CC SR 20151006 D - Border Issues Status ReportMEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: KIT FOX, AICP, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYS
9
DATE: OCTOBER 6, 2015
SUBJECT: BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT
REVIEWED BY: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER V✓OJ
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; and,
• An update on the proposed closure of the Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP) San
Pedro.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the bi-monthly review of Border Issues.
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://www. rpvca.gov/781 /Border -Issues -Status -Report
1
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
October 6, 2015
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Current Border Issues
Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
A public hearing on the safety of the Rancho LPG butane storage facility that was to be
hosted by 35th District State Senator Isadore Hall on October 3, 2015, was canceled on
September 15, 2015. Staff understands that this hearing may be rescheduled for some
time during the first quarter of 2016.
In the past two (2) months, interested parties have continued to forward items regarding
and related to the Rancho LPG facility and its owner/operator 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
The Rolling Hills Estates City Council reviewed this 4 -unit, detached condominium project
at the northeast corner of Crest and Highridge roads on August 11, 2015. At its meeting
on July 6, 2015, the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission had adopted a resolution
recommending denial of the project to the City Council. However, the City Council
remanded the project back to the Planning Commission, with direction to the applicant to
address the Planning Commission's concerns about the project's density, bulk and mass.
As of the date that this report was completed, a new Planning Commission hearing date
had not yet been set. Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues
reports.
Closure of Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
On August 7, 2015, the City was notified that the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA)
for the possible closure of the Navy fuel depot in San Pedro had been released for public
review and comment. Comments on the Draft EA were due by August 24, 2015 (despite
requests from many interested parties for a longer public review period, a minimum 15 -
day public comment period was provided). The Planning & Land Use Committee of the
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council reviewed the Draft EA at its meeting on
August 19, 2015 and Staff attended this meeting. Staff subsequently submitted the
attached comments on the Draft EA on August 24, 2015. For reference, also attached to
tonight's report are comments submitted by:
05
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
October 6, 2015
Page 3
The Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council;
The Sierra Club; and,
A consortium of other environmental and neighborhood advocacy groups.
The consortium of environmental and neighborhood advocacy groups reached out to
Congressman Ted Lieu's office to hold a briefing with his staff about the closure of DFSP
San Pedro. The meeting was held on September 17, 2015, at Congressman Lieu's Los
Angeles office, and Staff participated via teleconference. Other participants included
representatives of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council, the Sierra Club, the
Audubon Society and the California Native Plant Society. Each participant reiterated their
concerns about the possible future closure of DFSP San Pedro to Congressman Lieu's
staff, focusing primarily on biological resource impacts. City Staff and other participants
also noted our concerns about the possible future reuse of the property, with general
agreement among the participants that the property should be preserved as open space.
Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
New Border Issues
There are no new Border Issues on which to report at this time.
Attachments:
• E-mails related to the Rancho LPG facility (miscellaneous dates) (page 4)
• RHE City Council Staff report (dated 8/11/15) (page 43)
• Comments on Draft EA for possible closure of DFSP San Pedro from:
o Rancho Palos Verdes (dated 8/24/15) (page 62)
o Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council (dated 8/22/15) (page 65)
o Sierra Club (dated 8/24/15) (page 70)
o Navy Neighbors of San Pedro & Palos Verdes, et al. (dated 8/21/15) (page 74)
MABorder Issues\Staff Reports\20151006_Borderissues_StaffRpt.docx
3
Kit Fox
From:
Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 12, 2015 11:33 AM
To:
MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org;
noelweiss@ca.rr.com; connie@rutter.us; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; igornla@cox.net;
dwgkaw@hotmail.com; darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com;jdimon77
@yahoo.com; president@centraIsanpedro.org; burling102@aol.com;
pmwarren@cox.net;jhwinkler@me.com; chateau4us@att.net; hvybags@cox.net;
leneebilski@hotmail.com; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; Ihermanpg@cox.net;
pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c jjkondon@earthlink.net;
rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; dlrivera@prodigy.net;
peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; Kit Fox; john@nrcwater.com;
irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; carl.southwell@gmail.com; rgb251@berkeley.edu;
Ipryor@usc.edu; ahricko@usc.edu;jnm4ej@yahoo.com; mr.rpulido@gmail.com;
joethedoor@sbcglobal.net; joegalliani@gmail.com; marguello@psr-la.org;
fxfeeney@aol.com; kaiephron@yahoo.com
Cc:
heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov;
gene_seroka@portla.org
Subject:
HUGE EXPLOSION AT CHINESE PORT CITY!!!
And, the LA Harbor area bomb of Plains/Rancho LPG just keeps on tickin.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/12/explosion-chinese-port-city-tianjin?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail
al
Kit Fox
From:
Marcie Miller <marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 12, 2015 11:54 AM
To:
Janet Gunter
Cc:
MrEnvir!aw@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org;
noelweiss@ca.rr.com; connie@rutter.us; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com;
darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; jdimon77@yahoo.com;
president@centralsanpedro.org; burling102@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net;
jhwinkler@me.com; chateau4us@att.net; hvybags@cox.net; leneebilski@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; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; Kit Fox;
john@nrcwater.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; carl.southwell@gmail.com;
rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu; ahricko@usc.edu; jnm4ej@yahoo.com;
mr.rpulido@gmail.com; joethedoor@sbcglobal.net; joegalliani@gmail.com;
marguello@psr-la.org; fxfeeney@aol.com; kaiephron@yahoo.com;
heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov;
gene_seroka@portla.org
Subject:
Re: HUGE EXPLOSION AT CHINESE PORT CITY!!!
htips.11www. vopak. coni/newsroomhzews/vopak-exprafuls-terininral-iiaitiisa-chifaa-storraae-lpg
On Aug 12, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Janet Gunter <arriane5gao1.com> wrote:
And, the LA Harbor area bomb of Plains/Rancho LPG just keeps on tickin........
http://www.thequardian.com/world/2015/aug/l 2/explosion-ch inese-port-city-
tianjin?CMP=Share AndroidApp Gmail
5
Kit Fox
From:
burlingl02@aol.com
Sent:
Wednesday, August 12, 2015 11:58 AM
To:
marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; arriane5@aol.com
Cc:
MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org;
noelweiss@ca.rr.com; connie@rutter.us; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com;
darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; jdimon77@yahoo.com;
president@centralsanpedro.org; pmwarren@cox.net; jhwinkler@me.com;
chateau4us@att.net; hvybags@cox.net; leneebilski@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; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; Kit Fox;
john@nrcwater.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; carl.southwell@gmail.com;
rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu; ahricko@usc.edu; jnm4ej@yahoo.com;
mr.rpulido@gmail.com;joethedoor@sbcglobal.net; joegalliani@gmail.com;
marguello@psr-la.org; fxfeeney@aol.com; kaiephron@yahoo.com;
heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov;
gene_seroka@portla.org
Subject:
Re: HUGE EXPLOSION AT CHINESE PORT CITY!!!
Do you think it will make the "nightly news"?
-----Original Message -----
From: Marcie Miller <marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net>
To: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Cc: MrEnvirlaw <MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net>; det310 <det310@juno.com>; amartinez <amartinez@earthjustice.org>;
noelweiss <noelweiss@ca.rr.com>; connie <connie@rutter.us>; igornla <igornla@cox.net>; dwgkaw
<dwgkaw@hotmail.com>; darlenezavalney <darlenezavalney@aol.com>; rreg55 <rreg55@hotmail.com>; jdimon77
<jdimon77@yahoo.com>; president <president@centralsanpedro.org>; burling102 <burlingl02@aol.com>; pmwarren
<pmwarren@cox.net>; jhwinkler <jhwinkler@me.com>; chateau4us <chateau4us@att.net>; hvybags
<hvybags@cox.net>; leneebilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>; claudia.r.mcculloch<claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com>;
Ihermanpg <Ihermanpg@cox.net>; pjwrome <pjwrome@yahoo.com>; katyw <katyw@pacbell.net>; jwebb
<jwebb@usc.edu>; c.jjkondon <c.jjkondon@earthlink. net>; rcraemer <rcraemer@aol.com>; goarlene
<goarlene@cox.net>; dlrivera <dlrivera@prodigy. net>; peter. burmeister <peter. burmeister@sbcglobal. net>; kitf
<kitf@rpv.com>; john <john@nrcwater.com>; irene <irene@miraclegirlprod uctions.org>; carl.southwell
<carl.southwell@gmail.com>; rgb251 <rgb251@berkeley.edu>; Ipryor <Ipryor@usc.edu>; ahricko <ahricko@usc.edu>;
jnm4ej <jnm4ej@yahoo.com>; mr.rpulido <mr.rpulido@gmail.com>; joethedoor <joethedoor@sbcglobal.net>; joegalliani
<joegalliani@gmail.com>; marguello <marguello@psr-la.org>; fxfeeney <fxfeeney@aol.com>; kaiephron
<kaiephron@yahoo.com>; heather.hutt <heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov>; laurie.saroff <laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov>;
lisa.pinto <Iisa.pinto@mail. house.gov>; gene_seroka <gene_seroka@portla.org>
Sent: Wed, Aug 12, 2015 11:53 am
Subject: Re: HUGE EXPLOSION AT CHINESE PORT CITY!!!
https.11www. vopak. com/newsroom/news/vopak-expands-terminal-tianiin-china-storage-/P
On Aug 12, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Janet Gunter < arriane5Ca)aol.com> wrote:
And, the LA Harbor area bomb of Plains/Rancho LPG just keeps on tickin
l0J
Kit Fox
From:
Marcie Miller <marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 12, 2015 11:59 AM
To:
Janet Gunter
Cc:
MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org;
noelweiss@ca.rr.com; Connie@rutter.us; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com;
darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com;jdimon77@yahoo.com;
president@centralsanpedro.org; burling102@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net;
jhwinkler@me.com; chateau4us@att.net; hvybags@cox.net; leneebilski@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; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; Kit Fox;
john@nrcwater.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; carl.southwell@gmail.com;
rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu; ahricko@usc.edu; jnm4ej@yahoo.com;
mr.rpulido@gmail.com; joethedoor@sbcglobal.net; joegalliani@gmail.com;
marguello@psr-la.org; fxfeeney@aol.com; kaiephron@yahoo.com;
heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov;
gene_seroka@portla.org
Subject:
Re: HUGE EXPLOSION AT CHINESE PORT CITY!!!
http://www. cnbc.com/2014/04/10/rirlin,Q-slutle-boom-its-to-become-major-lp,-_-supplier-to-china.html
On Aug 12, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Marcie Miller <marciesmillergsbcglobal.net> wrote:
https.Ilwww.vopalf.coni/newsyoom/neivslvopalc-ffptn (is-terminal-tianiin-china-stortijze-lp�
On Aug 12, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Janet Gunter <arriane52aol.com> wrote:
And, the LA Harbor area bomb of Plains/Rancho LPG just keeps on tickin
http://www.th eg ua rd ian. com/world/2015/aug/12/explosion-ch inese-port-city-
tianiin?CMP=Share AndroidApp Gmail
7
Kit Fox
From:
Carl Southwell <carl.southwell@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 12, 2015 12:00 PM
To:
Marcie Miller
Cc:
Janet Gunter; AGPatchett; chuck hart; amartinez@earthjustice.org; Noel Weiss; Connie;
John Miller; Kathleen Woodfield; darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com;
James Dimon; president@centralsanpedro.org; June Smith; Peter Warren;
jhwinkler@me.com; chateau4us@att.net; Susan Phuckoff; leneebilski@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;
goariene@cox.net; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; Kit Fox;
john@nrcwater.com; irene@miraclegiriproductions.org; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Pryor,
Lawrence; ahricko@usc.edu; Jesse Marquez; Ricardo Pulido;joethedoor@sbcglobal.net;
joegalliani@gmail.com; marguello@psr-la.org; fxfeeney@aol.com;
kaiephron@yahoo.com; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov;
lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; gene_seroka@portla.org
Subject:
Re: HUGE EXPLOSION AT CHINESE PORT CITY!!!
A photo of the alleged site of the explosion. Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/china-
explosion-live-updates-massive-6241984
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Marcie Miller <marciesmillergsbcglobal.net> wrote:
hitps.11www. vopak. coni/iiewsroona/views/vop(ik-expcnuls-terminal-tianiin-china-storage-lpQ
On Aug 12, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Janet Gunter <arriane5naolcom> wrote:
And, the LA Harbor area bomb of Plains/Rancho LPG just keeps on tickin
http://www.thequardian.com/world/2015/au.q/l 2/explosion-chinese-port-citV-
tianjin?CMP=Share AndroidApp Gmail
Carl Southwell
Contact me at (use whichever you prefer)
carl.southwell(a�gmail.com
cart.southwell(D,riskandpolicy. org
Visit: www.pressfriends.org
Making writing fun for elementary school kids, empowering kids to become mentors and leaders, and creating friendships
among youth from diverse backgrounds.
