA MIO-PACIFIC NORTHEAST NORTHERN ROCKIES M NORTHWEST ROCKY MOUNTAIN WASHINGTON, DC INTERNATIONAL EARTHJUST September 8, 2014 Jared Blumenfeld Regional Administrator USEPA, Region 9 75 Hawthorne St. San Francisco, CA 94105 RE: RANCHO LPG/PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, SAN PEDRO, CA Dear Mr. Blumenfeld: I am writing regarding the Risk Management Plan ("RMP") for the Rancho Liquefied Petroleum Gas ("LPG")/Plains All American Pipeline ("Rancho Facility") in San Pedro, California. As the EPA is well aware, facilities that handle LPG can pose serious threats to neighboring communities. Given the dense community adjacent to the Rancho Facility, it is vital that the RMP provide a sufficient approach to protect the community from what could be great harm given the amount of flammable fossil fuels that are stored at this facility. In particular, I am seeking justification for the inclusion of a V2 mile worst case scenario blast radius in the RMP. It appears that the blast radius calculation for this facility is not based on storing flammable materials, but rather based on the formula for toxics. This substitution of liquefied toxics allows for a much smaller blast radius. It appears EPA has allowed this reduced blast radius because of passive mitigation in the form of an impound basin. It does not appear that this reduced blast radius is justified because of this passive mitigation. Based on my understanding of the physical properties of LPG, the product is only liquefied under pressure and low temperatures. If this product is released into the ambient air, it would rapidly turn into a vapor and dramatically expand in volume. It appears that the impound basin would be wholly ineffective to catch the entire contents of the facility's two 12.5 million gallon tanks if there is a rupture. In the event of release of LPG, the product would likely flow into the community in its vaporized form. Any spark could result in ignition, which could lead to great harm to the surrounding community and the port. This lenience in protection of public safety is further exacerbated because the Rancho Facility does not have to directly notify the neighborhood in the event of an emergency because there are "no toxics" stored at the facility. It only needs to notify the police and fire department. The Rancho Facility tries to have it both ways. On one hand it seeks lenience because it claims it is more like a facility storing liquefied toxics, and on the other hand it says it does not need to 50 CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 T: 415.217.2000 F: 415.217.2040 E: caoffice@earthjustice.org W: www.earthjustice.org C-44 Jared Blumenfeld September 8, 2014 Page 2 of 2 notify the public because there are "no toxics" on site. This problematic inconsistency needs to be better justified. Overall, Earthjustice would like to understand more fully the basis for discounting the blast radius due to the passive mitigation measures. It does not appear to be an effective mitigation measure to protect the community if an accident happens. In my discussions with community members, they are deeply concerned about this facility. Residents should not be afraid to live in their communities, and it is incumbent upon our public agencies to make sure residents feel secure in their neighborhoods. Given the serious nature of the concerns about this facility, I would appreciate a prompt response about whether the RMP is adequate to protect public and safety. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions about my request. Sincerely, Adriano L. Martinez Staff Attorney Earthjustice C-45 The California State Lands Commission 100 Howe Avenue, Ste 100 South Sacramento, CA 95825 RE: SLC Meeting October 14, 2014 Agenda Item: 109 Rancho LPG LLC/ Plains All American Pipeline Rail access on Public Trust Property/ Port of Los Angeles Dear Members of the State Lands Commission: ForestEthics is an organization that is dedicated to the preservation of our planet and our people. Part of our recent advocacy includes research and efforts to protect human health and the environment from hazardous cargo rail movement, with a national focus on concerns around the shipping of volatile crude oils from both US and Canadian sources. But it's not just crude that matters --in addition to crude oil, petroleum products such as liquefied propane and butane (LPG) threaten communities around America, both in transport and storage. Our recent mapping of key petroleum product rail routes in the US and Canada didn't turn up details regarding this LPG transport on your public trust land, but after notification from community members, we will now add the Rancho LPG track running parallel to North Gaffey St. in San Pedro, CA to our "blast zone" map, viewable at www.blast-zone.org. The blast zone map is intended as a public education tool to alert community members to the presence of petroleum transport by rail in and around their neighborhoods. Transport of LPG to the Rancho LPG facility raises serious safety concerns with respect to the neighborhoods and roadways proximate to rail lines and storage tanks utilized by Rancho. It is unclear if decisions about siting Rancho LPG incorporated essential public processes that would more than likely have disqualified its current location. With high population density nearby, it is imperative that your agency take a closer look at the potential for grave harm that exists from the transport of this highly volatile and explosive gas. Worst case scenario modeling should be used by the SLC in any further decisions on permit renewals and land leases, decisions that should include a hard look at whether or not to revoke Rancho LPG's lease for transport of LPG over public lands. C-46 The grandfathering in of hazardous facilities and rail lines has been a chemical safety issue now for years. In this instance, as it relates to SLC jurisdiction over use of public property, it appears that there are controls that can and should be exercised. Clearly, your agency has every right to know the degree of risk exposure present and necessary insurance coverage for protection of assets. SLC's intervention in this matter, and consideration of potential for lease revocation, is critical to protection of public safety. Sincerely, Matt Krogh **',00000 Matt Krogh Tar Sands Free West Coast Campaign Director ForestEthies -- +1.360.820.2938 cell +1.360.734.2951 x203 office skype: mattkrogh www.forestethics.org C-47 Kit Fox From: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 11:19 AM To: det310@juno.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33 @gmail.com>; jduhovic@hotmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; darzavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; Iljonesin33@yahoo.com; Kit Fox; chateau4us@att.net; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; hvybags@cox.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; burlingl02@aol.com; geichfamily@yahoo.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net; ksmith@klct.com; mr.rpulido@gmail.com; jnm4ej@yahoo.com;johngoya@westoceanmd.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; bonbon90731@gmail.com; tonna@cope-preparedness.org; lonnacalhoun@me.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com Cc: rgb251@berkeley.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; amartinez@earthjustice.org; gkracov@yahoo.com Subject: Fwd: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG This is the less than stellar and evasive answer provided by Mayor Garcetti to the question posed about the Rancho LPG tanks on yesterday's ABC News program. Needless to say, the question should have also included a reference to the facility's great potential for the mounting concern of terrorism. A single rocket launched grenade or high power rifle could easily penetrate a tank ensuring a massive explosion. In rebuttal to the Mayor's weak and whinny answer: A) There is "plenty" that the City of LA can do in resolving this extremely hazardous situation. B) His assertion that it would take hundreds of millions of dollars to relocate Rancho is unbelievably inflated. The company is currently "insolvent"... owing the parent company, Plains All America Pipeline, in excess of $50 million. The price for the property and business paid in 2008 is approximately $40 million. A small drop in the bucket compared to the potential for extraordinary damages and decimation of the ports in the event of a catastrophic event. Besides, there are many other available avenues in which the City has to take some much needed control outside of purchase. C) the Mayor confirms the extreme danger.... states that the assistance of the State and Feds is needed .... yet, has not put any energy in soliciting that assistance? Where is his plan of action? What has he done or is he doing? Is the recognition of this high danger accompanied by lack of action not considered a "dereliction of duty"? This situation must be handled immediately. The Palos Verdes fault has been identified by the latest USGS report as being a fault probable for greater seismic activity. Terrorism is increasing daily... and the Ports of LA and Long Beach rank high on the list of terrorism targets. Must we really wait for the devastating earthquake or horrific act of terrorism to prove our point? Why??? OK. Here's 1: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k6b8qpqf9qOpblv/Garcettil.MOV?dl=O And here's two: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ow48xtqbpq9mc8l/Garcetti2.MOV?dl=O • Janet Gunter C-49 Kit Fox From: Ronald Conrow <Ronald.Conrow@plainsmidstream.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 1:45 PM To: rreg55@hotmail.com Cc: Kit Fox; jacob haik Qacob.haik@lacity.org); samuel.Liu@sen.ca.gov; ryan.ferguson@lacity.org; rkim@lacbos.org; Doane Liu; octaviano.rios@lacity.org; renee@svorinich.com; William Zankich Subject: Flaring Event - Monday 01/14/2015 Attachments: IMG 3858.JPG Mr. Regalado, On 01/14/2015, 1 was in Maui on vacation and unable to attend the scheduled NWSPNC meeting. However, I received this Daily Breeze article along with the attached photo of the event. As a "public safety" concern I would like to state for the record this event did not emanate from the Rancho Facility nor was Rancho in any way culpable. Please feel free to contact me should you require any information concerning the Rancho Facility. Regards, R" &WtQo Western District Manager Plains LPG Services, LP 19430 Beech Avenue Shafter, CA 93263 Office: 661-368-7917 Cell: 661-319-9978 ronald.conrow@plainsmidstream.com This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Daily Breeze - 1/14/15 Wilmington oil refinery flare described as safe POSTED: 01/13/15, 5:14 PM PST C-50 0 COMMENTS A large flare at Phillips 66's Wilmington petroleum refinery burned for hours but caused no discernible health concerns for the community, refinery officials said Tuesday. The incident Monday evening was the result of an equipment failure on Jan. 1 that caused a temporary shutdown of some oil refining operations, said Phillips 66 spokeswoman Janet Grothe. She would not elaborate on exactly what operations were stopped as a result of the failure because of proprietary concerns. The flares, which burn combustible gases during a refinery disruption, were deployed at 5 p.m. Monday as the repaired equipment was turned back on, Grothe said. "Flares are an integral part of the refining process," she said. "Our flare system worked as designed. When the flaring occurred, we notified the proper regulatory agencies. Throughout the event we monitored inside and outside the fence line perimeter of the refinery. Results indicated there were no off-site consequences associated with the flaring." The event lasted several hours, ending before io p.m. Monday, Grothe said. — Sandy Mazza C-51 . .• r • is • r • w 0 Kit Fox From: Ricardo Pulido <mr.rpulido@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 10:26 PM To: Janet Gunter Cc: chuck hart; AGPatchett; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>; jduhovic@hotmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcgloba1.net; DarleneZavalney; rreg55@hotmail.com; Iljonesin33@yahoo.com; Kit Fox; chateau4us@att.net; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; hvybags@cox.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; cjjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; June Smith; geichfamily@yahoo.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net; ksmith@klct.com; Jesse Marquez; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; bonbon90731@gmail.com; tonna@cope- preparedness.org; lonnacalhoun@me.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; rgb251@berkeley.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; amartinez@earthjustice.org; gkracov@yahoo.com Subject: Re: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG Hey Janet....... Well said, I think its time to March from San Pedro community to L.A. City Hall steps and demonstrate! I believe the Mayor isn't seeing the "Big Picture" a natural disaster or man-made explosion of this magnitude would ripple effect all of the Southbay region economically, socially, and hurt our working families for generation to come, we must protect our children future now! A community outreach meeting would be a good start, down the street on Gaffey?? Peace! Ricardo/CFASE Environmental Coalitions United need to be in the fore front......... On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Janet Gunter <arriane5&aol.com> wrote: This is the less than stellar and evasive answer provided by Mayor Garcetti to the question posed about the Rancho LPG tanks on yesterday's ABC News program. Needless to say, the question should have also included a reference to the facility's great potential for the mounting concern of terrorism. A single rocket launched grenade or high power rifle could easily penetrate a tank ensuring a massive explosion. In rebuttal to the Mayor's weak and whinny answer: A) There is "plenty" that the City of LA can do in resolving this extremely hazardous situation. B) His assertion that it would take hundreds of millions of dollars to relocate Rancho is unbelievably inflated. The company is currently "insolvent"...owing the parent company, Plains All America Pipeline, in excess of $50 million. The price for the property and business paid in 2008 is approximately $40 million. A small drop in the bucket compared to the potential for extraordinary damages and decimation of the ports in the event of a catastrophic event. Besides, there are many other available avenues in which the City has to take some much needed control outside of purchase. C) the Mayor confirms the extreme danger.... states that the assistance of the State and Feds is needed .... yet, has not put any energy in soliciting that assistance? Where is his plan of action? What has he done or is he doing? Is the recognition of this high danger accompanied by lack of action not considered a "dereliction of duty"? This situation must be handled immediately. The Palos Verdes fault has been identified by the latest USGS report as being a fault probable for greater seismic activity. Terrorism is increasing daily... and the Ports of LA and Long Beach rank high on the list of terrorism targets. Must we really wait for the devastating earthquake or horrific act of terrorism to prove our point? Why??? C-53 OK. Here's 1: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k6b8qpqf9qOpblv/Garcettil.MOV?dl=O And here's two: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ow48xtqbpq9mc8l/Garcetti2.MOV?dl=O Janet Gunter C-54 Kit Fox From: Connie <connie@rutter.us> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 6:11 AM To: Ricardo Pulido; Janet Gunter Cc: chuck hart; AGPatchett; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; igornia@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>; jduhovic@hotmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; DarleneZavalney; rreg55 @hotmail.com; Iljonesin33@yahoo.com; Kit Fox; chateau4us@att.net; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; hvybags@cox.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; cjjkondon@earthiink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; June Smith; geichfamily@yahoo.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net; ksmith@klct.com; Jesse Marquez; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; bonbon90731@gmail.com; tonna@cope-preparedness.org; lonnacalhoun@me.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; rgb251@berkeley.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; amartinez@earthjustice.org; gkracov@yahoo.com Subject: Re: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG Sounds good to me. ----- Original Message ----- From: Ricardo Pulido To: Janet Gunter Cc: chuck hart; AGPatchett ; noelweiss(d_)ca.rr.com ; marciesmiller(@_sbcglobal.net ; connie(@_rutter.us ; igornlaRcox.net ; dwgkaw(o)_hotmail.com ; b.campC@).cox.net ; knightjim33 gmail.com ; jduhovic(Q-hotmail.com ; dlrivera prodigy.net ; mandm8602(o)-att.net ; peter. burmeister(o-)_sbcglobal.net; DarleneZavalney ; rreg55 hotmail.com ; I16onesin33(a)-yahoo.com ; kitf _rpv.com ; chateau4us(a)-att.net ; claudia.r.mcculloch(@)_gmail.com ; hvybags(a�,cox.net ; Ihermanpg(a cox.net ; pjwromea-yahoo.com ; katywapacbell.net ; ]webba-usc.edu ; c."kondon(aDearthlink.net ; rcraemer(D,aol.com ; goarlene(a),cox.net; fbmieta_aol.com ; pmwarren(a)-cox.net; June Smith ; geichfamilyayahoo.com ; sarahnvaldez a[)gmail.com ; diananavea_gmail.com ; overbid2002(@-yahoo.com ; freddibernardo(a�sbcglobal.net; ksmith(o)klct.com ; Jesse Marquez ; johngoyap_westoceanmd.com ; irenea-miraclegirl productions. org ; bon bon90731a-gmail. com ; tonna@cope-pre pared ness.org ; lonnacalhouna_me.com ; carriescovilleCa)_yahoo.com ; owsqueena-yahoo.com ; rqb251C@berkeIey.edu ; carl.southwellC,gmail. com ; Ipryor@_usc.edu ; lisa.pinto(@�mail.house.gov ; lara.larramendiCcDmail.house. gov ; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov ; amartinezC,earthjustice.org ; gkracov(@Dyahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 10:25 PM Subject: Re: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG Hey Janet....... Well said, I think its time to March from San Pedro community to L.A. City Hall steps and demonstrate! I believe the Mayor isn't seeing the "Big Picture" a natural disaster or man-made explosion of this magnitude would ripple effect all of the Southbay region economically, socially, and hurt our working families for generation to come, we must protect our children future now! A community outreach meeting would be a good start, down the street on Gaffey?? Peace! Ricardo/CFASE Environmental Coalitions United need to be in the fore front......... On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Janet Gunter <arriane5 kaol. com> wrote: This is the less than stellar and evasive answer provided by Mayor Garcetti to the question posed about the Rancho LPG tanks on yesterday's ABC News program. Needless to say, the question should have also included a reference to C-55 the facility's great potential for the mounting concern of terrorism. A single rocket launched grenade or high power rifle could easily penetrate a tank ensuring a massive explosion. In rebuttal to the Mayor's weak and whinny answer: A) There is "plenty" that the City of LA can do in resolving this extremely hazardous situation. B) His assertion that it would take hundreds of millions of dollars to relocate Rancho is unbelievably inflated. The company is currently "insolvent"...owing the parent company, Plains All America Pipeline, in excess of $50 million. The price for the property and business paid in 2008 is approximately $40 million. A small drop in the bucket compared to the potential for extraordinary damages and decimation of the ports in the event of a catastrophic event. Besides, there are many other available avenues in which the City has to take some much needed control outside of purchase. C) the Mayor confirms the extreme danger.... states that the assistance of the State and Feds is needed.... yet, has not put any energy in soliciting that assistance? Where is his plan of action? What has he done or is he doing? Is the recognition of this high danger accompanied by lack of action not considered a "dereliction of duty"? This situation must be handled immediately. The Palos Verdes fault has been identified by the latest USGS report as being a fault probable for greater seismic activity. Terrorism is increasing daily... and the Ports of LA and Long Beach rank high on the list of terrorism targets. Must we really wait for the devastating earthquake or horrific act of terrorism to prove our point? Why??? OK. Here's 1: httos://www.droDbox.com/s/k6b8aDaf9aODblv/Garcettil.MOV?dl=O And here's two: httiDs://www.droiDbox.com/s/ow48xtabr)a9me8l/Garcetti2.MOV?dI=0 Janet Gunter C-56 Kit Fox From: Lonna Calhoun <lonnacalhoun@me.com> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 6:18 PM To: 'Ricardo Pulido'; 'Janet Gunter' Cc: 'chuck hart'; 'AGPatchett'; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>; jduhovic@hotmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; 'DarleneZavalney'; rreg55@hotmail.com; lljonesin33@yahoo.com; Kit Fox; chateau4us@att.net; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; hvybags@cox.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net;jwebb@usc.edu; cjjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; 'June Smith'; geichfamily@yahoo.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net; ksmith@klct.com; 'Jesse Marquez'; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; bonbon90731@gmail.com; tonna@cope- preparedness.org; carriescoville@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; rgb251 @berkeley.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; amartinez@earthjustice.org; gkracov@yahoo.com Subject: RE: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG I need a good walk — I'm IN Lonna From: Ricardo Pulido [mailto:mr.rpulido@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 10:26 PM To: Janet Gunter Cc: chuck hart; AGPatchett; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; b.camp@cox.net; knightjim33@gmail.com; jduhovic@hotmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; DarleneZavalney; rreg55@hotmail.com; lljonesin33@yahoo.com; kitf@rpv.com; chateau4us@att.net; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; hvybags@cox.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; June Smith; geichfamily@yahoo.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net; ksmith@klct.com; Jesse Marquez; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; bonbon90731@gmail.com; lonna@cope-preparedness.org; lonnacalhoun@me.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; rgb251@berkeley.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; amartinez@earthjustice.org; gkracov@yahoo.com Subject: Re: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG Hey Janet....... Well said, I think its time to March from San Pedro community to L.A. City Hall steps and demonstrate! I believe the Mayor isn't seeing the "Big Picture" a natural disaster or man-made explosion of this magnitude would ripple effect all of the Southbay region economically, socially, and hurt our working families for generation to come, we must protect our children future now! A community outreach meeting would be a good start, down the street on Gaffey?? Peace! Ricardo/CFASE Environmental Coalitions United need to be in the fore front......... On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Janet Gunter <arriane5gaol. com> wrote: C-57 This is the less than stellar and evasive answer provided by Mayor Garcetti to the question posed about the Rancho LPG tanks on yesterday's ABC News program. Needless to say, the question should have also included a reference to the facility's great potential for the mounting concern of terrorism. A single rocket launched grenade or high power rifle could easily penetrate a tank ensuring a massive explosion. In rebuttal to the Mayor's weak and whinny answer: A) There is "plenty" that the City of LA can do in resolving this extremely hazardous situation. B) His assertion that it would take hundreds of millions of dollars to relocate Rancho is unbelievably inflated. The company is currently "insolvent"...owing the parent company, Plains All America Pipeline, in excess of $50 million. The price for the property and business paid in 2008 is approximately $40 million. A small drop in the bucket compared to the potential for extraordinary damages and decimation of the ports in the event of a catastrophic event. Besides, there are many other available avenues in which the City has to take some much needed control outside of purchase. C) the Mayor confirms the extreme danger.... states that the assistance of the State and Feds is needed.... yet, has not put any energy in soliciting that assistance? Where is his plan of action? What has he done or is he doing? Is the recognition of this high danger accompanied by lack of action not considered a "dereliction of duty"? This situation must be handled immediately. The Palos Verdes fault has been identified by the latest USGS report as being a fault probable for greater seismic activity. Terrorism is increasing daily... and the Ports of LA and Long Beach rank high on the list of terrorism targets. Must we really wait for the devastating earthquake or horrific act of terrorism to prove our point? Why??? OK. Here's 1: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k6b8qpqf9qOpblv/Garcettil.MOV?d]=O And here's two: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ow48xtqbpq9mc8l/Garcetti2.MOV?dl=O Janet Gunter C-58 Kit Fox From: Noel Weiss <noelweiss@ca.rr.com> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 8:30 PM To: Lonna Calhoun; 'Ricardo Pulido'; 'Janet Gunter' Cc: 'chuck hart'; 'AGPatchett'; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight<knightjim33@gmail.com>;jduhovic@hotmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; 'DarleneZavalney'; rreg55 @hotmail.com; Iljonesin33@yahoo.com; Kit Fox; chateau4us@att.net; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; hvybags@cox.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; 'June Smith'; geichfamily@yahoo.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net; ksmith@klct.com; 'Jesse Marquez'; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; bonbon90731@gmail.com; tonna@cope-preparedness.org; carriescoville@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; rgb251@berkeley.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; amartinez@earthjustice.org; gkracov@yahoo.com; info@tedlieu.com; Laurie Saroff Subject: Re: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG Who organizes the March? It would be beyond terrific if our able citizenry felt it was really worth their time, energy, resources, and time to put a focused effort together.... . Putting together a march takes money, time, and organization...... and a plan.... . A meaningful stage has been set.... The question was asked.... The answer was political rhetorical mush... . unbecoming of any "Rhodes Scholar" whose focus should be on excellence over indifference or diffidence.... Using his considerable brainpower to deflect, defer, patronize, and pander to inaction is a waste of that brain -power. Neale Walsch said that the opposite of courage is not cowardice. ..it is conformity.... . Conformity to the Rancho status quo is reckless and irresponsible.... One would think that at a minimum, Garcetti would or could call for a study of the issue..... use his power as Mayor to subpoena Rancho's insurance policy and operational documentation..... appoint a Mayoral task force armed with instructions to provide answers to several important questions... . like: 1. Is there any reason why, in the face of the lack of any Federal or State regulations for the Rancho (above -ground) butane tank facility, the City cannot regulate the operation via the LA Fire Department? 2. Is there any reason why, for example, a massage parlor must obtain a permit to operate... but something as dangerous as the Rancho facility does not? 3. Is there any reason why the Port cannot be made to enforce the terms of its operating agreement with PHL (the short - line railroad which operates on the Port's rail infrastructure (infrastructure which constitutes tidelands trust assets) which precludes the use of the rail line running through the Port from transporting the butane and propane over the Port's facilities in rail cars which could explode? That operating agreement precludes such conduct, and closely controls where and under what circumstances hazardous materials (like butane and propane) can be transported over the Port's (tidelands trust) property? C-59 4. Is there any reason why the City of Los Angeles cannot empower (through law) the Fire Marshall to inspect Rancho's facility once per month, every month... and if a violation is found, to shut Rancho down? 5. Is there any reason why the Port cannot pay the LAFD an extra $500,000 as part of the Port's overall (service) contract with LAFD to supply fire services to the Port to employ fire inspectors not just for Rancho, but for Phillips and other oil producing entities in LA where an explosion could seriously cripple the Port's operation (please, let's not tell ISIS what a ridiculous sitting terrorist target the Rancho facility is); 6. Is there any reason Garcetti's task force cannot ask the City Attorney for an opinion on whether Rancho is in violation of the Operating Permit which precludes the transport of hazardous substances without the City's consent (and if the City has consented, then the City would be liable for damages in the event of an explosion.... an absolutely horrendous circumstance because it would adversely impact the City's bond rating (which would be undermined if the Port's operations went down)... and that is just on the financial end ... how much infrastructure would be damaged? What about the loss of life and property? All completely avoidable..... . 7. Is there any reason the City has not approved or seriously considered the Port's Risk Management Plan (which failed to discuss Rancho or the Port's management of this very risky Operating Permit? 8. Is there any reason why the City has not approved the Port's Master Plan? Both the Master Plan and Port's Risk Management Plan were passed in August, 2013... (Caveat.. I have not checked recently whether the City Council has, in fact, approved these documents... As of last fall, it had not.... But the matter needs to be clarified and the City Council needs to act... Is Busciano and the rest of the Council so underpaid they cannot do this core part of their job?); 9. Is there any reason the City Council cannot pass a law which says that no one is to do business with the Port or with the City if they are financially insolvent as a going entity.. as is the case with Rancho ... The reason I say Rancho is financially insolvent as a going entity is because I (and others) and have made this accusation against Rancho now for the past 18 months.. before the State Lands Commission and before the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council ..... Rancho, ever egging for a fight, has taken no steps to dispute this contention... nor could Rancho do so because the contention is based on Rancho's FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) filings for the years 2012 and 2013... which clearly demonstrate that Rancho is being 100% subsidized by other Plains All American entities (primarily Plains Main -Stream Canada and Plains LPG Services, LP (another insulated 'subsidiary' of Plains All American Pipeline, LP (all part of the business model to socialize the loss while privatizing the gain..... similar to what occurred last year in West Virginia when chemicals from an above -ground storage facility owned by Freedom Industries polluted the drinking water of Charleston, West Virginia... leaving the City holding the bag while the company declared bankruptcy (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-19/freedom-industries-chapter-11-filing-reveals-owners-strategy) ... . which is what Rancho will do to relieve it of any financial responsibility occasioned by its negligence..... Further public records requests revealed that Rancho (as of July, 2013) did not even have its own bank account ... The rent for the rail spur was continually paid by another Plains All American Pipeline, LP entity (Plains Marketing, LP) out of a Wells Fargo Bank account in Van Wert, Ohio.... further attenuating any financial connection to the City of Los Angeles; 10. Is there any reason why the City Council or the Mayor cannot push for state legislation amending the Tidelands Trust law with two or three simple sentences where the state legislature tells the Port that it may not do business with a financially insolvent entity like Rancho, absent insurance, or a financial guarantee (approved by the Fire Marshall and the LA City Council) by Plains All American Pipeline, LP (something which is problematic for Plains because it is extremely overleveraged.... and if the price of oil continues to stay down, its need for further cost cutting will be enhanced. . .thereby increasing the danger of an accident occasioned by 'cost-cutting' efforts by Plains (which has further ramifications because the safety of the Port and the efficacy of Plains ability to stand behind Rancho is dependent on nothing seriously happening elsewhere in Plains' other operations).... 10. Is there any reason why the City of Los Angeles cannot undertake a more aggressive management of above -ground storage tanks (storing butane and propane as well as oil... there is state regulation of oil tanks... but butane and propane are exempted... ) or pushing for state legislation to remove the exemption for LNG (liquid natural gas) above- ground storage tanks by enacting into law a competent and complete risk management law patterned on what was done in Contra Costa County?; 11. Is there any reason why the City cannot take a look at whether and to the extent its pension plans are invested in Plains All American Pipeline, LP, either directly or indirectly (through funds the City invests in)?; 12. Is there any reason why the City cannot debate and pass a `strict liability' law which imposes on Rancho liability for any and all damages flowing from its operations, regardless of fault? 13. Is there any reason why the Mayor cannot ask Kevin James and the Board of Public Works to inventory the public infrastructure assets that are at risk from Rancho's operations and then estimate the cost of repair or replacement from an C-60 accident? Isn't that just prudent public planning where an accident could have such serious and adverse and potentially horrific human and economic repercussions?; 14. Is there any reason why the Mayor cannot insist on his Commissions who sit on the Board of Harbor Commissions to undertake a thorough examination of the Rancho operation and the Port's oversight of the Rancho operation to determine whether the Port is in compliance with its own Risk Management Policy?: 15. Is there any reason why the City of Los Angeles cannot hire outside counsel to provide a formal opinion on the City's liability should the Rancho facility explode and cause damage to the City, the Port, and the public? The reason for outside counsel is because the City Attorney has a conflict of interest in representing both the Port and the City in this situation. What is wrong with having informed decision -makers (i.e.the Council and the Mayor); 16. Is there any reason why the City Controller cannot subpoena Rancho's insurance policy and documents and enter into an agreement with State Lands to conduct a joint investigation of the Port's management of the tidelands trust assets which consist of the rail spur (for which Rancho's payment of $1187 per month appears pitifully low, thus constituting an indirect subsidy of gift of public funds, particularly given the risk), and the rail line fronting the Rancho facility (for which Rancho pays $0 (as it'zero') dollars per month... a rank give-away and gift of public assets, again particularly considering that any prudent management of these assets would incorporate a cost of use component (or rent) which reflects the Port's true liability (and indirectly the City's liability (which liability could be direct if the City is knowingly allowing Rancho to violate the terms of the operating permit which preclude the transport of hazardous chemicals and materials over the rail spur); 17. Is there any reason why the Mayor and City Council are precluded from passing a Resolution calling for Congresswoman Hahn and Congressman Ted Lieu to hold a true informational hearing on Rancho's operations (as opposed to the 'dog and pony show' produced by Rancho's mouthpiece — Joe Busciano- back in June, 2013?; 18. Is there any reason why the Mayor cannot reach out and partner with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in connection with any of these efforts?' 19. Is there any reason why the Mayor cannot insist that the debate on the Keystone Pipeline, XL incorporate an 'insurance' provision? Note the absence of any discussion about insuring the public against loss from the pipeline's operations... As things stand now, there is some discussion about payment into an oil spill trust fund (which can only be used for clean-up, not prevention.. another issue).. but as things stand now, Canadian heavy oil is exempt from any responsibility for payment (by way of IRS regulation).. how ironic because heavy oil can do as much if not more damage that 'lighter' oil..... It will take an act of Congress to change this IRS exemption... Constitutionally, anything related to taxes must originate in the House of Representatives..... Do you hear anyone in the house (including any so-called 'progressive democrats... Ted Lieu... that means you... ) introducing any such legislation? The point here is that the Rancho issue has national implications.. If we started talking about it in a more vigorous fashion (including having the City of Rancho Palos Verdes pass a resolution insisting that the City of Los Angeles step-up here and undertake one or more of the preceding actions), it might very well be that the national discussion over Keystone (another classic 'privatizing of the gains and socializing of the risks issue) would be enhanced by what we did here.... That includes making provision for some type of national insurance.. funded by fees imposed on all Ports throughout the country...... I say this will full appreciation for those who wish to see Rancho gone ... But to accomplish that objective requires an army of advocates... and not all of those advocates may be for removal of the Rancho facility.... But faith has to rest in the belief that truth will win out.... and absent subsidizes from legally insulated related operational companies... or public give -a -ways, would or could Rancho survive on a strictly (pure) capitalist analysis? If Rancho is truly uneconomic, and would be forced to pay its own way without subsidizes from the public and legally insulated related entities, it would not survive economically and would have to close down.... Moreover, at a minimum, pushing for these types of common sense reforms and keeping the pressure on Plains provides a degree of further assurance that Plains (Rancho) will not decide to cut costs...... and thereby increase the odds of an accident occurring.... . 20. Is there any reason why a management audit of Rancho's operations cannot be undertaken by the Controller, using his subpoena power (ditto the Mayor) pointing to the degree of the efforts undertaken to guard against a cyber -attack on the power and utilities serving the facility ...... and whether greater protections are needed by way of administrative or legal mandate to make it less likely that a cyber attack would trigger an accident at the facility?; 21. Is there any reason why an updated earthquake analysis could not be undertaken to confirm the risk to the public from an earthquake on the nearby faults, and if and to what extent, further measures can and should be undertaken to protect the public from the effects an earthquake would have on Rancho's facility; C-61 22. Is there any reason why expert and reasoned analysis cannot be undertaken on the true rental value of the rail spur and the rail line fronting the Rancho facility?: 23. Is there any reason why the City cannot insist that the Port undertake the required insurance coverage to protect the City and its citizens from its allowing Rancho to use its property (the tidelands trust assets consisting of the rail spur and the rail line fronting the Rancho facility)?; 24. Is there any reason the Mayor and the City Council insist that the Port agree to indemnify the City from any and all damage to the City, its citizens, and its infrastructure from an accident at the Rancho facility, and in putting a dollar value, up front, on that exposure?; 25. Is there any reason why the City cannot adopt its own trust fund into which Rancho, Conoco, and other oil operators would pay (including the Port so long a the Port permits its assets to be used to facilitate Rancho's operations) to provide a degree of base insurance coverage which would not substitute, but augment any insurance coverage that would or could be created by Federal legislation (the Feds just passed a renewal of terrorism insurance... I don't know if, whether, or to what extent this legislation would impact on a terrorist attack on the Rancho facility, but the failure of any of our political leaders (including those in the House or the Senate) to question this and insist on coverage would be political malpractice... The Mayor needs to educate himself and the City Council on this issue, and then press Washington to provide a degree of protection under this act vis-a-vis the Rancho facility (see the enclosed link — the terrorism insurance bill was signed by President Obama.... http://www.natlawreview.com/article/tria-signed-law-president-obama-terrorism- risk-insurance-act)... . or https://www.ncci.com/nccimain/industryioformation/terrorismwc/pages/tria-fag.aspx.... To the extent the Rancho facility is covered, then the City of Los Angeles, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Port of Los Angeles, and the State Lands Commission must insist that Rancho obtain terrorism risk insurance and provide evidence of coverage... The law creates a marketplace for insurance by formally 'socializing' the risk of loss due to a terrorist act. . .This is an example of the kind of public debate needed in connection with the Rancho issue in general... The core issue and question being not whether Rancho is dangerous, but who, as between Rancho and the people, are to assume the risk of loss from an accident ... That is a public policy question which we pay our political leaders to debate, discuss, and decide ... not defer or deflect with 'gimmicky' political mumbo -jumbo of the type and content exhibited by the Mayor (who, as a Rhodes Scholar is capable of critical thought.... In this instance, particularly as regards Rancho, he needs to use his brain -power to meaningfully confront the issue rather than ignore it... Even, as noted above, if the Mayor practices that core political pandering principle of announcing his concern by commissioning a 'study' of the issue.... backed by his subpoena power.... But in this case, a 'study' should lead to a resolution ... particularly if the City of Rancho Palos Verdes steps up.... . No one would treat their personal assets this way ..... Asking the Mayor to demonstrate leadership and some core common sense is really not asking too much...... These questions (and the proposals implicit in them) are not radical. . ... What is radical and reckless is to continue to do nothing..... which is why a collective, focused effort and march is well-timed and well -taken.. . To the extent Brian Campbell can re-engage the effort to calendar a Resolution incorporating the foregoing requests directed to the City of Los Angeles, it would be so very much appreciated. We have a new State Controller (Betty Yee) and she needs to be engaged on this issue ... John Chaing was very helpful..... But he is now gone and is now State Treasurer.... . Pressing our state legislature is also a worthwhile undertaking because all that is needed is a two sentence bill that amends the tidelands trust delegation to the Port stating that leasing tidelands trust assets to Rancho is not acceptable in the absence of insurance or a guarantee.... backed by sufficient financial assets (and equity).... . The focus on buying out Rancho is a deflection...... First because Rancho is insolvent and has been receiving a public subsidy in the form of free rent (for the use of the rail line fronting its property) and reduced rent for the rail spur for years. ... Secondly because Rancho appears to be a sham entity.... which never had any real shareholder equity from day one (with the entire $40 Million purchase price coming from Plains LP Services, LP..... Thirdly, because there is no need to buy-out Rancho.. the property can be rezoned, Rancho's use 'grand -fathered in' for a number of years (I believe it is 10), following which the use must cease... That is already the law...... ... Fourthly, because competent and aggressive regulation might very well result in Rancho voluntarily ceasing operations because once the subsidizes stop, Rancho loses money..... and Fifth, even if that is not the case, the passage of laws mandating strict liability, a permitting procedure, vigorous inspection and oversight at least works to better protect the public in the meantime... all of which an improvement over the status quo..... and as per the old Chinese proverb... a journey of one thousand miles begins with a single step.... 4 C-62 Hopefully the will, the time, the money, and the effort exists to put together the kind of meaningful march on City Hall that would turn heads.... No one has to 'occupy' City Hall like the 'occupy Wall Streeters' did a few years ago ... But I can tell you all from personal experience, a hard-hitting direct people -based approach can work to effectuate change... We just need a catalyst.. whether it comes from Brian Campbell's efforts to get the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to pass a Resolution directed to the City of LA to take one or more of the actions described above), or from a march, or from Congressional or State Field Hearings who knows..... But there is only way to find out and that is to try.... . Noel (310) 822-0239 From: Lonna Calhoun Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 6:18 PM To: 'Ricardo Pulido' ; 'Janet Gunter' Cc: 'chuck hart' ; 'AGPatchett' ; noelweiss@ca.rr.com ; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net ; connie@rutter.us ; igornla@cox.net ; dwgkaw@hotmail.com ; b.camp@cox.net ; kniq_htjim33@gmail.com ; jduhovic@hotmail.com ; dlrivera@prodigy. net ; mandm8602@att.net ; peter. burmeister@sbcglobal.net ; 'DarleneZavalnev' ; rreg55@hotmail.com ; Iljonesin33Cawahoo.com ; kitf@rpv.com ; chateau4us0)att.net ; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmaii.com ; hvybags@cox.net ; Ihermanpg@cox.net ; pjwrome yahoo.com ; katyw@pacbell.net ; jwebb@usc.edu ; c.jj_kondon@earthlink.net ; rcraemer@aol.com ; goarlene@cox.net ; fbmjet@aol.com ; pmwarren0cox.net ; 'June Smith' ; geichfamily@yahoo.com ; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com ; diananave0cimail.com ; overbid2002@yahoo.com ; freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net ; ksmith@klct.com ; 'Jesse Marquez' ; johngoya(ftestoceanmd.com ; irene0miraclegiriproductions.org ; bonbon90731(a)gmail.com ; tonna@cope-preparedness.org ; carriescoville(@yahoo.com ; owsqueen@yahoo.com ; rgb2510berkeley.edu ; carl.southwell@gmail.com ; Ip�r ror@usc.edu ; lisa.pinto@mail.housexi ; iara.larramendi@mail.house.gov ; david.wulf@hq.dhs:gov ; amartinezCa@earthiustice.org ; gkracov@yahoo.com Subject: RE: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG I need a good walk — I'm IN Lonna From: Ricardo Pulido [mailto:mr.rpulido@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 10:26 PM To: Janet Gunter Cc: chuck hart; AGPatchett; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; b.camp@cox.net; knightjim33@gmail.com; jduhovic@hotmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; DarleneZavalney; rreg55@1hotmail.com; Iljonesin33@yahoo.com; kitf@rpv.com; chateau4us@att.net; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; hvybags@cox.