9
Kit Fox
From:
Marcie Miller <marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 12, 2015 12:19 PM
To:
Carl Southwell
Cc:
Janet Gunter; AGPatchett; chuck hart; amartinez@earthjustice.org; Noel Weiss; Connie;
John Miller; Kathleen Woodfield; darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com;
James Dimon; president@centralsanpedro.org; June Smith; Peter Warren;
jhwinkler@me.com; chateau4us@att.net; Susan Phuckoff; leneebilski@hotmail.com;
claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com;
katyw@pacbell.net;jwebb@usc.edu; c.jkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com;
goarlene@cox.net; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net; Kit Fox;
john@nrcwater.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Pryor,
Lawrence; ahricko@usc.edu; Jesse Marquez; Ricardo Pulido; joethedoor@sbcglobal.net;
joegalliani@gmail.com; marguello@psr-la.org; fxfeeney@aol.com;
kaiephron@yahoo.com; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov, laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov;
lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; gene_seroka@portla.org
Subject:
Re: HUGE EXPLOSION AT CHINESE PORT CITY!!!
http://viewer.zma,as.coin/UublicationlfO6c96ab?WT.mc irl ACGL201510SM Top250 InsimhtAds Muss&WT
.tsrc=E1oguu#/f06c96ub/1
On Aug 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Carl Southwell <earl.southwellkgmail.com> wrote:
A photo of the alleged site of the explosion. Source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-
news/china-explosion-live-updates-massive-6241984
10
Kit Fox
From: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:52 PM
To: gene_seroka@portla.org; mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; emmanuelle.lopez@lacity.org;
jacob.haik@lacity.org
Cc: heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov;
richard.vladovic@lausd.net; Kit Fox; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu
Subject: 1ST confirmation that the China was storing "gas"! (1st para) RANCHO LPG MUST BE
DEALT WITH!
THIS IS A PROBLEM! THE CITY AND ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS NEED TO ADDRESS THE RANCHO LPG SITUATION
AND REMOVE THE THREAT IMMEDIATELY! THE DAMAGES IN CHINA WERE REDUCED DUE TO THE FACT THAT
THE LOCATION OF THE CHINESE HAZARDOUS FACILITY WAS ON A NEWLY CREATED REMOTE SECTION OF
THEIR PORT! (sound familiar? Energy Island concept that the Port completely disregarded?).... UNLIKE RANCHO LPG,
THE CHINESE FACILITY WAS NOT WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF HOMES, SCHOOLS, SHOPS, HIGHWAYS AND A 10
LANE PUBLIC FREEWAY! THE COSTS TO HUMAN LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM AN EXPLOSION AT RANCHO IS
OFF THE CHARTS!!! UNACCEPTABLE!!!
Please see first paragraph of Reuters link below:
Plains All American/Rancho LPG is a looming hazard that was brought about by the port and City of LA. It is time to
relocate this facility NOW in the interest of public safety! Below is a reference to the $3.4 million grant given to the port to
enhance security. I suggest that the Port and City use this grant to address the obvious danger presented by this Plains
All American/ Rancho LPG facility and that a request for additional grants be made, if necessary, to deal with this specific
and highly explosive problem. The Rancho LPG facility offers an extraordinary disaster potential of overwhelming
proportions from a variety of opportunities including; Terrorism, earthquake, antiquated infrastructure failure, accident, and
simple human error. Continuing to ignore this indisputable, highly explosive, and massive .... 25 Million gallon butane and
propane gas risk in the face of what has happened in China would be beyond despicable.
It is TIME!
Janet Gunter
http://www. reuters.com/article/20l 5/08/l 3/us-china-blast-idU SKCNOQH2B220150813
•. s-1
FEMA funds will be used to enhance current projects
Aug. 13, 2015
11
The Federal Emergency
Management Agency has
awarded the Port of Long Beach's
Security Division $3.4 million in
grants to fund ongoing projects
that protect the Port.
The grants will enhance port
security systems such as physical
security equipment
and monitoring and detection
systems, including the Virtual
Port System, and improve the
resiliency of port security
systems.
"Protecting workers and the community, as well as ensuring business continuity, are top
priorities at the Port of Long Beach," said Lori Ann Guzman, President of the Long Beach Board
of Harbor Commissioners. "FEMA's grant money will help us carry out important security
projects and enhance our abilities to work with our security partners at the Port.
FEMA, which is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, offers the grants for port
security initiatives, and recipients like the Port of Long Beach must provide at least 25 percent
of the cost of the project.
The trade that flows through the Port of Long Beach sustains about 1.4 million jobs across the
United States, making the Port a valuable economic resource. To safeguard that resource,
security operations at the Port have been greatly enhanced by $136 million in grants received
since Sept. 11, 2001.
The Long Beach Harbor Department's Security Division partners with local, state and federal
law enforcement and security and emergency -response agencies including the Long Beach
Police and Fire departments, FBI, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Coast
Guard.
The Port of Long Beach is one of the world's premier seaports, a gateway for trans -Pacific
trade and a trailblazer in goods movement and environmental stewardship. With 175 shipping
lines connecting Long Beach to 217 seaports, the Port handles $180 billion in trade annually,
supporting hundreds of thousands of Southern California jobs.
Media Contact: Art Wong, Assistant Director of Communications/PIO, (562) 283-7715
(office), (562) 519-2177 (cell), art.wonaCcbpolb.com
The truth of the Plains/Rancho LPG hazard from the community perspective:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TBGt XKNpRk
12
Kit Fox
From:
Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent:
Friday, August 14, 2015 2:13 PM
To:
heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov, laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov;
richard.vladovic@lausd.net; Kit Fox; kevin.schmidt@ltg.ca.gov; abaker@sco.ca.gov;
alan.gordon@treasurer.ca.gov; jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov;
brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov; wesling.mary@epa.gov; helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov;
blumenfeld fared@epa.gov; attorneygeneral@doj.ca.gov
Cc:
rgb251@berkeley.edu; ahricko@hsc.usc.edu; ipryor@usc.edu; meshkati@usc.edu;
southern@price.usc.edu; amartinez@earthjustice.org; david.pettit@nrdc.org; conei112
@law.pace.edu; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; det310@juno.com;
igornla@cox.net; carl.southwell@gmail.com
Subject:
Perhaps this catastrophe can act FINALLY as a wake up call that will deliver action???????
Why do innocent people have to die before we "get it"??
See LA Times article "Chinese blasts raise questions about having a hazardous site near housing."
WHY IS 25 MILLION GALLONS OF HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE BUTANE AND PROPANE GASES BEING STORED WITHIN
1000 FEET (333 yards) OF RESIDENCES, SCHOOLS, SHOPS AND PUBLIC HIGHWAY??? WHY IS IT ALLOWED TO
SIT ON THE INNER HARBOR THREATENING THE DESTRUCTION OF BOTH PORTS OF LA AND LONG
BEACH .................
AND ALL OF THOSE WITHIN A 3 MILE BLAST RADIUS??!!
SEE LA TIMES ARTICLE LINK BELOW!
http://www.latimes.com/world/as is/la-fq-china-explosions-ruihai-comr)anv-20150814-storv. htmldetd
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TBGt XKNpRk
AFTER IGNORING OVER 40 YEARS OF PLEAS BY RESIDENTS TO REMOVE THIS THREAT ...WHY HAS
GOVERNMENT NOT RESPONDED????? THIS OUTRAGEOUS HIGH RISK EXPOSURE CANNOT CONTINUE!
Janet Gunter
13
Kit Fox
From:
Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent:
Monday, August 17, 2015 10:18 AM
To:
det310@juno.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org; noelweiss@ca.rr.com;
MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net;
igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; jhwinkler@me.com; jnm4ej@yahoo.com;
mr.rpulido@gmail.com; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov;
lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; miraclegirl2@verizon.net; joethedoor@sbcglobal.net;
Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu;
cjjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net;
leneebilski@hotmail.com; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; Kit Fox; john@nrcwater.com;
bonbon90731@gmaii.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; lynneyres@yahoo.com;
pmwarren@cox.net; burlingl02@aol.com; darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55
@hotmail.com; hvybags@cox.net; leonardo.poareo@gmail.com;
david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; gene_seroka@portla.org
Cc:
rgb251@berkeley.edu; ahricko@usc.edu; meshkati@usc.edu;
attorneygeneral@doj.ca.gov; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu;
brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; don.holmstrom@csb.gov
Subject:
The Incredibly HIGH RISK EXPOSURE FOR DISASTER IN LA HARBOR MUST BE
ADDRESSED
In the wake of China's massive destruction, deaths and casualties in their port city ..... and recently what seems like a
never ending stream of ruptured pipelines, toxic contamination, and devastating explosions and fires ..... our society's
reckless ambivalence to disaster prevention appears to be catching up with us!
By their own admission, Plains All American Pipeline AKA Rancho LPG in LA's Harbor area stores.... (at their 42 year
old, 25 million gallon butane and propane gas storage location).... the energy equivalent.... of over 50 atomic
bombs....... all on the back doorstep of pre-existing homes & schools, on the precipice of the Harbor 110 Frwy., within 1/4
mile of the inner harbor of the Port of LA ..... and AMAZINGLY a mere 150 feet of the "active" Palos Verdes Fault (mag.
7.3) on USGS designated "landslide" and "liquefaction" areas!!! (OH ... did I mention that its "two" massive 12.5 million
gallon butane tanks were built without building permits over 4 decades ago to a seismic substandard of 5.5?!!)
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-ch ina-explosions-ruihai-company-20150814-story.htmi
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/aug/l 3/river-fire-burst-pipeline-moscow-russia-video
http://www. usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/14/explosions-rip-texas-chemical-plant/31748967/
http:Hwww.dailybreeze.com/genera l-news/20150813/state-fines-exxonmobiI-566600-for-serious-safety-violations-in-wake-
of-torrance-refinery-explosion
Below: link to a 3 min. youtube video on the situation at this Plains All American Pipeline owned facility:
https:Hm.youtube.com/watch?v=TBGt XKNpRk
When will the relentless disregard for public safety end? When will the political "will" to prevent these cataclysmic losses
kick in????
Janet Gunter
Member: San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, INC.
14
Kit Fox
From:
Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, August 17, 2015 11:43 PM
To:
Janet Gunter; det310@juno.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org; Noel Weiss;
MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net;
igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; jhwinkler@me.com;jnm4ej@yahoo.com;
mr.rpulido@gmail.com; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov;
lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; miraclegirl2@verizon.net; joethedoor@sbcglobal.net;
Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu;
c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net;
claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; Kit Fox; john@nrcwater.com; bonbon90731
@gmail.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; lynneyres@yahoo.com; pmwarren@cox.net;
burlingl02@aol.com; darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com;
hvybags@cox.net; leonardo.poareo@gmail.com; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov;
gene_seroka@portla.org
Cc:
rgb251@berkeley.edu; ahricko@usc.edu; meshkati@usc.edu;
attorneygeneral@doj.ca.gov; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu;
brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; don.holmstrom@csb.gov
Subject:
WSJ article RE: The Incredibly HIGH RISK EXPOSURE FOR DISASTER IN LA HARBOR
MUST BE ADDRESSED
Here's an article from the Wall Street Journal
http://www.ws6.com/articles/warehouse-in-china-blasts-was-closer-to-homes-than-allowed-
1439570892?cb=logged0.006051782751455903
Why doesn't the media pick up on the story of Plains/All American tanks in San Pedro ? Have any responded
to you?
Lenee
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:18:00 -0400
From: arriane5@aol.com
To: det310@juno.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net;
connie@rutter.us; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com;
jhwinkler@me.com; jnm4ej@yahoo.com; mr.rpulido@gmail.com; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov;
laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; miraclegirl2@verizon.net;
joethedoor@sbcglobal.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu;
c.jjkondon@earth link. net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com;
claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; kitf@rpv.com; john@nrcwater.com; bonbon90731@gmail.com;
sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; lynneyres@yahoo.com; pmwarren@cox.net; burling102@aol.com;
darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; hvybags@cox.net; leonardo.poareo@gmail.com;
david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; gene_serol<a@portla.org
CC: rgb251@berkeley.edu; ahricko@usc.edu; mesh kati@usc.edu; attorneygeneral@doj.ca.gov;
carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov;
don.holmstrom@csb.gov
Subject: The Incredibly HIGH RISK EXPOSURE FOR DISASTER IN LA HARBOR MUST BE ADDRESSED
15
In the wake of China's massive destruction, deaths and casualties in their port city ..... and recently what seems like a
never ending stream of ruptured pipelines, toxic contamination, and devastating explosions and fires ..... our society's
reckless ambivalence to disaster prevention appears to be catching up with us!