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; June Smith; geichfamily@yahoo.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net; ksmith@klct.com; Jesse Marquez; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; bonbon90731@gmail.com; tonna@cope-preparedness.org; lonnacalhoun@me.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; rgb251@berkeley.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; amartinez@earthjustice.org; gkracov@yahoo.com Subject: Re: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG Hey Janet....... Well said, I think its time to March from San Pedro community to L.A. City Hall steps and demonstrate! I believe the Mayor isn't seeing the "Big Picture" a natural disaster or man-made explosion of this magnitude would ripple effect all of the Southbay region economically, socially, and hurt our working families for generation to come, we must protect our children future now! A community outreach meeting would be a good start, down the street on Gaffey?? Peace! Ricardo/CFASE Environmental Coalitions United need to be in the fore front......... On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Janet Gunter <arriane5naol.com> wrote: This is the less than stellar and evasive answer provided by Mayor Garcetti to the question posed about the Rancho LPG tanks on yesterday's ABC News program. Needless to say, the question should have also included a reference to the facility's great potential for the mounting concern of terrorism. A single rocket launched grenade or high power rifle could easily penetrate a tank ensuring a massive explosion. C-63 In rebuttal to the Mayor's weak and whinny answer: A) There is "plenty" that the City of LA can do in resolving this extremely hazardous situation. B) His assertion that it would take hundreds of millions of dollars to relocate Rancho is unbelievably inflated. The company is currently "insolvent"... owing the parent company, Plains All America Pipeline, in excess of $50 million. The price for the property and business paid in 2008 is approximately $40 million. A small drop in the bucket compared to the potential for extraordinary damages and decimation of the ports in the event of a catastrophic event. Besides, there are many other available avenues in which the City has to take some much needed control outside of purchase. C) the Mayor confirms the extreme danger.... states that the assistance of the State and Feds is needed .... yet, has not put any energy in soliciting that assistance? Where is his plan of action? What has he done or is he doing? Is the recognition of this high danger accompanied by lack of action not considered a "dereliction of duty"? This situation must be handled immediately. The Palos Verdes fault has been identified by the latest USGS report as being a fault probable for greater seismic activity. Terrorism is increasing daily... and the Ports of LA and Long Beach rank high on the list of terrorism targets. Must we really wait for the devastating earthquake or horrific act of terrorism to prove our point? Why??? OK. Here's 1: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k6b8gpqf9qOpblv/Garcettil.MOV?dl=O And here's two: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ow48xtqbpq9mc8l/Garcetti2.MOV?dI=0 Janet Gunter k This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. avostf r www.avast.com C-64 Kit Fox From: Carolynn Petru Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 11:09 AM To: Kit Fox Subject: FW: Stop your intimidation and strong-arming Hi Kit — I was wading through some old emails and ran across this one, which I don't think you ever received a copy. CP From: Marcie Miller[mailto:marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 4:29 PM To: Ronald Conrow (Ronald.Conrow@plainsmidstream.com) Cc: jacob haik; timothy.lippman@asm.ca.gov; eric.guerra@asm.ca.gov; Jennifer.Zivkovic@sen.ca.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; CC; Rebekah Kim; Pinto, Lisa Subject: Stop your intimidation and strong-arming Dear Mr. Conrow, One would think that a district manager for an ultra -hazardous bulk chemical facility would have plenty to do. Why instead do you obsessively stalk two mothers? Why do you stalk online, obsess about us in social settings, and take valuable time to write volumes of correspondence to local politicians about us? Frankly, this is very creepy. I have responded with reason to your mischief in the past. Today, my attorney advises me to make myself perfectly clear. This obsession with Janet Gunter and me will no longer be tolerated. Knock it off! Should you decide to continue your unhealthy obsession, I will file charges against you. I ask for your apology and your promise to immediately cease uttering or writing my name in public. Clearly, you view your greatest risk management problem as Janet and me. We speak the truth and we are not paid to do so. We do it because it is the right thing to do. Your ultra -hazardous stockpile of 26 million gallons of liquid propane and butane pose an unacceptable risk to tens of thousands of people who work and live here. Further, Janet and I are just the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of millions of decent Americans detest the tiny sliver of oil and gas industry elite who don't give a tinker's dam about how many people die as a result of an accidental release of ultra -hazardous deadly gases at this facility or at any other. Profit is all they care about. 1 C-65 You signed your letter with a Shafter, California address. You don't even live here. You fly in and fly out. As District Manager of this high risk facility, shouldn't you be here managing rather than leaving 26 million gallons of ultra -hazardous chemicals on auto pilot? Lastly, I know Joe Buscaino well and I am confident that he did NOT appreciate your patronizing letter to Jacob nor your reference to China. We all understand your code word "enlightening" to mean China's thirst for US LPG and Butane gases. Are you hinting that Joe represented Rancho's corporate interest in China? If so, please provide evidence. Personally, I don't believe Joe would ever do such a thing. Why would he? You and your company contribute absolutely NOTHING to this community. What would Councilman Buscaino really have to gain by secretly representing your company's selfish addiction to profits at all costs? You can't promise that Rancho will not suffer an accidental release so why should he or anyone else be your patsy? You and your oil industry friends need to STOP strong-arming and intimidation in this community to suppress the truth, gain leverage, quash legitimate discussion, and divert privileges your way. Thoroughly disgusted by your attempts to intimidate, Marcie Miller C-66 Kit Fox From: Sarah Valdez <sarahnvaldez@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:14 AM To: Noel Weiss Cc: Lonna Calhoun; Ricardo Pulido; Janet Gunter; chuck hart; AGPatchett; <marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net>; <connie@rutter.us>; <igornla@cox.net>; <dwgkaw@hotmail.com>; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33 @gmail.com>; <jduhovic@hotmail.com>; <dlrivera@prodigy.net>; <mandm8602 @att.net>;<peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net>; DarleneZavalney; <rreg55 @hotmail.com>; <Iljonesin33@yahoo.com>; Kit Fox; <chateau4us@att.net>; <claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com>; <hvybags@cox.net>; <Ihermanpg@cox.net>; <pjwrome@yahoo.com>; <katyw@pacbell.net>; <jwebb@usc.edu>; <c.jkondon@earthlink.net>; <rcraemer@aol.com>; <goarlene@cox.net>; <fbmjet@aol.com>; <pmwarren@cox.net>; June Smith; <geichfamily@yahoo.com>; <diananave@gmail.com>; <overbid2002@yahoo.com>; <freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net>; <ksmith@klct.com>; Jesse Marquez; <johngoya@westoceanmd.com>; <irene@miraclegirlproductions.org>; <bonbon90731 @gmail.com>; donna@cope-preparedness.org>; <carriescoville@yahoo.com>; <owsqueen@yahoo.com>; <rgb251@berkeley.edu>; <carl.southwell@gmail.com>; <Ipryor@usc.edu>; <lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov>;<lara.larramend i@mail.house.gov>; <david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov>; <amartinez@earthjustice.org>; <gkracov@yahoo.com>; <info@tedlieu.com>; Laurie Saroff Subject: Re: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG This is all great. I think we need to simplify the matter though and spread the word! Not enough people in our community are aware of the issue! We are talking more about this at the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council Green Committee meeting, to be held tonight at 6 PM at the peck park community center computer room. All are welcome to join! Best, Sarah Valdez On Jan 18, 2015, at 8:29 PM, Noel Weiss <noelweissgca.rr.com> wrote: Who organizes the March? It would be beyond terrific if our able citizenry felt it was really worth their time, energy, resources, and time to put a focused effort together.... . Putting together a march takes money, time, and organization...... and a plan.... . A meaningful stage has been set.... The question was asked.... The answer was political rhetorical mush.... unbecoming of any "Rhodes Scholar" whose focus should be on excellence over indifference or diffidence.... Using his considerable brainpower to deflect, defer, patronize, and pander to inaction is a waste of that brain -power. Neale Walsch said that the opposite of courage is not cowardice ... it is conformity.... . Conformity to the Rancho status quo is reckless and irresponsible.... One would think that at a minimum, Garcetti would or could call for a study of the issue..... use his power as Mayor to subpoena Rancho's insurance policy and operational documentation..... appoint a Mayoral task force armed with instructions to provide answers to several important questions... . like: C-67 Kit Fox From: Lonna Calhoun donna@cope-preparedness.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:42 PM To: 'Noel Weiss'; 'Lonna Calhoun'; 'Ricardo Pulido'; 'Janet Gunter' Cc: 'chuck hart'; 'AGPatchett'; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>; jduhovic@hotmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; 'DarleneZavalney'; rreg55 @hotmail.com; Iljonesin33@yahoo.com; Kit Fox; chateau4us@att.net; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; hvybags@cox.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; 'June Smith'; geichfamily@yahoo.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net; ksmith@klct.com; 'Jesse Marquez'; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; bonbon90731@gmail.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; rgb251 @berkeley.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; amartinez@earthjustice.org; gkracov@yahoo.com; info@tedlieu.com; 'Laurie Saroff' Subject: RE: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG Noel, This document is so well thought out and clearly written. It offers viable and meaningful options to elected officials and Port management who up to now seem to be helpless to mitigate the problem. While many recognize the risk they seem incapable to act upon it. These suggestions should give them easy answers and clear suggestions. It also articulates the depth of risk and liability they are taking by inaction. Thank you for taking the time to research and write this document. What happens with it next? Lonna Calhoun from: Noel Weiss [mailto:noelweiss@ca.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 8:30 PM To: Lonna Calhoun; 'Ricardo Pulido'; 'Janet Gunter' Cc: 'chuck hart'; 'AGPatchett'; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; b.camp@cox.net; knightjim33@gmail.com; jduhovic@hotmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; 'DarleneZavalney'; rreg55@hotmail.com; Iljonesin33@yahoo.com; kitf@rpv.com; chateau4us@att.net; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; hvybags@cox.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; 'June Smith'; geichfamily@yahoo.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net; ksmith@klct.com; 'Jesse Marquez'; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; bonbon90731@gmail.com; tonna@cope- preparedness.org; carriescoville@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; rgb251@berkeley.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; amartinez@earthjustice.org; gkracov@yahoo.com; info@tedlieu.com; Laurie Saroff Subject: Re: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG Kit Fox From: Ricardo Pulido <mr.rpulido@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 4:36 PM To: Connie Cc: Janet Gunter, chuck hart; AGPatchett; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>;jduhovic@hotmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; DarleneZavalney; rreg55@hotmail.com; Iljonesin33@yahoo.com; Kit Fox; chateau4us@att.net; Claudia McCulloch; Susan Phuckoff; Linda Herman; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net;jwebb@usc.edu; cjjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; June Smith; geichfamily@yahoo.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; Diana Nave; overbid2002 @yahoo.com; freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net; Kristina Smith; Jesse Marquez; john goya; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; Bonnie Christensen; lonna@cope-preparedness.org; lonnacalhoun@me.com; carriescoville@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; rgb251 @berkeley.edu; Carl Southwell; Ipryor@usc.edu; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; iara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; amartinez@earthjustice.org; gkracov@yahoo.com Subject: Re: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG ADELANTE!!....... Let's do it! Ricardo/CFASE On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Connie <connienrutter.us> wrote: Sounds good to me. ----- Original Message ----- From: Ricardo Pulido To: Janet Gunter Cc: chuck hart; AGPatchett ; noelweiss(aDca.rr.com ; marciesmiller(o)_sbcglobal.net; connie(o)rutter.us ; igornla(a-cox.net ; dwgkaw(cD_hotmail.com ; b.camp(a-)_cox.net ; knightjim33 gmail.com ; iduhovic(D_hotmail.com ; dlrivera(o)prodigy. net; mandm8602CaD_att.net ; peter.burmeister(c�sbcglobal.net ; DarleneZavalney ; rreg55C�hotmail.com ; Ilionesin33(a)-yahoo.com ; kitf(a)rpv.com ; chateau4usna.att.net; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com ; hvybagsp_cox.net ; Ihermanpg(a),cox.net; piwromeCa.yahoo.com ; katywg_pacbell.net ; jwebb usc.edu ; c.iikondon(a earthlink.net ; rcraemer a.aol.com ; goarleneCa_cox.net ; fbmjetQ_aol.com ; pmwarren a().cox.net ; June Smith ; geichfamily@yahoo.com ; sarahnvaldezRgmail. com ; diananaveCaD_gmail.com ; overbic12002CaD-yahoo.com ; freddibernardo(cD-sbcglobal.net; ksmith(o-),klct.com ; Jesse Marquez; johngo�a aC�westoceanmd.com ; irene miraclegirlproductions.org ; bon bon90731(aD_gmail. com ; Ion na(51-cope-preparedness.org ; lonnacalhoun(a-),me.com ; carriescovilleCa)_yahoo.com ; owsqueenCa)_yahoo.com ; rgb251 CccDberkeley.edu ; carl.southwell(Qgmail.com ; Ipryor(a)-usc.edu ; lisa.pinto(cD-mail. house. gov ; lara.larramendi(a)_mail.house.gov ; david.wulf@hg.dhs.gov ; amartinez(d)-earthjustice.org ; gkracov(d-)yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 10:25 PM Subject: Re: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG Hey Janet....... Well said, I think its time to March from San Pedro community to L.A. City Hall steps and demonstrate! I believe the Mayor isn't seeing the "Big Picture" a natural disaster or man-made explosion of this magnitude would ripple effect all of the Southbay region economically, socially, and hurt our working families for generation to come, we must protect our children future now! A community outreach meeting would be a good start, down the street on Gaffey?? Peace! Ricardo/CFASE Environmental Coalitions United need to be in the fore front......... C-69 Kit Fox From: Noel Weiss <noelweiss@ca.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 8:46 PM To: Sarah Valdez Cc: Lonna Calhoun; Ricardo Pulido; Janet Gunter; chuck hart; AGPatchett; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33 @gmail.com>; jduhovic@hotmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; DarleneZavalney; rreg55@hotmail.com; Iljonesin33 @yahoo.com; Kit Fox; chateau4us@att.net; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; hvybags@cox.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; cjjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; June Smith; geichfamily@yahoo.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net; ksmith@klct.com; Jesse Marquez;johngoya@westoceanmd.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; bonbon90731@gmaii.com; lonna@cope- preparedness.org; carriescoville@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; rgb251 @berkeley.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; amartinez@earthjustice.org; gkracov@yahoo.com; info@tedlieu.com; Laurie Saroff Subject: Re: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG Terrific Sarah.... Whatever you and the other community leaders can do to `partner' with others, including residents of RPV impacted, would help advance the effort.... . Many feel there is nothing they can do... But as with any other empowerment situation, whatever it is that people believe, they are correct. Noel (310) 822-0239 From: Sarah Valdez Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:13 AM To: Noel Weiss Cc: Lonna Calhoun ; Ricardo Pulido ; Janet Gunter ; chuck hart ; AGPatchett ; mailto:marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net ; mailto:connie0)rutter.us ; mailto:igornla@cox.net ; mailto:dwgkaw@hotmail.com ; mailto:b.camp@cox.net ; mailto:knightiim33@gmail.com ; mailto:jduhovic@hotmaii.com ; mailto:dlrivera@prodigy.net ; mailto:mandm86020)att.net ; maiIto: peter. burmeisterCcbsbcgloba1.net ; DarleneZavalney ; mailto:rreg550)hotmail.com ; mailto:Ilj_onesin33@yahoo.com ; maiIto:kitf@rpv.com ; mai Ito: chateau4us(a).att.net ; mailto:claudia.r.mcculloch(a)amail.com ; mailto:hyybags@cox.net ; mailto:lhermanpg(&cox.net ; mailto:pjwrome@yahoo.com ; mailto:katyw@pacbell.net ; mailto_Jwebb@usc.edu ; mailto:c.jjkondon@earthlink.net ; mailto:rcraemer@aol.com ; mailtomarlene@cox.net ; mailto:fbmjet@aol.com ; mailto:pmwarren@cox.net ; June Smith ; mailto:geichfamily@yahoo.com ; mailto:diananave@gmail.com ; mailto:overbid2002@yahoo.com ; mailto:freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net ; mailto:ksmith@kict.com ; Jesse Marquez ; mailto:johnaoya@westoceanmd.com ; maiIto: irene(d)miraclegirlproductions.org ; mailto:bonbon90731@gmaii.com ; mailto:lonna@cope-preparedness.org ; mailto:carriescoville@yahoo.com ; mailto:owsqueen@yahoo.com ; mailto:rgb251@berkeley.edu ; mailto:carl.southwell@gmail.com ; mailto:lpryor@usc.edu ; mailto:lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov ; mailto: lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov ; maiito:david.wulf@hq_dhs.gov ; mailto:amartinez@earthjustice.org ; mailto:gkracov@yahoo.com ; mailto:infoCabtedlieu.com ; Laurie Saroff C-70 Kit Fox From: Marcie Miller <marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 9:20 PM To: Janet Gunter Cc: Noel Weiss; Ricardo Pulido; chuck hart; AGPatchett; Connie; Terry & John Miller; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Lonna Calhoun; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>;jduhovic@hotmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602 @att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; DarleneZavalney; rreg55@hotmail.com; lljonesin33@yahoo.com; Kit Fox; Lacombe; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; hvybags@cox.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; Peter Warren; June Smith; geichfamily@yahoo.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; Diana Nave; pat nave; freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net; Kristina Smith; Jesse Marquez; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; bonbon90731@gmail.com; lonna@cope-preparedness.org; carriescoville@yahoo.com; Mona Sutton Sutton; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Carl Southwell; Ipryor@usc.edu; Pinto, Lisa; lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; amartinez@earthjustice.org; gkracov@yahoo.com; info@tedlieu.com; Laurie Saroff Subject: Buscaino's Failure Attachments: Feinstein 14-0002-S5.pdf, ATT00001.htm Dear Janet and Friends, Remember those Rancho LPG, LLC motions Joe sponsored? Answer: Less than nothing. They have ALL expired due to inaction. 11-1813 11-1813-51 11-1813-52 11-1813-S3 11-1813-54 11-1813-S5 11-1813-S6 11-1813-57 On the other hand, I didn't know about this LA City Council File (14-002-S5), which was originally sponsored by Feinstein in the US Senate, addressing State Catastrophic Insurance Programs. C-71 Title 3 S. 1813 (Feinstein) / State Catastrophic Insurance Programs / Financial Recovery from Natural Disasters (Earthquakes) ` 11 Date Received / Introduced JOE BUSCAINO 01/15/2014 YES Last Changed Date Expiration Date 03/13/2014 02/26/2016 Reference Numbers YES Chief Legislative Analyst Report: 14-01-0033 7 Mover Second MITCHELL ENGLANDER NURY MARTINEZ File Activities 5 103/13/2014 Council Action. _ 03/11/2014 City Clerk transmitted file to Mayor. Last day for Mayor to act is March 21, 2014. 02/26/2014 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on March 5, 2014 . 02/19/2014 Chief Legislative Analyst document(s) referred to Rules, Elections and Interoovernmental Relations Committee. Council Action with Mayor 03/05/2014 Concurrence Report from Rules, Elections and 02/21/2014 Intergovernmental Relations Committee Report from Chief Legislative 02/19/2014 BOB BLUMENFIELD 3 ABSENT MIKEBONIN ` 11 YES` JOE BUSCAINO 15 YES GILBERT A.CEDILLO 1 ABSENT MITCHELL ENGLANDER 12 YES FELIPE FUENTES 7 YES_: JOSE HUIZAR 14 YES PAUL KORETZ 5 YES PAUL KREKORIAN 2 ABSENT URY MARTINEZ 6 YES ITCH OTARRELL 13 YES ERNARD C PARKS 8 YES URREN D. PRICE 9 YES` ERB WESSON 10 YES C-72 Kit Fox From: Ronald Conrow <Ronald.Conrow@plainsmidstream.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:21 PM To: rreg55@hotmail.com Cc: Kit Fox Subject: FW: Conoco flaring Attachments: imagel jpeg; image2jpeg Mr. Regalado, FYI ... a non -Rancho flaring incident today January 21, 2015. Please feel free to contact me should you require more information. CD15 has also been notified. Regards, Western District Manager Plains LPG Services, LP 19430 Beech Avenue Shafter, CA 93263 Office: 661-368-7917 Cell: 661-319-9978 ronald.conrow@plainsmidstream.com This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. From: Ronald Conrow Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 10:40 AM To: Hon. Rudy Svorinich Jr. Cc: Renee Orefice; ryan.ferguson@lacity.org Subject: Fwd: Conoco flaring FYI ... not from Rancho. Ron Sent from my Whone Begin forwarded message: C-73 From: "Robert Manquero" <robertmanqueroggmail.com> To: "Ronald Conrow" <Ronald. Conrowgplainsmidstream.com> Subject: Conoco flaring Hey Ron, Just letting you know Philips is flaring right now. Black smoke means something went wrong in the unit somewhere. C-74 C-75 Kit Fox From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Kit, Regards, R" &ctWO Ronald Conrow <Ronald.Conrow@plainsmidstream.com> Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:22 PM Kit Fox FW: Fire hydrant Fire Hydrant at Westmont-Gaffeyjpg Western District Manager Plains LPG Services, LP 19430 Beech Avenue Shafter, CA 93263 Office: 661-368-7917 Cell: 661-319-9978 ronald.conrow@plainsmidstream.com This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. From: Ronald Conrow Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:18 PM To: Hon. Rudy Svorinich Jr. Cc: Renee Orefice; ryan.ferguson@lacity.org; jacob haik; rreg55@hotmail.com Subject: RE: Fire hydrant ALL, Apologies here is the picture of the non -Rancho at Westmont and Gaffey. Ron From: Ronald Conrow Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 10:48 AM To: Hon. Rudy Svorinich Jr. Cc: Renee Orefice; ryan.ferguson(a)lacity.org; jacob haik Subject: Fwd: Fire hydrant C-76 This is not from Rancho either. According to operators a vehicle ran over a fire hydrant at corner of Westmont and Gaffey. Ron Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: William Zankich <wzankichnrancholpg com> Date: January 21, 2015 at 10:44:45 AM PST To: Ronald Conrow <Ronald. Conrow@plainsmidstream.com> Subject: Fire hydrant This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. If you no longer wish to receive electronic messages from this sender, please respond and advise accordingly in your return email. 701 Sent from my iPhone C-77 i lei 40MAREM""O 4U+ two 4 ft Kit Fox From: Ricardo Pulido <mr.rpulido@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 10:57 PM To: Noel Weiss Cc: Sarah Valdez; Lonna Calhoun; Janet Gunter; chuck hart; AGPatchett; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; Connie; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>; jduhovic@hotmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; DarleneZavalney; rreg55@hotmail.com; Iljonesin33 @yahoo.com; Kit Fox; chateau4us@att.net; Claudia McCulloch; Susan Phuckoff; Linda Herman; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; cjjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; June Smith; geichfamily@yahoo.com; Diana Nave; overbid2002 @yahoo.com; freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net; Kristina Smith; Jesse Marquez; john goya; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; Bonnie Christensen; lonna@cope-preparedness.org; carriescoville@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Carl Southwell; Ipryor@usc.edu; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; amartinez@earthjustice.org; gkracov@yahoo.com; info@tedlieu.com; Laurie Saroff Subject: Re: "Ask the Mayor" recordings of on Air Question.... ABC news Sunday 1/11... regarding Rancho LPG Right ON!!! I'm feeling you all, lets get busy organizing our coalitions ........ Ricardo/CFASE On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Noel Weiss <noelweisskca.rr.com> wrote: Terrific Sarah.... Whatever you and the other community leaders can do to 'partner' with others, including residents of RPV impacted, would help advance the effort.... . Many feel there is nothing they can do... But as with any other empowerment situation, whatever it is that people believe, they are correct. Noel (310) 822-0239 From: Sarah Valdez Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:13 AM To: Noel Weiss Cc: Lonna Calhoun ; Ricardo Pulido ; Janet Gunter ; chuck hart ; AGPatchett ; mailto: marciesmiller(c)sbcglobal.net ; mailto:connie(d)rutter.us ; mailto:igornla(cZcox.net ; mailto:dwykaw@hotmaiLcom ; mailto:b.camp(a)cox.net ; mailto:knigh 'im33 gmail.com ; mailto:jduhovic@hotmaiLcom ; mailtoAlrivera0bprodigy.net ; mailto:mandm8602Patt.net ; mailto:peter. burmeister(a)sbcglobal.net ; DarleneZavalney ; mailto:rreg_55@hotmail.com ; mailtodlionesin33ftahooxom ; mailto:kitf@rpv.com ; mailto:chateau4us@att.net ; mailto:claudia.r.mcculloch()gmaii.com ; mailto:hvybags cox.net ; mailto:Ihermanpg(d)cox.net ; mailto:pjwrome yahoo.com ; mailto: katyw a pacbell.net ; mailto:jwebbCcbusc.edu ; mailto: c.ijkondon@earthlink.net ; maiIto: rcraemer(o)aol.com ; mai Ito: goarleneCa7cox.net ; mailto:fbmjetPaol.com ; mailto:pmwarren(cbcox.net ; June Smith ; mailto:geichfamily(abyahooxom ; mailto:diananave(agmaii:com ; ma i Ito: overbic12002fta hoo.com ; mailto:freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net ; mailto:ksmith(3Dkict.com ; Jesse Marquez ; mailto:johngoyao- westoceanmd.com ; maiIto: irene(d)miraclegirlproductions. org ; mailto:bonbon90731C@gmail.com ; maiIto: Ion naPcope-prepared ness.org ; mailto:carriescoville@yahoo.com ; maiito:owsqueen@yahoo.com ; maiito:rgb251(aberkeley.edu ; mailto:carl.southwellOgmail.com ; mailto:Ipryor(-ausc.edu ; maiIto: lisa.pintoOmai1.house. gov ; C-79 Kit Fox From: Ricardo Pulido <mr.rpulido@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 11:00 PM To: Marcie Miller Cc: Janet Gunter; Noel Weiss; chuck hart; AGPatchett; Connie; Terry & John Miller; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net>; Lonna Calhoun; Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com>; jduhovic@hotmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602 @att.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; DarleneZavalney; rreg55@hotmail.com; Iljonesin33@yahoo.com; Kit Fox; Lacombe; Claudia McCulloch; Susan Phuckoff; Linda Herman; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net;jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; fbmjet@aol.com; Peter Warren; June Smith; geichfamily@yahoo.com; Sarah Valdez; Diana Nave; pat nave; freddibernardo@sbcglobal.net; Kristina Smith; Jesse Marquez; john goya; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; Bonnie Christensen; tonna@cope-preparedness.org; carriescoville@yahoo.com; Mona Sutton Sutton; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Carl Southwell; Ipryor@usc.edu; Pinto, Lisa; lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; amartinez@earthjustice.org; gkracov@yahoo.com; info@tedlieu.com; Laurie Saroff Subject: Re: Buscaino's Failure WOW! Good Stuff! We need to send this to Random Lengths & Daily Breeze & L.A. Times...... Peace, Ricardo/CFASE On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Marcie Miller <marciesmillergsbcglobal.net> wrote: Dear Janet and Friends, Remember those Rancho LPG, LLC motions Joe sponsored? Answer: Less than nothing. They have ALL expired due to inaction. 11-1813 11-1813-S1 11-1813-S2 11-1813-S3 11-1813-S4 11-1813-S5 11-1813-S6 11-1813-S7 On the other hand, I didn't know about this LA City Council File (14-002-S5), which was originally sponsored by Feinstein in the US Senate, addressing State Catastrophic Insurance Programs. • DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2014 Staff Repor City of Rolling Hills Estates TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: NIKI WETZEL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION NO: 25-14; APPLICANT: MS. JUDY CHAI LOCATION: 5883 CREST ROAD OVERVIEW The following is a request to approve: 1. A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential; 2. A Zone Change from Commercial Limited (CL) to Residential Planned Development (RPD); 3. A Zone Text Amendment for development standards for lot size in the RPD Zone; 4. A Tentative Parcel Map for a one -lot subdivision; 5. A Grading Application; 6. A Minor Deviation for lot coverage; 7. A Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Planned Development; 8. A Neighborhood Compatibility Determination for the construction of four single-family patio homes; and 9. A Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finding that the project, with mitigation measures, will not have a significant impact on the environment. BACKGROUND Application Filed: 3/21114 Application Deemed Complete: 10/7114 Public Notices Mailed: 10/9/14 Public Notices Posted: 10/9/14 Public Notices Published: 10/16/14 Approval of a General Plan Amendment is required to modify the Land Use Element of the General Plan to change the land use designation of the subject property from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential. General Plan Amendment procedures are set forth in Section 65350 of the Government Code. C-81 Approval of a Zone Change is required to change the zoning designation of the property from Commercial Limited (CL) to Residential Planned Development (RPD). Approval of a Zoning Text Amendment is required to amend Section 17.18.040(A) of the Municipal Code related to minimum lot size. Approval of a Tentative Parcel Map is required under Section 66426 of the California Government Code and Chapter 16.12 of the Municipal Code. Approval of a Grading Plan is required pursuant to Section 17.07.030 of the Municipal Code for any importation onto or exportation from any site in the City which exceeds 20 cubic yards of earth or any vertical change in the grade of any site which is 3' or more. Approval of Conditional Use Permit is required pursuant to Section 17.18.020(6) of the Municipal Code for a Residential Planned Development (RPD) subdivision. Approval of a Minor Deviation is required pursuant to Section 17.66.100(A)(6) of the Municipal Code for an increase of not more than 10% in the maximum allowable lot coverage. Approval of a Neighborhood Compatibility Determination is required pursuant to Chapter 17.62 of the Municipal Code to review the natural amenities, neighborhood character, style, privacy, and landscaping of the proposal. Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finding that the project, with appropriate mitigation measures as stated in the Initial Study, will not have a significant impact on the environment. The subject property, located in the C -L (Commercial Limited) Zone, is .51 acres in size and currently undeveloped. The property is unique in that it is one of two C -L designated properties in the City and the only one that does not have a Mixed Use Overlay designation (the other property is the Pepper Tree Lane project site). The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Neighborhood Commercial, and the site is located in Planning Area Number 7 in a Cultural Resources Overlay area. To the north and east of the subject property are residential uses in the Seaview Villas townhome complex zoned Residential Planned Development (RPD), To the south of the subject property, across Crest Road, are single-family residences in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. To the west of the subject property, across Highridge Road are residential uses in The Ranch community zoned RPD. The following is a list of previous discretionary permits for the subject property: • LS -105-65: Approved a lot split to create the subject property for the location of a gas station; • PPD -102-75: Approved an expansion to a garden nursery facility (Crest Garden Center); • PPD -107-75: Approved construction of a greenhouse at a garden nursery facility (Crest Garden Center); • PPD -107-78: Approved construction of an additional greenhouse at a garden nursery facility (Crest Garden Center); 2 C-82 • PPD -109-88: Approved an addition and sign plan for a garden nursery facility (Kim's Crest Nursery); • OC -161-89: Approved replacement of an existing sign at garden nursery facility (Sunset Garden Center); • CUP -113-92: Request for consideration by the Planning Commission of either a two-story, 7,240 square foot office/retail building or a two -building, four -unit residential development; (Note: Planning Commission was in general support of commercial development of the site and continued the matter for project revision/Precise Plan of Design application); • OC -116-00: Approved demolition of all existing buildings. • PA -27-03: Approved a Precise Plan of Design, Variances to exceed the maximum allowable coverage of the lot by buildings or structures, permit less landscaping than required in the parking lot area, and a grading application for a 5,760 square foot commercial building. As shown above, an application for a commercial building was approved in 2004 for the subject property. The applicant, Ms. Judy Chal, indicates that she attempted unsuccessfully to construct and tenant the approved commercial building. As such, she now requests a residential use which is the predominant use in the surrounding area. A "First Look" meeting was held before the Planning Commission and City Council on July 9, 2013 to discuss conversion of the subject property to residential use and the development of four patio homes. There was general support of such a project The project presented here is largely the same as that presented at that meeting. At the time of this writing, staff has received three comment letters on the proposed project (see Attachment 1). Staff will prepare a Response to Comments document upon closure of the public review period for the project Mitigated Negative Declaration (November 24, 2014). The Response to Comments document will be provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover on November 26, 2014 and will include any other correspondence received during the remainder of the public comment review period. DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to construct a one -lot subdivision with four, two-story patio homes on the .51 - acre property. Two homes would be located on either side of a shared driveway accessible from Highridge Road. Four existing curb cuts (two each on Highridge Road and Crest Road) would be closed and replaced with full curb and gutter with the project. Each home would have an enclosed two -car garage and a guest parking space accessible from the shared driveway. The remainder of the site would be developed with private yard areas and landscaping. A stairway is proposed in the easterly portion of the property to provide access to raised private yard areas and secondary entries for the two easterly homes. The two westerly homes would have entries on the first floor facing Highridge Road. In addition to 400 square foot garages, each home has four bedrooms and is proposed to have 2,880 square feet of livable area. Street elevations are provided on Sheet A-5 attached separately to this report. Additional building elevations and a materials and colors board will be provided at the public hearing. Elevations show Monterey -style exposed rafter tails, painted wood trellis and window headers, flat clay tile, and smooth stucco finish. The architect indicates that roof tiles will be terra cotta in color, and building walls will be painted neutral colors. Street elevations and the site plan also show new fencing along the 3 C-83 perimeter of the property and in the upper private yard areas to be 30" -high wrought iron fence on top of 42" -high concrete walls. It is anticipated that the project would generate 38 daily vehicle trips. Three of these would be in the AM peak -hour and four in the PM peak -hour. LOS thresholds would not be increased with the proposed project, and no new signal is warranted. Section 17.28.050(D) of the Municipal Code requires a 25' -wide front yard and 20' -wide side and rear setback areas where the site abuts residential districts. The project provides a minimum 25' wide setback area between the building and Highridge Road (considered the front yard) and 20' for the remaining setback areas in conformance with Code requirements. Section 17.28.050(G) of the Municipal Code permits developments of two-story structures with a maximum 35' height. The proposed homes are approximately 22' in height from finished grade and two stories. Furthermore, this Code section indicates that the Planning Commission will make reasonable efforts to preserve existing views enjoyed by neighboring properties when reviewing all applications. It should be noted that the project applicant worked with and has received support from the adjoining Seaview Villas homeowners association for the proposed project. A flag silhouette for the project has been erected, and the Planning Commission should visit the project site to better understand site characteristics and proposed building mass. General Plan Applicability The purpose of the General Pian is to provide a comprehensive, long-range plan designed to serve as a guide for the physical development of the City. The General Pian consists of an integrated and internally consistent set of goals, policies, and implementation measures. The Municipal Code is a tool to implement the General Plan's goals, policies, and implementation measures. The City's present General Plan was adopted on August 18, 1992 (Housing Element on January 28, 2014). The "Introduction" section of the Land Use Plan (page 2-19) indicates that land use designations largely correspond to development as it existed at the time of General Plan adoption. The project site is within the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation (as described on page 2-20 in Table 2-1, Summary of General Plan Designations) which "refers to smaller single commercial uses located at key intersections". Table 2-2, Land Use Designation Standards (page 2-21), further describes the designation indicating that it is implemented by the C -L Zone, allows business, professional service, and retail uses, and that a maximum floor area ratio of 4 to 1 is permitted. The Overlay Map for Planning Area Number 7 (Exhibit 2-14 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan) shows that the subject property is in a Cultural Resources Overlay Zone. Page 2-22 of the Land Use Plan indicates that this designation "applies to a portion of the City where archaeological resources are known or suspected to exist." Mitigation Measures included in the project Initial Study address actions to be taken should an archaeological resource be discovered during project construction. As mentioned previously in the report, the applicant received approval for construction of a commercial building on the property, but was not successful in having it built. The property is surrounded on all sides by residential uses, and the applicant proposes residential use of the property. As such, a General Plan Amendment is proposed to remove the property from the Neighborhood Commercial designation and to place it in the High Density Residential designation. The High Density Residential designation corresponds to the Residential Planned Development (RPD) zone designation requested for the property, and is the General Plan land use designation of the Seaview Villas development to the north and east of the site. The designation provides for up to 4 • 8 units per acre, and the project proposes 7.8 units per acre in conformance with General Plan density. Because the project requires a General Plan Amendment, pursuant to Government Code §65352.3, staff is required to notify tribal governments for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to, or cultural places located on land, within the City's jurisdiction that is affected by the proposed plan adoption. As such, staff requested and received a list of tribal governments to contact for consultation from the Native American Heritage Commission, Ten governments were listed and contacted for the required minimum 45 -day review period. Only the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians commented on the project (as seen in Attachment 1) requesting that one of their monitors be onsite during any and all ground disturbances. Staff will include a related condition of approval in any resolution approving this project. Zoning Applicability Currently, the site is zoned Commercial Limited (CL) which corresponds to the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan land use designation. The applicant requests that the property be rezoned to Residential Planned Development (RPD) with the proposed application. This is the zoning designation of the Seaview Villas development to the north and east of the site. The RPD zone is described in Chapter 17.18 of the Municipal Code and provides for cluster housing subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Single family detached structures are permitted in the RPD zone, and common and private open space shall not comprise less than 70% of the project site. The applicant requests a Minor Deviation to permit 33% of the site to be covered by building and structures as discussed below, The maximum permitted density in the zone is established by the General Plan designation, and the proposed land area may not be less than 10 acres. As further described below, the applicant requests a Zone Text Amendment permitting an RPD development on less than 10 acres if a site is contiguous to a 10 -acre site zoned RPD. Zoning Text Amendment Section 17.18.040(B)(1) states that following: "Area. The proposed development plan shall include a parcel or parcels of land containing not less than ten acres. The area, width and frontage requirements of lots in a planned residential development shall be as required in the approved plan of development. The dwelling units and buildings and the land within the development may be divided in ownership only in the manner authorized in the approval of the development." Thus, a development in the RPD zone requires a minimum of ten acres. While the subject property is only .51 -acres in size, the adjoining Seaview Villas development to the north and east of the subject property is 10.66 acres in size. Together, the properties form 11.17 acres of RPD development. The applicant requests a Zone Text Amendment to permit an RPD development on a property that is less than ten acres in size if the site adjoins an RPD development that is over ten acres in size. This amendment would provide for a similar scale and pattern of development for smaller parcels contiguous to currently RPD -zoned property while continuing to preserve all other development standards of the RPD designation (i.e., maximum coverage, height limitation, and setback requirements). Importantly, approval of any RPD development would continue to require approval of a Conditional Use Permit which provides for discretionary approval by the Planning Commission and the inclusion of any applicable conditions of approval. 