By their own admission, Plains All American Pipeline AKA Rancho LPG in LA's Harbor area stores.... (at their 42 year
old, 25 million gallon butane and propane gas storage location).... the energy equivalent.... of over 50 atomic
bombs....... all on the back doorstep of pre-existing homes & schools, on the precipice of the Harbor 110 Frwy., within 1/4
mile of the inner harbor of the Port of LA ..... and AMAZINGLY a mere 150 feet of the "active" Palos Verdes Fault (mag.
7.3) on USGS designated "landslide" and "liquefaction" areas!!! (OH ... did I mention that its "two" massive 12.5 million
gallon butane tanks were built without building permits over 4 decades ago to a seismic substandard of 5.5?!!)
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-explosions-ruihai-company-20150814-story. html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/aug/l 3/river-fire-burst-pipeline-moscow-russia-video
http://www. usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/14/explosions-rip-texas-chemical-plant/31748967/
http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20150813/state-fines-exxonmobil-566600-for-serious-safety-violations-in-wake-
of-torrance-refinery-explosion
Below: link to a 3 min. youtube video on the situation at this Plains All American Pipeline owned facility:
https:/Im.youtube.com/watch?v=TBGt XKNpRk
When will the relentless disregard for public safety end? When will the political "will" to prevent these cataclysmic losses
kick in????
Janet Gunter
Member: San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, INC.
16
Kit Fox
From:
Joe <joethedoor@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:16 AM
To:
Janet Gunter
Cc:
det3T0@juno.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org; noelweiss@ca.rr.com;
MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net;
igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; jhwinkler@me.com;jnm4ej@yahoo.com;
mr.rpulido@gmail.com; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov;
lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; miraclegirl2@verizon.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net;
pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net;
rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com;
claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; Kit Fox; john@nrcwater.com; bonbon90731
@gmail.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; lynneyres@yahoo.com; pmwarren@cox.net;
burlingl02@aol.com; darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com;
hvybags@cox.net; leonardo.poareo@gmail.com; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov;
gene_seroka@portla.org; rgb251@berkeley.edu; ahricko@usc.edu; meshkati@usc.edu;
attorneygeneral@doj.ca.gov; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu;
brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; don.holmstrom@csb.gov
Subject:
Re: The Incredibly HIGH RISK EXPOSURE FOR DISASTER IN LA HARBOR MUST BE
ADDRESSED
Janet, well said! Let's tape soon, Joe P.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 17, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Janet Gunter <arriane5cr aol.com> wrote:
In the wake of China's massive destruction, deaths and casualties in their port city ..... and recently what
seems like a never ending stream of ruptured pipelines, toxic contamination, and devastating explosions
and fires..... our society's reckless ambivalence to disaster prevention appears to be catching up with us!
By their own admission, Plains All American Pipeline AKA Rancho LPG in LA's Harbor area stores.... (at
their 42 year old, 25 million gallon butane and propane gas storage location).... the energy equivalent....
of over 50 atomic bombs....... all on the back doorstep of pre-existing homes & schools, on the precipice of
the Harbor 110 Frwy., within 1/4 mile of the inner harbor of the Port of LA ..... and AMAZINGLY a mere 150
feet of the "active" Palos Verdes Fault (mag. 7.3) on USGS designated "landslide" and "liquefaction"
areas!!! (OH ... did I mention that its "two" massive 12.5 million gallon butane tanks were built without
building permits over 4 decades ago to a seismic substandard of 5.5?!!)
http://www.latimes. com/world/asia/la-fq-china-explosions-ruihai-company-20150814-story. html
http://www.thequardian.c m/world/video/2015/aug/13/river-fire-burst-pipeline-moscow-russia-video
http://www. usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/14/explosions-rip-texas-chemical-plant/31748967/
http://www. dailybreeze. com/general-news/20150813/state-fines-exxonmobil-566600-for-serious-safety-
violations-in-wake-of-torrance-refinery-explosion
Below: link to a 3 min. youtube video on the situation at this Plains All American Pipeline owned facility:
https:Hm.Voutube.com/watch?v=TBGt XKNpRk
17
Kit Fox
From:
Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:51 AM
To:
leneebilsl<i@hotmail.com; det310@juno.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org;
noelweiss@ca.rr.com; mrenvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us;
marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com;
jhwinkler@me.com;jnm4ej@yahoo.com; mr.rpulido@gmail.com;
heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov;
miraclegirl2@verizon.net;joethedoor@sbcglobal.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net;
pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; cjjkondon@earthlink.net;
rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; Kit Fox;
john@nrcwater.com; bonbon90731@gmaii.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com;
lynneyres@yahoo.com; pmwarren@cox.net; burlingl02@aol.com;
darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; hvybags@cox.net;
leonardo.poareo@gmail.com; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; gene_seroka@portla.org
Cc:
rgb251@berl<eley.edu; ahricko@usc.edu; meshkati@usc.edu;
attorneygeneral@doj.ca.gov; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu;
brian.hernbacher@doj.ca.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; don.holmstrom@csb.gov;
jim.carlton@wsj.com; erica.phillips@wsj.com
Subject:
Re: WSJ article RE: The Incredibly HIGH RISK EXPOSURE FOR DISASTER IN LA HARBOR
MUST BE ADDRESSED
Lenee..... I have no clue why.... except that until this facility blows up ... it appears that it has no news value to them. The
rhetoric from one news source is that the tanks were reported on previously ...... end of subject. The particular amplified
relevance of the story today, due to the prime example in Tianjin, China, seems to be completely lost. The Chinese
regulation for distance between hazardous facilities and housing is listed at 1,000 YARDS (obviously, still not far
enough)..... the Plains/Rancho site is within 333 YARDS .... or 1,000 FEET of homes and schools! The end goal of all of us
who understand the jeopardy has always been to "circumvent" the impending disaster at Plains/Rancho LPG. That will
never happen unless the serious explosive opportunity becomes obvious to the larger public and the outrage of that high
risk exposure is expressed to those who have the power to resolve the problem. We just keep trying to make a difference
here. Too many lives and too extreme of a threat to ignore. Thanks for noticing the media's ambivalence.
Janet
-----Original Message -----
From: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>
To: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>; det310 <det310@juno.com>; amartinez <amartinez@earthjustice.org>; Noel
Weiss <noelweiss@ca.rr.com>; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal,net <mrenvirlaw@sbcglobal.net>; connie <connie@rutter.us>;
marciesmiller <marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net>; igornla <igornla@cox.net>; dwgkaw <dwgkaw@hotmail.com>; jhwinkler
<jhwinkler@me.com>; jnm4ej <jnm4ej@yahoo.com>; mr.rpulido <mr.rpulido@gmail.com>; heather.hutt
<heather. hutt@sen.ca. gov>; laurie.saroff <laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov>; lisa.pinto <lisa.pinto@mail. house.gov>;
miraclegirl2 <miraclegirl2@verizon.net>; joethedoor <joethedoor@sbcglobal.net>; Ihermanpg <Ihermanpg@cox.net>;
pjwrome <pjwrome@yahoo.com>; katyw <katyw@pacbell.net>; jwebb <jwebb@usc.edu>; c.jjkondon
<c.jjkondon@earth]ink. net>; rcraemer <rcraemer@aol.com>; goarlene <goarlene@cox.net>; claudia.r.mcculloch
<claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com>; Kit Fox <kitf@rpv.com>; john <john@nrcwater.com>; bonbon90731
<bonbon90731@gmail.com>; sarahnvaldez <sarah nvaldez@gmail. com>; lynneyres <lynneyres@yahoo.com>; pmwarren
<pmwarren@cox.net>; burling102 <burling102@aol.com>; darlenezavalney <darienezavalney@aol.com>; rreg55
<rreg55@hotmail.com>; hvybags <hvybags@cox.net>; leonardo.poareo <leonardo.poareo@gmail.com>; david.wulf
<david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov>; gene_seroka <gene_seroka@portla.org>
Cc: rgb251 <rgb251 @berkeley.edu>; ahricko <ahricko@usc.edu>; meshkati <meshkati@usc.edu>; attorneygeneral
<attorneygeneral@doj.ca.gov>; carl.southwell <carl.southwelI@gmail. com>; Ipryor <Ipryor@usc.edu>; brian.hembacher
<brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov>; dan.tillema <dan.tillema@csb.gov>; don.holmstrom <don.holmstrom@csb.gov>
Sent: Mon, Aug 17, 2015 11:42 pm
Kit Fox
From:
Noel Weiss <noelweiss@ca.rr.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 18, 2015 4:06 PM
To:
Hutt, Heather; Janet Gunter
Cc:
Ieneebilski@hotmail.com; det310@juno.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org;
mrenvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net;
igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; jhwinkler@me.com; jnm4ej@yahoo.com;
mr.rpulido@gmail.com; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov,
miraclegirl2@verizon.net;joethedoor@sbcglobal.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net;
pjwrorne@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; cjjkondon@earthlink.net;
rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; Kit Fox;
john@nrcwater.com; bonbon90731@gmail.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com;
lynrieyres ct yahoo.com; pmwarren@cox.net; burlingl02@aol.com;
darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; hvybags@cox.net;
leonarclo.poareo@gmail.com; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; gene_seroka@portla.org; rgb251
@berl<eley.edu; ahricko@usc.edu; meshkati@usc.edu; attorneygeneral@doj.ca.gov;
carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov;
dan.tillema@csb.gov; don.holmstrom@csb.gov;jim.carlton@wsj.com;
erica.phillips@wsj.com
Subject:
Re: WSJ article RE: The Incredibly HIGH RISK EXPOSURE FOR DISASTER IN LA HARBOR
MUST BE ADDRESSED
Attachments:
sb_399_bill_20150716_amended_asm_v97.pdf, sb_295_bill_20150624
_amended_asm_v98.pdf; Zimas Map of Rancho Facility - With Annotations.pdf
Heather:
How absolutely terrific for you to write
August 25th at 3:00 works for me....
Heather I am in the course of completing a rather extensive email to you which will combine thoughts relative to the
following matters:
1. A suggested list of attendees at the hearing;
2. Suggested language which Senator Hall can use in proposing the very simple and basic legislation he unconditionally
promised he would introduce in support of the community's needs to rebalance the risk of loss from an accident at the
Plains/Rancho facility. That risk is now 100% "socialized" on the backs of the people (that includes the Port) and property.
..... The State's investigation into the Exxon accident (which Senator Hall vigorously decried) found Exxon's negligence
to have been "willful"... reflective of years of neglect .... The bottom line Heather, as we have discussed, accidents
happen (Senator Hall should consider legislation raising the fines.. they are pitifully low).. as Plains All American
Pipeline, LP (the de factor operator of the Rancho facility (which I now refer to as the "Plains/Rancho Facility") found out
when the Plains' oil pipeline leaked over 100,000 gallons of oil into the ocean near Santa Barbara... (By Plains own
admission, Plains' will incur costs of over $200 Million for the clean-up, replacement, and settlement of the numerous (4 or
5) class action lawsuits which have been filed (not included is the damages incurred by Exxon in being prevented from
getting its oil to be refined... Exxon has had to cease or suspend off shore operations). The best vehicle to achieve that
purpose would appear to be Senator Hall's bill — SB 399 (copy enclosed).. which seeks to give the Port the right to
extend any 50 year lease another 25 years..... The motivation here appears to be to facilitate the redevelopment of
Ports of Call. ...As a legislative vehicle to meet the safety needs of the community, Senator Hall can amend SB 399 to
direct the Port to refrain from leasing to any entity which is insolvent as an independent going concern.. as is the case
with Plains/Rancho.. which loses (as of the end of December, 2013) approx. $1.1 Million per year and is financially
insolvent as an independent going concern.... By way of an add of one or two sentences, the lease of the tidelands trust
assets to Plains/Rancho (the rail lines used by Plains/Rancho to transport propane through the Port (for, it is believed,
19
non -Port purposes) would require the provision of insurance or a surety to adequately compensate the public and Port for
the risk of loss from an accident at the Plains/Rancho facility.