5 C-85 Tentative Parcel Ma The applicant has submitted a Tentative Parcel Map for Condominium Purposes for the project as included separately to this report. Regarding maps, Chapter 16.12 of the Municipal Code requires that the plan must be prepared by a registered civil engineer for all public works improvements to be constructed as a condition of the subdivision and for all site development including (but not limited) to grading, drainage facilities, and structures in accordance with the City standards. Furthermore, plans for all irrigation and landscaping subject to the approval of the Planning Director and a plot plan showing details of the entire development and all improvements to be constructed are required. In addition, the project must be consistent with the General Plan Mixed -Use land use designation and corresponding Municipal Code. Pursuant to Chapter 16.04 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission's actions shall be as an advisory agency only, and all actions of the Planning Commission with reference to tract maps shall be reported to the City Council who shall act approve, deny or conditionally approve the map. Given that all proposed entitlements are bundled for review by the Planning Commission and that the Tentative Parcel Map requires approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission Resolution for the project shall provide a recommendation only to the City Council regarding the subject request. Grading Plan Proposed cuts would primarily occur to lower the building pad elevations by approximately 3' to minimize building height. Fill would be placed near the easterly property line for development of private patio areas. Approximately 1,150 cubic yards of earthwork is proposed including 650 cubic yards proposed as fill and 500 cubic yards exported from the site (which results in approximately 50 truck loads). The grading application is included as Attachment 2. Minor Deviation Section 17.18.040(8)(5) of the RPD zone indicates that building and structures may not occupy more than 30% of the gross lot area. Further, Section 17.66.100(6) permits that a Minor Deviation may be approved for an increase of not more than 10% in the maximum allowable lot coverage. Accordingly, a Minor Deviation is required for the proposed 33% lot coverage. The excess lot coverage provides for slightly larger building footprints in light of the small size of the property. Conditional Use Permit A Condition Use Permit (CUP) is required to establish a Residential Planned Development (RPD) community. Requirements for CUP's are provided in Chapter 17.68 of the Municipal Code, Section 17.68.010 of the Municipal Code indicates that conditionally permitted uses may be allowed when such uses are necessary to the development of the community, and which uses are in no way detrimental to existing uses or to those permitted in the district. In no case shall a CUP be issued for a specifically prohibited use. Neighborhood Compatibility Section 17.26.020 (Neighborhood Compatibility) of the Municipal Code provides for a review process for residential construction proposals to protect and maintain the established character of all residential neighborhoods. The primary purpose of this review is to ensure that proposals will not create privacy issues, obstruct views, create obtrusive light sources, or establish an unaesthetic architectural appearance when considered from the residential property. Neighborhood compatibility criteria as it relates to the proposed project is described below. L 1, Natural Amenities. Improvements to residential property shall respect and preserve to the greatest extent possible existing topography, landscaping, and natural features. No major topographical, landscaping or natural features exist on this previously -developed site. Proposed grading is minor and will not result in the loss of natural site amenities. 2. Neighborhood Character. Proposals shall be compatible with the existing neighborhood character in terms of scale of development, architectural style and materials. The Seaview Villas complex surrounds the project on two sides and provides the most visually prominent buildings in relation to the proposed project. The complex consists of neutral -toned buildings with red the roofs, exposed rafter tails, and wood balconies in a Mission Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival style. The project proposes neutral -toned buildings, flat terra cotta roofs, exposed rafter tails, and wood trellises, all of which are similar to the Seaview Villas complex. In addition, the scale of the proposed development is the similar to the Seaview Villas complex in that the requested RPD zone designation and High Density Residential land use (with a corresponding maximum of 8 units per acre) are the same as the Seaview Villas zoning and land use designations. 3. Scale. Designs should minimize the appearance of overbuilt property to both public and private view. The square footage of the residence and total lot coverage should reflect the rural character of the City and neighborhood. The proposed homes would be surrounded on all sides by landscaped areas and yards that would minimize the appearance of an overbuilt lot. The proposed square footage of the residences, at 2,880 square feet, are larger than the 1,800 to 2,200 square foot Seaview Villas townhomes, but not excessive. The proposed 33% lot coverage would only slightly exceed the permitted 30% and would respect the rural character of the City and neighborhood. 4. Style. Proposals shall address the following design elements: fagade treatments (avoid stark and unbroken walls), structure height(s), open spaces, roof design, appurtenances, mass and bulk. These design elements should be compatible with the existing home and neighborhood and in all instances seek to minimize the appearance of a massive structure. The proposal indicates that building walls and mass would be broken by balconies, trellises and pop - out features. Building height at approximately 22' from finished grade would be much lower than the 35' maximum permitted, and the roof design is low in pitch. Like the Seaview Villas complex, the project is proposed to be "courtyard" in style such that buildings are surrounded by landscaping and yard areas which also serve to minimize the appearance of building mass. 5. Privacy. Proposals shall maintain an adequate separation between the proposed structures and adjacent property lines. In addition, proposed balconies, decks and windows shall respect the existing privacy of surrounding properties. The proposed residences would be located downslope from the Seaview Villas townhomes to the east and separated by a property line wall and landscaping to ensure privacy between the uses. Given the grade differences between the properties, it is not anticipated that the yard areas or windows of the proposed residences will adversely impact the surrounding property. Further, the approximately 100' - wide roadway widths of both Highridge and Crest Roads accompanied by project setbacks of 20' to 25' ensure privacy to homes to the south and west. 7 C-87 6. Views. Designs should respect existing neighboring views. This finding has been met because the proposed homes are located down slope from the townhomes above and have been designed with a low roof profile. In addition, the building pads are proposed to be lowered 3' to minimize any potential view impacts. Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The proposed development has been defined as a project under CEQA which requires completion of an Initial Study to determine if the project would have significant impacts on the environment. The City contracted with PMC to perform the Initial Study. (The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was provided to the Planning Commission on October 9, 2014 and is also available on the City website under What's New/Project Updates/5883 Crest Road.) Staff reviewed the Initial Study and determined that, with proper mitigation as specified in the Initial Study, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Commission consideration. As required by CEQA, a public comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration is being conducted. The review period is from October 9, 2014 to November 24, 2014. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was provided to all affected properties within a 500' radius of the project, adjacent cities, and other government agencies. The notice provides a brief description of the project, the Planning Commission Public Hearing date/time/location, and how to obtain detailed information about the project including the Initial Study. The notice, Initial Study, and Mitigated Negative Declaration were filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on October 8, 2014 and were made available at the Peninsula Center Library. A copy of the project plans, Initial Study, and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been made available at the public counter and on the City's website. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Open the Public Hearing; 2. Take Public Testimony 3. Discuss the issues; 4. Close the Public Hearing; and 5. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommending approval of PA -25-14 to the City Council for the next Planning Commission meeting of December 15, 2014, subject to a condition of approval requiring a Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians to be present during any and all ground disturbances. EXHIBITS Attached 1. Comment Letters 2. Grading Application Pa25-14 pm N ra-LIKO-Ine OW-URO-JEO ATTACHMENT 7 • Page 1 of 1 Niki Wetzel From: Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians [gabrielenoindians@yahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 14:21 PM To: Niki Wetzel; Dr. Christina Swindall Martinez; Matt Teutimez.Kizh Gabrieleno; Tim Miguel; Gary Stickle; Martha Gonzalez, Kizh Gabrieleno Subject: four Patio -Home Development project 5883 crest road rolling Hills Estates Los Angeles County - Tribal Consultation History [edit] Native Americans [edit] Today Rolling Hills is a city within Palos Verdes,The peninsula was the homeland of the Gabrielino Native Americans people for thousands of years, in other areas of the Los Angeles Basin archeological sites date back 8,000 years.t41151 Their first contact with Europeans in 1542 with Joao Cabrilho (Juan Cabrillo), the Portuguese explorer who also was the first to write of them. Chowigna and Suangna were two Tongva settlements of many in the peninsula area, which was also a departure point for their rancherias on the Channel Islands. Dear Niki Wetzel, AICP Principle Planner The Point Vicente Lighthouse on This IS regards to the above project the Palos Verdes Peninsula and "The project locate lies in an area where the traditional territories of the Kizh(Kitc) Gabrieleno, villages the National Register of Historic Places. ( Chowi and Suangna) adjoined and overlapped with each other, at least during the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods. The homeland of the Kizh (Kitc) Gabrielenos , probably the most influential Native American group in aboriginal southem California (Bean and Smith 1978a:538), was centered in the Los Angeles Basin, and reached as far east as the San Bernardino -Riverside area. The homeland of the Serranos was primarily the San Bernardino Mountains, including the slopes and lowlands on the north and south flanks. Whatever the linguistic affiliation, Native Americans in and around the project area echibited similar orgainization and resource procurement strategies. Villages were based on clan or lineage groups. Their home/base sites are marked by midden deposits, often with bedrock mortars. During their seasonal rounds to exploit plant resources, small groups would migrate within their traditional territory in search of specific plants and animals. Their gathering strategies often left behind signs of special use sites, usually grinding slicks on bedrock boulders, at the locations of the resources. Therefore in order to protect our resources we would like to request one of our experienced & ,erti ted Native American monitors to be on site during any and all ground disturbances. In all cases, when the NAHC (Native American Heritage Commission) states there are " NO" records of sacred sites" in the subject area; they always refer the contractors back to the Native American Tribes whose tribal territory is within the project area. This is due to the fact, that the NAHC is only aware of general information on each California NA Tribe they are NOT the "experts" on our Tribe. Our Elder Committee & Tribal Historians are the experts and is the reason why the NAHC will always refer contractors to the local tribes. Please contact our office regarding this project to coordinate a NA monitor to be present. Thank You Sincerely, Andrew Sales, Chairman 3abrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation 'O Box 393 uovina, CA 91723 ,ell (626)926-4131 :mail: gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com nrebsite: www.gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com 10/23/2014 C-90 ,of Loa 4, -- . fir'•:; "' � � �1LIF�PMPI„+ DARYL L. OSBY FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN November 6, 2014 COUNTY Or LOS ANGELES Niki Wetzel, Planner City of Rolling Hills Estates Planning Department 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Dear Ms. Wetzel: TIRE DEPARTMENT 1320 NORTH EASTERN f LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA n NOV 10 2014,,. r CITY OF ROLLiI�IG.LIILL.S!,,'--'s,rArES MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, "5833 CREST ROAD PROJECT (PA -25-14)," CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR TWO-STORY, DETACHED PATIO HOMES WITH A SHARED DRIVEWAY, 5833 CREST ROAD, ROLLING HILLS ESTATES (FFER #201400184) The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been reviewed by the Planning Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The following are their comments: PLANNING DIVISION: We have no comments at this time. LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT: The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Eire Department's Land Development Unit are to review of and comment on all projects within the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles. Our emphasis is on the availability of sufficient water supplies for firefighting operations and local/regional access issues. However, we review all projects for issues that may have a significant impact on the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. We are responsible for the review of all projects within contract cities (cities that contract SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: AGOURA HILLS CALABASAS DIAMOND BAR HIDDEN HILLS LA MIRADA MALIBU POMONA SIGNAL HILL ARTESIA CARSON DUARTE HUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE MAYWOOD RANCHO PALOS VERDES SOUTH EL MONTE AZUSA CERRITOS EL MONTE INDUSTRY LAKEWOOD NORWALK ROLLING HILLS SOUTH GATE BALDWIN PARK CLAREMONT GARDENA INGLEWOOD LANCASTER PALMDALE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TEMPLE CITY BELL COMMERCE GLENDORA IRWINDALE LAWNDALE PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROSEMEAD WALNUT BELL GARDENS COVINA HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE LOMITA PARAMOUNT SAN DIMAS WEST HOLLYW001 BELLFLOWER CUDAHY HAWTHORNE LA HABRA LYNWOOD PICO RIVERA SANTA CLARITA WESTLAKE VILLAG BRADBURY WHITTIER C-91 Niki Wetzel, Planner November 6, 2014 Page 2 with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department for fire protection services). We are responsible for all County facilities, located within non -contract cities. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit may also comment on conditions that may be imposed on a project by the Fire Prevention Division, which may create a potentially significant impact to the environment. 2. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access,, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrants. 3. This property is located within the area described by the Forester and Fire Warden as a Fire Zone 4, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). All applicable fire code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire hydrants, fire flows, brush clearance and fuel modification plans, must be met. 4. When involved with subdivision in a city contracting fire protection with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, the requirements for access, fire flows and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision tentative map stage. 5. Every building constructed shall be accessible to the Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways, with an all-weather surface of not less than the prescribed width. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. 6. Fire sprinkler systems are required in some residential and most commercial occupancies. For those occupancies not requiring fire sprinkler systems, it is strongly suggested that fire sprinkler systems be installed. This will reduce potential fire and life losses. Systems are now technically and economically feasible for residential use. 7. Single family detached homes shall require a minimum fire flow of 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two-hour duration. Two family dwelling units (duplexes) shall require a fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two-hour duration. When there are five or more units taking access on a single driveway, the minimum fire flow shall be increased to 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two-hour duration. C-92 Niki Wetzel, Planner November 6, 2014 Page 3 8. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 600 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a) No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 450 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b) No portion of a structure should be placed on a lot where it exceeds 750 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. c) When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 450 feet on a residential street, hydrants shall be required at the corner and mid -block. d) Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. 9. The Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in -length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. 10. Provide a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 50.3.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Department vehicular access to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall s of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. Fire Code 503.1.1 & 503.2.1. 11. Streets or driveways within the development shall be provided with the following: a) Provide 36 feet in width on all streets where parking is allowed on both sides. b) Provide 34 feet in width on cul-de-sacs up to 700 feet in length. This allows parking on both sides of the street, c) Provide 36 feet in width on cul-de-sacs from 701 to 1,000 feet in length This allows parking on both sides of the street. d) For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with the Fire Department approved signs stating "N4 PARKING - FIRE LANE" in three-inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Department use. - Turning radii shall not be less C-93 Niki Wetzel, Planner November 6, 2014 Page 4 than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. 12. Should any questions arise regarding subdivision, water systems, or access, please contact the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit Inspector, Nancy Rodeheffer, at (323) 890-4243 or at nrodeheffer(a�.fire.lacounty.aov. 13. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. FORESTRY DIVISION — OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. 2. Due to the limited amount of information included in your request, we are unable to respond to specific potential impacts. HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION: Per the submitted information the site was previously occupied by a gasoline service station and a commercial plant nursery. The historical site use may have contributed to onsite contaminations that may exceed the State recommended cleanup guidelines for residential use. It is requested that site is assessed and/or mitigated under oversight of a local or State jurisdictional agency and obtain a "No Further Action" letter prior to grading. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (323) 890-4330. Very truly yours, FRANK VIDALES, CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU FV:jI C-94 17 November 2014 Niki Wetzel, AICP, Principal Planner City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Dr. N. Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 I ANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY MANAGERS OFFICE ADMINISTRATION . VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL SUBJECT: Comments in Response to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a 4 -Unit Detached Condominium Project at 5883 Crest Road (PA No. 25-14) Dear _M %tzel: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above-mentioned project. We have reviewed the MND and project exhibits, and offer the following comments: The discussion of Aesthetics in the Initial Study (pp, 22-25) notes that the proposed project is expected to have less -than -significant impacts with respect to the privacy of surrounding properties. Table 111-1 makes specific reference to the impact of proposed balconies or decks upon "the existing privacy of surrounding properties." The Initial Study correctly notes that residences in Rancho Palos Verdes to the south and southwest of the project site will be separated from the project, both horizontally by the existing; improved right-of-way of Crest Road and vertically by the difference in elevation. Nevertheless, the City remains concerned about the potential for privacy infringement upon Rancho Palos Verdes residents as a result of any 2nd -floor decks or balconies along the southerly facades of proposed Units 3 and 4. It is not clear if such decks or balconies are proposed for these units or not, but if they are, the City suggests requiring them to include a solid, opaque 42 - inch -tall barrier around the perimeter, measured from the surface of the deck or balcony. This will protect the privacy of downslope properties in Rancho Palos Verdes while still affording opportunities for ocean and Catalina Island views for future residents of the project. 2. The discussion of Transportation/Traffic in the Initial Study (pp. 26-27) concludes that the.proposed project will have no significant impacts on traffic. The City concurs with this assessment. In a related matter, however, we note that the project proposes to remove and replace existing driveway approaches along Crest 30,140 H 1WTI IORM BLVD. / RAfYG'Q P,\L.o'ss vi:f,nrs. Gf\ 90176 .::,39t / (310) i44-5205/ FAX (310) 544-5291 \4+WWAA1. VINERDV.i.O0M/RPV PRAY ND Cn, RE.CYCI.Fp RAPER C-95 Niki Wetzel 47 November 2014 Page 2 Road as a part of the project. The driveway approaches, sidewalk and other right- of-way improvements along the Crest Road frontage of the project site are located within Rancho Palos Verdes. As such the project conditions should clearly state that any proposed modifications require the approval of the Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department. Furthermore, any other deficiencies in these existing right-of-way improvements should be repaired by the project proponent. 3. The discussion of Air Quality and Noise impacts in the Initial Study (pp. 28-38) identify less -than -significant air quality and noise impacts during project construction. The Rancho Palos Verdes residences located closest to the project site—and, therefore, most likely to be affected by dust and noise—are located on Highridge Road in the Seacresf neighborhood and Sail View Avenue in the Seabreeze neighborhood of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes agrees that the proposed project seems unlikely to result in significant construction -related impacts to surrounding properties. However, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes asks to be kept apprised of project status as it moves through the building permit process so that we will be able to advise our residents and City Council about the project's construction status, and to refer residents to the appropriate contacts in the event of any construction -related complaints. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5226 or via e-mail at kiff@rpv.com. Sincerely, Kit Fox, Al n Senior Administrative Analyst cc: Mayor Duhovic and City Council Carolynn Petru, Acting City Manager Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development Michael Throne, Director of Public Works WOorder Issuest5883 Crest Road120141117_MNDComments.docx C-96 ATTACHMENT 2 C-97 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling. Hills Estates, CA 90274 Telephone -(310) 377-1577 Fax -(310) 377-4468 www.Ro11inaH111sEstatr-a , THIS GRADING PERMIT REVIEW SHALL AUTHORIZE ONLY THE GRADING WORK REQUESTED -- AND SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF OTHER STRUCTURES SHOVyNON`„,THE GRADING PLAN. OWNER DATE ENGINEER n LICENSE # CONTRACTOR LICENSE # P. LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6>4,v 14"011 /r"i -x r r7 /2 YES NO EXTENT OF GRADING A. WILL THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE IMPORTATION OF ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIAL? I IF YES, HOW MANY CUBIC YARDS? CUBIC YARDS B. WILL THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE EXPORTATION OF,,-'' /Vt> EARTH MATERIAL? 2i 2. IF YES, HOW MANY CUBIC YARDS? CUB1 C-:YA_RD8 C. WILL THE AMOUNT OF FILL EQUAL THE AMO0_N'fOF CUT? EXPLANATION— Ile” aw, 64-% 7-6 i,,,p-1w1. A/ C-98 O. WILL THIS PROPOSAL CUT INTO ANEXISA/0- T|NG�UOPE? 1. iFYES, WHAT |GTHE MAXIMUM LENGTH AND DEPTH OFCUT SLOPE? LEN0THDEPTH 2. !FYES, WHAT |8THE RESULTANT RATIO? 3. |FYES, WHAT |GTHE TOTAL NUMBER C)FCUBIC YARDS BEING REMOVED? E. WILL THIS PROPOSAL FILL ANEXISTING SLOPE? 1. |FYES, WHAT |STHE MAXIMUM LENGTH AND DEPTH OFTHE FILL SLOPE? ~ LEN 2. |FYES, WHAT KSTHE RESULTANT SLOPE RATIO? _______ 3. |FYES, WHAT |STHE TOTAL NUMBER OFCUBIC YARDS -BEING FILLED? �7'�� HYDROLOGY A. WILL THIS PROPOSAL ALTER NATURAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS? B. WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESULT |NCONCENTRATION 0FSTORM � WATER RUN-OFF? C. WILL STORM WATER BE 0GCHAF��EDINTO ANACCEPTABLE DRAINAGE FACILITY? O WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESULT IN- '- pAT-TERNSVVH|CH CAUSE WATER TOBEDIRECTED ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES? 1IF YES, HAS THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THESE PROPERTY OWNERS BEEN OBTAINED? E. WILL THIS PROPOSAL INSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM ALL STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS? F. WILL THIS PROPOSAL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE'HYDROLOGY OF OTHER PROPERTIES? 2 v� �� -��a�v�� G. VV��' LTH|SP��PO3ALRE8ULT/NANYE�OSk]N? /v � 1. |FYES, WHAT MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN TOENSURE EROSION PROTECTION? GRADING METHODS A^ WILL THIS PROPOSAL REQUIRE THE USE OFHEAVY EQUIPMENT? 1. |FYES, WHAT MACHINERY WILL BEUSED? EXPLANATION � B. WILL THIS PROPOSAL INVOLVE THE USE OF TRUCK TRANSPORT? 1. |FYES, WHAT CAPACITY OFVEHICLE AND WHAT HAUL ROUTE IS REQUESTED? CAPACITY:CUBIC YARDS HAUL ROUTE C. DESCRIBE METHODS OFDUST CONTROL TOBEEMPLOYED DURING GRADING. c'1EXPLANATION- �/�y\��~- GRADING COMPATIBILITY A. WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESPECT AND PRESERVE NATURAL AMENITIES, INCLUDING TOPOGRAPHY, LANDSCAPING AND --- -- 3 �� -1 / ��x�� 0*4111111111110L4, B. WILL VV|LLTHIS PROPOSAL PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND RESPECT RESPECT THE PRIVACY OFSURROUNDING PROPERTIES? EXPLANATION V�L C, WILL WILLTHIS PROPOSAL INCORPORATE EXISTING ANDIORADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING TOENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES? EXPLANATION \<c� D. WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESPECT AND MAINTAIN EXISTING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE VIEWS? E. WILL THIS PROPOSAL COMPLY WITH THE OBJECTIVES OFTHE rN- NE\GHBC)RHOODCDK8P/T|B|L|TYORO|N/\NCE? ----' EXPLANATION 0 F. WILL VV|LL' HIS PROPOSAL COMPLY WITH ALL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS {)FTHE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES —�� -- GRADING ORDINANCE (MUNICIPAL CODE 17.O7.01O)? forms/grading updated 1u/2um7 4 5883 CREST ROAD PROJECT (PA -25-14) R ECEPV E D 1,JE C RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PERSONS/ ORGANIZATIONS, AND PuBuc AGENCIES THAT COMMENTED ON THE PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The public review period for the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the., 5883 Crest Road Project commenced on October 9, 2014, and ended on November 24,2014. The table below lists the persons, organizations, and public agencies that provided comments to the City of Rolling Hills Estates on the Proposed MND. Gal)rieleno Band of Mission Indians— Kizh Nation 10/22,2014 Andrew Salas, Chairman County of Los Angeles Fire Department 11/6/2014 Vidales, (-rank Citv of Rancho Pal I Ps Verdes 11/17/2014 Fox, Kit COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The comments and recommendations received on the Proposed MND, along with the lead agency's responses to the environmental points that were raised, are presented herein. All comments oni the Proposed MND were submitted in written form and are included in their entirety. Each point raised in these comment letters was assigned a number (e.g., XY-1), as noted on thelcommenf letters included in this section. The lead agency's response to each enumerated clornment is provided after the respective comment letter. City of Rolling h November 2014 's Estates 5883 Crest Road Project Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration C-102 IL City of Rolling h November 2014 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Letter RPV C1TV0FL RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY MANAGER'S OFFIC ADMINI'SFRATION November 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL Wetzel, AICs, Principal Planner of Rolling Hills Estates 5 Palos Verdes Dr. N. ng Hills Estates; CA 90274 «(ECT: Comments in Response to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a 4 -Unit Detached Condominium Project at 5883 Crest Road (ISA No. 25-14) SI 1 �.qre1el tzet:- City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity .to comment upon the )sed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above-mentioned project. W:, RPV -1 reviewed the MVD and project exhibits; and offer the following comments: The discussion of Aesthetics in the Initial Study (pp. 22-25) notes that the proposed project is expected to have fess -than -significant impacts with respect to the privacy of surrounding properties. Table 111-1 makes specific reference to the impact of proposed balconies or decks upon "the existing privacy of surrounding properties," The Initial Study correctly notes that residences in Rancho Palos Verdes to the south and southwest of the project: site will be separated from the project, both horizontally by the existing, improved right-of-way of Crest Road and vertically by the difference in elevation. Nevertheless, the City remains concerned about the, potential for privacy infringement upon Rancho Palos Verdes residents as a result of any 2nd -floor decks or balconies along the southerly facades of proposed Units 3 and 4. It is not clear if such decks or balconies are proposed for these units or not, but if they are, the City auggests requiring them to include a solid,. opaque 42 - inch -tall barrier around the perimeter, measured from the surface of the deck or balcony. This will protect the privacy of downslope properties in Rancho Palos Verdes while still affording opportunities for ocean and Catalina Island views for future residents of the project_ - The discussion of Transportation/Traffic in the Initial Study (pp. 26-27) concludes that the proposed project will have; no significant impacts on traffic. The City RPV - concurs with this assessment, In a related matter, however, we note that the project proposes to remove and replace existing driveway. approaches along Crest t:Ural-I--Swillcictrr'B?,vo,(R'yy'fioIi'tc. \IY.Y>E,;:,:Aw�,7�;wqi 1 f31otFAX io)".Ysr<:a 4ig4iY('AiD;Lft11:NP4�X;V�Uii6N. :Estates � - _ 5883 Crest Road Project Initial Study and Proposer! Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 C-103 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Niki Wetzel 17 November 2094 Mage 2 Road as a part of the project. The driveway approaches, sidewalk and other right- of-way improvements along the Crest Road frontage= of the project site are located within Rancho Palos Verdes. As such the project conditions should clearly state that any proposed modifications require the approval of the Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department, Furthermore, any other deficiencies in these existing right-of-way improvements should be repaired by the project proponent. The discussion of Air Quality and Noise impacts in the initial Study (pp. 28-38) identify less -than -significant air quality and noise impacts during project construction. The Rancho Palos Verdes residences located closest to the project site—and, therefore, most likely to be affected by dust and noise --•-are located on Highridge Road in the Seacrest neighborhood and Sail View Avenue in the Seebreeze neighborhood of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes agrees that the proposed project seems unlikely to result in significant construction -related impacts to surrounding properties. However, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes asks to be kept apprised of project status as it moves through the building permit process so that we will be; able to advise our residents and City Council about the project's construction status, and to refer residents to the appropriate contacts in the event of any construction related complaints. MI Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this project. If you have any ilRPV-5 questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544 5226 or via e-rnail at kiff@rpv.com. Sincerely, Kit FOX, A16P Senior Administrative Analyst cc: Mayor Duhovic and City Council Carolynn Petru, Acting City Manager Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development Michael Throne, Director of Public Works 'WBordor Issmsk5BB3.Crest. Roed120141117_MNUComrnents.docr 5883 Crest Road Project City of Railing Orlls Estates initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Novr ber 2014 12 C-104 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RESPONSES RPV -1: Introdu 6tory remarks are made. No response is required. RPV -2: The commenter raises privacy issues, which are beyond the scope of CEQA, but will be provided to d0cision-makers for their consideration. While outside of the scope of environmental impacts pursuonf to CEQA, subsection III, Aesthetics, of the project's IS/MND discusses privacy in the context of the City of Rolling Hills Estates' Neighborhood Compatibility Ordinance. In regard to privacy, the IS/MND notes, "the residences to the south, across Crest Road [in the City of Rancho Palos: Verdes], would be separated by a landscaped median in addition to the roadway itself and by changes in elevation," The closest residences to the South are approximately' I 10 feet from the project site, a sufficient distance to respect residential privacy in a suburban setting. RPV -3: The coi:nmenfer expresses concurrence with the IS/MND's conclusion that the proposed project will not cause any significant traffic impacts. The commenter further notes that Crest Road, including the sidewalk fronting the project, is within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and requests that fhe project's conditions state that any proposed modification to the Crest Road right-of-way (e.g., removal of driveway approaches and sidewalk modifications) require the approval of th e City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department. The project's Conditions of Approval will incorporate this suggestion. RPV -4., The commenter expresses concurrence with the IS/MND's conclusions regarding air quality and n6ise impacts from project construction. The commenter further requests that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes be kept apprised of the project's construction schedule and status. This requested is noted. City of Rolling Hills Estates staff will continue to coordinate with staff from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on this project. RPV -5: Closing; remarks are made. No response is required. City of Rolling Hills Estates 5883 Crest Road Project November 2014 Declaration Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Deck 13 C-105 LL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24,1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 8B Mtg. Date: 01/20/15 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 852, SUBDIVISION NO. 93 AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72232 SITE LOCATION: 80 SADDLEBACK ROAD (LOT 67-RH) ZONING AND SIZE: RA -S-1, 7.051 ACRES GROSS APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. GERALD TURPANJIAN REPRESENTATIVE: BOLTON ENGINEERING PUBLISHED: OCTOBER 30, 2014 ATTACHMENTS: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Proposed Mitigated negative Declaration Environmental Documents including Initial Study, Corrections and Responses to Comments, Agencies Comments, Neighbors Comments, Biological Assessment Study REQUEST 1. The Planning Commission viewed the site earlier in the morning on January 20, 2015. 2. The applicant requests to subdivide one existing lot located at 80 Saddleback Road totaling 7.051 acres (gross) into 2 parcels. Parcel 1 is proposed to be 2.40 acres gross and 1.96 acres net and Parcel 2 is proposed to be 4.64 acres gross and 3.71 acres net. The addresses of the proposed parcels will be established during plan -check of any future development, however the two possible new addresses are "84" for Parcel 1 while "80" could be retained for Parcel 2. The lot is currently vacant. A residence that previously occupied the mid-portion of the original parcel was demolished in 2013 and some landscaping in the form of lawns, trees and shrubbery remains. No plans have been submitted for new home ZC 852 - TPM 72232 I C-106 development. However, based on conceptual site plans submitted with the subdivision, the existing driveway that served the former home will be closed off and a new access driveway will be constructed for each of the two lots from Saddleback Road (net gain of one driveway). Previously, a third driveway approach was proposed to the stable site on Parcel 2, which the applicant eliminated and is now proposing to provide access to the stable sites on both parcels from the primary driveways. 3. The project site is bounded on the north, west and northeast by properties in the City of Rolling Hills that are similarly zoned (RA -S-1) and developed with single family homes on n-dnimum one -acre lots. To the south and south-west the project site is bounded by a parcel owned by the City of Rolling Hills, similarly zoned a portion of which is used for recreational equestrian purposes ("The Caballeros Ring"). The property bordering on the southeast, separated by a steep canyon, is an undeveloped 14.64 -acre parcel ("The Georgeff Parcel") in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and is in the process of being purchased by the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy. 4. At the December 16, regular Planning Commission meeting the applicant's agents proposed an alternative access to the stable on Parcel 2, which does not include an apron on Saddleback Road. Also at that meeting a neighbor at 86 Saddleback expressed concerns about privacy of his father's house if a home is developed on Parcel 1 in the future. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 5. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and after reviewing the application, staff prepared an Initial Study (IS) for the proposed subdivision. The Initial Study is a preliminary evaluation of potential impacts and also identifies mitigation measures to address impacts. Staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, subject to incorporation of mitigation measures, including those in the Biological Resources Assessment report prepared by an environmental consultant. Accordingly, a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared, copy attached. As required by CEQA, staff mailed the Initial Study to local cities, and state agencies for their comments. To date comments from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) and the Fire Department were received. In the report from RPV it is stated that the Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to note a blue line stream below the project site. The blue line stream located along the downstream properties in RPV and Rolling Hills Estates is approximately 250 feet from the project boundary and over 300-350 feet from the proposed limits of grading for future development. As part of the approval process for future development, conditions will be imposed protecting any discharge to the blue line stream and compliance with the City's Low Impact Development Ordinance will be required. The Fire Department comments are specific to requirements addressed during building permit stage. ZC 852 - TPM 72232 2 C-107 In addition, a letter was received from a neighbor expressing general concerns with development of the lots and how the future development will affect the neighborhood. As a result of the comments received and the recommendation of the Biological Study, staff prepared responses, amended the Initial Study and prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and MMRP (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program), all of which are attached. 6. Biological Resources Assessment A Biological Resources Assessment study was prepared for the proposed project. The consultant found that no species of plants or animals listed as threatened or endangered were observed on the property. One species of protected bird, the red-tailed hawk, was observed. No other plants or wildlife considered sensitive or protected by any state, local of federal regulations were observed and no features indicative of wildlife movement corridors were observed. The consultant found that "there is a small area along the eastern edge of the property that supports lemonade berry chaparral that may provide suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher and coastal sage scrub has been mapped in the adjoining George F. Canyon preserve". Although the plant is suitable, the small area and lack of soft - leaved shrubs, such as sage, California sagebrush and buckwheats on the property suggest that it is not prime nesting habitat for a gnatcatcher. The consultant further states that any impact that may foreseeably result from implementation of this project would be associated with construction on the lots. In order to ensure that substantial adverse impacts do not result from the project, the consultant recommends that prior to construction the following measures be implemented: 1. Prior to the start of construction, conduct a survey for coastal California gnatcatcher according to the most current survey protocol 2. Prior to the start of construction, conduct a survey for sensitive plants 3. Based on the results of the surveys above, coordinate as appropriate with the regulatory agencies to identify appropriate avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures. REQUIRED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 7. Pursuant to the City of Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance, the Planning Commission is the advisory agency for review of subdivisions and the Commission therefore makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission's recommendation must be supported by findings regarding both the subdivision map and environmental determination (Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration). The City Council is the final authority to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove a subdivision request. ZC 852 - TPM 72232 3 C-108 If the Planning Commission acts to recommend approval, the Commission must show affirmative findings that Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 72232 complies with the City's Subdivision Ordinance and General Plan, specifying that it does not require rejection pursuant to Section 16.12.150 of the Municipal Code. That code section specifies that a Tentative Map shall be rejected if it is found that: 1. The proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans; 2. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed; 3. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development; 4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat; 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause serious public health or safety problems; 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the subdivision. In this connection, the City Council may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these shall be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. SUBDIVISION MAP REVIEW PROCESS 8. Willdan Engineering, acting as the City Engineer, has reviewed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 72232 pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 16 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (Subdivisions) for compliance with standards in areas including streets, soils, geology and grading. Willdan has also coordinated map review by several agencies, including fire prevention, health services and sewage disposal with Los Angeles County and water availability with California Water Service. Reports containing the reviews and recommendations of the various agencies for the subject subdivision are attached. 9. The conditions that are recommended by Willdan Engineering or identified in the Initial Study will be incorporated in the Resolution of approval if this subdivision is approved. The Planning Commission may recommend additional requirements and conditions for this project as deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the Municipal Code and General Plan, including any that are recommended by the biological consultant. Staff notes that the recommended conditions contained in the attached agency reports are routine requirements. One special condition requested by the Los Angeles County ZC 852 - TPM 72232 4 C-109 Fire Department is that the applicant upgrades fire hydrants on Saddleback Road to meet water system "fire flow" standards. 10. The subject subdivision map is subject to separate review and approval by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA). All requirements of the RHCA will be incorporated by reference as a condition of the adopted resolution, if the subdivision is approved. 11. The Traffic Engineer and the Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed driveway approaches and concluded that the approach to the future stable on Lot 2 may have safety and visibility issues and continued their consideration to their January meeting pending Planning Commission review. The applicant proposes to relocate the stable approach and provide access to the stable on Lot 2 from the driveway to be located on that lot. Therefore, at the January 22 meeting the Traffic Commission will review the two new primary driveway approaches to the parcels. ROLLING HILLS SUBDIVISION CODE STANDARDS 12. Pursuant to Title 16, Subdivision Ordinance and Title 17, Zoning Ordinance of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the following issues of code compliance are subject to evaluation by the Planning Commission: A. Lot Size. The subject property is located in the RAS -1 zone, requiring that each lot be a minimum of one acre net in size (43,560 square feet). The applicants propose to subdivide one existing 7.051 (gross) acre lot into two lots, consisting of Parcel 1 having 2.40 acres gross and 1.96 acres net, Parcel 2 having 4.64 acres gross and 3.71 acres net. The proposed net lot areas exceed one acre (net) in size and therefore the proposed subdivision complies with the minimum lot size requirement for the RAS -1 zone. B. Lot sideline angles. Where practicable, the sidelines of lots shall be at approximate right angles to or radial to the street upon which such lot fronts. The proposed lots meet this requirement. C. Setbacks. A subdivision shall not create a non -conforming situation for any of the proposed lots. All structures on the subject have been demolished and the property is currently vacant, therefore no nonconformities in terms of structure setbacks will be created. Any future development, on both lots will be subject to City's development standards, includiggsetbacks. D. Easements. 10 -foot wide easements are proposed along both sides and the rear of the proposed lot lines. The width of the easements will be confirmed when the project is reviewed by the Rolling Hills Community Association. Saddleback Road has varied roadway easements in the area of the lot. A portion of Saddleback has 55 feet ZC 852 - TPM 72232 5 C-110 roadway easement and a portion has 50 feet roadway easement. The City's Subdivision Ordinance (section 16.16.090) requires 60 -feet roadway right of ways or easements, therefore the applicant will dedicate additional frontage on his property to attain 30 - foot roadway easement. When and if the properties across the street from subject property are subdivided, they too would have to dedicate additional frontage along Saddleback Road. E. Lot width along street frontage. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that the width along the street easement line shall be equal to the lot depth divided by 2.5, but in no case less than 150 feet. All of the proposed frontages, along Saddleback Road, will be at least 150 feet and therefore comply: Parcel 1 will have approximately 178 feet of frontage and Parcel l will have approximately 701 feet of frontage. F. Lot width along all points. The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that the width along all points of new parcels be not less than 150 feet. The two proposed parcels are irregular in shape, however both will meet or exceed the minimum requirement. The narrower lot, Parcel 1, has a width ranging between 178 and 200 feet (approximately) within the front 85 feet of the lot, off Saddleback Road, which increases to 240 feet at the widest point. G. Building pad. Pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance, a minimum of 12,000 square foot building pad must be shown as being able to be created on each home site. The tentative map proposes a 27,650 square foot pad for Parcel 1, and 33,901 square foot pad for Parcel 2 and both lots also provide building pads in the rear for a future minimum 450 square foot stable and 550 square foot contiguous corral. All of the proposed pad areas are shown on the tentative map for demonstration and feasibility purposes only. The building pads' size and location will be finalized when future home development is designed. All new construction will be subject to the City's development standards. H. Grading. In order to create building pads and driveways the total amount of grading for the subdivision will be 19,370 cubic yards. Factoring in fill with shrinkage, over -excavation and recompaction, the grading will be balanced overall. The amount of disturbed areas proposed as a result of grading is as follows: Parcel 1: a total of 34,129 square feet is proposed to be disturbed (39.84%) and Parcel 2: 62,304 square feet (38.56%). The amount of proposed disturbed area for both lots complies with the maximum amount of permitted disturbed net lot area (40%). Future construction on both parcels will be required to meet this standard. 1. Street Grades. The city's subdivision standards require that no street may have a grade of more than 6%, except where impractical with a grade no steeper than a 10% slope and maximum slope of 17% for a distance of not more than 150 feet. Both parcels will have access from an existing street; therefore this standard does not apply. ZC 852 - TPM 72232 6 C-111 J. Roadwa access Driveways. As noted, an existing driveway that served the former residence on the property will be removed. Two new driveways will be constructed, providing independent vehicular access for each lot from Saddleback Road. Stable access will also be provided on each lot. Each of the two new primary driveways will have a 26 -foot wide apron, which will taper to a 20 -foot wide driveway and have a slope of 7% at the entry off Saddleback Road and 12% at the steepest point. For both parcels the accessway to the area set aside for a future stable will be tributary from the main house driveway. The Traffic Commission at its January 22, 2015 meeting will consider the driveway aprons for the second time. Section 16.16.170 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that the grade for access to the building pad have a maximum slope of 12%, and 25% maximum for the stable accessways. The Zoning Code also requires that the width of a driveway not exceed 20 feet. Both of the proposed driveways and stable accessways will meet the applicable slope and width criteria. The proposed 20 -foot driveway width is also in compliance with Fire Department requirements. When constructed, the driveway to Lot 2 will require retaining walls ranging from a curb to 5' in height. K. Soils/geology. Upon its review of preliminary soils, geology and percolation reports, Willdan Engineering have deemed the lot "buildable". However, additional soils, geology, hydrology, percolation and other tests and studies will have to be performed prior to issuance of any construction permit. Soils and geology have been approved at this time for feasibility only. L. Utility lines. Electric power and other utilities are currently provided overhead from a utility pole on Saddleback Road opposite Parcel 2. As a condition of final map approval the applicant will be required to place all utility service to the parcels underground. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 13. Since 1977 there was only one subdivision of parcels in the RAS -1 zoning district. 11 Saddleback Road was subdivided where two parcels of slightly over one acre each were created. The two parcels directly opposite the subject site were created in 1976 and contain 1.59 and 1.78 acres net each, (not including roadway easement). The following are parcels in the RAS -1 zone adjacent to 80 Saddleback Road or in the immediate vicinity; in acres excluding roadway easement: ZC 852 - TPM 72232 C-112 71 Saddleback Road 2.57 acres 72 Saddleback Road 2.83 74 Saddleback Road 4.26 76 Saddleback Road 2.93 75 Saddleback Road 1.59 77 Saddleback Road 1.78 81 Saddleback Road 1.98 85 Saddleback Road 5.1 86 Saddleback Road 1.5 88 Saddleback Road 1.82 Proposed: Parcel 1 is proposed to be 2.40 acres gross and 1.96 acres net and Parcel 2 is proposed to be 4.64 acres gross and 3.71 acres net. 14. Willdan Engineering, acting as the City Engineer, completed preliminary engineering review of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72232 pursuant to all state and City of Rolling Hills subdivision regulations and has recommended to proceed to the Planning Commission for City planning review and approval. 15. All construction of new homes on the proposed two lots that is shown on the tentative map is provided at this time to demonstrate future development feasibility. Any future development will be subject to, minimally, Site Plan Review approval in a public hearing setting to be conducted by the Planning Commission. 16. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. Should the Planning Commission wish to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of approval, the Resolution would include language to prepare a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve Subdivision No. 72232 in Zoning Case No. 852 subject to conditions, including mitigation measures and adopt the proposed MMRP including the MND. ZC 852 - TPM 72232 C-113 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Draft' Zoning Case 852 / Subdivision 93 (VTPM 72232) 80 Saddleback Road A. Purpose The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act. It is the intent of this program to (1) verify satisfaction of the required mitigation measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; (2) provide a methodology to document implementation of the mitigation measures; (3) provide a record of the Monitoring Program; (4) identify monitoring responsibility; (5) establish administrative procedures for the clearance of the mitigation measures; (6) establish the frequency and duration of monitoring; and (7) utilize existing review processes wherever feasible. B. Introduction The MMRP describes the procedures that will be used to implement the mitigation measures adopted in connection with the approval of VTPM 72232 and the methods of monitoring such actions. Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix, on page 2, sets forth the responsible entity for monitoring, the timing, and a list of all mitigation measures. The Initial Study determined that mitigation measures are only required with regard to the issue of biological resources. Therefore, the MMRP presented on page 2 addresses only those mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study with regard to biological resources. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Draft) City of Rolling Hills0'� 80 Saddleback Rd. 2 -Lot Subi January, 2015 Page 1 C-114 E 12 tm O a` rn G_ O CL cl OI C d E O C O :wr (t3 tT ►� X m 2C C L a ho c 0 CL d tY co ta is O r+ C O 41 2 N 0 c y W 3 H a of � d c Q, O E m O to v 04 :O Wtka c c D O D O 0 0 _ to E CLO�+ O 2 E bO S E tw S a 0 c bn O 'c c c im. C ('X)c c Q p oar oaW° oaoc `O tw EW 0 0 C SC 3 O U O V U O u C to C ab m m 1 N N 0 Q OL D U a+ OU :e V+ 'vf O N 'L 041 .� C C L N a t. O. N a ta= Cl O C cJ oO nt W 0 w o o (v 41 m 41 .O CU L O ^ '�'' L Qi w a77 9 T V c s �' m L _a m 1 Q > = O C , CL — "0 m O 3 O O N p m V U U vv+� V U�Qyip L. M LL 7 •OaO Lj a 7 C O C L nN O 0 E Q OcWvOOc 1_l V) c al C p - G N � � cd IG 0 y n L it u a a 0 'may— •0 41 N 0 aa 4 c 4- al m " m eo N (1)¢ W c e v a e N m si a t— U O t4 I--• v C m &M w v.. '+1 f0 0 M-0 m w N 0 d C M C 0 a > V i C C p' d m M O y L m tU y W C C ++ m � ll� �J ++A U Z 4! Q - v�mi m - 4l " Q = N a� N tll m LL U Fn U/ 41 � 'L U- N ss+ all 4"' i'M 0 L d '�'' ayr L y N d. 0= J 0 ° ,_ 3 0 ° m o E S y a' G 16 o L m c [! 4" m C .II O O O L❑ C C '`+ i� d u 3 c c 4n coo Q tf E c m n 'rZ to tea T `o C m O tw , 0 m v CL t>0 = a-+ tl0 > ,� CO v - m y N o U❑ -O Q r� cOp G Q _ v v, U❑ m N h 'J ff IQ CD Q CL CD °o. to .a c to C 00 C LO C DN O � CD O C-115 V CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROPOSED 2 -LOT SUBDIVISION AT 80 Saddleback ROAD ZONING CASE 852; SUBDIVISION CASE 93 (VTPM 72232) LEAD AGENCY / PREPARER OF MND: City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road • Rolling Hills, California 90274 Contact: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director (310) 377-1521 PROJECT APPLICANT: Jerry Turpanjian, Property Owner 22 Portuguese Bend Road • Rolling Hills, California 90274 A. INTRODUCTION On October 13, 2014 property owner Jerry Turpanjian filed an application to subdivide a single 7.051 -acre (gross) parcel known as 80 Saddleback Road into 2 lots. The entire project area is located within the gated City of Rolling Hills. The City of Rolling Hills, as Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study and Environmental Checklist to examine potential environmental effects of the project. Findings of the Initial Study indicate that no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would result, provided mitigation measures are implemented. B. COMMENT PROCEDURES As per the attached Notice dated October 30 2014, a period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the Notice is provided to enable public review of the proposed subdivision and pertinent documents prior to the adoption of the Negative Declaration by the Lead Agency. The period for submitting written comments to the Lead Agency on the subject MND is between October 30, 2014 and December 5, 2014. Input may also be submitted by attending and giving comments at public hearings. C. PROJECT PURPOSE AND SCHEDULE 1. Project Purpose The project proponent requests subdivision (Vesting Tentative Parcel map No. 72232) approval to subdivide an existing vacant parcel into 2 separate parcels in compliance with all applicable Municipal Code standards and regulations. Future construction of two new single family homes, one per parcel is anticipated but actual construction will not result from this application, only the subdivision itself. 2. Project Schedule As per the attached Notice the Planning Commission will consider the proposed subdivision in a public hearing on Tuesday November 18, 2014. An additional public hearing including a field trip is expected to occur on December 16, 2014. One or more public hearings may be scheduled after December 16 and all interested parties are advised to contact the City to confirm. The Planning Commission final action in the form of a recommendation will be forwarded to the Rolling Hills City Council for a final decision on the application. All interested parties are advised to contact the City for information including date and time and location, regarding both Planning Commission and City Council meetings at which the project will be considered. Below is a summary overview of the anticipated dates on which the Planning Commission and City Council are expected to consider the project and the MND approval. M Draft MNP for 80 Saddleback Road Zoning Case 852, Subdivision Case 93 C-116 Planning Commission opens Public Hearing Tuesday, 18 November, 6:30 pm Planning Commission conducts Field Trip, Continued Hearing, including Tuesday, 16 December, am (Field Trip) and 6:30 consideration of Proposed Draft MND/initial Study pm (Public Hearing) Planning Commission conducts continued Public Hearing, including a field trip Tuesday, January 20, 2015, Field Trip and consideration of Proposed Final MND/Initial Study and Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Tuesday, 20 January 6:30 pm Planning Commission adopts Resolution with recommendations Tuesday, 17 February 6:30 pm City Council opens Public Hearing on Commission recommendation /Final MND Monday, 9 March 7:30 pm and MMRP, and schedules Field Trip City Council conducts Field Trip, continued Public Hearing Monday, 13 April, am (Field Trip) and 7:30 pm (Public Hearing) City Council adopts Resolution (final action on application) Monday, 27 April, 7:30 pm The above dates are approximate dates only. D. MND CONTENTS The proposed MND consists of the revised Draft Initial Study (IS), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The revised Draft IS includes the original Draft IS, Notice 10/30/14, all comment letters received, responses to comments received on the Draft IS (Summary table), Corrections and Additions to the Draft IS (Summary table) and the Draft (December 2014) Biological Resources Assessment prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants. E. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located at 80 Saddleback Road in the City of Rolling Hills. The Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) for the subject site is 7569-005-008. F. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT The subject application is a proposal to subdivide an existing lot totaling 7.051 acres gross into 2 parcels as follows: Parcel 1: 2.40 acres (gross), 1.96 acres (net); Parcel 2: 4.64 acres (gross), 3.71 acres (net). The property is currently vacant. No physical changes to the site will result from the subdivision or zoning application. Physical changes in the future related to development of the resulting parcels, if approved, will be the subject of discretionary actions including minimally Site Plan Review. The City is proactively addressing environmental issues that potentially could result when future development is proposed. G. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES AND DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS 1. Lead Agency The City of Rolling Hills is the designated Lead Agency for the project. In order to implement the project, the City Council will be required to (1) approve the Final MND indicating that environmental documentation for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) approve the proposed subdivision discretionary application; 3) approve the MMRP, and (4) direct staff to file a Notice of Determination. 2. Responsible Agencies In addition to the Lead Agency project approvals described above, the project will require approval by the Rolling Hills Community Association Board of Directors and therefore the RHCA is also a Responsible Agency. Other public agencies such as California Fish and Wildlife and California Regional Water Quality Control Board that will consider separate permits and approvals when actual construction is proposed in the future and to implement the project, will be considered Responsible and/or Trustee Agencies at that time. This MND will serve as CEQA compliance for all responsible and trustee agencies. H. MND DISTRIBUTION LIST MND for 80 Saddleback Road Zoning Case 852, Subdivision Case 93 C-117 On October 30, the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was mailed to all parties on the following list; Gary Sugano, Planning Director Jeff Gibson, Planning Director Environmental Planning City of Lomita City of Torrance Los Angeles County 24300 Narbonne Avenue 3031 Torrance Blvd. Regional Planning Lomita, CA 90717 Torrance, CA 90503 320 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Sheri Repp-Loadsman, Planning and David Wahba, Planning Building Director Joel Rojas, Planning Director Director City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Rancho Palos Verdes City of Rolling Hills Estates 340 Palos Verdes Drive West 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. i 4045 Palos Verdes Drive N. Palos Verdes Est., CA 90274 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Dr. Don Austin, Superintendent Reference Desk Manager, South Coast Region PVPUSD Peninsula Center Library 3883 Ruffin Road 375 Via Almar 701 Silver Spur Road San Diego, CA 92123 Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 California Regional Water Quality L.A. County Fire Department Mr. Marvin Jackmon, Control Board, Los Angeles Region Environmental Reviews Region Mgr. 320 W. 4`h Street, Suite 200 1320 N. Eastern Avenue Southern California Edison Los Angeles, CA 90013 Los Angeles, CA 90063 505 Maple StreetTorrance, CA 90503 Ms. Marcella Low So. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Agency Amanda Jorgensen, Executive Director Southern California Gas 21865 E. Copley Dr. California Native Plant Society Company Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 2707 K Street, Suite #1 2929182' Street Attn: Environmental Review Sacramento, CA 95816-5113 Redondo Beach, CA 90278 SCAG Gabrielino/Tongva Nation Henry Wind, District Manager Intergovernmental Review 761 Terminal St., Bldg. 1 California Water Service Company 818 W. Seventh Street, 2nd Floor 2632 W. 237th Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Torrance, CA 90505-5272 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Environmental Reviews 900 South Fremont Avenue Alhambra, CA 91803-1331 Los Angeles County Clerk Environmental Filing Dept. 12400 Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 (SEE NEXT PAGE FOR ATTACHMENTS) Draft MND for 80 Saddleback Road Zoning Case 852, Subdlvlslon Case 93 C-118 Revised Draft Initial Study 1/12/15 with attachments including: ® Draft Initial Study (IS) 10/30/14 ® Comments and Responses to Draft IS (Summary table) 1/12/15 ■ Corrections and Additions to Draft IS (Summary table) 1/12/15 ® MND / IS notice 10/30/14 • Comment letters 10/30/14 —12/5/14 on MND/Initial Study (RPV, tACOFD, Stetson) ® Comment letters: VTPM 72332 review - 3/5/14 —10/14/14 (LACOFD, Willdan) ® Draft Biological Assessment (SWCA Environmental Consultants, Dec. 2014) Draft MND for 80 Saddleback Road Zoning Case 852, Subdivision Case 93 C-119 Proposed 2 -Lot Subdivision: 80 Saddleback Road ZC 852 / Subdivision Case 93 January 12, 2015 Contents: a. Draft Initial Study dated 10/30/14 b. Corrections and Additions to Initial Study (Summary table) 1/12/15 c. Comments and Responses to MND/Initial Study (Summary table) 1/12/15 d. MND/IS notice 10/30/14 e. Comment letters (VTPM review 3/5/14 —10/14/14; VTPM 72332 review - LACOFD, Willdan) f. Comment letters (MND October 30 — December 5, 2014; RPV, LACOFD, Stetson) g. Draft Biological Resources Assessment, SWCA Environmental Consultants (December 2014) C-120 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C-121 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY APPLICATION NO: ZONING CASE NO. 852, SUBDIVISION NO. 93 AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72232 PROPOSED PROJECT: Request to subdivide one existing 7.051 acres (gross) vacant lot into 2 parcels each with a minimum area of 1 (net) acre. Prior to the tentative map submittal, a residence that had occupied proposed Lot 2, was demolished, therefore, while no new home construction is proposed at this time, the development anticipated will be for 2 new homes and related grading, of which 1 home is a net additional unit. NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS: Mr. Jerry Turpanjian 22 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 LOCATION OF PROJECT: 80 Saddleback Road (Lot 67-RH) ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel Nos.: 7569-005-008 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. EXISTING ZONING: RA -S-1, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 1 -Acre PROPOSED ZONING: No change. RA -S-1, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 1 -Acre PROPOSED LOT SIZES: Parcel 1: 2.40 gross acres, 1.96 net acres Parcel 2: 4.64 gross acres, 3.71 net acres LOCATION MAP: Attached. I. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section I. of the City's CEQA Guidelines. If more than one application is filed on the same site, consider them together as one project). X Yes _ No 1. If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes _ No X N/A II. INITIAL STUDY REVIEW A. Does the project require a 30 -day State Clearinghouse review for any of the following reasons? _ Yes X No ZC No. 852 Q -D PM 72232 1 C-122 I . The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hotel/motel development of more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. (D) A project, which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide wastewater management plan. 111. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: Request to subdivide one existing vacant lot 7.051 acres (gross) in area into 2 parcels that will each have a minimum land area of 1 acre (net). No new development is proposed at this time, however the submitted plans indicate potential future development of two new homes with related grading. ZC No. 852 ( PM 72232 2 C-123 Any future development on the proposed 2 parcels will require conformance with the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance and all other City, County and Rolling Hills Community Association's requirements. B, Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.) The project site consists of one lot (Lot 67-RH) with land area measuring 7.051 acres. It is currently vacant — a residence that previously occupied proposed Lot 2 was demolished in 2013. Non native landscaping from the prior home remain in part. Other than the prior building pad area, the remaining lot area consists of undulating hills and knolls covered by mature shrubs and trees, some native trees, plants and grasses with some areas being heavily wooded. Native birds and animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers and an occasional fox. Historically, no endangered species of animals have been identified in this area of the City. C. Surrounding land Uses: North: Single family dwelling unit on lot of one acre or more within the City of Rolling Hills zoned RA -S-1 — Residential Agricultural Suburban -1 acre. East: Single family dwelling unit on lot of one acre or more within the City of Roiling Hills zoned RA -S-1 — Residential Agricultural Suburban- 1 acre. South: Vacant land, "George F. Parcel" (APN 7568-006-008, 14.63 acres) in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, currently zoned "OH" (Open Space Hazard"). — being acquired by Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for .use as a nature preserve. (Source: RPV City Council Report 9116/14 -Agenda Item E.) West: Public Riding Ring — land owned by the City of Rolling Hills (Zoning: RA -S-1 — Residential Agricultural Suburban -1 acre) D. Is the proposed project consistent with: Yes No NIA City of Rolling Hills General Plan t _ Applicable Specific Plan _ City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance _A South Coast Air Quality Management Plan 3i _ Congestion Management Plan _ Regional Comprehensive Plan vm E. Have any of the following studies been submitted? X Geology Report ik Hydrology Report x__ Soils Report _ Traffic Study _ Noise Study X Biological Study (in process) _ Native Vegetation Preservation Plan Solid Waste Generation Report Public Service Infrastructure Report ZC No. 852 PM 72232 Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits _ Visual Analysis x Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis _ Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/Waste C-124 Geology, hydrology and soils reports and a slope map have been submitted to the City's Engineer (Wllldan Engineering under contract to City of Rolling Hills) and it has been determined that the subject site is feasible for subdivision purposes. Under a contract with the City of Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County Health Department (septic system review) and Fire Department have reviewed the proposed subdivision, finding it is feasible for subdivision purposes. A separate review of soils, geology, hydrology and slope stability will be required by the City's Engineer and Building Official prior to any development on either of the proposed lots subsequent to subdivision. In addition, the applicant has been directed to submit to the City a written report assessing the biological resources if any for the subject site (see Item IV. Biological Resources), IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _X—I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. This initial study was prepared by: Date: October 23, 2014 YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR ZC No. 852 PM 72232 [sill Sig rel C-125 V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," above may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. S) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and ZC No. 852 PM 72232 5 C-126 b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST It. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Issues: agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but ❑ ❑ ❑ CM not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ CM ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings? relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ❑ ❑ ® ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? It. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ® ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 111. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable air quality plan? ZC No. 852 PM 72232 C-127 ZC No. 852 PM 72232 C-128 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ IM number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ Im ❑ ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ® ❑ ❑ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑ IM biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ZC No. 852 PM 72232 C-128 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-6 of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life and property? ZC No. 852 PM 72232 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 8 ❑ ❑ ❑ 191 ❑ ❑ ❑ Im ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Im ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ CM ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CM C-129 A ZC No. 852 PM 72232 C-130 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ Im environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ IM environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ ❑ 191 or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area/ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ 1) would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ ❑ ❑ an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ZC No. 852 PM 72232 C-130 ZC No. 852 PM 72232 10 C-131 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ 191 discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or O ❑ ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on -or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ 53 g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ZC No. 852 PM 72232 10 C-131 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ZC No. 852 PM 72232 11 "n - Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact ❑ ❑ Mitigation Im Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ Im ❑ ❑ ❑ Ig] ❑ ❑ ❑ Im ❑ ❑ ❑ IM ❑ ❑ ® CI ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Im ❑ ❑ ❑ IM C -132 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ Incorporation XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ❑ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through a) Would the project result in substantial adverse extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response.times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ Im neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ ❑ require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? zC No. 852 PM 72232 12 C-133 XV. TRANS PO RTATIONITRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ZC No. 852 PM 72232 13 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation �k ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ H J LEI A 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EM ❑ ❑ rm ❑ ❑ Im ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Im C-134 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ® ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which ® ❑ ❑ Im will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues Checklist Form, which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST IMPACTS Item 1. AESTHETICS. a,b NO IMPACT -the City of Rolling hills does not have a scenic vista areas designation in its General Plan. Any future development is subject to Planning Commission review. Neighbors will have an opportunity to view a silhouette of any future development during the public hearing process for new development. ZC No. 852 PM 72232 C-135 c., d LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT - There is no evidence that the subdivision of one lot into two minimum 1 -acre parcels and the potential future construction of two new single-family residences and their attendant accessory structures on the subdivided parcels will substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and/or surrounding properties. Enforcement of all applicable Municipal Code zoning and building standards and requirements, for all phases of the future development through construction will ensure that the existing visual character or quality of the site and surrounding properties is not substantially degraded. Enforcement includes field review by the Planning Commission during both the Subdivision and subsequent discretionary Ste Plan Review process for each of the two new homes. During the subdivision approval process, the Planning Commission has the opportunity and authority to limit the finished floor height of a future residence, and the height of the required landscaping. The Planning Commission will have further opportunity to review and limit grading and preserve scenic resources more explicitly for each individual home site under the Site Plan Review process. Residential building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. Buildings are limited to one story in height and the Zoning Ordinance strictly limits outdoor lighting on private properties. The future construction of up to two single story single family residences and accessory structures, while introducing new sources of light, is not expected to create substantial new levels of illumination or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Light and glare impacts, therefore, are expected to be less than significant. Item II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES a -c. NOIMPACT The proposed subdivision is located on property that is zoned single-family residential on one or more acres net. Single-family residences with incidental agricultural uses are permitted uses. The subject subdivision of one lot into two parcels, facilitating two new conforming residences will have no impact on agricultural resources. Item III. AIR QUALITY a -c. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The potential future construction of two new residences, will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, will not contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and will have a less than significant impact on the existing environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. During future construction of two new homes facilitated by the proposed subdivision, dust may be created and on a temporary basis, there may be an increase in heavy construction vehicle traffic. After construction, it is estimated that increased development of two new single-family residential structures will generate insignificant increase in gasoline emissions because it is estimated that each of the two single-family residential structure generates 10 average daily trips (ADT) totaling 10 ADT for this project and will have a less than significant impact on the environment according to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's "Air Quality Handbook," revised April, 1987. d, a NO IMPACT This project is a subdivision into two lots with a potential for development of two new single family residences and it is not expected that this would create any significant ZC No. 852 �0 PM 72232 15 C-136 objectionable odors. Additionally no objectionable odors are anticipated to occur during construction. Measures -- (to be incorporated into conditions of approval of future Site Plan Review) A. During construction the property owners shall be required to conform to South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust generated by construction activities. Fugitive Dust 1. A Comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Program will be developed and implemented before commencement of grading activities, subject to review and approval of the Building and Safety Department and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). This Plan, at minimum, shall address compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, including: - Regular site watering - Application of soil stabilizers to inactive graded areas - Covering and/or washing of transport trucks leaving the site - Periodic street cleaning of roads adjacent to the site A High Wind Response Plan in accordance with Rule 403 of the SCAQMD shall be developed and implemented at times when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to reduce PM. emissions. The High Wind Response Plan shall be developed and implemented before commencement of grading activities, subject to review and approval by the Building and Safety Department and the SCAQMD. Stockpiles of soil, sand and similar materials shall be stabilized by being enclosed, covered, watered twice daily, or with application of non-toxic soil binders. Construction Equipment Exhaust Heavy construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. Construction equipment shall be fitted with the most modern emission control devices. The construction manager shall monitor compliance with this measure and is subject to periodic inspections by City Building Inspectors. The project shall comply with Rule 461, which establishes requirements for vapor control from the transfer of fuel from the fuel truck to vehicles both during construction and subsequent operations. Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a, b, d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION No physical development is directly proposed concurrent with this subdivision proposal. The subject subdivision map, however anticipates future development for two new homes, one per each of the two lots. The proposed subdivision reduces the need for new grading and disturbance by considering and incorporating existing graded and relatively flat areas into the layout of the two proposed lots as future building pads. New grading and disturbance is necessary, however, to establish two independent home sites plus accessory equestrian use areas for each lot. For Lot 1 (2.4 gross acres) a total of zC No. 852 PM 72232 16 C-137 2,680 cubic yards of grading is estimated including 840 cy cut, 752 cy fill, 500 cy over - excavation and 588 cy re -compaction. For Lot 2 (4.64 gross acres a total of 16,690 cubic yards of grading is estimated including 4,945 cy cut, 4,345 cy fill, 3,400 cy over - excavation, and 4,000 cy re -compaction. Future single family home construction will be subject to discretionary Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission including field review prior to public hearings. The large lot, estate density single-family development that is expected to occur provides the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing vegetation and habitat. The General Plan and Zoning Code that guides development in Rolling Hills restricts lot coverage to 20% maximum of the net lot area, structural and pavement coverage to 35% maximum and overall disturbance to 40% maximum net lot area. City policies encourage the retention, use, and maintenance of native drought -tolerant vegetation. (General Plan Land Use Element Goal 3; Policies 3.2 and 3.3). There are no flood hazard zones on the project site. The site is adjacent to a large vacant parcel in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes that is currently used and is in the process of being purchased for use as a nature preserve. Measure to be incorporated as mitigation into the approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 72232: B. The applicant will be required to prepare and submit for Planning Commission review, a biological assessment in the form of a 'Biological Resources Assessment Study" which minimally shall involve; 1) a search of database and literature, including the review of sensitive biological resource occurrence records within the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Community Society (CLAPS) rare plant inventory; 2) Field Study of project area to perform vegetation mapping and assess wildlife habitats; 3) a Biological Resources Assessment Technical Report to include: Introduction with environmental setting and description of project location; Methods describing literature review, database search, field surveys and assessments for special - status species occurrence, Descriptions of the results of databases and mapping; Discussion of distribution of biological features within the project area; Assessments of potential project impacts to biological resources and Recommendations for mitigations. The Study shall be reviewed, evaluated and acted upon by the Planning Commission as part of the environmental assessment and prior to a final decision on Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 72232. The applicant shall incur the cost for preparation of the Study and shall be required to comply and implement all measures recommended as approved by the City in accordance with a schedule incorporated into the conditions of approval a full subject site has not been identified as containing any established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. The Planning Commission could restrict removal of native vegetation and/or created area for substitution of removed native vegetation on the lot. Measures to be incorporated into conditions of approval of Site Plan Review for future home construction: C. Upon review and assessment of this project by the appropriate County, State and Federal Resource agencies, the applicant will be required to meet the requirements of these agencies. D. Future individual Site Plan Review approvals by the Planning Commission shall include the following conditions with respect to mitigation for loss of native vegetation, unless the City determines at the time of approval of a Site Plan, such measures are not necessary ZC No. 852 P PM 72232 17 C-138 or a reasonable alternative method of preserving and mitigating the impacts to mature native vegetation protected areas is feasible: Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. In order to minimize impacts to the hillsides and canyon areas on this property, the building pad and graded slopes shall be designed and developed in a manner that retains and restores native drought - tolerant plant life outside the building pad caused by pad grading and preserves the existing contiguous topography, flora, and natural features of that area to the greatest extent possible. 