This is completely consistent with the purpose of SB 399... because the developer of the Ports of Call is less likely to
make a huge long-term investment in renovation if those dollars could or would be wiped out or seriously impaired in an
accident...... If the City wants the renovation, then SB 399 is the perfect vehicle to jump-start some serious negotiations
between the City of LA and its citizens over the steps the City can take to reallocate the risk of loss by putting more of that
risk on Plains/Rancho..Heather, the situation is exacerbated by the fact that Plains All American Pipeline, LP is a highly
leveraged company... which has used the ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) to borrow and borrow and borrow..... monies
which have been used to buy-back stock and pay dividends... This kind of leveraged formula is going to confront a new
reality... low revenues (because of low oil prices) combined with higher interest rates (borrowing costs).. for a highly
leveraged company like Plains, this raises the risk of cost-cutting to save dollars.... Add to it the risk of accidents and the
public welfare from this money-losing operation is further undermined... Heather, the Port and the City are engaged in an
extremely reckless circumstance here... relying exclusively on the "hope" that Plains/Rancho will not experience an
accident (or a terrorist event — it is an inviting terrorist target — particularly being so close to the Port).... or a cyber -attack
(either from nature or induced by man)..... As things stand now, the Port's own Risk Management policy is being
ignored when it comes to Plains/Rancho; these tidelands trust assets (the rail lines) are being used in direct contravention
of the Port's own Operating Agreement with PHL (Pacific Harbor Line)..... all of which adds to the utter recklessness of
the City's conduct here.... If the Port is damaged, will the Port's insurance company pay off in a circumstance where the
Port has willfully (i.e. by purposeful neglect) allowed this propane to be transported over tidelands trust property (i.e. the
Port) in direct contravention of the Port's Operating Agreement with PHL...... How stupid is this from any perspective
one chooses to view the matter? Then there is the City of LA... which would lose revenue and have its bond rating
adversely impacted (as would be the case with the Port) ..... Then there is the cost to the physical infrastructure.... .
The loss of property.. the loss of life (and how well are we prepared... including beds to treat the injured?)..... .
Is it reasonable for the City, the Port, and the People (including the people of Rancho Palos Verdes) to run the risk of loss
under these circumstances? How can we mitigate the risk and rebalance the risk of loss in the short -to -middle term while
we work to eventually get this facility out of there? Are there tangible things the City can do right now? You bet.... .
Very simple mitigation solutions... which will be the subject of Senator Hall's hearing in October....... Heather, since
the current legislative session ends in mid-September, given the fact that so much is always done at the last minute, there
is every reason to think that if the City of LA wants that extra 25 years (the State Lands Commission has some serious
questions about such an extension... tidelands trust assets are not to be sold... a 75 year lease comes much closer to
being a "sale" than does a 50 year lease).... the City of LA will cease its recklessness and embrace meaningful solutions
which will rebalance the risk of loss (two easy ones: (1) the Port pays LAFD an extra $500K under the Port's contract with
LAFD to provide fire services.. That extra money can pay fire inspectors to ride herd over the Plains/Rancho facility on a
monthly basis.... armed with the authority to shut it down immediately in the event any (and I mean any) violation (state,
local, or federal) is found ..... (2) The City can enact a strict liability law which says that Plains/Rancho is responsible for
any and all damages occasioned by any accident from the facility... regardless of the cause..... Back this law with a
permit requirement where Plains/Rancho has to renew an operating permit on a yearly basis... .
This is just the start Heather.. .But if the City wants this extra 25 years, then let the City embrace some fiscal
responsibility, common sense, and intellectual competence and coherence as it relates to the Plains/Rancho facility.
Plains/Rancho can give Senator Hall or any other politician tours of the facility up the kazoo, that amounts to nothing more
than pretentious pandering and phony public relations.... From the Santa Barbara oil line spill we learn that Plains had not
a clue how thin (i.e. corroded) that pipe was... and refused and continues to refuse to install automatic shutoff valves
because Plains has no confidence that an automatic shut-off in one part of the system will not result in a problem
elsewhere..... If Plains' financial statement contained a specific "self-insured" line item where (self-insurance) dollars
were set aside to compensate for the loss occasioned by accidents stemming from Plains' operations, that would at least
be something.... With the Santa Barbara spill, the situation is not pretty..... particularly for an extremely leveraged
company like Plains where the near and mid-term prospects are going in the opposite direction (interest rates going up. .
no more cheap money ... banks more reluctant to loan to energy companies or renew credit lines.... and revenues going
down..... with $200 million (and counting) already heading out the door... All it will take is another serious accident
somewhere in the Plains "universe" of subsidiary companies for the urge to cut costs or ignore problems to grow..... So
again, Heather, it is simply mind-boggling how the financial and economic welfare of LA (and the State) and the safety of
the people are being entrusted to a company like Plains... particularly under these circumstances....... Then to add
further absurdity to the equation, the Port (with the mindless consent of the LA City Council) wants to sell to the public up
to $200 Million in short-term (yes short-term..... meaning one year of less) commercial paper (bonds)..... Because the
Port needs the money? Not necessarily because the Port earns revenues and issues its own bonds for capital
improvements...... So why? According to the Port, it wants to go into the "finance business" (a little late now that
interest rates are going up)... The money will be used to finance capital improvements of the Port's tenants (no answer to
the obvious question (which went unasked by any LA City Councilperson) as to why the Port's customers are unable to
procure their own financing)....... I put in a letter to the Council committee to the effect that the offering memorandum
1
needs to identify the Plains/Rancho problem because an accident at the facility will undermine (if not defeat) the Port's
ability to repay these monies..... leading (of course) to lawsuits by disgruntled investors..... possibly by the SEC (if it
ever gets off its rear -end and really starts protecting the public instead of the crony (oligarchic) capitalists..... and most
definitely a lower bond rating for the Port and the City..... The Council ignored the warning....... .
The point here is that the damages to the Port are needlessly going to be further exacerbated by an accident at the
Plains/Rancho facility if that accident is serious enough where 12.5 million gallons (or 25 million gallons if both 12.5 million
gallon tanks blow) of butane explode (and butane fires, as I understand it. Senator Hall's hearing will bring this out.... .
Heather, this $200 Million credit line is going to be "facilitated" by a line of credit from a commercial bank... that credit line
to the bank will be secured by Port Revenues.... Heather, these Port Revenues are tidelands trust assets...... This is
one of the rare examples of "socialism" we have in this Country... where the assets are owned by the state and
administered for the benefit of the people (all the people.... another example is the Alaska Oil Trust.... where under the
Alaska Constitution, the oil belongs to all the people.... who get a cut of every dollar off the top.. Think if the Iraq
constitution had been set up similarly..... This would have economically empowered all the people instead of the
privileged few.... .
Anyway, tideland trust assets are being imperiled..... by the Port's own negligence, inaction, and incompetence in (a)
failing to adhere to its own Risk Management Plan as regards Plains/Rancho (to be noted here, by the way, is that a
portion of the tidelands trust assets (i.e. the rail line over which propane is transported by and through the Port proper) are
located within the boundaries of the Plains/Rancho property.. So the Port's contention that it is powerless to do anything
is directly defeated by the fact that the Port possesses a tidelands trust asset (the rail line used by Plains/Rancho for its
own private purposes.. for which, by the way, it pays nothing (as in "zero dollars").. an unlawful give -a -way of public
assets... (b) The Port's refusal to enforce the December, 1997 Operating Agreement with PHL (reflective of the Port's
gross negligence; a fact which will diminish if not completely defeat the Port's ability to collect on any insurance policy...
The risk being assumed by the Insurance Company assumes the Port is competently following the terms of its own
agreements, particularly those agreements designed and intended to mitigate against the very risk about which we are
concerned and which was the cause of the accident (this assumes a rail car carrying propane through the Port (in
contravention of the Operating Agreement (how unbelievable is this?) was contributing cause of the accident. . .(c) and in
failing to competently mitigate the Port's exposure by regularly inspecting the Plains/Rancho facility...
Here's an irony for you Heather.... The cost of the bank facility (this is just for the privilege of having the bank as a back-
up secured lender to the Port) is $662,000 per year (yes, per year!). The cost to the Port to pay LAFD inspectors (hired
specifically for this purpose.... they would also inspect other tank farms in LA.. those that store oil as well as LPG
(Liquefied Petroleum Gas — i.e. butane and propane) and LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas)..... $500,000.... So we have
the Port spending more for the credit facility that it would cost to rebalance the risk of loss here in favor of the people....
As between the two, which is a better expenditure of dollars? I say the $500,000..... because without that $500K, the
entire $200 Million could go up in smoke..... We are talking here about neglect.... gross neglect in fact..... utter
recklessness (because it is premised solely on hope..... when one is dealing in economic ramifications that run into the
billions of dollars, a strategy premised on hope is the hornbook definition of reckless..... and incompetence in the
extreme...... because the LA City Controller (who has subpoena power — and he can subpoena Plains/Rancho's
insurance policy) does nothing; the Mayor (who has subpoena power and can convene a Mayor's task force backed by
the subpoena power) does nothing (instead he supports the 25 year extension of a lease to renovate Ports of Call (which
would be either completely destroyed or severely damaged if there was an accident); a City Council (who has subpoena
power) who does nothing (but allows the Port to incur another $200 Million in short-term (commercial paper) liability,
secured by tidelands trust assets, the repayment of which will be seriously impaired if there is an accident.... a Harbor
Commission who does nothing (although we did meet with the Executive Director earlier this month with two simple
requests..... (1) Retain independent counsel (the City Attorney is conflicted (representing both the Port and the City)
and the conflict should not be waived) to advise the Port on the nature and extent of its legal liability in light of the Port's
mismanagement of the tidelands trust assets it is permitting Plains/Rancho to use in the event of an accident at the
Plains/Rancho facility, and precisely to whom that liability would run and why given the foregoing; (2) have the Harbor
Commission agendize the Plains/Rancho matter so that the Harbor Commissioners (who, at least in theory, may have
personal liability for their errors and omissions stemming from neglectful oversight (premised on the notion the Harbor
Commissioners occupy a unique role.. they are not just Commissioners.. they are fiduciaries of the tidelands trust assets
they administer as trustees of the public (tidelands) trust)..... My suspicion is that nothing affirmative will have been
done by the tirne of Senator Hall's October 3rd hearing... which will give Senator Hall adequate reason to ask the Port
representative what the Port intends to do in response to the need to rebalance the risk of loss..... .
21
Which is why this October 3rd hearing is so very important..... I assume Senator Hall will make room for any politician
who wishes to participate to do so..... We can go over that as part of the outline...
3. Suggested language Senator Hall can present to Senator Beth -Jackson in support of her current bill to require the
State Fire Marshal to annually inspect intrastate pipeline.. adding a provision which would empower the State Fire
Marshal to inspect annually above -ground tanks which contain LPG or LNG.... No such provision exists anywhere in law
today......
Heather, thanks again for everything you are doing
If a time can be arranged where Senator Hall can briefly call in during our meeting of the 25th, that would be terrific.... .
If not, then would you please inquire of Senator Hall whether he would be available to meet (even if it on a weekend) for
15-20 minutes to reconfirm the approach and strategy going forward relative in support of the foregoing legislative
remediation measures..... Both will go a long way toward accomplishing the objectives the community seeks...... .
Please thank Senator Hall for his anticipated future efforts on the community's behalf..... The least desirable alternative
here is to do nothing.... Just keeping the pressure on aids in making Plains/Rancho think twice before deciding to cut
costs or to refrain from taking an action which, although costly, would further protect the public.
Because we are dealing with tidelands trust assets here (i.e. the rail lines) as we discussed at the three State Lands
Commission Hearings over which Alan Gordon (at the direction of John Chaing) presided, the State of California has
liability exposure as well in the event there is an accident. I have enclosed a ZIMAS Map of the Plains/Rancho facility
which you will have to enlarge... But it shows four separate categories of the tidelands trust (rail) assets at issue..... .
Most significant are the rail lines (after-acquired tidelands trust assets) which lie within the bountlary of the
Rancho/Plains property..... Plains/Rancho pays zero to the Port or to the State for the use of these assets.... whose
use benefits solely Plains/Rancho...... (the Rancho/Plains property is outlined in blue).
Then, just below the southerly boundary of the Plains/Rancho property lies a portion of the rail line (for which
Plains/Rancho also pays a big fat zero) outlined in Cyan..... These rail tracks are outside Plains/Rancho's property. .
They are owned by the Port.... But it is not clear (we are checking) who owns the surface over which these tracks lie....
Then there is the rail spur (outlined in red) which is owned by the Port. The rail spur was built in 1974 and leased to
Plains/Rancho predecessor (Petrolane). In 1974, Petrolane's operations were connected to the Port.. There was a
pipeline frorn the tanks (the banks were built without permits... later "legalized" after the fact, along with a subsequent
"spot zone" by the City) to the Port.. That pipeline was terminated in 2005 and dug up in 2010... so it no longer exists...