2. To prevent construction equipment from going beyond the limits of any building pad, contractors shall use fencing or other barriers to the greatest extent possible. 3. No contractor, operator of a bulldozer or other equipment or other construction worker on the site shall allow equipment, supplies or soil to encroach into a protected area, if any, except as specified on an approved Site Plan. a. No chemicals, including but not limited to fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, chlorine or pool chemicals, shall be used, disposed of, or allowed to drain onto the slopes. 5. All graded areas shall be planted with native plants subject to Fire Department criteria and requirements. 6. A landscaping bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15%, shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released two years after the initial plantings by the City Manager if he determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscape plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition, e, f. NQ 1MPACT The proposed subdivision including future development of two single family homes will not conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation ordinance. Further, the proposed subdivision property is not identified on any adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans, or any other similar approved habitat conservation plans. Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a — e. NO IMPACT No unique historical, archaeological or paleontological resources have been identified in the project area therefore it is expected that the development facilitated by the proposed subdivision will result in an environmental impact to cultural resources that is less than significant. Measures (to be incorporated into conditions of approval of Site Plan Review for future homes) E. Should significant unique archaeological resources be found during the grading or construction within the project, the construction shall cease and the applicant at his sole expense shall hire an archeologist to assess the resources. The City of Rolling Hills shall approve of the archeologist. The archeologist shall establish procedures for iC No. 852 ( 4 PM 72232 18 C-139 archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project proponent, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected unique archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the project proponent and to the City Manager. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate action, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and/or salvage. Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a — e. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Because the City is located in seismically active southern California, future development of this subdivision would be exposed to potential ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The subject site is not located on a known active or potentially active fault. The Palos Verdes fault, although considered potentially active, is located approximately one mile northeast of the City. Further, the site is not located within an Alquist-Priola Fault Rupture Hazard Zone. The potential for ground rupture on the site is considered to be very low. The approval of the subject subdivision project is not expected to directly have the potential to result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures. While there are specific areas in the City that are know to have unstable earth conditions, including active landslides and soil creep, the project site is not in such an area. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, andlor increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this subdivision project, is underlain by expansive soil, which is subject to slippage. However, prior to construction, soils and geology studies will be conducted and reviewed by the County Public Works Department. Approval of the subdivision will result in disruptions, displacements and compaction of the soil during the probable future construction of two homes when the new building pads are built. The proposed new building pads will, with the new homes, be subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Also, during future construction, it is expected that removal of natural vegetative cover, may potentially cause an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm runoff. The reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with development may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. However, this is very unlikely, as Rolling Hills is not coastal. The development is limited to the addition of a maximum of two single-family dwelling units; therefore the project will not result directly or indirectly in significant impact on the environment from a geological or soil stability perspective. Measures to be incorporated into conditions of approval of Site Plan Review for future homes) F. The applicants shall provide sufficient evidence to show that the sustained use of proposed private disposal systems are possible without inducing a geologic hazard. G. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the future residences, an Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth is Section 7010 of the 2001 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. ZC No. 852 PM 72232 C-140 H. A detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports, for the future construction of a single-family residence on each lot will be submitted and reviewed by the County of Los Angeles Public Works Department. Cut and fill slopes will not exceed a slope gradient of a 2 to 1 (H:V). Item VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a -g. NOIMPACT The proposed project involves the request for a subdivision of a single lot into 2 parcels for potential development of two new single-family residences. It does not involve the storage and distribution of materials that may be considered hazardous. Future development contemplated will not be involved in any activities that would emit and/or handle hazardous materials. The proposed project will not generate harmful emission that may affect schools. The City is located approximately 1.5 miles south of Torrance Municipal airport. The project is not located within a designated aircraft crash zone, nor will it Involve any improvements that would otherwise affect airport operations. As a result, the proposed project will not present a safety hazard related to aircraft or airport operations. The project provides adequate street access, and project operations would not interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The City's Building & Construction Ordinance, .the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) closely and carefully regulate development including construction activities and building materials. The future development will comply with all pertinent fire code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows. Specific fire and life safety requirements will be addressed at the building fire plan check, including annual brush clearing and fuel modification plans. The City and the RHCA require that all roof materials be fireproofed. The effect of the construction of two new single-family residences, therefore, is expected to be less than significant. Item Vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a,b,f j NO IMPACT Section 402 of the Federal Clean water act requires National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits (NPDES) for storm water discharges from storm drain systems to waters of the United States. Applicants for development projects, including in Rolling Hills, have two major responsibilities under NPDES permit. The first is to submit and implement a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) containing design features and Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate and applicable to the project. The SUSMP describes how post construction pollutants in storm water discharges will be controlled and reduced. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the County of Los Angeles Building and Safety Department must approve the SUSMP. The second responsibility is to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for all construction projects with disturbed area of 1 to 5 acres. Should the final proposal for a future single-family residence include disturbed area of one acre or more this requirement will be implemented. Specific mitigation measures have been incorporated into the SUSMPs for development projects under the NPDES Permit. Implementation of these measures will ensure that the quality of storm water runoff leaving the project site will meet all regulatory standards and ZC No. 852 PM 72232 20 0 C-141 will maintain the beneficial uses of the surface water for public and commerce. The City of Rolling Hills, as part of a normal project approval and construction practice through the contract with Los Angeles County monitors compliance with these requirements. Due to the small scale of potential development, which is anticipated to occur on the site and the share of the site, which would remain uncovered by hardscape, the proposed project will not interfere with groundwater recharge. The proposed project is not located in proximity to a river or stream and project storm flows would be channeled to the storm drain system. The project site is not within an area that would be subject to seiche, tsunami or mudflow. c -e. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of future structures, the introduction of impervious surface materials and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development proposed for potentially two new single-family residential units permitted by the General Plan, the impacts will be less than significant, with appropriate measures to be applied by incorporation in the conditions of approval of required discretionary permits (Site Plan Reviews). A septic tank system will be required when in the future the vacant parcels being created are developed. As septic tank leach field effluent percolates into the watershed, some discharge into surface waters downstream. However, the impact generated from the addition of up to three dwelling units is not expected to be significant. Measures (to be incorporated into the conditions of approval of Site Plan Review for future homes) The property owners shall be required to conform to County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. The property owner shall prepare and implement an Erosion Control Plan, SUSMP and SWPPP, if applicable, in conformance with the County of Los Angeles Building Code requirements. Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a -c. NOIMPACT The project, facilitating the future development of 2 new single-family residences, is consistent with the surrounding residential uses. The project, is consistent with Zoning Ordinance and the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which establish the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain, require a balanced cut and fill ratio and regulate the size and coverage of developments. The proposed project is not located on any habitat conservation plan. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES_ a -b NOIMPACT There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or land use plan for the project site. ZC No. 852 PM 72232 21 C-142 Item XI. NOISE a -d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The goal of the City of Rolling Hills' Noise Element is to preserve and enhance Rolling Hills' quiet rural atmosphere and promotes the use of landscaping to obscure noise production from roadways and adjacent properties. Although approval of the project will result indirectly, in the potential development that may cause intermittent loud noise during construction, the noise is a necessary by product of the construction of one additional building pad and two total residences that will be limited in covering no more than 30% of the building pad. The building pad design is subject to individual review and approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Any construction or traffic noise will be required to conform to all City and County ordinances and engineering practices. The City requires that all construction work take place only between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday. As stated previously, there will be intermittent but loud noise levels during construction, if and when and to the degree that it occurs. In such a scenario, the noise will be temporary or periodic in nature and s necessary byproduct in order to construct new homes on the parcels created by the subdivision. The level of nuisance associated with the construction noise will be minimized due to the measures that are required to be taken as conditions of approval as noted below e,f NOIMPACT The City is located approximately 1.5 miles south of Torrance Municipal airport. The project is not located within a designated aircraft crash zone, nor will it involve any improvements that would otherwise affect airport operations. As a result, the proposed project will not present a safety hazard related to aircraft or airport noise. Measures to be incorporated into conditions of approval K. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. Item XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING NO IMPACT a -c The impact on population and housing of the proposed future development of two homes (1 net new, because one home that historically occupied the existing parcel has been recently demolished) where each home will house approximately 3-4 additional people, is expected to be less than significant. Item XHI. PUBLIC SERVICES LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT (Fire, Police) AND NO IMPACT (Parks and Schools) a. The City of Rolling Hills contracts with the Los Angeles county Consolidated Protection district, which provides fire protection services to the City Fire station No. 106, is located within the City, on Crest Road. Other County Fire Stations are relocated in the vicinity and are available to provide additional protection resources, if needed. ZC No. 852 PM 72232 22 C-143 The City of Rolling Hills contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department for police protection and law enforcement services. The main sheriffs station serving the City is located at 26123 Narbonne Avenue, Lomita, California. The station is located approximately 2.0 miles to the north of the site. Historically the emergency response time in the City of Rolling Hills averages five minutes or less. The impact on public services of the future development of 1 net new single-family residences, each housing approximately 3-4 additional people, will be less than significant in terms of fire and police protection. The small scale of the project is not expected to have any impact on schools, parks or other public facilities. Item XIV. RECREATION a -b. NOIMPACT No impact is anticipated on neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities of the future development of 2 total or 1 net new additional single-family residences, which would add approximately 3-4 people per home (4 net new people) The goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan that include: continuing the City's program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers, encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued upkeep of all City -owned recreation facilities within Rolling Hills, and providing expanded recreational opportunities for children, do not conflict with the future development of up to two new homes. The subdivider will be required to dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu thereof for purposes of park and recreational facilities (Quimby Act) in accordance with the proportional standards set forth in Section 16.28.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. These funds are used by the City continually maintain and upgrade the existing recreational facilities in the City. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Approval of the subject 2 -lot subdivision project could potentially result in increased traffic that will occur during the construction of two new building pads and up to two new single- family dwellings. The circulation within the City during construction of the project will likely be impacted but not to a significant degree as the work will be occurring in a limited area and to specific lots. The incremental increase of two new single-family dwelling units will not generate more than an estimated 20 daily vehicle trips in the entire city. Future development of two new single-family dwelling units will slightly affect the balance of transportation improvement "credits" over new development "debits" required to preserve compliance with the Congestion Management Program of Los Angeles County (CMP) that is intended to address the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system and air quality. At 6.8 debits for every newly developed single-family dwelling unit, development of one net unit will • use up 6.8 credits. The City has 68 credits at this time, enough to accommodate the construction of at least 8 additional residences in the City of Rolling Hills. If and when the net build -out is completed for the subject project, the City will have 61.2 credits, enough for 9 additional residences in the City of Rolling Hills. In addition, future development of one net additional single-family residential units will not exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the ZC No. 852 (90) PM 72232 23 C-144 county congestion management agency as there are no heavy congestion designated roads or highways within the City of Roiling Hills. b -g. NOIMPACT The project is situated along a private, Rolling Hills Community Association maintained street. The private driveway serving the prior home on the site will be abandoned and closed off and two new private driveways will be constructed to serve the future new homes, intersecting the adjoining roadway of Saddleback Road. The locations of the new driveways are subject to review and approval of the City's Traffic Commission prior to approval of the tentative subdivision map. The lot lines are proposed to be 90 degrees to the existing street and there are no sharp curves or ""blind" spots when exiting the lots. Therefore the project is not expected to substantially increase hazards due to access design or result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate parking capacity as the proposed driveways have adequate width (24 feet at the entrance from Saddleback and 20 feet wide on each lot) and gradient (maximum 12% slope) meeting all city and County Fire Department criteria for access. Measures__(to be incorporated into the conditions of Site Plan Review for future homes). L. The property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate truck traffic throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and G PM Monday through Saturday only so as not to interfere with the normal flow of traffic within the City of Rolling Hills. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. a,b,g NOIMPACT Subdivision of the subject property will not generate any wastewater that will impact a public wastewater facility. The City of Rolling Hills is not connected to the County Sanitation District sewage facility, as there are no sewers in the City (except in a small area at the western end of the City). The project would not result in a need for new or substantial alteration to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities, due to the limited amount of additional water required to serve the project. The developer will be required to comply with all local, state, and federal requirements for integrated waste management (e.g., recycling, green waste) and solid waste disposal. c -f. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board will not be exceeded by the future development of one net additional single-family residential unit. The impact on water supplies available for the future development of one net additional single-family residence, housing approximately 3-4 additional people each is expected to be less than significant. Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map the applicant shall be required to obtain a letter from the Water Company certifying that adequate water supply is available to serve the proposed parcels. Mitigation Measures (to be incorporated into the conditions of Site Plan Review for future homes) ZC No. 852 (0 PM 72232 24 C-145 M. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. N. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. O. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. P. Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map the applicant shall be required to obtain a letter from the Water Company certifying that adequate water supply is available to serve the proposed parcel, should a single family development be proposed in the future. Q. Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map the applicant shall be required to place all utilities underground or file an improvement security, to the satisfaction of the City. Item XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION Subject to a confirming study (Biological Assessment) the preparation of which is to be incorporated as a condition of approval of the subdivision application and to be considered in the public hearing, the project is not expected to degrade the quality of the environment or substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. b , c. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The relatively small size of the project site, together with the fact that future development enabled by the project is limited to a maximum of one net additional single-family residence, supports a conclusion that the project impacts will be insignificant and not expected to result in environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. =71 zC No. 852 PM 72232 25 C-146 0 co U Q) A :p b0 I� ccu 'b cis bA � cn p " . 'O 0 as 4 Cn G 0 E4 O 0 O U Tp N t'n N N n O'+ a� U 'S 'Ct V] N u7 O cu cc4 v b!] r4 0 N -147 ._6r OO O 0 +' _ a)O > >2cc c0 wa 0m nr o o c c CL o r--0 ° 3 O2 ro O a to CL m a) O m 0N�M'C- > .. n'- o 0 o c c a) o n- •0 M� d j _ ` a a o�E aa)) oa�i C'4 r— C 'r .0 = C N U 49 O p Vi U 0 U ) U) 0 0 CL CL � M E Cl- a) lV �-+ C 0 m0 Off' Vmnt U 00 _ a coo 0 i 42 C N U 2 N to U O a) U pp c •— til U� G p fa O C++ ,C — E C O.yQ. M V w0 3w 3a o °�. 3w CL z No ^ C rp 0 a)U .� •o J _= w m C C C O U (� to U is O U co Ci (a tD a w= U o. c U O c�a ca v 4: O� 0Evi * -0 to 4) Vip L a-0 W+C 0 E �� N N O0) C' Cr_ <UN (0 > C9n > CN ca T) ��_V '5 ca rnO £ oCL mE�; v U) �r p c v ca a Q� �� w 'U. Vn ..mca Q -o V Corty+, m cs a� = 4)Lu °)O O cu ` �m^oca i—l. 0) a 0) m U _ U L to _wca •� Q n 0:5 CL co m.Q a�o; o� m-2o v� pO �rn� =moo �o ga^ avC —o. cE 5 v o) a) E� c o0 (Dock cm o L SL m ON p c avni0 tr6. c'>pc UNcg O`. .� U` ci)N0 •L 'b C T t4 N m Li — N C TN O o) v) d { {. ., m u a o 0 0 to i>> x CY 2r. C Vp1 E m a) a) O V U w O U D .; N O 2 II_ la J _ > > C*4 X X m C) C) O % 0 T T N T [3 T 0 ca c O X O C U w N £ cLL cn � m W x c 4) N co U 0 a 0 w- � � o, o)p L N C 0 C C ca O -222 m °iii U> Q Q> gfA -147 .t� CCI C4 x N L) C� N � N M V) C cn 0 O 4-Jcz � U 41 0 CC Q cn O V3 o'f) 00 "CS � bio V O 4 N v a� O U r -i C-148 M dl 4) A O y M 7+ o -0 .� L o L7 ++ a 'C m_ wCo 0 y L6 e m -� U m io Uo+tea) N O 0-0 vim- n V L c> m E cOc0�� 3 (�� as 0 °� o 3� c E } aCD y c Z a) c0)s � L0 .0 q r -0 GQ 0 0 9 4 co Oa 0 z L1 N N LL) a) O a L a O o a) C L o N Q y LL N 1- u' 0C'p w c C E 0 E Q) N O (Q T N m c O 6 O 0 0— x+ E w m y ?> ` O w ctt rn O C•- a) c 0 m L cr- D C 7 O p W y 4)m O q y y m a) 0-00 N 'C >a U) � E 0) CaU c= O O � 'o -2C M , y N (0 � C f/l M.- wt. 0 i1 > Q) f � 3 � N — � 7 C n'c � � (012 v 0 "Oo io 00 o 'p os o N a a� m $j (LO 0 -,. � m� v oc c ct C no rn do y, p CLN N m�. Z G$ j — i]. L E 0 y c, It ami 3 (¢„� _3 [u LL C T E M G N y+ Z� C m y 0 N U CX 0 'O CA pO O 0 L2 y O rx O Z o y r t0 m c t (D o L iti =_ -o a) o E E E U »% CL ry z .— 0 c 0 ._ V o v' ,� (3 N mp 7 '- ('"o a) c m f 0 o� S1 ro O x� a) I- +L.0.'Q'O O(��[� C > = o U) Vt a) c 0� 0 0 m 2� a cn "' ` O V O= 0-0 O O y c0 N L Lc E— Q) CN vC a) .�^ C O L O2 La co c L1J 'L:atyCl LLLE:c u zt L m N 7 w O 0 N ut M m .� V a) pO C La a) y Op NE pa y'ma 0 0 o otev3: T4oi a) ~� � E S v c CO m Q) LL In p sa a) ,U c .o 3 E o y a) _ `—� a c — -o m d2��w a r- y n 0 0c0 Q CL a o0 .0 y me ao ` M0�0 '- �L i3 ��p - oro to w 0 0 }..E u. U•-u,�m O U a> ayi@p 4) �c e.c RS ~ ~ CD m �y Ja% P nm U Ci Oy W LLS r L 0 N 0 c*) N N M L U N (U O O C L .m a) 0 Off..E� a4 vCL Oi d L Cq o m n �C> �. Li C3I 0. ~�� N cmnsot (� N Z a `~ V a) (0 (n p 0 a (1) Q C.) a oL_a som 0).2 N y m U) c > p 0 me EL� 0 aLa)C cc Nam NCL O a) O m N Cm Xi OCm lL (D �+ a o OY 0) a0 U o a r N ro m 0) E a.O 'c` .n �. cix ,Q E a) �- oca oc c ao m � 0 oto atm E> (� ai ¢ 0 0= o a y CU �'�rna� m m a 0 04 g c E� U� C7V N� r y iii N ^ U a+ O i/i i+ y tT a o 0 o f L3) n. y,N„ V y .� N m a.�N N m Oa >w;aTO > ((aa0 X8- r -i C-148 as C-149 2� � 2 N o OCL F03 % p k � 0 cc-14tm m ) dad � �\� @ 0 aso k 27k � �k� 22o &/o §R�'o E %t & kk� ®k% aCLa) CN 2« (NUL 22k .@t q3/ �k\ $ 0 ��E� 0o E 0wiE a o � / (o ��/ --©e c @ G e eta% CL—r (D 0. / _ r E S — §/ J ao ® • e a M ■ $0cE: ■% �� ■a� @ o cl) §D t $% CLC4 ca -j c vi - 0. as C-149 m C-150 N m OLS a a� w Cl 'C mv gCL o me � 3 a� �. O O div N 0 �a)`�'° c Ut -C a L 0 C - 0C m �- y c N om a ca 3 aQ y y O� Cl c O a v L]. L N ++ 4�f� y L O C1 0. cu f H a) al�1) n L V Q Q o '� Q E E �} •� CU U o N CU 0 p '�' U) OC00w (a ` Wc li 0c O" N c o= OU o O 0ui dv- �0 a't CL 2 eU O _ N c ". N m V: (p .ti r O 06 mao y, C W C 3 a+ .r, c M N is > rn o E y oo 3 o— — 5 0 m o 0 a-o 0 0 5 C CL O t O N N N +0+ O t7 N fl O d O"0 L N.N ca_ (E9 �' Q LL N - 3 w - U :" c Cas co > .0 O _ O m _ ? E N _N y :L+ m O a C 5 N c f c Z a) O 'C1 N• Q co � � N N`N �0 ? c N O>, CO Q Q� w C y O m O c= O .c 70 m a) ,p m d ' E Q nZ U N. CL'o O L o a w 00 x f H-C� o `° :5 E'O— 00M N C 02 tom o Z om rL �.� 0oV r_ uj E= m C N 'D N C L .0 C0 a1 N c m Em vis N t m U 0U0 Q 4�N O „� �0• O � S°Ew�in ¢ C m -0 ° C roro O T •� c WWcao 2 EO m UwN rn m75 0� °' `m N N N i a`a w �- rf m M a- =� -� C= o sz c c a— ca ,_m om > 0—, m a 0 0 0 o ao U 3 CL c O a c 0) : o L- Q ca N c o �0 � Q � �a m o m s o m o o'U c N° o a �V ti ymV rZ N0O ceiLL rca 04 rn Ci d :3 d in� CCo — O � N 20 Z C1 7 + C Z.0 to O L c n Ca N Q? m�CL O y CL m N w fl y *: 0a' U CLU N a) G fU c 0 00 a> as L L tq N m rn3 E > N to O w N ?! m c> o coc>, ii°£a>`i C p Eu,ogy ». n �� o ,,-o c L C1 M Qc. y c a� O C- O � O N �_ Co 0 c0> , 4- 0 LL .N ro rn C a o U m roc? o E L.w cY >�a•E — ro,QE 4)LL L �oQc �d �� V'0 ami os� O c -o m LL o m ui U. 00 E > Nw o.o o CL 4-- m CL C.4QJ� o cir U_V tl1 m J .C.o sc�Vi r N ° 'rna0') 0 V U) C1 10)o O �CL a�a a co Ncj m 0-0 _�_ �.vN C U ___ >X 0) rC0 > mo xCoQ m C-150 C-]5] N 5o o� $ @ E 9 k\� Mao E o to Alk 7\k k 0 ro ago t CL Req ® \ � � Im oo k / %k kfCL / 2// CNE2 kff �o �\\ CL a) kk0 § ■ w 2 S \ 2 EeE« )/ kf § $co E0/ g 0 X40# 0 g X0 o E § E 4 E ° m kf k:§2� -6d a©5�■ R m & k E ± ��±=oar @ $ CL CL C-]5] .0 a cz .O a� "Cl b CTJ V) N m N N v m W Lo cz �o N r. N LO co W cd V C O N M c C C O O 4j 0 N c N C CD Eaai c o 2 OUc Lo �- 2 c LL 2 a vOi�� oca�3 °a a iD CL t0 c - Q ro aNror-> Q'C w- L Ll., (D N C W O E N O� N Q N O? mac° rn vN c�i3�� co o .. c Qui o ai N C .W n� O G. o- c .- a m o vi v CN � r c 4C N a) U) 2'y (1) U) j'N U V o u' j O O ° Csf E E0 C N ,� m C O p �% (O U C U O. Ctt= E `O U tU °v�io 3a��i _ 3�0 8 ��. 3 u N rL � cn��0o �� UUi U m U m o 0U) V m (07000 a m 2!, ai a O c U 2 N toc m �•aD a �.a c o c0. O E vi m -0 o >a m U Urn aa= �° 0 co0 3 CL (n O (L o �� 0 E ow c0 o�� 0 Q rn CL €M" = c�a 4) m N -, N M C7 CL N R' O0. p E N �' ?:° � (D N � E °tea O+CL.O--. m� �N (DM O CL aCLr G E� v�LL o oa m m y m0 p a� Z. X 1�0 *�' c o •c._ `�Q l0 V U iti m p CL 4 MM .. w t� oar N u> o� y L-0. o c o o O a a a OS a a a N m� y C a C w�+ cu CL 0 0 C E U t E O O +0`c+ a2 Oa Q) a O O �OU Q N0'am r. Lra� _� a c0 N 6 CL �a c cn cv N cv O o m a_ a o a �o '- ^ (�N A vN 5 m x a E '° c° CO V tV0 U1 O co W O = N a .0 > >a 5; C14 R X 'C d •) 6Q 0 r N (N O 5' m 0. 0 r U m E v LL N E t6 ) w d1 Q W C V o N O aW L:(> 0 0 Q N O a s s m -+Lc U� Q -i <> Sc to FROM: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24,19-77 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 4C Mtg. Date: 12/16/14 FT HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 852, SUBDIVISION NO. 93 AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72232 SITE LOCATION: 80 SADDLEBACK ROAD (LOT 67-RH) ZONING AND SIZE: RA -S-1, 7.051 ACRES GROSS APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. GERALD TURPANJIAN REPRESENTATIVE: BOLTON ENGINEERING PUBLISHED: OCTOBER 30, 2014 REQUEST 1. The Planning Comnunission at their November 18, 2014 meeting scheduled a field visit to the site on Tuesday, December 16, 2014. 2. The applicants request to subdivide one existing lot located at 80 Saddleback Road totaling 7.051 acres (gross) into 2 parcels. Parcel 1 is proposed to be 2.40 acres gross and 1.96 acres net and Parcel 2 is proposed to be 4.64 acres gross and 3.71 acres net. The addresses of the proposed additional parcels will be established during plan - check of the future development, however the two possible new addresses are "84" for Lot 1 while "80" will be retained for Lot 2. The lot is currently vacant. A residence that previously occupied the mid-portion of the original parcel was demolished in 2013 and some landscaping in the form of lawns, trees and shrubbery remains. No plans have been submitted for new home development. The existing driveway that served the former home will be closed off and a new access driveway will be constructed for each of the two lots from Saddleback Road. ZC 852 - TPM 72232 1 C-153 3. The project site is bounded on the north, west and north-east by properties in the City of Rolling Hills that are similarly zoned (RA -S-1) and developed with single family homes on minimum one -acre lots. To the south and south-west the project site is bounded by a parcel owned by the City of Rolling Hills, similarly zoned a portion of which is used for recreational equestrian purposes ("The Caballeros Ring"). The property bordering on the south east, separated by a steep canyon, is an undeveloped 14.64 acre parcel ("The Georgeff Parcel") in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and is in the process of being purchased by the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and after reviewing the application, staff prepared an Initial Study (IS) for the proposed subdivision. The Initial Study is a preliminary evaluation of potential impacts and also identifies mitigation measures to address impacts. Staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, subject to incorporation of mitigation measures, including a requirement for the applicant to conduct a Biological Resource Evaluation and Assessment for the project site. The biological study will be incorporated into the project application for review by the Planning Commission. To date staff did not receive the report. Accordingly, a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared, copy attached. As required by CEQA, staff mailed the Initial Study to local cities, and state agencies for their comments. To date comments from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) and the Fire Department were received. In the report from RPV it is stated that the Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to note a blue line stream below the project site. The blue line stream located along the downstream properties in RPV and Rolling Hills Estates is approximately 250 feet from the project boundary and over 300-350 feet from the proposed limits of grading for future development. As part of the approval process for future development, conditions will be imposed protecting any discharge to the blue line stream and compliance with the City's Low Impact Development Ordinance will be required. The Fire Deparmtne comments are specific to requiremensts addressed during building permit stage. In addition, a letter was received from neighbors expressing general concerns with development of the lots and how will the future development affect the neighborhood. REQUIRED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 5. Pursuant to the City of Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance, the Planning Commission is the advisory agency for review of subdivisions and the Commission therefore makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission`s recommendation must be supported by findings regarding both the subdivision map and environmental determination (Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration). The City ZC 852 - TPM 72232 0 C-154 Council is the final authority to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove a subdivision request. If the Planning Commission acts to recommend approval, the Commission must show affirmative findings that Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 72232 complies with the City's Subdivision Ordinance and General Plan, specifying that it does not require rejection pursuant to Section 16.12.150 of the Municipal Code. That code section specifies that a Tentative Map shall be rejected if it is found that: 1. The proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans; 2. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed; 3. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development; 4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat; 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause serious public health or safety problems; 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the subdivision. In this connection, the City Council may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these shall be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public." SUBDIVISION MAP REVIEW PROCESS 6. Willdan Engineering, acting as the City Engineer, has reviewed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 72232 pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 16 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (Subdivisions) for compliance with standards in areas including streets, soils, geology and grading. Willdan has also coordinated map review by several agencies, including fire prevention, health services and sewage disposal with Los Angeles County and water availablility with California Water Service. Reports containing the reviews and recommendations of the various agencies for the subject subdivision are attached. 7. The conditions that are recommended by Wilidan Engineering or identified in the Initial Study will be incorporated in the Resolution of approval if and when this subdivision is approved. The Planning Commission may recommend additional requirements and conditions for this project as deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the Municipal Code and General Plan, including any that are recommended from the biological study. ZC 852 - TPM 72232 { 3 ) C-155 Staff notes that the recommended conditions contained in the attached agency reports are routine requirements. One special condition requested by the Los Angeles County Fire Department is that the applicant upgrade fire hydrants on Saddleback Road to meet water system "fire flow" standards. 8. The subject subdivision map is subject to separate review and approval by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA). All requirements of the RHCA will be incorporated by reference as a condition of the adopted resolution, if the subdivision is approved. In adidtion, the Traffic Engineer and the Traffic Commission reviewed the driveway approaches and conicuded that the approch to the future stable on Lot 2 may have safety and visibility issues and continued their consideration to their January meeting and pending Planning Commission review. ROLLING HILLS SUBDIVISION CODE STANDARDS 8. Pursuant to Title 16, Subdivision Ordinance and Title 17, Zoning Ordinance of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the following issues of code compliance are subject to evaluation by the Planning Commission: A. Lot Size. The subject property is located in the RAS -1 zone, requiring that each lot be a minimum of one acre net in size (43,560 square feet). The applicants propose to subdivide one existing 7.051 (gross) acre lot into two lots, consisting of Parcel 1 having 2.40 acres gross and 1.96 acres net, Parcel 2 having 4.64 acres gross and 3.71 acres net. The proposed net lot areas exceed one acre (net) in size and therefore the proposed subdivision complies with the minimum lot size requirement for the RAS -1 zone. B. Lot sideline angles. Where practicable, the sidelines of lots shall be at approximate right angles to or radial to the street upon which such lot fronts. The proposed lots meet this requirement. C. Setbacks. A subdivision shall not create a non -conforming situation for any of the proposed lots. All structures on the subject have been demolished and the property is currently vacant, therefore no nonconformities in terms of structure setbacks will be created. Any future development, on both lots will be subject to City's development standards, includingsetbacks. etbacks. D. Easements. 10 -foot wide easements are proposed along both sides and the rear of the proposed lot lines. The width of the easements will be confirmed when the project is reviewed by the Rolling Hills Community Association. Saddleback Road has varied roadway easements in the area of the lot. A portion of Saddleback has 55 feet ZC 852 - TPM 72232 4 C-156 roadway easement and a portion has 50 feet roadway easement. The City's Subdivision Ordinance (section 16.16.090) requires 60 -feet roadway right of ways or easements, therefore the applicant will dedicate additional frontage on his property to attain 30 - foot roadway easement. When and if the properties across the street from subject property are subdivided, they too would have to dedicate additional frontage along Saddleback Road. E. Lot width along street frontage. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that the width along the street easement line shall be equal to the lot depth divided by 2.5, but in no case less than 150 feet. All of the proposed frontages, along Saddleback Road, will be at least 150 feet and therefore comply: Parcel 1 will have approximately 178 feet of frontage and Parcel 2 will have approximately 701 feet of frontage. F. Lot width along all points. The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that the width along all points of new parcels be not less than 150 feet. The two proposed parcels are irrgular in shape, however both will meet or exceed the minimum requirement. The narrower lot, Parcel 1, has a width ranging between 178 and 200 feet (approximately) within the front 85 feet of the lot, off Saddleback Road which increases to 240 feet at the widest point. G. Building pad. Pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance, a minimum of 12,000 square foot building pad must be shown as being able to be created on each home site. The tentative map proposes a 27,650 square foot pad for Parcel 1, and 33,901 square foot pad for Parcel 2 and both lots also provide building pads in the rear for a future minimum 450 square foot stable and 550 square foot contiguous corral. All of the proposed pad areas are shown on the tentative map for demonstration and feasibility purposes only. The building pads' size and location will be finalized when future home development is designed. All new construction will be subject to the City's development standards. H. Grading. In order to create building pads and driveways the total amount of grading for the subdivision will be 19,370 cubic yards. Factoring in fill with shrinkage, over -excavation and recompaction, the grading will be balanced overall. The amount of disturbed areas proposed as a result of grading is as follows: Parcel 1: a total of 34,129 square feet is proposed to be disturbed (39.84%) and Parcel 2: 62,304 square feet (38.56%). The amount of proposed disturbed area for both lots complies with the maximum amount of permitted disturbed net lot area (40%). Future construction on both parcels will be required to meet this standard. I. Street Grades. The city's subdivison standards require that no street may have a grade of more than 6%, except where impractical with a grade no steeper than a 10% slope and maximum slope of 17% for a distance of not more than 150 feet. Both parcels will have access from an existing street, therefore this standard does not ap"ly. ZC 8.52 - TPM 72232 ( S ) C-157 J. Roadway access/ Driveways, As noted, an existing driveway that served the former residence on the property will be removed. Two new driveways will be constructed, providing independent vehicular access for each lot from Saddleback Road. Stable access will also be provided on each lot. Each of the two new primary driveways will have a 26 -foot wide apron, which will taper to a 20 -foot wide driveway and have a slope of 7% at the entry off Saddleback Road and 12% at the steepest point. For Parcel 1 the accessway to the area set aside for a future stable will be tributary from the main house driveway, however the stable access for Parcel 2 is proposed directly from Saddleback Road. Because the Parcel 2 stable accessway will be a second driveway for that parcel intersecting Saddleback Road, appproval is required from the City Traffic Commission. The driveway aprons, inlcuding stable accessway on Parcel 2 were considered by the Traffic Commssion at its November 20, 2014 meeting, at which time they found that the Able access to Lot 2 may be problamatic from site visibility standpoint and continued the deliberation to their January meeting, pending Planning Commission review of the approaches. Section 16.16.170 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that the grade for access to the building pad have a maximum slope of 12%, and 25% maximum for the stable accessways. The Zoning Code also requires that the width of a driveway not exceed 20 feet. Both of the proposed driveways and stable accessways will meet the applicable slope and width criteria. The proposed 20 -foot driveway width is also in compliance with Fire Department requirements. When constructed, the driveway to Lot 2 will require retainig walls ranging from a curb to 5` in height. K. Soils/geology. Upon its review of preliminary soils, geology and percolation reports, Willdan Engineering has deemed the lot "buildable". However, additional soils, geology, hydrology, percolation and other tests and studies will have to be performed prior to issuance of any construction permit. Soils and geology have been approved at this time for feasibility only. L. Utility lines. Electric power and other utilities are currently provided overhead from a utility pole on Saddleback Road opposite Parcel 2. As a condition of final map approval the applicant will be required to place all utility service to the parcels underground. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 10, Willdan Engineering, acting as City Engineers, completed preliminary engineering review of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72232 pursuant to all state and City of Rolling Hills subdivision regulations and has recommended to proceed to the Planning Commission for City planning review and approval. ZC 852 - TPM 72232 6 C-158 11. All construction of new homes on the proposed two lots that is shown on the tentative map is provided at this time only to demonstrate future development feasibility. Any future development will be subject to, minimally, Site Plan Review approval in a public hearing to be conducted by the Planning Commission. 12. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. ZC 852 - TPM 72232 7 C-159 u C-160 October 30, 2014 01 tl olleollinp ` z INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX- (310) 377.7288 NOTICE OF A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills will hold a Public Hearing at 6:30 PM on Tuesday, November 18, 2014 in the Council Chambers of City Hail, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA to consider and receive public input regarding the following: ZONING CASE NO. 852 SUBDIVISION NO. 93 VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72232, a request to subdivide an existing lot totaling 7.051 acres gross into 2 parcels as follows: Parcel 1: 2.40 acres gross, 1.96 acres net; Parcel 2: 4.64 acres gross, 3.71 acres net. The property is currently vacant and is addressed as 80 Saddleback Road (Lot 67-RH), in the RA -S-1 Zone, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 1 -Acre minimum net lot area, to be implemented by Mr. Jerry Turpanjian. Additional public hearing including a field visit before the Planning Commission is expected to occur on December 16, 2014 for the subject project at which time the Planning Commission MAY take action on this project. Any interested person is advised to contact the City at (310) 377-1521 after November 18 to confirm the December 161h date for the second public hearing and a field visit. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Planning Department staff has reviewed and analyzed the project. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND CONDITIONS, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WITH APPLICABLE MITIGATED MEASURES AND THE CITY PREPARED A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of this notice will be provided to enable public review of the proposed subdivision and pertinent documents prior to the adoption of the Negative Declaration by the Lead Agency. PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS BY DECEMBER 5, 2014 or you may attend the public hearings and provide input. A copy of the proposed subdivision project, Initial Study, and the NEGATIVE DECLARATION are on file in the office of The City of Rolling Hills Planning Department, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 and any person is Is ® Printed on Recycled Paper C-161 welcome to review the proposed subdivision prior to the public hearing during regular working hours, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. If you challenge the approval or denial of the proposed subdivision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Rolling Hills at, or prior to, the public hearing. To receive a copy of the Initial Study, to learn about subsequent meetings in this case including a field visit to the site or for additional information, please contact the City of Rolling Vills Planning Department at (310) 377-1521 or by e-mail at ys@cityofrh.net. (olanta Schwartz Planning Director C-162 U-1 015 L2)- C-164 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY APPLICATION NO: ZONING CASE NO, 852, SUBDIVISION NO. 93 AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72232 PROPOSED PROJECT: Request to subdivide one existing 7.051 acres (gross) vacant lot into 2 parcels each with a minimum area of 1 (net) acre. Prior to the tentative map submittal, a residence that had occupied proposed Lot 2, was demolished, therefore, while no new home construction is proposed at this time, the development anticipated will be for 2 new homes and related grading, of which 1 home is a net additional unit. NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS: Mr. Jerry Turpanjian 22 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 LOCATION OF PROJECT: 80 Saddleback Road (Lot 67-RH) ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel Nos.: 7569-005-008 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. EXISTING ZONING: RA -S-1, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 1 -Acre PROPOSED ZONING: No change. RA -S-1, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 1 -Acre PROPOSED LOT SIZES: Parcel 1: 2.40 gross acres, 1.96 net acres Parcel 2: 4.64 gross acres, 3.71 net acres LOCATION MAP: Attached. 1. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section 1. of the City's CEQA Guidelines. If more than one application is fled on the same site, consider them together as one project). X Yes _ No If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes No X NIA II. INITIAL STUDY REVIEW A. Does the project require a 30 -day State Clearinghouse review for any of the following reasons? Yes X No ZC N0.852 PM 72232 c31 C-165 1, The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (S) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hotel/motel development of more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. (D) A project, which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide wastewater management plan. Ill. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: Request to subdivide one existing vacant lot 7.051 acres (gross) in area into 2 parcels that will each have a minimum land area of 1 acre (net). No new development is proposed at this time, however the submitted plans indicate potential future development of two new homes with related grading. ZC No. 852 PM 72232 2 t C-166 Any future development on the proposed 2 parcels will require conformance with the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance and all other City, County and Rolling Hills Community Association's requirements. B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.) The project site consists of one lot (Lot 67-RH) with land area measuring 7.051 acres. It is currently vacant -- a residence that previously occupied proposed Lot 2 was demolished in 2013. Non native landscaping from the prior home remain in part. Other than the prior building pad area, the remaining lot area consists of undulating hills and knolls covered by mature shrubs and trees, some native trees, plants and grasses with some areas being heavily wooded. Native birds and animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers and an occasional fox. Historically, no endangered species of animals have been identified in this area of the City. C. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Single family dwelling unit on lot of one acre or more within the City of Roiling Hills zoned RA -S-1 — Residential Agricultural Suburban- 1 acre. East: Single family dwelling unit on lot of one acre or more within the City of Rolling Hills zoned RA -S-1 — Residential Agricultural Suburban- 1 acre. South: Vacant land, "George F. Parcel" (APN 7568-006-008, 14.63 acres) in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, currently zoned "OH" (Open Space Hazard"). — being acquired by Palos Verdes' Peninsula Land Conservancy for use as a nature preserve. (Source: RPV City Council Report 9116114 -Agenda Item E.) West: Public Riding Ring — land owned by the City of Rolling Hills (Zoning: RA -S-1 — Residential Agricultural Suburban -1 acre) D. Is the proposed project consistent with: Yes No NIA City of Rolling Hills General Plan Applicable Specific Plan _ City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Congestion Management Plan Regional Comprehensive Plan E. Have any of the following studies been submitted? X Geology Report X- Hydrology Report X Soils Report Traffic Study Noise Study X Biological Study (in process) Native Vegetation Preservation Plan Solid Waste Generation Report Public Service Infrastructure Report ZC No. 852 PM 72232 _ Historical Report _Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis _ Air Quality Report Hazardous Matedals/Waste C-167 Geology, hydrology and soils reports and a slope map have been submitted to the City's Engineer (Wllldan Engineering under contract to City of Rolling Hills) and it has been determined that the subject site is feasible for subdivision purposes. Under a contract with the City of Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County Health Department (septic system review) and Fire Department have reviewed the proposed subdivision, finding it is feasible for subdivision purposes. A separate review of soils, geology, hydrology and slope stability will be required by the City's Engineer and Building Official prior to any development on either of the proposed lots subsequent to subdivision: In addition, the applicant has been directed to submit to the City a written report assessing the biological resources if any for the subject site (see Item IV. Biological Resources), IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. —X—I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to, be addressed. _. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. This initial study was prepared by: Date: October 23, 2014 YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR [Sig re] ZC No. 862 PM 72232 4 CO C-168 V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," above may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and zC No. 882 PM 72232 C-169 b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ZC No. 852 PM 72232 C-170 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Issues: t. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but ❑ ❑ ❑ not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ❑ ❑ ® ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California, Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ i Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable air quality plan? ZC No. 852 PM 72232 C-170 ZC No. 852 PM 72232 7 D9 C-171 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ® ❑ ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the ❑ ❑ ❑ I$] Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑ IM biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ IM Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ZC No. 852 PM 72232 7 D9 C-171 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEGiA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the protect, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life and property? ZC No, 852 PM 72232 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact UO ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EM ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 191 ❑ ❑ Im ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1111 a C-172 Ai ZC No. 852 PM 72232 C-173 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS �- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ ISI environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ 191 hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ ❑ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area/ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ IKI would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ ❑ ❑ Im an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ZC No. 852 PM 72232 C-173 ZC No. 852 PM 72232 10 C-174 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation VIN. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste O O ❑ discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ Im interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ Im ZC No. 852 PM 72232 10 C-174 ZC No. 852 PM 72232 11 C-175 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ❑ ❑ ❑ IM regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation pian ❑ ❑ ❑ IM or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ El resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important ® ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X1. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels ❑ ❑ ® ❑ in excess of standards established in the local general pian or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ ❑ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ EM would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ZC No. 852 PM 72232 11 C-175 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response.times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ZG No. 852 PM 72292 12 a4. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Im ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑Im ❑ ❑ ❑Im ❑ ❑ ❑ C -176 XV. TRANS PORTATIONITRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? XVI_. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient. water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ZC No. 852 PM 72232 13 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Im ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Im ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ C-177 ❑ ❑ ❑ Im ❑ ❑ ® ❑ C-177 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ® ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which O ❑ 8 will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues Checklist Form, which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST IMPACTS Item 1. AESTHETICS. a,b NO IMPACT -the City of Rolling Hills does not have a scenic vista areas designation in its General Plan. Any future development is subject to Planning Commission review. Neighbors will have an opportunity to view a silhouette of any future development during the public hearing process for new development. ZC No. 852 PM 72232 14 C-178 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporation e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ® ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ISI ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ® ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which O ❑ 8 will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues Checklist Form, which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST IMPACTS Item 1. AESTHETICS. a,b NO IMPACT -the City of Rolling Hills does not have a scenic vista areas designation in its General Plan. Any future development is subject to Planning Commission review. Neighbors will have an opportunity to view a silhouette of any future development during the public hearing process for new development. ZC No. 852 PM 72232 14 C-178 c., d LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT - There is no evidence that the subdivision of one lot into two minimum 1 -acre parcels and the potential future construction of two new single-family residences and their attendant accessory structures on the subdivided parcels will substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and/or surrounding properties. Enforcement of all applicable Municipal Code zoning and building standards and requirements, for all phases of the future development through construction will ensure that the existing visual character or quality of the site and surrounding properties is not substantially degraded. Enforcement includes field review by the Planning Commission during both the Subdivision and subsequent discretionary Ste Plan Review process for each of the two new homes. During the subdivision approval process, the Planning Commission has the opportunity and authority to limit the finished floor height of a future residence, and the height of the required landscaping. The Planning Commission will have further opportunity to review and limit grading and preserve scenic resources more explicitly for each individual home site under the Site Plan Review process. Residential building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. Buildings are limited to one story in height and the Zoning Ordinance strictly limits outdoor lighting on private properties. The future construction of up to two single story single family residences and accessory structures, while introducing new sources of light, is not expected to create substantial new levels of illumination or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Light and glare impacts, therefore, are expected to be less than significant. Item iI. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES a -c. NOIMPACT The proposed subdivision is located on property that is zoned single-family residential on one or more acres net. Single-family residences with incidental agricultural uses are permitted uses. The subject subdivision of one lot into two parcels, facilitating two new conforming residences will have no impact on agricultural resources. Item 111. AIR QUALITY a -c. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The potential future construction of two new residences, will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, will not contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and will have a less than significant impact on the existing environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. During future construction of two new homes facilitated by the proposed subdivision, dust may be created and on a temporary basis, there may be an increase in heavy construction vehicle traffic. After construction, it is estimated that increased development of two new single-family residential structures will generate insignificant increase in gasoline emissions because it is estimated that each of the two single-family residential structure generates 10 average daily trips (ADT) totaling 10 ADT for this project and will have a less than significant impact on the environment according to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's "Air Quality Handbook," revised April, 1087. d, e NO IMPACT This project is a subdivision into two lots with a potential for development of two new single family residences and it is not expected that this would create any significant ZC No. 852 PM 72232 15 C-1 79 objectionable odors. Additionally no objectionable odors are anticipated to occur during construction. Measures — (to be incorporated into conditions of approval of future Site Plan Review) A. During construction the property owners shall be required to conform to South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust generated by construction activities, Fugitive Dust A Comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Program will be developed and implemented before commencement of grading activities, subject to review and approval of the Building and Safety Department and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). This Plan, at minimum, shall address compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, including: - Regular site watering - Application of soil stabilizers to inactive graded areas - Covering and/or washing of transport trucks leaving the site - Periodic street cleaning of roads adjacent to the site A High Wind Response Plan in accordance with Rule 403 of the SCAQMD shall be developed and implemented at times when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to reduce PM_ emissions. The High Wind Response Plan shall be developed and implemented before commencement of grading activities, subject to review and approval by the Building and Safety Department and the SCAQMD. Stockpiles of soil, sand and similar materials shall be stabilized by being enclosed, covered, watered twice daily, or with application of non-toxic soil binders. Construction Equipment Exhaust 1. Heavy construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. Construction equipment shall be flitted with the most modern emission control devices. The construction manager shall monitor compliance with this measure and is subject to periodic inspections by City Building Inspectors. The project shall comply with Rule 461, which establishes requirements for vapor control from the transfer of fuel from the fuel truck to vehicles both during construction and subsequent operations. Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a, b, d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION No physical development is directly proposed concurrent with this subdivision proposal. The subject subdivision map, however anticipates future development for two new homes, one per each of the two lots. The proposed subdivision reduces the need for new grading and disturbance by considering and incorporating existing graded and relatively flat areas into the layout of the two proposed lots as future building pads. New grading and disturbance is necessary, however, to establish two independent home sites plus accessory equestrian use areas for each lot. For Lot 1 (2.4 gross acres) a total of zC No. 852 PM 72232 C-180 2,680 cubic yards of grading is estimated including 840 cy cut, 752 cy fill, 500 cy over - excavation and 588 cy re -compaction. For Lot 2 (4.64 gross acres a total of 16,690 cubic yards of grading is estimated including 4,945 cy cut, 4,345 cy fill, 3,400 cy over - excavation, and 4,000 cy re -compaction. Future single family home construction will be subject to discretionary Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission including field review prior to public hearings. The large lot, estate density single-family development that is expected to occur provides the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing vegetation and habitat. The General Pian and Zoning Code that guides development in Rolling Hills restricts lot coverage to 20% maximum of the net lot area, structural and pavement coverage to 35% maximum and overall disturbance to 40% maximum net lot area. City policies encourage the retention, use, and maintenance of native drought -tolerant vegetation. (General Plan Land Use Element Goal 3; Policies 3.2 and 3.3). There are no flood hazard zones on the project site. The site is adjacent to a large vacant parcel in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes that is currently used and is in the process of being purchased for use as a nature preserve. Measure to be incorporated as mitigation into the approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 72232: B. The applicant will be required to prepare and submit for Planning Commission review, a biological assessment in the form of a "Biological Resources Assessment Study" which minimally shall involve; 1) a search of database and literature, including the review of sensitive biological resource occurrence records within the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Community Society (CLAPS) rare plant inventory; 2) Field Study of project area to perform vegetation mapping and assess wildlife habitats; 3) a Biological Resources Assessment Technical Report to include: Introduction with environmental setting and description of project location; Methods describing literature review, database search, field surveys and assessments for special - status species occurrence, Descriptions of the results of databases and mapping; Discussion of distribution of biological features within the project area; Assessments of potential project impacts to biological resources and Recommendations for mitigations. The Study shall be reviewed, evaluated and acted upon by the Planning Commission as part of the environmental assessment and prior to a final decision on Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 72232. The applicant shall incur the cost for preparation of the Study and shall be required to comply and implement all measures recommended as approved by the City in accordance with a schedule incorporated into the conditions of approval a full subject site has not been identified as containing any established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. The Planning Commission could restrict removal of native vegetation and/or created area for substitution of removed native vegetation on the lot. Measures to be incorporated into conditions of approval of Site Plan Review for future home construction: C. Upon review and assessment of this project by the appropriate County, State and Federal Resource agencies, the applicant will be required to meet the requirements of these agencies. D. Future individual Site Plan Review approvals by the Planning Commission shall include the following conditions with respect to mitigation for loss of native vegetation, unless the City determines at the time of approval of a Site Plan, such measures are not necessary ZC No. 852 PM 72232 17 C-181 or a reasonable alternative method of preserving and mitigating the impacts to mature native vegetation protected areas is feasible: Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. In order to minimize impacts to the hillsides and canyon areas on this property, the building pad and graded slopes shall be designed and developed in a manner that retains and restores native drought - tolerant plant life outside the building pad caused by pad grading and preserves the existing contiguous topography, flora, and natural features of that area to the greatest extent possible. 2. To prevent construction equipment from going beyond the limits of any building pad, contractors shall use fencing or other barriers to the greatest extent possible. 3. No contractor, operator of a bulldozer or other equipment or other construction worker on the site shall allow equipment, supplies or soil to encroach into a protected area, if any, except as specified on an approved Site Plan. 4. No chemicals, including but not limited to fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, chlorine or pool chemicals, shall be used, disposed of, or allowed to drain onto the slopes. 5. All graded areas shall: be planted with native plants subject to Fire Department criteria and requirements. 6. A landscaping bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15%, shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released two years after the initial plantings by the City Manager if he determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscape plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. e, f. NO IMPACT The proposed subdivision including future development of two single family homes will not conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation ordinance. Further, the proposed subdivision property is not identified on any adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans, or any other similar approved habitat conservation plans. Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a — e. NO IMPACT No unique historical, archaeological or paleontological resources have been identified in the project area therefore it is expected that the development facilitated by the proposed subdivision will result in an environmental impact to cultural resources that is less than significant. Measures (to be incorporated into conditions of approval of Site Plan Review for future homes) E. Should significant unique archaeological resources be found during the grading or construction within the project, the construction shall cease and the applicant at his sole expense shall hire an archeologist to assess the resources. The City of Rolling Hills shall approve of the archeologist. The archeologist shall establish procedures for ZC No. 852 PM 72232 18 C-182 archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project proponent, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected unique archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the project proponent and to the City Manager. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate action, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and/or salvage. Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a — e. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Because the City is located in seismically active southern California, future development of this subdivision would be exposed to potential ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The subject site is not located on a known active or potentially active fault. The Palos Verdes fault, although considered potentially active, is located approximately one mile northeast of the City. Further, the site is not located within an Alquist-Pr€ola Fault Rupture Hazard Zone. The potential for ground rupture on the site is considered to be very low. The approval of the subject subdivision project is not expected to directly have the potential to result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures. While there are specific areas in the City that are know to have unstable earth conditions, including active landslides and soil creep, the project site is not in such an area. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, and/or increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this subdivision project, is underlain by expansive soil, which is subject to slippage. However, prior to construction, soils and geology studies will be conducted and reviewed by the County Public Works Department. Approval of the subdivision will result in disruptions, displacements and compaction of the soil during the probable future construction of two homes when the new building pads are built. The proposed new building pads will, with the new homes, be subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Also, during future construction, it is expected that removal of natural vegetative cover, may potentially cause an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm runoff. The reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with development may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. However, this is very unlikely, as Rolling Hills is not coastal. The development is limited to the addition of a maximum of two single-family dwelling units; therefore the project will not result directly or indirectly in significant impact on the environment from a geological or soil stability perspective. Measures (to be incorporated into conditions of approval of Site Plan Review for future homes) F. The applicants shall provide sufficient evidence to show that the sustained use of proposed private disposal systems are possible without inducing a geologic hazard. G. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the future residences, an Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth is Section 7010 of the 2001 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. ZC No. 852 PM 72232 t g C-183 H. A detailed grading and drainage pian with related geology, soils and hydrology reports, for the future construction of a single-family residence on each lot will be submitted and reviewed by the County of Los Angeles Public Works Department. Cut and fill slopes will not exceed a slope gradient of a 2 to 1 (H:V). Item VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a -g. NOIMPACT The proposed project involves the request for a subdivision of a single lot into 2 parcels for potential development of two new single-family residences. It does not involve the storage and distribution of materials that may be considered hazardous. Future development contemplated will not be involved in any activities that would emit and/or handle hazardous materials. The proposed project will not generate harmful emission that may affect schools. The City is located approximately 1.5 miles south of Torrance Municipal airport. The project is not located within a designated aircraft crash zone, nor will it involve any improvements that would otherwise affect airport operations. As a result, the proposed project will not present a safety hazard related to aircraft or airport operations. The project provides adequate street access, and project operations would not interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The City's Building & Construction Ordinance, -the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) closely and carefully regulate development including construction activities and building materials. The future development will comply with all pertinent fire code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows. Specific fire and fife safety requirements will be addressed at the building fire plan check, including annual brush clearing and fuel modification plans. The City and the RHCA require that all roof materials be fireproofed. The effect of the construction of two new single-family residences, therefore, is expected to be less than significant. Item VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a,b,f j NO IMPACT Section 402 of the Federal Clean water act requires National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits (NPDES) for storm water discharges from storm drain systems to waters of the United States. Applicants for development projects, including in Rolling Hills, have two major responsibilities under NPDES permit. The first is to submit and implement a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) containing design features and Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate and applicable to the project. The SUSMP describes how post construction pollutants in storm water discharges will be controlled and reduced. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the County of Los Angeles Building and Safety Department must approve the SUSMP. The second responsibility is to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for all construction projects with disturbed area of 1 to 5 acres. Should the final proposal for a future single-family residence include disturbed area of one acre or more this requirement will be implemented. Specific mitigation measures have been incorporated into the SUSMPs for development projects under the NPDES Permit. Implementation of these measures will ensure that the quality of storm water runoff leaving the project site will meet all regulatory standards and ZC No. 852 PM 72232 C-184 will maintain the beneficial uses of the surface water for public and commerce. The City of Rolling Hills, as part of a normal project approval and construction practice through the contract with Los Angeles County monitors compliance with these requirements. Due to the small scale of potential development, which is anticipated to occur on the site and the share of the site, which would remain uncovered by hardscape, the proposed project will not interfere with groundwater recharge. The proposed project is not located in proximity to a river or stream and project storm flows would be channeled to the storm drain system. The project site is not within an area that would be subject to seiche, tsunami or mudflow. c -e. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of future structures, the introduction of impervious surface materials and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development proposed for potentially two new single-family residential units permitted by the General Plan, the impacts will be less than significant, with appropriate measures to be applied by incorporation in the conditions of approval of required discretionary permits (Site Plan Reviews). A septic tank system will be required when in the future the vacant parcels being created are developed. As septic tank leach field effluent percolates into the watershed, some discharge into surface waters downstream. However, the impact generated from the addition of up to three dwelling units is not expected to be significant. Measures (to be Incorporated into the conditions of approval of Site Plan Review for future homes) The property owners shall be required to conform to County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. J. The property owner shall prepare and implement an Erosion Control Plan, SUSMP and SWPPP, if applicable, in conformance with the County of Los Angeles Building Code requirements. Item IX. LAND_ USE AND PLANNING. a -c. NOIMPACT The project, facilitating the future development of 2 new single-family residences, is consistent with the surrounding residential uses. The project, is consistent with Zoning Ordinance and the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which establish the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain, require a balanced cut and fill ratio and regulate the size and coverage of developments. The proposed project is not located on any habitat conservation plan. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES a -b NOIMPACT There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or delineated on a local general pian, specific plan or land use pian for the project site. ZC N0.852 PM 72232 21�SJ3 C-185 Item XI. NOISE a -d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The goal of the City of Rolling Hills' Noise Element is to preserve and enhance Rolling Hills' quiet rural atmosphere and promotes the use of landscaping to obscure noise production from roadways and adjacent properties. Although approval of the project will result indirectly, in the potential development that may cause intermittent loud noise during construction, the noise is a necessary by product of the construction of one additional building pad and two total residences that will be limited in covering no more than 30% of the building pad. The building pad design is subject to individual review and approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Any construction or traffic noise will be required to conform to all City and County ordinances and engineering practices. The City requires that all construction work take place only between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday. As stated previously, there will be intermittent but loud noise levels during construction, if and when and to the degree that it occurs. In such a scenario, the noise will be temporary or periodic in nature and s necessary byproduct in order to construct new homes on the parcels created by the subdivision. The level of nuisance associated with the construction noise will be minimized due to the measures that are required to be taken as conditions of approval as noted below e,f NOIMPACT The City is located approximately 1.5 miles south of Torrance Municipal airport. The project is not located within a designated aircraft crash zone, nor will it involve any improvements that would otherwise affect airport operations. As a result, the proposed project will not present a safety hazard related to aircraft or airport noise. Measures (to be incorporated into conditions of approval K. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. Item XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING NO IMPACT a -c The impact on population and housing of the proposed future development of two homes (1 net new, because one home that historically occupied the existing parcel has been recently demolished) where each home will house approximately 3-4 additional people, is expected to be less than significant. Item XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT (Fire, Police) AND NO IMPACT (Parks and Schools) a. The City of Rolling Hills contracts with the Los Angeles county Consolidated Protection district, which provides fire protection services to the City Fire station No. 106, is located within the City, on Crest Road. Other County Fire Stations are relocated in the vicinity and are available to provide: additional protection resources, if needed. ZC No. 852 ` PM 72232 22 C-186 The City of Rolling Hills contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for police protection and law enforcement services. The main sheriff's station serving the City is located at 26123 Narbonne Avenue, Lomita, California. The station is located approximately 2.0 miles to the north of the site. Historically the emergency response time in the City of Rolling Hills averages five minutes or less. The impact on public services of the future development of 1 net new single-family residences, each housing approximately 3-4 additional people, will be less than significant in terms of fire and police protection. The small scale of the project is not expected to have any impact on schools, parks or other public facilities. Item XIV. RECREATION a -b. NOIMPACT No impact is anticipated on neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities of the future development of 2 total or 1 net new additional single-family residences, which would add approximately 3-4 people per home (4 net new people) The goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan that include: continuing the City's program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers, encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued upkeep of all City -owned recreation facilities within Rolling Hills, and providing expanded recreational opportunities for children, do not conflict with the future development of up to two new homes. The subdivider will be required to dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu thereof for purposes of park and recreational facilities (Quimby Act) in accordance with the proportional standards set forth in Section 16.28.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. These funds are used by the City continually maintain and upgrade the existing recreational facilities in the City. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Approval of the subject 2 -lot subdivision project could potentially result in increased traffic that will occur during the construction of two new building pads and up to two new single- family dwellings. The circulation within the City during construction of the project will likely be impacted but not to a significant degree as the work will be occurring in' a limited area and to specific lots. The incremental increase of two new single-family dwelling units will not generate more than an estimated 20 daily vehicle trips in the entire city. Future development of two new single-family dwelling units will slightly affect the balance of transportation improvement "credits' over new development "debits" required to preserve compliance with the Congestion Management Program of Los Angeles County (CMP) that is intended to address the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system and air quality. At 6.8 debits for every newly developed single-family dwelling unit, development of one net unit will , use up 6.8 credits. The City has 68 credits at this time, enough to accommodate the construction of at least 8 additional residences in the City of Rolling Hills. If and when the net build -out is completed for the subject project, the City will have 61.2 credits, enough for 9 additional residences in the City of Rolling Hills. In addition, future development of one net additional single-family residential units will not exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the ZC No. 852 PM 72232 23 �3J5 C-187 county congestion management agency as there are no heavy congestion designated roads or highways within the City of Rolling Hills. b -g. NOIMPACT The project is situated along a private, Rolling Hills Community Association maintained street. The private driveway serving the prior home on the site will be abandoned and closed off and two new private driveways will be constructed to serve the future new homes, intersecting the adjoining roadway of Saddleback Road. The locations of the new driveways are subject to review and approval of the City's Traffic Commission prior to approval of the tentative subdivision map. The lot lines are proposed to be 90 degrees to the existing street and there are no sharp curves or ""blind" spots when exiting the lots. Therefore the project is not expected to substantially increase hazards due to access design or result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate parking capacity as the proposed driveways have adequate width (24 feet at the entrance from Saddleback and 20 feet wide on each lot) and gradient (maximum 12% slope) meeting all city and County Fire Department criteria for access. Measures (to be incorporated into the conditions of Site Plan Review for future homes). L. The property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate truck traffic throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM Monday through Saturday only so as not to interfere with the normal flow of traffic within the City of Rolling Hills. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. a,b,g NOIMPACT Subdivision of the subject property will not generate any wastewater that will impact a public wastewater facility. The City of Rolling Hills is not connected to the County Sanitation District sewage facility, as there are no sewers in the City (except in a small area at the western end of the City). The project would not result in a need for new or substantial alteration to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities, due to the limited amount of additional water required to serve the project. The developer will be required to comply with all local, state, and federal requirements for integrated waste management (e.g., recycling, green waste) and solid waste disposal. c -f. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board will not be exceeded by the future development of one net additional single-family residential unit. The impact on water supplies available for the future development of one net additional single-family residence, housing approximately 3-4 additional people each is expected to be less than significant. Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map the applicant shall be required to obtain a letter from the Water Company certifying that adequate water supply is available to serve the proposed parcels. Mitigation Measures (to be incorporated into the conditions of Site Plan Review for future homes) ZG No. 852 PM 72232 24 i M. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. N. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. 0. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map the applicant shall be required to obtain a leiter from the Water Company certifying that adequate water supply is available to serve the proposed parcel, should a single family development be proposed in the future. Q. Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map the applicant shall be required to place all utilities underground or file an improvement security, to the satisfaction of the City. Item XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION Subject to a confirming study (Biological Assessment) the preparation of which is to be incorporated as a condition of approval of the subdivision application and to be considered in the public hearing, the project is not expected to degrade the quality of the environment or substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. b, c. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The relatively small size of the project site, together with the fact that future development enabled by the project is limited to a maximum of one net additional single-family residence, supports a conclusion that the project impacts will be insignificant and not expected to result in environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. ZC No. 852 PM 72232 25 C-189 C-190 Aep'WILLDANIending your Engineering reach October 14, 2014 E I V E D City of Rolling Hills 1 2014 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 City of Rolling Hills Ms. Yolanta Schwartz By Subject: Parcel Map 72232, 80 Saddleback Road Dear Ms. Schwartz: Willdan has completed its review of Parcel Map No, 72232, a proposed two lot division located at 80 Saddleback Road. I have distributed the soils reports to Willdan Geotechnical and they have reviewed the reports for the Subdivision of the land and deep disposal of the sewerage, I have not been in contact with the Health Officer but the disposal report has been reviewed. Attached with this letter please find my proposed conditions, Fire Department recommended conditions of approval with the authorization to proceed to the Planning Commission. As a two lot project rather than the three lot that they began with the prominent lot take advantage of the high knob that the old home sat on. They are proposing to widen the driveway to this lot and a very minor redesign may be needed to allow the Fire Department to access this driveway entrance. Willdan Engineering 6e,7Z / Elroy L Kiepke Consultant Engineering and Planning I Energy Efficiency and Sustainability I Financial and Economic Consulting I National Preparedness and Interoperability 562.908,6200 1 800.499.4484 j fax: 562.695.2120 1 13191 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 405, Industry, California 91746-3443 ( wwmwilldan,com C-191 W(LLDAN extendingou your ,/Geotechnical reach October 9, 2014 Project No: 101749-2010 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REVIEW Submitted to: Elroy Kiepke, Willdan Engineering Project Location: 80 Saddleback Road City of Rolling Hills, California Report Reviewed: "Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills, California" Dated February 5, 2013, Prepared by Hamilton & Associates, Project No.: 12-1625 "Report of Deep Seepage Pit Percolation Testing, Three (3) Lot Subdivision, 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills, California" Dated August 23, 2013, Prepared by Hamilton & Associates, Project No.: 13-1700 Review Status: REPORTS ARE APPROVED from. Geotechnical View point for Planning Level and Proposed Subdivision Notes to Citv This approval is only for planning and proposed subdivision purposes. Following reports are required for grading and building permits for each lot: 1. Update detail geotechnical reports, and 2. Copies of Referenced Reports for subject address and County of Los Angeles approval for the previous work. This review was performed in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering principles and practice in Southern California at this time. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. Conclusions presented herein are based on review of work by others. No field exploration or laboratory testing was performed. Please contact us if you have questions or need additional services. Respectfully Submitted Respectfully submitted, WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL Ross Khiabani, PE, GE Director of Geotechnical Engineering Services C 37156, GE 2202 Distribution: Addressee (via e-mail) 00 Engineering I Geotechnical I Environmental I Sustainability I Financial J Homeland Security Phone 714.634.33181 fax: 714.634.3372 11515 South Sunkist Street, Suite E, Anaheim, CA 92806 1 www.vuilidan.com C-192 Page 1 MEMORANDUM To: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director From: Elroy Kiepke, Consultant Date: October 7, 2014 Re: TENTATIVE MAP NO. 72232 As requested I have reviewed the above referenced map and have no objections to its Presentation to the Planning Commission. The following conditions of approval shall be included in any conditional approval resolution adopted by the Commission. GENERAL Details shown on the tentative map are not necessarily approved. Any details, which are inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City policies, must be specifically approved in the final map or improvement plan approvals. 2. A final map prepared by, or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying, or a Licensed Land Surveyor, must be processed through the City Engineer's office prior to being fled with the County Recorder. 3. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final map is released for filing with the County Recorder. 4. Monumentation of map boundaries, street centerline and lot boundaries is required for a map based on a field survey. C-193 Page 2 5. Approval for filing of this land division is contingent upon approval of plans and specifications mentioned below. If the improvements are not installed prior to the filing of this division, the developer must submit an Undertaking Agreement and a Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond in the amount estimated by the City Engineer guaranteeing the installation of the improvements. 6. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and/or permit fees approved by City Council subsequent to tentative approval of this map. DRAINAGE AND GRADING 7. A grading and drainage plan must provide for each lot having an independent drainage system to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or by means of an approved drainage easement. -ea M 8. Driveways serving private property shall meet Dire Department standards for access. The tum from south or west bound Saddleback Road to the driveway serving parcel 2 shall be approved prior to the issuance of Grading or building permits for Parcel 2 by the Fire Department. 9. The developer shall obtain HOA approval for the street adjoining this subdivision. Any improvements required by the HOA shall be bonded for prior to the recordation of the final map. SEWER 10. Approval of this land division is subject to the Health Officers approval that a Septic System can be installed on each Parcel. UTILITIES 11. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. WATER 12. All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities, which shall include fire hydrants of the size, type and location as determined by the Fire Chief. 13. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flow required for the land division. It appears based on the preliminary review by C-194 Page 3 the Fire Department the main line within Saddleback is not of sufficient size to meet the fire flow and domestic needs of this property. 14. Plans and specifications for the water system facilities shall be submitted for approval to the California Water Service for this land division. The subdivider shall submit an agreement and other evidence, satisfactory to the City, indicating that the subdivider has entered into a contract with the servicing water purveyor guaranteeing payment and installation of the water improvements. 15. Prior to the filing of the final map, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a statement from the water purveyor indicating subdivider compliance with the Fire Chiefs fire flow requirements. LID REQUIREMENTS The City of Rolling Hills is regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region by Order R4-2012-0175. As required by this Order, the City has adopted Chapter 8.32 to establish development standards for maintaining the Water Quality of storm water and non -storm water discharges from the City. This project is subject to the LID provisions because: 1. It is a "single family hillside residential development" 2. It is a "new Development that is adjacent to or discharges directlyto an ESA and creates 2,500 sq. ft. of impervious coverage. 16. Based on this determination development of these two lots, shall comply with section 8.32 of the Rolling Hills Municipal code. y3 C-195 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT f i . • 5823 Rickenbacker Road + Commerce, Caliromia90040 WATER SYSTEM REQUIREMCsNTS--INCORPORATED Subdivision No: PM 72232 Map Date March 5, 2014 80 Saddleback Road City Rolling hills (! Provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, far all land shown oil map which shall be recorded. ® The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 2508 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of 2 hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. 2 Hydrant(s) flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required Fire flow. ❑ The required fire flow for on-site fire hydrants at this location is gallmss per minute at 20 psi for a duration of _ hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. Hydrant(s) flowing simultaneously may be used to Achieve the required fire flot Fire hydrant requirements are as follows: instal! public fire hydrant(s). Upgrade 2 Verify (flow test)existing Public fire; hydrant(s), Install private on-site fire hydrant(s). Upgrade _ Verify (flow test) _ existing On�Site fire hydrant(s). ® All hydrants shall meastu•c G"x 4"x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal. All on-site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of25' feet from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour rated firewall. j� Location: As per trap on file with the office. ® Other location: Unp-rade two existing 4' fire hydrants on Saddleback Road nearest the proposed development, Existing single outlet 2 V2 inch wharf hydrants shaft be upgraded to a double outlet G" x 4"x 2 %ill hvdMnt(s) when the recuired_Gre flow exceeds 1,250 GPM. All neiv required fire ltvdratit installations shall, be annroved f.}! x 4"x 2'l:" hydrt►nt(s (� All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for prior to Final Map approval. Vehicular Recess shall be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. ® Additional water system requirements may be required when this land is lilrther subdivided and/or during the building permit process, (] Fire hydrant upgrade is not necessary if existing hydrant(s) meet(s) fire flow requirements. Submit original water availability forret to this office. SUBMIT COMPLET0 (ORIGINAL ONLY) FIRE NOW AVAILABILITY FORM TO THIS OFFICE FOR REVIEW, COMMENTS: Review or the submitted Fire Elow Form 195. dated July 11, 1014. indicates inadequate fire flow availability and Code Annendlx H Table 1I105.1. All hydrants shall be inswlled in conformance with Title 20, County or Los Angeles GoVemmcnt Code and County or l.os Angeles Fire Code. or appropriate City regulations. 11is shall include minimum six-inch diameter mains. Arrangements to meet these requirements must be made with lite Water purveyor serving the area. By Inspector Nancy Rodeh•e ffer Bate August 19, 2014 Land Development Unit — Fire Prevention Division -4 (323) S904243. Fax (323) 890-9783 C-196 Rs�+£`ii COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 5823 Rickenbackcr Road Coinmerce, Caroms 90NO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISIONS - INCORPORATED Subdivision No: PM 72232 80 Saddleback Road Map Date March 5, 2014 C.U.P. City Rolling Hills ❑ FIRE DEPARTMENT HOLD on the tentative map shall remain until verification from the Los Angeles County Fire Dept, Planning Section is received, stating adequacy of service. Contact (323) 881-2404. Access shall comply with Section 503 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access. All weather access may require paving. Fire Department Access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion of all structures. ® Where driveways extend further than 150 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final reap. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that extend over 150 feet in length. ® Private driveways sltall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Firelane" with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code. . ® Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. ® This property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as "Very High Eire Hazard Severity Zone" (formerly Fire zone 4). A "Fuel Modification Plan" shall be submitted and approved prior to final map clearance. (Contact the Fuel Modification Unit, mire Station #32, 605 North Angeleno Avenue. Azusa, CA 91702-29(34, Phone (626) 969-5205, for detaits). © Provide mire Department or City approved street signs and building access numbers prior to occupancy. ❑ Additional fire protection systems shall be installed in lieu of suitable access and/or fire protection water. (] The Final concept Wrap, which has been submitted to this department for review, has fulfilled the conditions of approval recommended by this department for access only. ❑ The Fire Department, Land Development Unit has no additional requirements for this division of land at this time. Additional Fire Department requirements will be required when this land is further subdivided and/or during the building permit process. Comments: This project as submitted is cleared for public hearing. Submit three copies of the final map to LACoFD. Land Development for review and approval prior to recordation. INSPECTOR .J9Vaj'I.C1 d� fG,y,� t DATE August lrl, 2014 conn 266 9101 Land Development Unit -- Firc: Prevention Division — (323) 890-4243, Fax (323) 890-9783 C-197 • C-198 CiTtx : NCHO PAL OS VERDES CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Nov Z� i ADMINISTRATION 19 November 2014 City of Rolling Hills VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Rd. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: Comments in Response to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a 2 -Lot Parcel Map at 80 Saddleback Road (Zoning Case No. 852, Subdivision No. 93 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72232) oto Dear Ms The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above-mentioned project. We have reviewed the MND and project exhibits, and offer the following comments: 1. The discussion of Biological Resources impacts in the Initial Study (pp. 16-18) notes that a biological resources assessment study will be prepared for the review and approval of the Rolling Hills Planning Commission prior to its final approval of the requested vesting tentative parcel map. To assist in this effort, the City offers the enclosed exhibit from our geographic information system (GIS) database, depicting coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat on the subject property and on adjacent property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. As shown on this exhibit, the purple - shaded area of the subject property appears to contain Salvia -dominated CSS habitat. This vegetation data is from surveys conducted by the City in 2004. 2. The discussion of Hazards and Hazardous Materials impacts in the Initial Study (p. 20) states that exposure to wiidland fires will be less than significant, noting that annual brush clearance and fuel modification plans will be required for the development of future homes on the proposed lots. Related to Comment 1 above, there is existing CSS habitat on private -owned property in Rancho Palos Verdes that abuts the subject property to the southeast. The City requests that, when considering the design and placement of future structures on the proposed lots, any future brush clearance and fuel modification related to this proposed subdivision would avoid any adverse impacts upon CSS habitat located upon property in Rancho Palos Verdes. Li 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. /RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA �5391/ (310) 544-5205 /FAX (310) 544-5291 W W W.PALOSVFRDES.CO,M/RPV PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER C-199 Yolanta Schwartz 19 November 2014 Page 2 3. The discussion of Hydrology and Water Quality impacts in the Initial Study (pp. 20- 21) notes the project proponent's responsibility to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. However, the City believes that the Initial Study erroneously states that the subject property "is not located in proximity to a river or stream." The subject property would appear to drain—at least in part—into the unnamed stream in the bottom of George F Canyon, which is identified on the U.S. Geological Survey's Torrance quadrangle as a "blue line" stream (see enclosed excerpt). This stream flows northeasterly through abutting downstream properties located in Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5226 or via e-mail at kitf@rpv.com. Sincerely, Kit Fox, CP Senior Administrative Analyst enclosures cc: Mayor Duhovic and City Council Carolynn Petru, Acting City Manager Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development MABorder Issues180 Saddleback Road120141119 MNDComments.dom C-200 C O A C ca U LL a) L O O m as tm 0 L ry YI CD m A m O U C-201 BSM � `°• f' V I±' per, r - . �� • , l � ' ' M�� '.e.-�..e ;,�''•, _,�� " r! '. ( t +�r k -j �-. �/*�. s'� � e � + +� � � �}\\* j;/ ~� ��' � �'\t. • �' r .. r. /.t �,t o%t` ,r :v ;�,,;,.,a. _.'+"R`.. a Kms' , y'� ; i".. �t \✓ f ;'.P .`•l r. �',; t f� u z Cc ell IMF -A 6 f� 1V b1 i� 'rr di r w t✓. �., `��y I�., .w.d 7 1 'k��r• �r �« `�{�f tri j z � Y �.•• d.�... � `.ti I •4A,1 i 1-'.__. r'r qi. > ;hh ";,tip ,"•,:. ery f r Sri V.)'' rf, jA•{i4iJ',qM ,.,,, ` Nr''\ \ ,P, -Ch!`. -r � �. �♦ � �� i it ~ �,'` "� "�� ``*t \dam, � � '0� � �.;! d' ^*..' .ie t •-� - it ;��. 's}1 ♦ ', +� N , . .\ .\ '•^....':�iyf � _.: �:�,„ -,,,,,,, -,, ger ` rpt - C-202 fi� oc jos + ,m d o�pARTM�t� DARYL L. OSBY FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN November 24, 2014 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FM DEPARTMENT 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 Yolanda Schwartz, Planning Director City of Rolling Hills Planning Division No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Ms. Schwartz: i 'A'; City of Hcllinc-By y jr NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ZONING CASE NO. 882, SUBDIVISION NO. 93 VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.' 72232, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING LOT TOTALING 7,061 ACRES GROSS INTO 2 PARCEL, PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT, 80 SADDLEBACK ROAD, ROLLING HILLS (FFER 201400208) The Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Mitigated Negative Declaration has been reviewed by the Planning Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The following are their comments: PLANNING DIVISION Item XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Paragraph (a) under this section should be revised as follows: LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT (Fire, Police) AND NO IMPACT (Parks and Schools) a. The City of Rell!Rq Hills GORtr-aGts with the LGs Angeles Gens9lidated I?Fatec4ion DistFin4 whish pr-evides {:,re pFeteGtlen sewines to the Gity Fire Station No 'I Or- is V;Gintty and are available to provide additional PFoteG* - - . - - is, Of needed. SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: AGOURA HILLS CALABASAS DIAMOND BAR HIDDEN HILLS LA MIRADA MALIBU POMONA SIGNAL HILL ARTESIA CARSON DUARTE HUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE MAYWOOD RANCHO PALOS VERDES SOUTH EL MONTE AZUSA CERRITOS EL MONTE INDUSTRY LAKEWOOD NORWALK ROLLING HILLS SOUTH GATE BALDWIN PARK CLAREMONT GARDENA INGLEWOOD LANCASTER PALMDALE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TEMPLE CITY BELL COMMERCE GLENDORA IRWINDALE LAWNDALE PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROSEMEAD WALNUT BELL GARDENS. COVINA HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE LOMITA PARAMOUNT SAN DIMAS WEST HOLLYWOO BELLFLOWER CUDAHY HAWTHORNE LA HABRA LYNWOOD PICO RIVERA SANTA CLARITA WESTLAKE VILLAC BRADBU RY WHITTIER g C-203 Yolanda Schwartz, Planning Director November 24, 2014 Page 2 The City of Rolling Hills is part of the Consolidated Fire Protection District, also known as the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Fire Station 56, located at 12 Crest Road West, within the City is the jurisdictional station for this project. In the event additional resources are needed, other emergency response units can be dispatched as needed to an incident anywhere in the District's service tenitory based on distance and availability, without regard to jurisdictional or municipal boundaries. LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit are to review and comment on all projects within the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles. Our emphasis is on the availability of sufficient water supplies for firefighting operations and local/regional access issues. However, we review all projects for issues that may have a significant impact on the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. We are responsible for the review of all projects within contract cities (cities that contract with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department for fire protection services). We are responsible for all County facilities located within non -contract cities. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit may also comment on conditions that may be imposed on a project by the Fire Prevention Division, which may create a potentially significant impact to the environment. 2. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit's comments are only general requirements. Specific fire and life safety requirements and conditions set during the environmental review process will be addressed and conditions set at the building and fire plan check phase. Once the official plans are submitted for review there may be additional requirements. 3. The development of -this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. 4. This property is located within the area described by the Forester and Fire Warden as a Fire Zone 4, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). All applicable fire code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire hydrants, fire flows, brush clearance, and fuel modification plans must be met. 5. Every building constructed shall be accessible to the Fire Department's apparatus by way of access roadways with an all-weather surface of not less than the prescribed width. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of C-204 Yolanda Schwartz, Planning Director November 24, 2014 Page 3 all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. 6. Access roads shall be maintained with a minimum of 10 feet of brush clearance on each side. Fire access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance clear -to -sky with the exception of protected tree species. Protected tree species overhanging fire access roads shall be maintained to provide a vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. 7, The maximum allowable grade for private fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15%. Where grades exceeding 15% are necessary due to topographical conditions, a grade percentage of 15.1% - 20% is allowed for a maximum length of 150 feet, the overall average grade shall not exceed 17%. Private fire apparatus access roads with a grade percentage of 15.1% - 20% and greater in length than 150 feet, shall provide a 100 lineal foot grade break area that does not exceed a 10% differential for each 150 foot length. The overall average grade shall not exceed 17%. When determining the average grade, the entry apron, fire apparatus turnaround area, garage driveway area, and etc, shall not be considered in the percentage calculation. The maximum fire apparatus access road cross slope shall not exceed 2%. The maximum cross slope within any change of direction of the road shall not exceed 5%. 8. When involved with subdivision in a city contracting fire protection with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, the Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision tentative map stage. 9. The Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the building permit stage., 10. Fire sprinkler systems are required in some residential and most commercial occupancies. For those occupancies not requiring fire sprinkler systems, it is strongly suggested that fire sprinkler systems be installed. This will reduce potential fire and life losses. Systems are now technically and economically feasible for residential use. 11. Single family detached homes shall require a minimum fire flow of 1, 250 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two-hour duration. Fire flow and flow duration for dwellings having a fire flow calculation area in excess of 3,600 square feet shall not be less than that specified in C-205 Yolanda Schwartz, Planning Director November 24, 2014 Page 4 Table B 105.1 Exception: A reduction in required fire flow of 50 percent, as approved, is allowed when the building is equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system. 12. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 600 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a) No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 450 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b) No portion of a structure should be placed on a lot where it exceeds 750 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. c) When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 450 feet on a residential street, hydrants shall be required at the corner and mid -block. d) Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. 13. The Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in -length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. 14. The Fire Department access shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, clear -to -sky and be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any single unit. If exceeding 150 feet, provide 20 feet minimum paved width. Private Driveway/Fire Lane, clear -to -sky to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the unit. Fire Lanes serving three or more units shall be increased to 26 feet. 15. Streets or driveways within the development shall be provided with the following: a) Provide 36 feet in width on all streets where parking is allowed on both sides, b) Provide 34 feet in width on cul-de-sacs up to 700 feet in length. This allows parking on both sides of the street. c) Provide 36 feet in width on cul-de-sacs from 701 to 1,000 feet in length. This allows parking on both sides of the street. d) For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be C-206 Yolanda Schwartz, Planning Director November 24, 2014 Page 5 posted with the Fire Department approved signs stating "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" in three-inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Department use. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. 16. Should any questions arise regarding subdivision, water systems, or access, please contact the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development's Unit's Inspector Nancy Rodeheffer at (323) 890-4243 or n rodehefferO.fire.lacounty.gov. 17. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. FORESTRY DIVISION — OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. The Health Hazardous Materials Division has no objection to the proposed project. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (323) 890-4330. Very truly yours, FRANK VIDALES, CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU FV: ad C-207 C-208 Dec 0514 07.34p Stetson _ w 3105447309 _ a p,1 City of Rolling ]dills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca 90.274 Leslie and Mark Stetson 71 Saddleback Road Rolling Bills, Ca 90274 December 5, 2014 DEC 0 8 201 City of Halling Hills By Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission, We are writing to you to express some thoughts and concerns regarding the proposed subdivision on 80 Saddleback Road. As long time residents and active community participants, we have been following this initial subdivision process and understand that it is important to voice our thoughts since we will be asked to sign and approve the process. As adjacent neighbors we had hoped that the outcome of any sale would be a new neighbor and one beautiful new home to replace what had become an abandoned and unsafe property. We think that allowing the older home to be removed was an unusual step for the city, but there was precedent already on the home site with a similar requirement for a barn to be removed before any future stable would be approved. We don't know if any photos were taken at this time but would vouch for the unsafe conditions of both structures since we live so close. The current construction fence is a bit of an eyesore, but imagine the owners felt a need to avoid trespass. Now that the large home site is a proposed subdivision several new issues gain importance and the first is the time involved with this site being vacant, fire safety being one. Much clearing has been done already but the site may become one to watch as unmaintained trees still remain and grasses will overrun the site if we are lucky and the rain continues. Hopefully the City and owner will monitor that with the fire department. We would like to see the appearance from the road, however, remain shielded with native vegetation to preserve the rural look of our road and horse trail. That would also screen future worksite mess and maybe lessen the appearance of building. Aside from the time that will pass as a subdivision is being planned, we will face construction noise now with two homes being built at two separate times. Two neiv driveways across an active horse trail, and the suggestion that two other access roads for barns now adding a total of four driveways what will be an increase of three and pose additional potential road hazard on a narrow winding road. The current driveway access may not be ideal but four new access roads? I would think it possible to access the barns from the main road to the new homes and the plan shown seems to not have a compelling reason to not do that. Page One C-209 Dec 0514 07;34p Stetson 310 544 7309 p,2 Now that this is a more speculative projeri, we also wondered if these two home sites could be developed at the same time. As the proposed homes are both somewhat out of size compatibility wide the surrounding homes and we. have seen Che slow progress that occurs with large new construction, it sccros to signal years of noise and traffic. It maynot be possible to control but would also address a further concern we have of future subdivision of the larger 4acre lot. It has been mentioned that the 40% total lot disturbance of the current lot made it impossible to achieve three lots as initially discussed. Our question involves what might happen if the larger lot is future is not developed and is then subject to a further subdivision and that new lot is then allowed, by code to have an additional lot disturbance of 40%? We would consider the development of three homes on this site as a detrimentto our peaceful enjoyment of our home. We purchased this home on this street because of the rural character we found. This greatly changes the character of the road in our opinion and would have concerns if this could not be permanently addressed at some stage in this current process. Overdevelopment of Rolling Hills is constantly being allowed by the planning commission, when these extremely large homes are being considered. While sonic commission members fight hard to slow the tide, at th a last meeting attended, Leslie was saddened to see what was being approved and allowed. We had hoped that variances would continue to be a seldom used means of overcoming difficult terrain and lox issues, but that is not what we see. Personally we would like to see one new home on this lovely grand lot_ At some point when land is finally scarce the City of Rolling Hills will remain as a rural jewel. One further question would be about the process and if the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has any "voting rights" as an adjacent neighbor? We also wonder who addresses the recreational boundary with our City Fling Facility at Hesse's Gap? The reason we pose this question is that when we first moved here Peggy Minor was asked the same thing by Leslie and pcggy's response was that there would never be any more development around the ring because it was a unique and valuable recreational area, The openness and quiet were described as protected? Horses at work in the ring will be disturbed by construction noise. What impact does that comment have today? What consideration does the City and Community Association give to maintaining the rural nature of our City and Neighborhoods to residents who purchased homes here specifically for those attributes. We bought our horse property specifically so we could safely keep and enjoy horses and ride along a quiet street. Those values seem to be changing but please appreciate our concerns and address these comments in your process. Thank you for the opportunity to be voice our concerns. Sincerely, Mark and Leslie Stetson Cc Rolling Hills Community Association Page Two C-210 SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Sound Science. Creative Solutions. Draft Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Subdivision of 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Prepared for City of Rolling Hills Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants December 2014 C-211 Draft Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Subdivision of 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California Prepared for City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Prepared by: SWCA Environmental Consultants 150 South Arroyo Parkway, Second Floor Pasadena, California 91 105 626.240.0587 December 2014 C-212 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 2 Regulatory Background.................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Federal Regulations................................................................................................... 2 2.2 State Regulations....................................................................................................... 4 3 Methods........................................................................................................................7 3.1 Literature and Database Search................................................................................. 7 3.2 Definition of Sensitive Species.................................................................................... 8 4 Results.......................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Literature and Database Search................................................................................. 8 4.2 Field Survey.............................................................................................................. 9 5 Discussion and Recommendations................................................................................ 12 6 Literature Cited............................................................................................................ 14 FIGURES Figure 1 Critical habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher near the proposed project property. 10 Figure 2 Vegetation and cover types at the proposed project property .................................... 11 APPENDICES Appendix A Sensitive species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the proposed project Appendix B Selected Photographs Appendix C Floral Compendiusm 8 C-213 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills 1 INTRODUCTION SWCA Environmental Consulting, Inc. was retained by Gerald Turpanjian to conduct a biological resources assessment in support of an initial study for the proposed subdivision of 80 Saddleback Road (proposed project) in the City of Rolling Hills, Los Angeles County, California. The proposed project would subdivide the property into two parcels, to allow for the eventual construction of two residences, one per parcel. No plans for the residences were provided prior to this study; it is assumed that one residence will be constructed in the clearing that was previously occupied by the home that has been demolished. The area around the proposed project property is heavily developed, as is the entire Palos Verdes peninsula. There are approximately 65,000 residents in the four peninsula cities of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Palos Verde Estates as of the 2010 census, which equates to a population density of 2,617 residents per square mile. The proposed project property, which is approximately seven acres in area, is located in the west -central portion of the peninsula, with elevations at the property ranging from approximately 750 feet to 845 feet above mean sea level. SWCA conducted a literature review and field survey to evaluate the biological resources present, and potentially present, at the proposed project property. Two species were identified as being of particular concern: coastal California gnatcatcher and Palos Verdes blue butterfly. The coastal California gnatcatcher is a small bird that is endemic to California, which is listed as threatened pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Coastal California gnatcatcher is most commonly associated with sage scrub plant communities, but it can also occur in a range of similar plant communities, and may venture out of scrub and chaparral into adjoining plant communities (Campbell et al. 1997, Beyers and Wirtz 1997). Palos Verdes blue butterfly is listed as endangered under the ESA, and it occurs in only a few small populations, only one of which was known with certainty to be surviving in 2014 (USFWS 2014). Only two plant species are known to be suitable for development of the butterfly's larvae (caterpillars): coast locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus lonchus) and deerweed (Acmispon glaber), both of which are perennial herbs and can therefore be observed in any season. This report describes the methods and results of the biological resources assessment conducted for the proposed project property. The information in this report may be used to support the preparation of environmental documentation for the proposed project, to inform siting and design of the residences that may be built as a result of the proposed project implementation, and to inform avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the proposed project. C-214 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills 2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND The implementation of the proposed project may require actions to mitigate for impacts that would, or could result from development under the Plan. The following discussion reviews federal, state and local laws, regulations and policies relating to listed and endangered plants and wildlife, migratory and nesting birds, environmental quality, and lake and/or stream bed alteration that may be applicable to the proposed project. 2.1 Federal Regulations 2.1.1 Clean Water Act Section 404 (33 USC 1344 et seq.) Under provisions of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) administers the day-to-day activities required by Section 404. These include the individual permit decisions, jurisdictional determinations, developing policy and guidance, and enforcing provisions of Section 404. The USACE asserts jurisdiction over the following categories of water bodies, or "waters of the United States:" traditional navigable waters (TNW); all wetlands adjacent to TNW; non -navigable tributaries of TNW that are relatively permanent (i.e., tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally); and wetlands that directly abut such tributaries. In addition, the USACE may assert jurisdiction over every water body that is not a Relatively Permanent Water Body (RPW) if that water body is determined (on the basis of a fact -specific analysis) to have a significant nexus with a TNW. Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with EPA (328.3 (a)(8) added 58 FR 45035, August 25, 1993). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act prohibits discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States" without a permit. Small-scale projects with minimal impacts may be authorized by nationwide permits, which have an expedited process compared with the individual permit process. Mitigation of wetland impacts is required as a condition of the Section 404 permit and may include preservation, restoration, or enhancement within the study area and/or off-site restoration or enhancement. The characteristics of restored or enhanced wetlands must be equal to or better than those characteristics of affected wetlands to achieve no net loss of wetlands values. Section 401 (33 U.S.C. 1341) Any applicant for a Federal license or permit (including a 404 permit) to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge originates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will originate, that any 2 C-215 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of this title. Thus, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act is administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) under the Porter -Cologne Water Act 2.1.2 Federal Endangered Species Act Applicants for projects that could result in adverse impacts to any federally listed species are required to mitigate potential impacts in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 USC 153 et seq.). Adverse impacts, defined as "take," are prohibited except under authorization through Section 7 or Section 10 consultation, and Incidental Take Authorization. ESA authorizes the USFWS to issue permits under Sections 7 and 10 of the ESA. Section 7 mandates that all federal agencies consult with the USFWS for terrestrial species (and/or National Marine Fisheries Service for marine species) to ensure that federal agency actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify critical habitat for listed species. Any anticipated adverse effects require preparation of a biological assessment to determine potential effects of the project on listed species and critical habitat. If the project adversely affects a listed species or its habitat, the USFWS or NMFS prepares a Biological Opinion (BO). The BO may recommend "reasonable and prudent alternatives" to the project to avoid jeopardizing or adversely modifying habitat including "take" limits. . Mitigation is required for adverse impacts to any listed species or candidate species proposed for listing. Take, under federal definition, currently includes actions that could result in "significant habitat modification or degradation" (50 CFR Section 17.3). Nonfederal projects may still pursue Section 7 permitting when a federal nexus, such as federal funding or permitting (i.e. through the USACE under Section 404 of the Federal CWA), is available. When no nexus is available, Section 10(a)(1)(B) authorizes issuance of permits to allow "incidental take" of listed species. "Incidental take" is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not for the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. To obtain an incidental take permit, an applicant must submit a Habitat Conservation Plan outlining steps to minimize and mitigate permitted take impacts to listed species. Candidate species are those that are undergoing a status review as announced in a Federal Register notice, whether or not the species is the subject of a petition. Proposed species are candidate species that warrant listing as either threatened or endangered and that are officially proposed as such in a Federal Register notice after the completion of a status review and consideration of other protective conservation measures. Candidate species are not protected under ESA. However, the USFWS advises project applicants that candidate species could be elevated to listed status at any time, and should be regarded as species with special consideration. 2.1.3 USFWS-designated Critical Habitat Section 4 of the ESA establishes critical habitat, which is a regulatory link between habitat protection and recovery goals, requiring the identification and protection of all lands, water 3 C-216 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills and air necessary to recover endangered species. To determine what exactly is critical habitat, the needs of open space for individual and population growth, food, water, light or other nutritional requirements, breeding sites, seed germination and dispersal needs, and lack of disturbances are considered. As habitat loss is the primary threat to most imperiled species, the ESA allowed the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to designate specific areas as protected "critical habitat" zones. In 1978, Congress amended the law to make critical habitat designation a mandatory requirement for all threatened and endangered species. 2.1.4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Raptors (birds of prey), migratory birds, and other avian species are protected by a number of state and federal laws. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC 703-711) makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or export any migratory bird, including feathers, parts, nests, or eggs, except in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Interior. The Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 further defined species protected under the act and excluded all nonnative species. The statute was extended in 1974 to include parts of birds, as well as eggs and nests. The MBTA protects all common wild birds found in the United States except the house sparrow, starling, feral pigeon, and resident game birds such as pheasant, grouse, quail, and wild turkey. These species are managed separately by each state. Activities that result in removal or destruction of an active nest (a nest with eggs or young being attended by one or more adults) would violate the MBTA. Removal of unoccupied nests, or bird mortality resulting indirectly from disturbance activities, is not considered a violation of the MBTA. 2.1.5 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668-668c), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since then, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), including their parts, nests, or eggs. In 1962, Congress amended the act to cover golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos). 2.2 State Regulations 2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 et seq.). CESA prohibits the "taking" of listed species except as otherwise provided in State law. Section 86 of CFG Code defines "take" as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." Under certain circumstances, CESA applies these take prohibitions to species petitioned for listing (state candidates). Pursuant to the requirements of CESA, State lead agencies (as defined under CEQA Public Resources Code Section 21067) are required to consult with CDFW to ensure that any action or project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in destruction or adverse modification of essential habitat. Additionally, the CDFW 4 C-217 Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills encourages informal consultation on any proposed project that may impact a candidate species. CESA requires the CDFW to maintain a list of threatened and endangered species. The CDFW also maintains a list of candidates for listing under CESA and of species of special concern (or watch list species). 2.2.2 Fully Protected Species -Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 These sections provide a provision for the protection of bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian, and fish species that are "fully protected." Fully protected animals may not be harmed, taken, or possessed. 2.2.3 Nesting Birds - Fish and Game Code Section 3503 This section states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. 2.2.4 Raptor Protection - Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 This section provides protection for all birds of prey, including their eggs and nests. 2.2.5 Migratory Bird Protection - Fish and Game Code Section 3513 This section makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory non -game bird as designated in the MBTA. 2.2.6 Native Plant Protection Act - Fish and Game Code Sections 1900 et seq. This section lists threatened, endangered, and rare plants so designated by the California Fish and Game Commission. 2.2.7 Lake or Streambed Alteration - Fish and Game Code Sections 1601-1607 These sections prohibit alteration of any lake or streambed, including intermittent and seasonal channels and many artificial channels, without notification of CDFW. If CDFW determines the action may have a substantial adverse effect on existing fish and wildlife resources, then the execution of a Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required. This applies to any channel modifications that would be required to meet drainage, transportation or flood control objectives of the project. 2.2.8 Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act (California Water Code 813000 et seq.) The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates discharge of waste in any region that could affect the Waters of the State under the California Porter - Cologne Water Quality Act or waters of the U.S. under Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Under the Porter -Cologne Act, a Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted prior to discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the Waters of the State (California Water Code Section 13260). Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) or a waiver of WDRs will then be issued by the RWQCB. Waters of the State are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, which are within the boundaries of the state (California Codes: Public Resource Code Section 71200). C-218 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills 2.2.9 California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a project's effects on environmental resources must be analyzed and assessed using criteria determined by the lead agency. CEQA defines a rare species in a broader sense than the definitions of threatened, endangered, or California species of concern. Under this definition, CDFW can request additional consideration of species not otherwise protected. Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines encourages local agencies to develop and publish the thresholds that the agency will use in determining the significance of environmental effects caused by projects or actions under its review. Appendix G provides examples of impacts that would normally be considered significant. Based upon these guidelines, impacts to biological resources would normally be considered significant if the project: • Has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS; • Has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by CDFW or USFWS; • Has a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; • Interferes substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; or • Conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or, conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. An evaluation of whether an impact to biological resources would be significant must consider both the resource itself and how that resource fits into a regional or local context. Significant impacts would be those that would diminish, or result in the loss of, an important biological resource, or those that would obviously conflict with local, state, or federal resource conservation plans, goals, or regulations. The evaluation of impacts considers direct impacts, indirect impacts, cumulative impacts, as well as temporary and permanent impacts. 6 C-219 Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills 3 METHODS 3.1 Literature and Database Search SWCA conducted a review of literature and databases to identify sensitive biological resources that may be present at the proposed project property. For the purposes of this study, sensitive biological resources were defined to include 1) species, subspecies, or populations listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and candidates for such listing; 2) species, subspecies, populations and varieties listed on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW's) Special Animals List and Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List; 3) plants or animals that are locally important and/or specifically protected by other state or federal regulations; 4) riparian habitats, and other habitats and vegetation types listed as sensitive by CDFW; and 5) water bodies potentially under the jurisdiction of CDFW, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Species occurrences from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), along with consideration of the local landscape and habitats, were used to generate a list of sensitive biological resources with the potential to occur at the proposed project property. Plants, wildlife, and natural communities with CNDDB records inside the Torrance U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 -minute quadrangle, where the proposed project is located, were considered potentially present. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) critical habitat mapper was used to identify whether any designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered species occurred at the project. The National Wetlands Inventory and the USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangle map were reviewed to identify and wetlands mapper were reviewed to determine whether jurisdictional wetlands, waters, or habitats could potentially occur there. 3.2 Field Survey Following the database searches and field surveys, SWCA assessed the potential for occurrence of special -status species at the proposed project property and the immediate vicinity. This consisted of assessing the biological conditions within the project area and its immediate vicinity and the known occurrences of special -status species within the general project vicinity (nine -quadrangle area). A general field survey of the proposed project property was conducted on November 22, 2014 by SWCA biologist Harrison Kirner. Mr. Kirner walked all accessible areas of the property, examined natural areas outside the property with binoculars, and used a Trimble Juno GPS unit to map biological resources. In addition to searching for sensitive biological resources, Mr. Kirner recorded the dominant plants on the property and all wildlife observed. Vegetation community mapping was based on A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). He also searched for natural communities and plant species that may support the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), and the host plants of larval Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis). 7 C-220 Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills 3.3 Definition of Sensitive Species For the purposes of this report, sensitive plants and animals were defined to include species, subspecies, and populations (broadly referred to in this report as species) that have been classified into one or more of the following categories: • Species, subspecies, and populations listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and species that are candidates for such listing. • Species and subspecies listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). • Plants included in the California Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List • Animals included on the California Special Animals List. • Plants assigned California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 4 RESULTS 4.1 Literature and Database Search A query of CNDDB returned 27 special status species, subspecies, and populations, including 13 plants, and 14 animals (Appendix A). One additional bird, the coastal cactus wren, was considered potentially present despite the lack of local records in CNDDB, bringing the total number of animal species potentially present to 15. No sensitive natural communities have been recorded in the CNDDB as occurring in the vicinity of the proposed project. Some of these species can be ruled out because there is no suitable habitat present at the proposed project property. Based on the CNDDB records and the ecological requirements of each species, six sensitive plants were considered potentially present due to the possible occurrence of suitable habitat on or near the property. These included: • Aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides), • South coast allscale (Atriplex pacifica), • Davidson's saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii), • Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis), • Lyon's pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii), and • Brand's star phacelia (Phacelia stellaris). C-221 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills Six sensitive animals were considered potentially present at the proposed project property: • Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), • Silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra), • Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), • Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), • Coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis), and • Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). The National Wetlands Inventory and the USGS 7.5 -minute Torrance quadrangle map did not depict any potential water bodies at the property Critical habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was identified along the southeastern edge of the proposed project property. The USFWS critical habitat mapper was used to determine that the northern and southwestern portions of the property are located within coastal California gnatcatcher critical habitat (Figure 1). 4.2 Field Survey SWCA biologist Harrison Kirner conducted a field survey of the proposed project property on November 22, 2014. Weather conditions during the survey were clear with temperatures ranging from 61-70 degrees Fahrenheit and winds from 3-5 miles per hour (mph). The vegetation within the proposed project property was mostly maintained and/or disturbed by previous human activity (Figure 2). Selected photos are presented in Appendix B. Anthropogenically modified areas at the property included non-native woodland, non- native grassland, disturbed/developed. The non-native woodland areas contained a number of common ornamental tree species, including Peruvian peppertree, lemon gum eucalyptus, carob, Aleppo pine, Canary Island pine, Monterey pine, and cork oak. The non-native grassland appears to be mowed on an annual or more frequent basis, and consisted of non-native grasses such as wild oats and bromes. Disturbed/developed areas included the existing driveway and an informal ungraded two -track road along the property margin, as well as a clearing at the center hilltop of the property for the house (which has been demolished). No streams, riparian areas, or wetlands were observed. Stands of vegetation dominated by native species occurred around the margins of the proposed project property, with non-native tree species present in all stands. Coast prickly pear occurred along the southwestern edge of the property, and stands of lemonade berry occurred along the southern and eastern edges of the property. These areas were mapped as a lemonade berry alliance, which is a form of California chaparral (Sawyer, Keeler -Wolf 9 C-222 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills Figure 1. Critical habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher near the proposed project property. Critial Habitat Coastal California gnatcatcher M Palos Verdes blue butterfly F 'I Western snowy plover . Tor ran,r. I dr,eti Jr.? talus Verdes Lotrita I',, osPeninsuta Verdes es rrry Rolling Hills Parcel Location states Rolling Hills O S.NI tedfrl SWCA 0 Kilometers 5 ENV A rN,uIM <Ow 2JLI.r +5a 5 ro�o aanwar 1-n or Pa CA 9110!. ia16262lo-O S, ea.raaem Ivllles 2'5 O NEP-WCMC USGS bse0�b ham: h%aarvsr. trcylaon6ne-comaro, z:tenlua increment P Corp 10 C-223 Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills Figure 2. Vegetation and cover types at the proposed project property L C-224 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills and Evens 2009). Chaparrals differ from scrub alliances in that the predominant species have evergreen, leathery leaves. In this area the next most common shrubs in these stands were ashy buckwheat and laurel sumac; isolated plants of California sagebrush, laurel sumac, black sage, and hollyleaf cherry were also present. A listing of plant species observed at the property is presented in Appendix C. Outside the proposed project property, additional vegetation dominated by native plants was observed adjoining the eastern and southern edges of the proposed project property. A steep slope abuts the eastern edge of the proposed project property, which is part of the George F. Canyon Nature preserve. Coastal sage scrub, the primary habitat of the coastal California gnatcatcher, has been mapped within the preserve. Wildlife observed during the survey included nine species of birds: • Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), • Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), • Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), • Western scrub -jay (Aphelocoma californica), • Common raven (Corvus corax), • American crow (Corvus americana), • Spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), • California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and • House finch (Haemorhous mexicanus) No wildlife shelters, nests, or dens were observed at the proposed project property. 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS SWCA conducted a biological assessment of 80 Saddleback Road in the City of Rolling Hills in November, 2014 to support the preparation of an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA During the assessment and field survey, no species of plants or animals listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the federal ESA or CESA were observed. One red-tailed hawk was observed during the field survey; this species is protected under the birds of prey provisions of the California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5). No other plants or wildlife considered sensitive or protected by any state, local, or federal regulations were observed. No features indicative of wildlife movement corridors were observed. The eastern edge of the proposed project property supports lemonade berry chaparral that may provide suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher, and coastal sage scrub has been mapped in the adjoining George F. Canyon preserve. The lemonade berry chaparral within the proposed project property is a suitable and native plant -dominated 12 C-225 Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher. While suitable, the low prevalence of soft -leaved shrubs such as sages (Salvia spp.), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), and buckwheats (Eriogonum spp.) within the property suggest that it is not prime nesting habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher. Due to its small size the generally disturbed habitats present, the proposed project property has limited potential to support individuals and populations of the sensitive species that may be potentially present. Impacts that may foreseeably result from implementation of the proposed project are assumed to include the impacts associated with construction and utilization of a second residence at the property. As of this writing, no plans for such a residence and associated infrastructure (e.g. driveway) were available for review. In evaluating whether a project may result in impacts to biological resources that rise to the level of significance as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act, the local resources and context must be taken into consideration. The subdivision of the parcel at 80 Saddleback Road would not necessarily result in adverse impacts to biological resources. However, the construction of a house on the newly created parcel is could affect sensitive biological resources, depending on its siting and construction. Considering that the vegetation at proposed project property is primarily ornamental, planted vegetation, the potential for adverse impacts to result from the implementation of the proposed project is limited. In order to ensure that substantial adverse impacts do not result from the proposed project, SWCA recommends the following measures, in addition to any required by the City of Rolling Hills: 1. Prior to the start of construction, conduct a survey for coastal California gnatcatcher according to the most current USFWS survey protocol, to determine whether gnatcatchers are currently occupying the proposed project property. 2. Prior to the start of construction, conduct a survey for sensitive plants that are considered potentially present when those plants would have identifiable aboveground parts. 3. Based on the results of the above surveys, coordinate as appropriate with CDFW and/or USFWS to identify appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. 13 C-226 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills 6 LITERATURE CITED Beyers, JL and WO Wirtz II. 1997. Vegetative characteristics of coastal sage scrub sites used by California gnatcatchers: implications for management in a fire -prone ecosystems. Proceedings — Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species and Habitats Conference, November 13-16, 1995. Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Campbell, KF, RA Erickson, WE Haas, and MA Patten. 1998. California gnatcatcher use of habitats other than coastal sage scrub: conservation and management implications. Western Birds. 29:421-433. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. September 2014. Special Animals. Periodic publication. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. October 2014. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Quarterly publication. California Native Plant Society. 2013. Inventory of rare, threatened, and endangered species. Available from: http://www.rareplanfs.cnps.org/ California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2014. RareFind 5 [Internet]. California Department of Fish and Wildlife [Version 5; accessed November, 2014]. Shuford WD, Gardali T. 2008. California bird species of special concern. Studies of Western Birds No. 1. Sacramento, CA: Western Field Ornithologists and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: http://crithob.fws.gov/. Accessed November 2014. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. National Wetlands Inventory mapper. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper. html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014. Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly 5 -Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California. 14 C-227 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills Appendix A A 1 C-228 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills Table A-1 Sensitive species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the proposed proiect Species Status Plants Habitat and Relevant Information Present/ Absent aphanisma CRPR 1 B.2 Annual herb: Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, Potentially Aphanisma blitoides coastal scrub. On bluffs and slopes near the ocean in present: not sandy or clay soils. In steep decline on the islands and observed. the mainland. 1-305m. south coast saltscale CRPR 1 B.2 Annual herb. Coastal scrub, coastal dunes, coastal Potentially Atriplex pacifica bluff scrub, playas. Alkali soils. 1-500m. present: not observed. Parish's brittlescale CRPR 1 B.1 Annual herb. Alkali meadows, vernal pools, Absent: no alkali Atriplex parishii chenopod scrub, playas. Usually on drying alkali flats meadows, vernal with fine soils. 25-1900 m. pools chenopod scrub or playas present. Davidson's saltscale CRPR 1 B.2 Annual herb. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. Potentially Atriplex serenana var. Alkaline soil. 10-200 m. Believed extirpated from Los present: not davidsonii Angeles County. observed. southern tarplant CRPR 1 B.1 Annual herb. Marshes and swamps margins, valley Potentially Centromadia parryi and foothill grassland. Often in disturbed sites near present: not ssp. australis the coast at marsh edges; also in alkaline soils observed. sometimes with saltgrass. Sometimes on vernal pool margins. 0-425 m. salt marsh bird's -beak FE, SE, Coastal salt marsh, coastal dunes. Limited to the Absent: no salt Chloropyron CRPR 1 B.2 higher zones of the salt marsh habitat. 0-30 m. marsh present, maritimum ssp. property well maritimum above species' elevation range. Coulter's goldfields CRPR 1 B.1 Annual herb. Coastal salt marshes, playas, vernal Absent: no wet Lasthenia glabrata pools. Usually found on alkaline soils in playas, sinks, habitats present. ssp. coulteri and grasslands. 1-1200 m. mud nama CRPR 213.2 Marshes and swamps. Lake shores, river banks, Absent: no wet Nama stenocarpum intermittently wet areas. 5-500m. areas present. prostrate vernal pool CRPR 1 B.1 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal Absent: no navarretia pools. Alkaline soils in grassland, or in vernal pools. vernal pools Navarretia prostrata Mesic, alkaline sites. 15-700m. present. Lyon's pentachaeta FE, SE, Annual herb. Rocky and clay soils. Chaparral, valley Potentially Pentachaeta lyonii CRPR 1 B.1 and foothill grassland, coastal scrub. Edges of present: not clearings in chaparral, usually at the ecotone between observed. grassland and chaparral or edges of firebreaks. 30- 630 m. Brand's star phacelia CRPR 1 B.1 Annual herb. Coastal scrub, coastal dunes. Open Potentially Phacelia stellaris areas. 1-400 m. present: not observed. A 2 C-229 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills Species Status Habitat and Relevant Information Present/ Absent estuary seablite CRPR 1 B.2 Marshes and swamps. Coastal salt marshes in clay, Absent: Suaeda esteroa silt, and sand substrates. 0-5m. proposed project is well above this species' elevation ranae. Invertebrates western tidal -flat tiger SA Inhabits estuaries and mudflats along the coast of Absent: No beetle Southern California. Generally found on dark -colored estuaries or Cicindela gabbii mud in the lower zone; occasionally found on dry mudflats present. individuals seen, saline flats of estuaries. plant is Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus, sandy beach tiger SA Inhabits areas adjacent to non -brackish water along Absent: no water beetle the coast of California from San Francisco Bay to on or adjacent to Cicindela hirticollis northern Mexico. Clean, dry, light-colored sand in the the property. gravida upper zone. Subterranean larvae prefer moist sand Streptocephalus tectonic swales/earth slump basins in grassland & not affected by wave action. woottoni monarch butterfly SA Winter roost sites extend along the coast from Potentially Danaus plexippus northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico. present: not later in the season. Roosts located in wind -protected tree groves observed. Inhabits coastal lagoons, estuaries and salt marshes, eucalyptus, Monterey pine, cypress, with nectar and California rcepriies water sources nearby. Palos Verdes blue FE Restricted to the cool, fog -shrouded, seaward side of Absent: No butterfly Palos Verdes Hills, Los Angeles County. Main host individuals seen, Glaucopsyche plant is Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus, host plants not lygdamus locoweed. present on site. palosverdesensis lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low present: not Riverside fairy shrimp SA Endemic to W RIV, ORA & SDG counties in areas of Absent: No Streptocephalus tectonic swales/earth slump basins in grassland & seasonal pools woottoni coastal sage scrub. Inhabit seasonally astatic pools present at filled by winter/spring rains. Hatch in warm water property. later in the season. mimic tryonia, SA Inhabits coastal lagoons, estuaries and salt marshes, Absent: No California from Sonoma County south to San Diego County. water present at brackishwater snail Found only in permanently submerged areas in a property. Tryonia imitator variety of sediment types; able to withstand a wide ranae of salinities. rcepriies silvery legless lizard SSC Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation. Potentially Anniella pulchra Soil moisture is essential. Prefers soils with a high present: not pulchra moisture content. observed. coast horned lizard SSC Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in Potentially Phrynosoma blainvillii lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low present: not bushes. Open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, observed patches of loose soil for burial, & abundant supply of A 3 C-230 Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills Species Status Habitat and Relevant Information Present/ Absent Birds sage scrub in and washes, on mesas & slopes. Not all observed. californica areas classified as coastal sage scrub are occupied. tricolored blackbird SSC Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Potentially Agelaius tricolor SE: 180 Valley & vicinity. Largely endemic to California. present: not days of Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, & observed. No emergency foraging area with insect prey within a few km of the suitable nesting protections colony. sites present. beginning 12/3/2014 Coastal cactus wren SSC Non -migratory species, closely tied to stands of cholla Potentially Campylorhynchus and prickly pear cactus in coastal Southern California. present: not brunneicapillus observed. sandiegensis coastal California FT, SSC Obligate, permanent resident of coastal sage scrub Potentially gnatcatcher below 2500 ft in Southern California. Low, coastal present: not Polioptila californica sage scrub in and washes, on mesas & slopes. Not all observed. californica areas classified as coastal sage scrub are occupied. California least tern FE, SE, Nests along the coast from San Francisco Bay south to Absent: no bare Sternula antillarum FP northern Baja California. Colonial breeder on bare or flat coastal areas browni sparsely vegetated, flat substrates: sand beaches, present at the alkali flats, land fills, or caved areas. orooerty. Mammals pocketed free -tailed SSC Variety of and areas in Southern California; pine- Absent: no bat juniper woodlands, desert scrub, palm oasis, desert suitable arid Nyctinomops wash, desert riparian, etc. Rocky areas with high cliffs. habitats present femerosacca at the property. A 4 C-231 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills Appendix B ffm C-232 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills Figure B-1 Clearing where the previous house was demolished in the center of the property. Figure B-2 Possible site for the second house in the southern portion of the property B-2 C-233 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills Figure B-3 Lemonade berry and ashy buckwheat with an overstory of landscape trees at the property. Figure B-4 View from the southernmost corner of the property, facing northeast across lemonade berry scrub on the slope outside and below the eastern property edge. B-3 C-234 P {_ "= °� �:• ° � `�_ �+t it yds � �" r � �� 4� f • k a IPI lr I i$i a Figure B-4 View from the southernmost corner of the property, facing northeast across lemonade berry scrub on the slope outside and below the eastern property edge. B-3 C-234 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills Appendix C C_I C-235 Biological Resources Assessment for 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills Compendium of Floral Species Observed at the Proposed Project Property Non-native species denoted with * Peruvian peppertree Carob tree Lemon gum Aleppo pine Canary Island pine Monterey pine Cork oak Coast prickly pear Russian thistle Black mustard Climbing penstemon Century plant Oat spp. Holly -leaf cherry Black sage California sagebrush Lemonade berry Ashy buckwheat Spanish broom Schinus molle * Ceratonia siliqua* Corymbia citriodora* Pinus halepensis* Pinus canariensis* Pinus radiata* Quercus suber* Opuntia littoralis Salsola tragus* Brassica nigra* Keckiella cordifolia Agave sp.* Avena sp.* Prunus ilicifolia Salvia mellifera Artemisia californica Rhus integrifolia Eriogonum cinereum Spartium junceum c - a C-236 N w W d V W W o:: W F— V) N V Z O V m SSVdU3A0 NVIMP � oa d of �a xz wQ oa 0 Nn�n�na�c �i �,e ink C-237 tAf LU LU V F- LU ~ w ®• 0� to H � V Z O V o t 9- Y io p �- OW i 3 m g m 0 z� Q K N 9� `/ zn yD p VINVS am aw v a� o. N K V 3Nil�H0lVR w w d 2 I � W 0 F Nl7aA7n.4:7q 0 ZnaD V'1NVS' 1S1St 1S ON,' Tr r;! F71 C-238 z� 9� p 00 O ;E G q- F � 1 T a� o. N K V 3Nil�H0lVR w w d 2 I � W 0 F Nl7aA7n.4:7q 0 ZnaD V'1NVS' 1S1St 1S ON,' Tr r;! F71 C-238 0 ;ci:� 8 3NIIH01VLAI 'IS GN,7 o c I < cc LU wi 0 LL. 'IS OHE o otAY f7V) ua 2 UA C � O R 'IS Hit 0 iu ul #A oC C4 o O 0 2 'IS HIS G2 ol 0 'IS H19 3 INIIHOIVA C-239 OH 82 ;ci:� 8 3NIIH01VLAI 'IS GN,7 o c I < cc LU wi 0 LL. 'IS OHE o otAY f7V) ua 2 UA C � O R 'IS Hit 0 iu ul #A oC C4 o O 0 2 'IS HIS G2 ol 0 'IS H19 3 INIIHOIVA C-239 i SPI gel OD Q0 W q y 5 E g �s n 0 Va — —1 _44 r— Ga � Uw oaI( gnf _ J i OD Or Z xZ s � r— Uw W 3_ rOr W g7 N e i a� II F Z W Q W W a U O Z W a �Q W J3NIfH�N----® ---- '1S H19 �j s 3 a '1S H1Z W W N 0 0 H W W N sJ C-240 N W LU V® V)H LU d ex W F— V) N () Z O V 0 3NIlH�I_HW '= '1S H10I x � � a& �o a K w w CL. w 1S H1II 3 _ h - ~ m I � x0 �F m3 - aX _ U F ' e� NI`e is M e C-241 a Lm tz Im c tA m C-242 http://www.dai lybreeze.com/general-news/20150106/possi ble-lane-red uction-on-gaffey-street-i n-san-pedro-draws-vocal-opposition Possible lane reduction on Gaffey Street in San Pedro draws vocal opposition By Donna Littlejohn, The Daily Breeze DailyBreeze.com A possible reduction of lanes on Gaffey Street in San Pedro as a part of a beautification plan is on hold after objections from many in the town. View of Gaffey looking north from the pedestrian bridge at the entrance to San Pedro. Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2015. (Steve McCrank / Staff Photographer) View of Gaffey Street looking south from the pedestrian bridge at the entrance to San Pedro. Plans to reduce the number of traffic lanes have been put on hold. (Steve McCrank / Staff Photographer) Plans to beautify Gaffey Street have taken a detour as objections balloon over a suggestion to reduce traffic lanes to make way for more pedestrian -friendly features. No definitive plan is yet in place, and a spokesman for Los Angeles Councilman Joe Buscaino said if the community opposes lane reductions, they won't happen. But for now, the idea remains at least within the realm of possibility, prompting outcries this week on social media and inspiring an online petition that gathered more than 500 signatures overnight as residents prepare for a joint Neighborhood Council briefing at 6 p.m. Thursday. "I saw a couple (of) people discussing it on Facebook and recently got a couple (of) emails from the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council," said Shannon Ross, whose husband, a longshoreman, must use Gaffey Street daily to get to and from work. "I know how difficult it is to travel (Gaffey) already. It really concerns me." Gaffey already gets bumper -to -bumper traffic during morning and afternoon rush hours as cars creep toward or from the 110 Freeway on- and off -ramps. Opponents say taking away one of three lanes on either side of the street, as some design drawings have shown, will create a traffic disaster. Ross posted the "stop lane reduction on Gaffey Street" petition Monday night and, in just 24 hours, it had 490 signatures. She hopes to have 1,000 to present at Thursday's meeting at the Croatian Cultural Center, 510 W. Seventh St. The outcry hasn't been lost on Buscaino's office. "The councilman is not going to support anything that's not supported by the community," said spokesman Branimir Kvartuc, calling the response to the petition "significant." He said the office has been aware of the Page 1 of 3 Jan 07, CO & 24�3 l AM MST http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/201 501 06/possible-lane-reduct ion-on-gaffey-street-i n-san-ped ro-draws-vocal-opposition growing opposition for more than a month now. Advertisement "It's another piece of evidence," Kvartuc said, that opposition to lane reduction on Gaffey is strong within the community, adding that, "Yes, the message has been received." The Gaffey Street makeover, already in the works, has been wrapped into Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti's Great Streets Initiative, a plan to transform and beautify the city's main corridors. Gaffey was one of six streets named last May by the mayor in the first phase of the program. Eventually, 40 streets will be targeted citywide. The goal is to make the streets more pedestrian -friendly by adding lighting, landscaping and "bulb -outs" or hubs at intersections that will provide space for people waiting for public transit, for example. "This is still in the development phases," said Kate Mayerson, project manager for the Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative, or LANI, the nonprofit that the city contracted with to oversee the planning. "We're seeking input on all parts of the plan." The Gaffey Street makeover is expected to take many years and cost millions. A lighting of the arched pedestrian bridge that crosses over Gaffey near the freeway was celebrated a month ago but was not part of the street makeover. Initially, the focus is on Gaffey from the 110 Freeway to 13th Street. LANI has held two public workshops so far, but Mayerson said the last session drew little public participation. Most of the plan looks at beautification elements such as streetscapes. Some of the proposed pedestrian -friendly ideas, such as bulb -outs, or curb extensions, she said, would require reducing vehicle lanes. Kvartuc said more public reaction is needed on the many other elements of the project, such as beautification, new signage and trees. "We can't make this a `great' street just talking about lane reductions," he said. The lane reductions, he said, "are off the table," in light of the public response so far. "It was just one of the things that was a possibility," he said. "I don't think it's going to happen." Mayerson said discussions and designs are still very preliminary. "This is just a conceptual plan, not an implementation plan," she said, adding that no funding for implementation has been identified. "We want to make sure everybody's voice is heard before proposing anything," Mayerson said. "This is a multi-, multi-, multimillion -dollar project." A third public workshop — planned to be the last unless work is extended — is set for 6 p.m. Jan. 15 at the Grand Annex, 434 W. Sixth St., San Pedro. Page 2 of 3 Jan 07, 'D 5k'h44 1AM MST http://www.dai lybreeze.com/gene ral- news/201 501 06/possi ble-lane-reduction-on-gaffey-street-i n-san-pedro-d raws-vocal-oppos iti on This week's meeting was designed for Neighborhood Council representatives only, but has morphed into a larger public session with residents now planning to attend after seeing the alerts about the lane -reduction issue. "We will be suggesting that people listen and hear us out," Mayerson said of Thursday's meeting. "We understand people are concerned." Regarding possible lane reductions, she said she'd like to see residents consider trying at least a pilot project to see what might work. Strategies such as more traffic light synchronization could offset traffic impacts, Mayerson said. But until then, Kvartuc said, there is plenty of work to do to improve Gaffey. "In the short-term, (the idea is) to create infrastructure improvements that get investments. We want people to invest, we want new businesses to come to Gaffey and we want good businesses to come to Gaffey." Donna Littlejohn Reach the author at Donna.Littlejohn@dailybreeze.com . • Full bio and more articles by Donna Littlejohn • Back to top Page 3 of 3 Jan 07, CO)g214t .�� 1AM MST http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/201 501 08/san-ped ro-res i dents-applaud-news-that-gaffey-wont-see-lane-reductions San Pedro residents applaud news that Gaffey won't see lane reductions By Donna Littlejohn, The Daily Breeze DailyBreeze.com The idea of creating Great Streets in Los Angeles sounds ... great. But start talking about the details — like how to make room for more pedestrian spaces — and conflicts can quickly arise. Case in point: News that car lanes could be reduced on busy Gaffey Street ignited an outcry in San Pedro that brought a standing -room only crowd to a Thursday night public meeting where possible changes were discussed. As a result, planners announced that lane reductions would be off the table. "Just like there will be no Olympic Games in Los Angeles, there is not going to be any lane reductions on Gaffey Street," Los Angeles City Councilman Joe Buscaino announced, referring to news earlier in the day that Boston, not L.A., would be bidding for the 2024 Summer Olympics. Applause immediately broke out in the meeting room at the Croatian Cultural Center. where more than 200 people had gathered to protest any notion that Gaffey could be narrowed. Gaffey was one of six streets named by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti last year when he announced the first phase of projects for his Great Streets Initiative. Ultimately, 40 streets citywide will be targeted for the improvements that include landscaping, beautification and pedestrian -friendly elements such as sidewalk extensions and dining. Goals of the Great Streets Initiative project are to increase access to public transit, beautify the area, improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, and promote revitalization efforts supporting small businesses. "The bottom line is that the Great Streets Initiative is meant to get rid of undesirable businesses along Gaffey, like the pot shops and the fast-food restaurants," Buscaino said. Instead, he said, the street should feature attractive family dining spots with appealing landscaping and outdoor seating. Advertisement "No one in San Pedro doesn't agree that Gaffey Street needs improvements," he said. But any suggestion of narrowing Gaffey Street, especially north of Fifth Street where cars waiting to enter the 110 Freeway are often backed up for blocks in the mornings, drew widespread criticism. Planners from the Los Angeles Neighborhood Initiative and RRM Design Group assured the crowd that any lane reductions that might have been considered are now off the table. "We hear you," said Tony Keith of RRM. Objections were so numerous — more than 1,000 people signed an online petition virtually overnight — that city officials quickly backed off suggestions that one of three traffic lanes might be removed from what Page 1 of 3 Jan 12, J@5 1 PM MST http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/201 501 08/san-pedro-res i dents-applaud-news-that-gaffey-wont-see-lane-reducti ons arguably is the port town's most congested thoroughfare. "Gaffey Street is a thoroughfare," said San Pedro business owner Scott Carter. "I wish it were a beautiful street, but it can't be with the crime and (existing) buildings." Other residents expressed concern that adding more attractive pedestrian seating at bus stop shelters would backfire in light of the homeless population. The task of remaking Gaffey, said Keith, who conducted some of the port town's early meetings on waterfront redevelopment more than a decade ago, isn't an easy one. "You really make our job tough," he said, striking a light note with the crowd. "Taking what is essentially a six -lane freeway cutting through town (Gaffey) and making it into a pedestrian -friendly street is the challenge of a career, so I want to thank you for that." For planners, there was a silver lining to the mass turnout at this week's meeting. They are hoping that the surge in attendance — a far cry from the small crowds that turned out for two Gaffey Street workshops held last year — won't vanish just because the controversy about lane reductions Is gone. Several speakers Thursday night urged their fellow residents to follow through with participation in the design work ahead. "We're a `pitchfork -and -torch' community," said James Dimon, president of the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council. "Most of you are here because of the lanes." Residents, he said, should now work with the designers, acknowledging that Gaffey essentially developed in a hodgepodge fashion over many decades and could use a makeover. "Don't you want people coming into our community to see something we planned and is beautiful?" he asked to applause. Kathleen Woodfield of San Pedro also cautioned fellow residents about unintentionally derailing outside interests and funding for improving Gaffey. "I hate to see us be our own worst enemy, over and over and over again," she said. While there is no implementation funds now available, planners announced Thursday that there is a possibility that $1.7 million might be secured for part of the project, which officials acknowledge will take decades and much more money than that to complete. Recently, new blue lights were unveiled on the pedestrian bridge that arches over Gaffey at the 110 Freeway on- and off -ramps, a project that wasn't formally linked to the Great Streets makeover but served as a public kickoff for the plans. A third workshop that had been planned for Thursday, meanwhile, will be postponed until late January or early February so designers can rework some of their ideas. "We're going back to the drawing board and coming back to you with what I know will be exciting concepts," Keith said. Page 2 of 3 Jan 12, A OO -r-2 371 PM MST http://www.dailybreeze.corrVgeneral-news/201 501 08/san-pedro-res idents-applaud-news-that-gaffey-wont-see-lane-reduct ions Buscaino encouraged residents to continue to be engaged in the process, adding that Gaffey is often a "first impression" for those coming into San Pedro from the 110 Freeway. "I'm embarrassed by our main corridor," he said, adding that he often turns west on First Street after exiting the freeway when he's bringing guests into town. San Pedro's revitalization, he said, "has been a long time coming.... It's our turn. It's our time." Donna Littlejohn Reach the author at Donna.Littlejohn@dailybreeze.com . • Full bio and more articles by Donna Littlejohn • Back to top Page 3 of 3 Jan 12, & 2Q. 1 PM MST