But the rail slur does... So its use in the context of a Port connection is a complete anachronism (this rail spur was
renewed (it is terminable on 30 days notice) at a monthly rent of $1187 (a pittance).. as reflected by the fact that the last
rent paid under the old permit was $1,539.... So (embarrassingly) the Port makes a deal which yields less money for
undertaking more risk, which is, in all events, in direct contravention of the current operable Port's Operating Agreement
with PHL (Pacific Harbor Line — the intra -port short -line rail road which overlay the Port's (tidelands trust) property
(another reason the Port needs a look at this entire arrangement by independent counsel... The City Attorney of LA is
committing legal and political malpractice by allowing this circumstance to abide.... presiding over complete and utter
lawlessness..... all at great risk (legally, economically, physically) to the Port and the people (including the residents of
Rancho Palos Verdes). .... I do not understand how the City Attorney can remain silent on this issue... But the Port is
the client... and the Port needs to be pro -active because the Port is administering an asset owned and managed by the
State which exists for the benefit of all of the people.... Which is why we wanted the State Lands Commission to be
more pro -active.... An effort we will continue... hopefully with a more informed public after Senator Hall has concluded
his hearing...... .
Lastly, there is the rail line just to the south of the rail spur which runs to and through the Port.... .
So we have four separate categories of tidelands trust (rail) assets which are being misused in contravention of
competent management and oversight...... While the position of State Lands so far has been that it does not want to
micromanage the Port, that concern did not dissuade State Lands from considering and then taking a position in
Opposition to SB 339 (seeking that extra 25 years over the 50 year lease term currently allowable under the provisions of
the state's tidelands trust grant to the Port of LA)........ In this case, with the risks so high and the degree of
recklessness practiced so excessive (objectively beyond the bounds of reasonableness), the State needs to take a more
pro -active role in the Plains/Rancho situation..... particularly now that it is clear that one segment of the (tidelands trust)
rail assets lie within the boundaries of the Plains/Rancho property. I believe this is a significant and important fact because
L
it puts to rest the Port's excuse of being able to do nothing because the Plains/Rancho property lies outside the Port's
boundaries (i.e. the Port has no jurisdiction over Pfains/Rancho's operations).... .
Here the Port's (tidelands trust) asset lies within Plains/Rancho's property..... So to the extent of the lawful and proper
administration of the asset, the state (and the State Lands Commission) has every right, power, and authority to control
the full nature and extent of how that asset is to be used.. and the conditions attendant to that use..... .
These are questions which Senator Hall can also bring out at the hearing without taking too much time.... It would be
terrific if we could have someone from the State Attorney General's office.... Certainly, the City Attorney, the Controller,
the Mayor, and Councilman Busciano and Councilman Bob Blumenfield (Chairman of the Council's Trade, Commerce,
and Technology Committee) should also be offered an opportunity to attend (along with the other political leaders whose
constituents are impacted (i.e. those members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council who wish to attend,
Congressman Ted Lieu, and Congresswoman Janice Hahn).
See you on the 25th.
Thanks again Heather.
Noel
(310) 822-0230
From: Hutt, Heather
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 11:26 AM
To: Janet Gunter
Cc: leneebilski_o hotmall.com ; det310njuno,com ; amartinez@earthjustice.orq ; noelweiss@ca.rr.com ;
mrenvirlaw@sbcglobal.net ; connie@rutter.us ; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net ; igornla( cox.net ; dwg_kaw0ohotmail.com ;
jhwinkler@me.com ; inm4ejd)yahoo.com ; mr.rpulido@gmail.com ; laurie.saroff@mail.house.ciov ;
lisa.pinto mail.house.gov ; miraclegirl2@verizon.net ; joethedoor@sbcglobal.net ; Ihermanpci@cox.net ;
pjwrome a ahoo.com ; katywcbell.net ; jwebb(&usc.edu ; c.jjkondonearthlink.net ; rcraemerc&aol.com ;
goarlene@cox.net ; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com ; kitf@rpv.com ; iohn(c@nrcwater.com ; bonbon90731(-d)gmail:com ;
sarahnvaldez a,2mail.com ; Iynneyres(&yahoo.com ; pmwarren@cox.net ; burl ing102Ca)aol.com ;
darlenezavalney_a aol.com ; rreg55@hotmail.com ; hvybags cox.net ; leonardo.poareo@gmail.com ;
david.wulf@—hCl.dhs.gov ; gene seroka portla.org ; rgb251@berkeley.edu ; ahricko(ftsc.edu ; mesh katiO) usc.edu ;
attorneygener_ 16 doj.ca.gov ; carl.southwell@gmail.com ; Ipryor@usc.edu ; brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov ;
dan.tillemadcsdgov ; don, holmstro_m c csb.gov ; jim.cariton@wsj.com ; erica.phillips(a)wsj.com
Subject: Re: WSJ article RE: The Incredibly HIGH RISK EXPOSURE FOR DISASTER IN LA HARBOR MUST BE ADDRESSED
Hi Janet
haven't gotten an outline from the group. Can we meet next Tuesday, August 25th at 3pm in our office
conference room so we can work on the outline together ?
look to hear from you soon.
Heather
Sent from my !Phone
On Aug 18, 2015, at 8:50 AM, Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com> wrote:
Lenee..... I have no clue why.... except that until this facility blows up ... it appears that it has no news value
to them. The rhetoric from one news source is that the tanks were reported on previously ...... end of
subject. The particular amplified relevance of the story today, due to the prime example in Tianjin, China,
seems to be completely lost. The Chinese regulation for distance between hazardous facilities and
housing is listed at 1,000 YARDS (obviously, still not far enough)..... the Plains/Rancho site is within 333
YARDS .... or 1,000 FEET of homes and schools! The end goal of all of us who understand the jeopardy
has always been to "circumvent" the impending disaster at Plains/Rancho LPG. That will never happen
23
Kit Fox
From: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 3:09 PM
To: gene_seroka@portla.org; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov;
laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; abaker@sco.ca.gov;
jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov; alan.gordon@treasurer.ca.gov;
brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov; Kit Fox; jacob.haik@lacity.org; jwolf@countyofsb.org;
rob.wilcox@lacity.org
Cc: det310@juno.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org;
MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; tattnlaw@gmail.com; connie@rutter.us;
carl.southwell@gmail,com; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu; meshkati@usc.edu;
ahricko@hsc.usc.edu; miraclegir12@verizon.net; burlingl02@aol.com;
pmwarren@cox.net; vdogregg@aol.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; igornla@cox.net;
darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; jdimon77@yahoo.com;
presiclent@centralsanpedro.org; diananave@gmail.com; lonna@cope-preparedness.org;
sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; pedrolaurie@yahoo.com; leewilliams@kw.com
Subject: The Flagrant Manipulation by Rancho LPG's owners Plains All American Pipeline ... as
reported.
This article describes who the City of LA and public officials are dealing and compromising with... while you allow the
continued operation of Rancho LPG LLC / Plains All American Pipeline's incredibly explosive, 25 Million Gallon LPG
facility. The explosive opportunity of 25 million gallons of butane gas would seriously dwarf the 21 ton TNT explosion that
was just witnessed in China. When will this reality be recognized? Could we just NOT wait for the explosion to prove the
point?!!! Why are you even listening to the cast of characters from "Plains" who have caused such devastation elsewhere
already? The Chinese have a regulation of 1000 Yards between homes and hazardous facilities. Where's ours??? Pre-
existing homes and schools sit within 333 yards of Rancho LPG. The City of LA in their "infinite wisdom" just approved
the Ponte Vista Housing project that will welcome yet another 600+ new homes and an additional 1200 to 1800 residents
within the "Chinese buffer zone" of 1,000 Yards (now recognized as a deficient distance). Do we ever think?? Just when
will we start???
See article:
http://www.independent.com/news/2015/jun/25/big-oil-big-brother/
Janet Gunter
MAI
Kit Fox
From:
Peter Warren <pmwarren@cox.net>
Sent:
Thursday, August 20, 2015 3:17 PM
To:
Janet Gunter
Ce:
gene_serol<a@portla.org; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov;
laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; abaker@sco.ca.gov;
jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov; alan.gordon@treasurer.ca.gov;
brian.hem bacher@doj.ca.gov; Kit Fox; jacob.haik@lacity.org; jwolf@countyofsb.org;
rob.wilcox@lacity.org; det310@juno.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com;
amartinez@earthjustice.org; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; tattniaw@gmail.com;
connie@rutter.us; carl.southwell@gmail.com; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu;
meshkati@usc.edu; ahricko@hsc.usc.edu; miraclegirl2@verizon.net; June Smith;
vdogregg@aol.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; igornla@cox.net;
darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; James Dimon;
president@centralsanpedro.org; diananave@gmail.com; lonna@cope-preparedness.org;
sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; pedrolaurie@yahoo.com; leewilliams@kw.com
Subject:
Re: The Flagrant Manipulation by Rancho LPG's owners Plains All American Pipeline ... as
reported.
thanks Janet for your continuing work on this.
I am still amazed that our elected officials, from the neighborhood councils to the legislature, can get all excited
about trying to keep the Red Car but not these deadly tanks.
On Aug 20, 2015, at 3:09 PM, Janet Gunter <arriane5gaol.com> wrote:
This article describes who the City of LA and public officials are dealing and compromising with... while
you allow the continued operation of Rancho LPG LLC / Plains All American Pipeline's incredibly
explosive, 25 Million Gallon LPG facility. The explosive opportunity of 25 million gallons of butane gas
would seriously dwarf the 21 ton TNT explosion that was just witnessed in China. When will this reality be
recognized? Could we just NOT wait for the explosion to prove the point?!!! Why are you even listening
to the cast of characters from "Plains" who have caused such devastation elsewhere already? The
Chinese have a regulation of 1000 Yards between homes and hazardous facilities. Where's ours??? Pre-
existing homes and schools sit within 333 yards of Rancho LPG. The City of LA in their "infinite wisdom"
just approved the Ponte Vista Housing project that will welcome yet another 600+ new homes and an
additional 1200 to 1800 residents within the "Chinese buffer zone" of 1,000 Yards (now recognized as a
deficient distance). Do we ever think?? Just when will we start???
See article:
http://www. independent. com/news/2015/jun/25/big-oil-big-brother/
Janet Gunter
25
Kit Fox
From: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 4:05 PM
To: pmwarren@cox.net
Cc: gene_serol<a@portla.org; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov;
laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; abaker@sco.ca.gov,
jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov; alan.gordon@treasurer.ca.gov;
brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov; Kit Fox; jacob.haik@lacity.org; jwolf@countyofsb.org;
rob.wilcox@lacity.org; det310@juno.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com;
amartinez@earthjustice.org; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; tattnlaw@gmail.com;
connie@rutter.us; carl.southwell@gmail.com; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu;
meshl<ati@usc.edu; ahricko@hsc.usc.edu; miraclegirl2@verizon.net; burling102
@aol.com; vdogregg@aol.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; igornla@cox.net;
darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; jdimon77@yahoo.com;
president@centralsanpedro.org; diananave@gmaiLcom; lonna@cope-preparedness.org;
sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; pedrolaurie@yahoo.com; leewilliams@kw.com;
jodyjames@sbcglobal.net; leonardo.poareo@gmaiLcom
Subject: Re: TNT Equivalency of 25 Million Gallons of Butane vs. Tianjin, China TNT Equivalency..
Blast comparison
Attachments: Calculations of tons of TNT vs.2doc.doc
Greater than 1000 times the blast of Tianjin, China ............ See calculations attached.
-----Original Message -----
From: Peter Warren <pmwarren@cox.net>
To: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Cc: gene_seroka <gene_seroka@portla.org>; heather.hutt <heather,hutt@sen.ca.gov>; lisa.pinto
<lisa.pinto@mail. house.gov>; laurie.saroff <laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov>; david.wulf <david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov>; abaker
<abaker@sco.ca.gov>; jennifer.lucchesi <jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov>; alan.gordon <alan.gordon@treasurer.ca.gov>;
brian.hembacher <brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov>; kitf <kitf@rpv.com>; jacob.haik <jacob.haik@lacity.org>; jwolf
<jwolf@countyofsb.org>; rob.wilcox <rob.wilcox@lacity.org>; det310 <det310@juno.com>; noelweiss
<noelweiss@ca.rr.com>; amartinez <amartinez@earthjustice.org>; MrEnvirlaw <MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net>; tattnlaw
<tattnlaw@gmail.com>; connie <connie@rutter.us>; carl.southwell <carl.southwelI@gmail. com>; rgb251
<rgb251@berkeley.edu>; Ipryor <Ipryor@usc.edu>; meshkati <meshkati@usc.edu>; ahricko <ahricko@hsc.usc.edu>;
miraclegirl2 <miraclegirl2@verizon.net>; June Smith <burling102@aol.com>; vdogregg <vdogregg@aol.com>;
marciesmiller <marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net>; igornla <igornla@cox.net>; darlenezavalney <darlenezavalney@aol.com>;
rreg55 <rreg55@hotmail.com>; James Dimon <jdimon77@yahoo.com>; president <president@centralsanpedro.org>;
diananave <diananave@gmail.com>; lonna <Ionna@cope-preparedness.org>; sarahnvaldez
<sarahnvaldez@gmail.com>; pedrolaurie <pedrolaurie@yahoo.com>; leewilliams <leewilliams@kw.com>
Sent: Thu, Aug 20, 2015 3:17 pm
Subject: Re: The Flagrant Manipulation by Rancho LPG's owners Plains All American Pipeline ... as reported.
thanks Janet for your continuing work on this.
I am still amazed that our elected officials, from the neighborhood councils to the legislature, can get all excited about
trying to keep the Red Car but not these deadly tanks.
On Aug 20, 2015, at 3:09 PM, Janet Gunter < arriane5(c�aol.com> wrote:
This article describes who the City of LA and public officials are dealing and compromising with... while
you allow the continued operation of Rancho LPG LLC / Plains All American Pipeline's incredibly
T
Kit Fox
From:
Johntommy Rosas <tattnlaw@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, August 20, 2015 6:22 PM
To:
Peter Warren
Cc:
Janet Gunter; gene_seroka@portla.org; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov,
lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov, david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov;
abaker@sco.ca.gov; jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov; alan.gordon@treasurer.ca.gov;
Brian.Hembacher@doj.ca.gov; Kit Fox;jacob.haik@lacity.org; jwolf@countyofsb.org;
rob.wilcox@lacity.org; Chuck Hart; Noel Weiss; Adrian Martinez; Anthony Patchett;
Connie; Carl Southwell; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Larry Pryor; meshkati@usc.edu;
ahricko@hsc.usc.edu; miraclegirl2@verizon.net; June Smith; vdogregg@aol.com; Marcie
Miller; Miller Terry and John; darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; James
Dimon; president@centralsanpedro.org; diananave@gmail.com; tonna@cope-
preparedness.org; Sarah Valdez; pedrolaurie@yahoo.com; leewilliams@kw.com
Subject:
Re: The Flagrant Manipulation by Rancho LPG's owners Plains All American Pipeline ... as
reported.
now theres 3 lawfirms litigating class action for their own shareholders
good ammo for rancho Ipg actions -same deception -and issues by plains=rancho -imo
Plains All American Pipeline California oil spill brings shareholder lawsuit
Aug 18, 2015, 2:42pm CDT
Chris Curry/HBJ
Greg Armstrong, CEO at Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline LP
Suzanne Edwards
Reporter- Houston Business Journal
Email I Twitter
Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline LP (NYSE: PAA) faces a class-action lawsuit filed by the Jacksonville
Police and Fire Pension Fund filed on Aug. 14, in which the plaintiff alleges that Plains concealed issues with pipeline
maintenance and regulatory compliance leading up to the May 19 pipeline rupture off the coast of California.
Plains declined to comment for this story.
i
27
"Plains, Plains Holdings, and their senior executives misled investors throughout the Class Period by concealing
pervasive and systemic oil pipeline monitoring and maintenance failures, inadequate spill response measures, repeated
failures to comply with federal regulations and other misconduct that led to the largest oil spill in California in 25 years,"
the initial complaint read.
The class period covers the time between Oct. 16, 2013, and Aug. 4, 2015.
The complaint filing goes on to say that the plunge in share price that occurred after the pipeline rupture, which caused an
estimated 143,000 gallons of oil to leak into the coastal waters near Refugio State Beach, wrought financial losses on the
plaintiff, which is now seeking damages.
"Plains Common Units declined $2.03 per unit, or over 4 percent, from $49.59 per unit on May 19, 2015 to $47.56 per unit
on May 21, 2015 — a significant decline on extraordinarily large trading volume that occurred when the overall S&P 500
actually had a gain," the complaint said.
Plains reported an operating income of $209 million in the second quarter, a 42.7 percent decline from $365 million a year
ago. Zacks Equity Research cast the oil spill costs as just one of multiple factors in the company's losses that quarter.
After the May pipeline burst, analysts calculated what kind of impact the incident would have on investors.
Retail investors reacted quickly and sold their Plains stock, Sunil Sibal, director and master limited partnership analyst at
Global Hunter Securities, a division of New York -based Seaport Global Securities LLC, told the Houston Business Journal
in May.
Institutional investors, however, would wait and see what the clean-up cost would amount to, and what litigation might
arise as a result, said Sibal. Such investors would also be looking to Plains' safety record to get a handle on whether or
not the pipe ruptures were indicative of more intrinsic problems.
Suzanne Edwards covers energy for the Houston Business Journal. Follow her on Twitter for more.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Peter Warren <pmwarrenacox.net> wrote:
thanks Janet for your continuing work on this.
I am still amazed that our elected officials, from the neighborhood councils to the legislature, can get all
excited about trying to keep the Red Car but not these deadly tanks.
On Aug 20, 2015, at 3:09 PM, Janet Gunter <arriane5gaol.com> wrote:
This article describes who the City of LA and public officials are dealing and compromising with... while
you allow the continued operation of Rancho LPG LLC / Plains All American Pipeline's incredibly
explosive, 25 Million Gallon LPG facility. The explosive opportunity of 25 million gallons of butane gas
would seriously dwarf the 21 ton TNT explosion that was just witnessed in China. When will this reality
be recognized? Could we just NOT wait for the explosion to prove the point?!!! Why are you even
listening to the cast of characters from "Plains" who have caused such devastation elsewhere
already? The Chinese have a regulation of 1000 Yards between homes and hazardous facilities.
Where's ours??? Pre-existing homes and schools sit within 333 yards of Rancho LPG. The City of LA
in their "infinite wisdom" just approved the Ponte Vista Housing project that will welcome yet another
600+ new homes and an additional 1200 to 1800 residents within the "Chinese buffer zone" of 1,000
Yards (now recognized as a deficient distance). Do we ever think?? Just when will we start???
See article:
htto://www. indeDendent.com/news/2015/iun/25/bia-oil-bia-brother/
Janet Gunter
•
JOHN TOMMY ROSAS
TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR
TRIBAL LITIGATOR
TONGVA ANCESTRAL TERRITORIAL TRIBAL NATION
A TRIBAL SOVEREIGN NATION UNDER UNDRIP
AND AS A CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE / SB18-AJ52-A3R 42
25 U.S. Code § 1679 - Public Law 85-671
August 18, 1958 1 [H. R. 2824] 72 Stat. 619
Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within and outside the borders and
waters of the United States of America .
OFFICIALTATTN CONFIDENTIAL E-MAIL
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
TATTN /TRIBAL NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information,Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Resource Data, Intellectual Property LEGALLY PROTECTED UNDER WIPO
and UNDRIP - attorney-client privileged Any review, use, disclosure, or distribution by unintended recipients is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
TRUTH IS OUR VICTORY AND HONOR IS OUR PRIZE >TATTN
tongvanation.or
CID
Kit Fox
From:
Joe <ioethedoor@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:
Friday, August 21, 2015 5:01 PM
To:
Janet Gunter
Cc:
pmwarren@cox.net; gene_seroka@portla.org; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov;
lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov;
abal<er@sco.ca.gov; jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov; alan.gordon@treasurer.ca.gov;
brian.hem bacher@doj.ca.gov; Kit Fox;jacob.haik@lacity.org; jwolf@countyofsb.org;
rob.wilcox@lacity.org; det310@juno.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com;
amartinez@earthjustice.org; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; tattnlaw@gmail.com;
connie@rutter.us; carl.southwell@gmail.com; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu;
meshl<ati@usc.edu; ahricko@hsc.usc.edu; miraclegirl2@verizon.net; burling102
@aol.com; vdogregg@aol.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; igornla@cox.net;
darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; jdimon77@yahoo.com;
president@centralsanpedro.org; diananave@gmail.com; lonna@cope-preparedness.org;
sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; pedrolaurie@yahoo.com; leewilliams@kw.com;
jody.james@sbcglobal.net; leonardo.poareo@gmail.com
Subject:
Re: TNT Equivalency of 25 Million Gallons of Butane vs. Tianjin, China TNT Equivalency..
Blast comparison
A proposal for a petition to be signed by Mayor Garcetti and councilman Buscaino:
We are well aware of the lethal threat posed by the butane tanks situated at the Rancho LPG facility in the
community of San Pedro. We pledge to ignore this danger and to do nothing to safeguard the safety of the
community. We will continue to take donations from Plains All-American and ignore our loved ones our
families and our businesses that are at tremendous threat from an explosion that could devastate this area and
have tremendous impact on the whole nations economy were it to occur at this facility. We take this pledge
knowing full well what it means to our beloved town.
Yours truly, Joseph Puerta
Sent from my 1Pad
On Aug 20, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Janet Gunter <arriane5Cc�aol.com> wrote:
Greater than 1000 times the blast of Tianjin, China ............ See calculations attached.
-----Original Message -----
From: Peter Warren <pmwarreN( cox.net>
To: Janet Gunter <arriane5 d( aol.com>
Cc: gene_seroka <gene seroka@portla.orq>; heather.hutt <heather.hutt(aD_sen.ca.gov>; lisa.pinto
<lisa.pintopmail.house. gov>; laurie.saroff<laurie.saroffP_rnail.house.gov>; david.wulf
<david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov>; abaker <abaker(i)sco.ca.gov>; jennifer.lucchesi
<Jennifer.lucchesina,slc.ca_gov>; alan.gordon <aIan. gordon treasurer.ca.g_ov>; brian.hembacher
<brian.hembacher(cr�doj.ca.gov>; kitf <kitf(c)rpv.com>; jacob.haik <jacob.haik a(),.lacity.org>; jwolf
<jwolf(a)countyofsb.orq>; roblco
.wix <rob.wilcox0lacity.org>; det310 <det310(cDiuno.com>; noelweiss
m
<noelweiss(@ca.rr.co>; amartinez <amartinezPearthiustice.orq>; MrEnvirlaw
<MrEnvirlawP.sbcglobal.net>; tattnlaw <tattnlaw(o-)gmail. corn >; connie <connie(a)rutter.us>; carl.southwell
<carl.southwell(a gmail.com>; rgb251 <rgb251 P_berkeley.edu>; Ipryor <I1ryor(a_usc.edu>; meshkati
<meshkatiRusc.edu>; ahricko <ahrickoPhsc.usc.edu>; miraclegir12 <miraclegirl2(c)_verizon.net>; June
Smith <burling102na.aol.com>; vdogregg <vdogregg6 aol.com>; marciesmiller
<marciesmillerp.sbcglobal.net>; igornla <igornla(cDcox.net>; darlenezavalney
<darlenezavalney@aol.com>; rreg55 <rreg55@hotmail.com>; James Dimon <idimon77(Qyahoo.com>;
president <president(a centralsanpedro.orq>; diananave <diananave(cD_gmail.com>; lonna <lonna(acope-
30
Kit Fox
From:
Peter Warren <pmwarren@cox.net>
Sent:
Friday, August 21, 2015 5:07 PM
To:
Joe
Ce:
Janet Gunter; gene_serol<a@portla.org; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov;
lisa.pinto@inail.house.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov;
abal<er@sco.ca.gov;jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov; alan.gordon@treasurer.ca.gov;
brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov; Kit Fox; jacob.haik@lacity.org;jwolf@countyofsb.org;
rob.wilcox@lacity.org; det310@juno.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com;
amartinez@earthjustice.org; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; tattnlaw@gmail.com;
connie@rutter.us; carl.southwell@gmail.com; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu;
meshl<ati@usc,edu; ahricl<o@hsc.usc.edu; miraclegirl2@verizon.net; June Smith;
vdogregg@aol.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; igornla@cox.net;
darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; James Dimon;
president@centralsanpedro.org; diananave@gmail.com; tonna@cope-preparedness.org;
sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; pedrolaurie@yahoo.com; leewilliams@kw.com;
jody.james@sbcglobal.net; leonardo.poareo@gmail.com
Subject:
Re: TNT Equivalency of 25 Million Gallons of Butane vs. Tianjin, China TNT Equivalency..
Blast comparison
as much as the community needs a discussion of the homeless issue, we need a forum at the warner grand on
why Plains' Butane Bombs are allowed to stay in our community, too.
On Aug 21, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Joe <ioethedoor2sbcglobal.net> wrote:
A proposal for a petition to be signed by Mayor Garcetti and councilman Buscaino:
We are well aware of the lethal threat posed by the butane tanks situated at the Rancho LPG
facility in the community of San Pedro. We pledge to ignore this danger and to do nothing to
safeguard the safety of the community. We will continue to take donations from Plains All-
American and ignore our loved ones our families and our businesses that are at tremendous
threat from an explosion that could devastate this area and have tremendous impact on the whole
nations economy were it to occur at this facility. We take this pledge knowing full well what it
means to our beloved town.
Yours truly, Joseph Puerta
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 20, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Janet Gunter <arriane5 a,aol.com> wrote:
Greater than 1000 times the blast of Tianjin, China ............ See calculations attached.
-----Original Message -----
From: Peter Warren <pmwarren(c cox.net>
To: Janet Gunter <arriane5(a aol.com>
Cc: gene_seroka <gene seroka(a portla.orq>; heather.hutt <heather.hutt(d,)sen.ca.gov>;
lisa.pinto <lisa.pinto(b),mail.house. gov>; laurie.saroff<Iaurie.saroff(o)mail.house.gov>;
david.wulf <david.wulf(@hq.dhs.gov>; abaker <abaker(a)_sco.ca.gov>; jennifer.lucchesi
<iennifer.lucchesi(a slc.ca.gov>; alan.gordon <clan.gordon(c)-treasurer.ca.gov>;
brian.hembacher <brian.hembacher(c)doj.ca.gov>; kitf <kitf Drpv.com>; jacob.haik
<iacob.haikRIacity.orq>; jwolf <IwolfRcountyofsb.org>; rob.wilcox
<rob.wilcox(cDIacity.org>; det310 <det310(a iuno.com>; noelweiss
31
Kit Fox
From:
Marcie Miller <marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:
Friday; August 21, 2015 5:13 PM
To:
Joe
Cc:
Janet Gunter; pmwarren@cox.net; gene_seroka@portla.org; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov;
lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov;
abaker@sco.ca.gov;jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov; alan.gordon@treasurer.ca.gov;
brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov; Kit Fox; jacob.haik@lacity.org;jwolf@countyofsb.org;
rob.wilcox@lacity.org; det310@juno.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com;
amartinez@earthjustice.org; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; tattnlaw@gmail.com;
connie@rutter.us; carl.southwell@gmail.com; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu;
meslikati@usc.edu; ahricko@hsc.usc.edu; miraclegirl2@verizon.net; burling102
@aol.com; vdogregg@aol.com; igornla@cox.net; darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55
@hotmaii.com; jdimon77@yahoo.com; president@centralsanpedro.org;
diananave@grnail.com; lonna@cope-preparedness.org; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com;
pedrolaurie@yahoo.com; leewilliams@kw.com;jodyjames@sbcglobal.net;
leonardo.poareo@gmail.com
Subject:
Re: TNT Equivalency of 25 Million Gallons of Butane vs. Tianjin, China TNT Equivalency..
Blast comparison
Thank you, Joe Puerta, you nailed it!
Marcie
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 21, 2015, at 5:01 PM, Joe <joethedoor�sbeglobal.net> wrote:
A proposal for a petition to be signed by Mayor Gareetti and councilman Buseaino:
We are well aware of the lethal threat posed by the butane tanks situated at the Rancho LPG
facility in the community of San Pedro. We pledge to ignore this danger and to do nothing to
safeguard the safety of the community. We will continue to take donations from Plains All-
American and ignore our loved ones our families and our businesses that are at tremendous
threat from an explosion that could devastate this area and have tremendous impact on the whole
nations economy were it to occur at this facility. We take this pledge knowing full well what it
means to our beloved town.
Yours truly, Joseph Puerta
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 20, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Janet Gunter <arriane5cr aol.com> wrote:
Greater than 1000 times the blast of Tianjin, China ............ See calculations attached.
-----Original Message -----
From: Peter Warren <pmwarren(cDcox.net>
To: Janet Gunter <arriane5aaol.com>
Cc: gene_seroka <gene serokaaportla.org>; heather.hutt <heather.hutt(aD_Sen.ca.gov>;
lisa.pinto <lisa.pinto(a)mail.house.gov>; laurie.saroff<laurie.saroff(aD-mail.house.gov>;
david.wulf <david.wulf(a)hq.dhs.gov>; abaker <abaker(c),sco.ca.gov>; jennifer.lucchesi
<Jennifer.lucchesi6a,slc.ca.gov>; alan.gordon<alan.gordon(aD-treasurer.ca.gov>;
brian.hembacher <brian.hembacheradoi.ca.gov>; kitf <kitf(u)rpv.com>; jacob.haik
32
Kit Fox
From:
Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:38 AM
To:
noelweiss@ca.rr.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; amartinez@earthjustice.org; det310
@juno.com; connie@rutter.us; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; jhwinkler@me.com;
igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; burlingl02@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net;
darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; pedrolaurie@yahoo.com;
sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; leonardo.poareo@gmail.com; carl.southwell@gmail.com;
miraclegirl2@verizon.net; fxfeeney@aol.com; vdogregg@aol.com; Ihermanpg@cox.net;
pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbelhnet; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net;
rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com;
claudia.r.mcculloch@grnail.com; Kit Fox
Cc:
heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; avelino.valencia@sen.ca.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov;
laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov
Subject:
Rancho ''Ron'' from Plains/ Rancho LPG delivers the "same" Plains rhetoric, "RANCHO
LPG IS SAFE''! No?
"We are safe"...... "Only" until one of the multitude of ripe opportunities for disaster there strikes!
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/investor-alert-investigation-plains-american-
211800951.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=fb
33
Kit Fox
From:
Janet Gunter <an-iane5@aol.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, September 01, 2015 10:31 PM
To:
det310@juno.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; connie@rutter.us; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net;
amartinez@earthjustice.org;jhwinkler@me.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net;
igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55
@hotmail.com; jdimon77@yahoo.com; president@centralsanpedro.org; lljonesin33
@yahoo.com; owsqueen@yahoo.com; hvybags@cox.net; burlingl02@aol.com;
pmwarren@cox.net; Kit Fox; miraclegirl2@verizon.net; fxfeeney@aol.com;
VernCHE@aol.corn; ainartinez@earthjustice.org; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com;
pecirolaurie@yahoo.com; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com;
katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb cr usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com;
goarlene@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com
Cc:
heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov
Subject:
California's Katrina Is Coming
Another warning by Professor Bea....
aside from the massive butane gas storage facility of Plains All American Pipeline
owned, "Rancho LPG"
thought you would be interested in this story I found on MSN: California's Katrina Is Coming http://a.msn.com/01/en-
us/AAdPGkP?ocid=se
34
Kit Fox
From:
Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent:
Saturday, September 12, 2015 11:43 AM
To:
amartinez@earthjustice.org; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; det310
@juno.com; connie@rutter.us; igornla@cox.net; jhwinkler@me.com;
darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com; radlsmith@cox.net;
Ihennanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu;
c.jjl<ondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net;jdimon77
@yahoo.com; president@centraIsanpedro.org; leonardo.poareo@gmail.com;
dwgl<aw@hotmail.com; hvybags@cox.net; chateau4us@att.net; tattnlaw@gmail.com;
vdogregg@aol.com; sarahnvaldez@gmail.com; pedrolaurie@yahoo.com;
jwilliamgibson@ca.rr.com; jody.james@sbcglobal.net; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net;
lynneyres@yahoo.com; leneebilski@hotmail.com; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com;
burlingl02@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; owsqueen@yahoo.com
Cc:
heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; brian.mineghino@asm.ca.gov;
lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; Kit Fox; rickjacobs@lacity.org;jacob.haik@lacity.org;
michael.picl<er@gov.ca.gov; gene_seroka@portla.org; rgb251@berkeley.edu;
carl.soutliwell@gmail.com; meshkati@usc.edu; ahricko@usc.edu; Ipryor@usc.edu
Subject:
Professor Bea is quoted in AP article Regarding "Shoddy maintenance of Plains All
American Pipeline"
Professor Bea's fears and warnings of Plain's owned and operated Rancho LPG facility's high risk posed to the LA Harbor
region should NOT be ignored!
http://fue[fix.com/blog/2015/09/11/regulators-find-plains-all-american-kept-shoddy-records/
35
Kit Fox
From:
Johntommy Rosas <tattnlaw@gmail.com>
Sent:
Saturday, September 12, 2015 2:43 PM
To:
Janet Gunter
Cc:
Adrian Martinez; Anthony Patchett; Noel Weiss; Chuck Hart; Connie; Miller Terry and
John; John Winkler; darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com;
radlsmith@cox.net; Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net;
jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; James
Dimon; president@centralsanpedro.org; leonardo.poareo@gmail.com;
dwgl<aw@hotmail.com; Susan Phuckoff; Jeanne Lacombe; vdogregg@aol.com; Sarah
Valdez; pedrolaurie@yahoo.com; jwilliamgibson@ca.rr.com; Jody James; Marcie Miller;
lynneyres@yahoo.com; leneebilski@hotmail.com; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; June
Smith; Peter Warren; owsqueen@yahoo.com; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov;
laurie.saroff@mail,house.gov; brian.mineghino@asm.ca.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov,
Kit Fox; rick.Jacobs@lacity.org;jacob.haik@lacity.org; michael.picker@gov.ca.gov;
gene_serol<a@portla.org; rgb251@berkeley.edu; Carl Southwell; meshkati@usc.edu;
ahriCI<O@usc.edu; Larry Pryor
Subject:
Re: Professor Bea is quoted in AP article Regarding "Shoddy maintenance of Plains All
American Pipeline"
your welcome I sent that out yesterday to all you folks sorry you missed that
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Janet Gunter <arriane5 a,aol.conl> wrote:
Professor Bea's fears and warnings of Plain's owned and operated Rancho LPG facility's high risk posed to the LA
Harbor region should NOT be ignored!
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/09/11 /regulators-find-plains-all-american-kept-shoddy-records/
JOHN TOMMY ROSAS
TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR
TRIBAL LITIGATOR
TONGVA ANCESTRAL TERRITORIAL TRIBAL NATION
A TRIBAL SOVEREIGN NATION UNDER UNDRIP
AND AS A CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE / SB18-AJ52-AJR 42
25 U.S. Code § 1679 - Public Law 85-671
August 18, 1958 ( [H. R. 2824] 72 Stat. 619
Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within and outside the borders and
waters of the United States of America .
OFFICIALTATTN CONFIDENTIAL E-MAIL
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
TATTN / TRIBAL NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information,Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Resource Data, Intellectual Property LEGALLY PROTECTED UNDER WIPO
and UNDRIP - attorney-client privileged Any review, use, disclosure, or distribution by unintended recipients is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
TRUTH IS OUR VICTORY AND HONOR IS OUR PRIZE >TATTN
tongvanation.or
36
Kit Fox
From:
Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent:
Saturday, September 12, 2015 11:24 PM
To:
det310@juno.corn; connie@rutter.us; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net;
MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; igornla@cox.net;
dwgl<aw@hotmail.com; hvybags@cox.net; jhwinkler@me.com;
amartinez@earthjustice.org; oespino-padron@earthjustice.org; john@nrcwater.com;
miraclegirl2@verizon.net; fxfeeney@aol.com; rueski@cox.net; rueskil@cox.net;
Ihermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu;
c.jjl<ondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; tdramsay@gmail.com;
tattnlaw@gmail.com; dlrivera@prodigy.net; peter.burmeister@sbcglobal.net;
pmwarren@cox.net; darlenezavalney@aol.com; rreg55@hotmail.com;jdimon77
@yahoo.com; president@centralsanpedro.org; burlingl02@aol.com;
leneebilski@hotmail.com; radlsmith@cox.net; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com
Cc:
heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; brian.mineghino@asm.ca.gov; Kit
Fox; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; michael.picker@gov.ca.gov;
helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov; wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov; don.holmstrom@csb.gov;
dan.tillema@csb.gov; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; rickjacobs@lacity.org;
neeraj.bhatnagar@lacity.org; jacob.haik@lacity.org
Subject:
Footage of the Sansinena LA Harbor explosion .....1976 (Ref. Plains All American/Rancho
LPG)
Cut & paste into browser:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRc6uOTbfSQ
This video is very informative ..... vapor explosion cause very similar to what would occur with Plains/Rancho LPG... but for
Rancho's far, far greater blast and intensely hellacious fire, causing burns for miles. This film emphasizes how easily
these types of vapors are ignited. Changes have been made to ships... but, NOT to antiquated facilities like
Plains/Rancho LPG! Remember that the volume of gas in those tanks is extraordinary ..... and again tank contents
represent over 1000 times the TNT equivalency of the recent China explosion! The reason why Plains All American
Pipeline wants to hang onto this existing facility is that tanks of this size could NEVER be built in this area today, nor built
to its highly deficient and vulnerable conditions. It should NOT be there now ... it has to be moved or closed down before
the "imminent" tragedy occurs!
Janet Gunter
37
Kit Fox
From:
Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent:
Monday, September 14, 2015 11:21 AM
To:
ricl<.jacobs@lacity.org; michael.picker@gov.ca.gov;jacob.haik@lacity.org;
rob.wilcox@lacity.org; heather.hutt@sen.ca.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov;
laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov; brian.mineghino@asm.ca.gov,
wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov; helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov; don.holmstrom@csb.gov;
Kit Fox; gene_seroka@portla.org; david.wulf@hq.dhs.gov; McCarthy@stateseismic.com;
mccarthy.gina@epa.gov;jones@usgs.gov; rick.wilson@conservation.ca.gov;
kevin.miller@calema.ca.gov; mwilson@dir.ca.gov
Cc:
MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; amartinez@earthjustice.org; espino-
padron@eartlhjustice.org; rgb251@berkeley.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com
Subject:
PHMSA Issues Warnings, Compliance Order to Company Cited in California Pipeline
Spill, More
And so, where is the major investigation and action regarding the Plains All American Pipeline owned, Rancho LPG's
(near Port of LA) antiquated, 42 year old massive butane gas tanks that were built "without building permits" to a seismic
substandard of 5.5, sitting on the Palos Verdes earthquake fault of mag. 7.3, on soil identified as "landslide and
liquefaction areas"????? What is the emergency plan?? LPG fires "cannot" be extinguished with water, and burn at
temps over 3400 degrees causing burns to those exposed for MILES. So what are all of you going to do? Since the blast
wave of 25 million gallons of butane gas equates to over 1,000 times greater equivalency than the 21 Ton TNT blast
of Tianjin, China....exactly WHAT are public officials doing NOW to prevent the inevitable catastrophe??? The
consequences of ignoring this extraordinary threat will severely dwarf any recent disasters.
Yes .... Janet Gunter (AGAIN!)
Subscribe to ECO Magazine and
check out some of our previous
editions
Subscribe rchives
Sponsored by- . KEANUS
•
PHIVISA Issues Warnings, Compliance
Order to Company Cited in California
Pipeline Spill
On Friday, 11 September 2015, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued warnings to...
INIFITF
Read More
Okeanus provides the latest oceanographic and
marine scientific research equipment for offshore
and nearshore projects around the world.
Outgoing Chair of Pacific Islands Forum
Endorses Regional Approach to Climate
On 9 September 2015, at the 46th Pacific Islands Forum,
held in Papua, New Guinea, outgoing chair ...
Read More
Sponsored by:
SA
Southern Ocean CO2 Uptake
einvogorated
A decade ago scientists feared that the ability of the Southern
Ocean to absorb additional atmospheric CO2 would soon be
stalled. But the analysis of more recent observations show ...
Read More
2 39
Company News
NOAA Further Extends Comment Period
for Proposed Green Sea Turtle ESA Listing
The National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service have announced that the agencies are
again extending the public comment period ...
Read More
!S Coast Guard Reopens Comment Period
on Commercial Diving Rules
The US Coast Guard, in conjunction with the Department
of Homeland Security, is reopening for 60 days the
comment period for ...
Read More
Chesapeake Trash Trawl Finds Plastic
Everywhere
The nonprofit organization Trash Free Maryland is
currently trawling the Chesapeake Bay to get a better
idea of the amount of plastic ...
Read More
quatech to Supply Thermal Desalination
System for Refinery
Aquatech, a global water and wastewater technology
provider for the industrial and infrastructure markets, has
been awarded a contract ...
3
Read More
all
Job Opportunity: Associate Vice President,
Asia Oceans Program
With world attention focused on both the environment and the
economy, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is where
policymakers and business leaders turn for ...
Read More
Upcoming Conferences & Event'r-,
September 28-30
Houston, TX
AWEA Offs orein
September 29-30
Baltimore, MD
Oceans'15 MTSMEEE
October 19-22
Washington, DC
4
41
-7� 2015
OCTOBER 4
A I S DIEGO
N
A"No, TMOYNE MARINE
The 2015 TELEDYINE MARINE TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP
Contact ECO Magjazinic today.
WNW= I
Greg Leatherman
gle_aLher lishing.co
rnan-@tscpqbm
-,.--,—,--
MJ McDL]ffee
772-617-6836
mj-@-ts (;P -0b I —1sh hn g.co ni
'ind- Offs ho Coastat
ita
and Response
Advertising:
North America:
MJ McDuffee
772-617-6836
mi )tscpublishing.com
International:
Gerry Mayer
972-816-3534
gm@mayeradvertising.com
?
5 42
notaii Report
City of Rolling Hills Estates
DATE: AUGUST 11, 2015
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DAVID WAHBA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
KELLEY THOM, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION 25-14
APPLICANT: MS. JUDY CHAI
LOCATION: 5883 CREST ROAD
OVERVIEW
The following is a request to approve:
A(_"iE IDA
p,UG 1 12015
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 Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Planned Development;
7. A Neighborhood Compatibility Determination for the construction of four single-family patio
homes; and
8. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), finding that the project, with mitigation measures, will not have a significant impact on
the environment.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Revised Application Filed:
5.14.15
Application Deemed Complete:
5.19.15
Public Notices Mailed:
7.30.15*
Public Notices Posted:
7.30.15*
Public Notices Published:
7.30.15*
*Dates for 8/11/15 City Council meeting only.
This application is before the City Council as the Planning Commission acts in an advisory
capacity to the City Council for General Plan Amendments, Zoning Changes/Text Amendments,
and Parcel Maps. Therefore, the City Council has the final authority to ultimately approve or
disapprove this application.
The purpose of this report is to provide a general summary of the actions that have taken place
to date for this project. Please refer to the attached information for a complete understanding of
this application.
43
This project began with a "First Look" meeting held before the City Council and Planning
Commission on July 9, 2013, to discuss conversion of the subject property from Commercial —
Limited (C -Q to residential (Residential Planned Development (RPD)) and the development of
four free-standing patio homes. At the First Look meeting, there was general support of the
project in terms of residential use, however it is important to note that there was no decision
made to approve this project in the manner it was first presented, as has been incorrectly stated
in some of the attached correspondence. Rather, there was general direction provided by
Council to further pursue a formal application before the Planning Commission, which entailed
completion of all the necessary plans and an Initial Study under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), and a public hearing as required for processing an application.
Three public hearings were held to review this application before the Planning Commission
(12/1/14, 5/4/15, and 6/1/15). The project was ultimately recommended by the Commission to
be denied by the City Council on July 6, 2015, finding the proposed application to be
incompatible on a number of fronts, all of which are fully detailed in the attached staff reports
and resolution to Council. Note that if the applicant had chosen to make further revisions to
their plans, the project may have received a favorable recommendation from the Commission.
The project proposes the following:
A one -lot subdivision with four, two-story patio homes (each with 2,431 sq.ft. in livable area and
a two two -car garage) designed in a Spanish/Monterey-style, on the .51 -acre property. Two
homes would be located on either side of a shared driveway accessible from Highridge Road.
In order to approve this application, the following entitlements must be granted: 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
Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Planned Development; 7) A Neighborhood Compatibility
Determination for the construction of four single-family patio homes; and 8) A Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For a more detailed
analysis on the required entitlements, please refer to the attached staff reports and to the plans,
included as a separate exhibit.
In response to the Commission's previous comments, the applicant made a number of revisions
to minimize the appearance of the proposed development, including reducing the home sizes
from 2,880 sq. ft. to 2,431 sq. ft., reducing the building depth, second floor roof areas and
second floor mass at corners, increasing the building setbacks along Crest Road, reducing
and/or eliminating the private yard walls to create more open space and landscaped area, and
increasing the number of guest parking spaces from four to six. The lot coverage was also
decreased from 33% to 29.6% (30% maximum allowed) to eliminate a previously requested
Minor Deviation application.
It should be noted that the adjacent neighbors and the homeowners' association of the Seaview
Villas townhome development are in support of the project, and not a commercial project as the
property is presently zoned. However, a nearby Rancho Palos Verdes resident opposes the
project on the basis of it not being compatible with the types of lower -density developments in
the immediate vicinity of the site.
Please note that the site was re -silhouetted to reflect the reduction in home sizes. Prior to the
meeting, the City Council should visit the property to better understand the characteristics of the
property, the proposed project and its immediate surroundings.
As of this writing, several letters have been received from the applicant and the applicant's
2
WS
representatives (attached). The applicant will also be making a PowerPoint presentation at the
City Council meeting.
The following provides a brief summary of the project's review before the Planning Commission:
Public hearings for the project were held before the Planning Commission on December 1,
2014, May 4, 2015, and June 1, 2015. Staff report and minutes are attached.
• At the December 1, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission expressed
concerns about the project's compliance with Neighborhood Compatibility, including
density, home size, building massing, lot coverage, parking, and a potential driveway
hazard, and continued the project to allow the applicant the opportunity to address the
issues.
• At the May 4, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested a
continuance of the project to the June 1, 2015 meeting.
At the June 1, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the project was revised to reduce
the visual massing of the homes, including decreasing the home sizes and increasing
the building setback and open space on the site. As a result, the lot coverage was
reduced to eliminate the Minor Deviation. The Commission discussed the project's
density, the revised home sizes and building mass, and stated that the project still
needed to integrate, and be more consistent with, the adjoining Seaview development.
As a result, the applicant requested that the project be reviewed by the City Council and
the Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution, recommending City Council denial
of the project.
At the July 6, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission adopted Resolution
No. PA -25-14, recommending City Council denial of a General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from neighborhood commercial to high density
residential, a Zone Change from Commercial Limited (CL) to Residential Planned
Development (RPD), a Zone Text Amendment for development standards for lot size in
the RPD zone, a Tentative Parcel Map for a one -lot subdivision, a Grading Application, a
Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Planned Development, a Neighborhood
Compatibility Determination; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finding that the project, with mitigation
measures, will not have a significant impact on the environment for the subdivision and
grading of land for the construction of four single-family patio homes on a 0.51 -acre
parcel in the Commercial Limited (CL) zone.
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA)
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) were prepared for this project last year (attached). Staff is of the opinion that
the project revisions do not require the IS/MND to be re -circulated, as the project revisions are
essentially minimal and would not result in any new potential impacts that would require
additional study for mitigation. Also note that this document, which favors approval of the
project with mitigation, is provided as an "informational tool" to allow the decision makers to
provide an environmental basis in which to approve or disapprove a project. Because a project
could be approved with mitigation measures, CEQA does not require the City Council to
approve the project. Rather, it can still be denied, particularly in this case, if the proposed land
use, for example, is found to be incompatible with that of the General Plan.
45
STAFF FINDINGS & CONCLUSION
The applicant, Ms. Judy Chai, has been working with the City for quite some time now to
develop the subject site, which is presently vacant. The history of the property first included an
automobile service station and then a garden nursery in more recent years, both of which uses
ultimately were not economically viable. Over the years, this broader location at the top of the
hill has been essentially redeveloped and/or built out with mostly single family homes and
multifamily attached homes in the immediate vicinity to the north east of the property, known as
Seaview Villas South. For example, the Northrop site was rezoned from Scientific Research
Development (SRD) to Residential Planned Development (RPD), whereby 67 single family
homes (Vantage Pointe) were built in the late 90s and early 2000s. Also, Pepper Tree Lane (34
patio style free-standing homes) was built shortly after Vantage Pointe, where a shopping center
once stood at the northeast corner of Hawthorne Blvd. and Crest Road. Lastly, the
neighborhoods of Hillcrest Meadows and Manors and Wallace Ranch, all located along
Highridge Road, were built on sites originally slated for a high school and on an old antenna
farm.
As the immediate area has become essentially all residential, the need for a commercial use on
the subject property has essentially vanished. In fact, Council may recall that several years
ago, a small 5,000 sq.ft. +/- commercial building was approved here, but there was little market
demand given its relatively remote location for commercial purposes, and hence abandoned.
Given that the parcel is only about a half -acre in size, this has presented many challenges for
development. While there appears to be clear direction that the site should be rezoned from
Commercial -Limited (C -L) to residential, the type and density of development remains a
challenge. Given the ocean views from the adjacent Seaview Villa townhomes, the height of a
proposed building(s) remains a challenge, but should be doable at about 24' as studied with the
staking and flagging on the site.
Staff and the Planning Commission (in their recent review of the proposed project) have
explored many alternatives with the applicant over the past several years, ranging from one to
two single family homes, to three to four patio homes (as proposed), to one single building with
three to four units, similar to that of the adjacent Seaview Villas. In a perfect world, this site
would have been absorbed by Seaview Villas and made part of their development in the 1970s.
Incidentally, this avenue too has been explored in recent times, but has not proven to be
financially beneficial to either party.
Given all the possibilities for residential development that has been explored for this site, the
applicant is still adamant that four two-story patio homes as proposed is the only economic
viable option for the property. As summarized by the Planning Commission in their resolution
recommending denial of the project to Council, the applicant should reconsider a revised project
that would involve a single building option with three to four units, with a livable area of 2,000
sq.ft. for each unit, similar to the massing and orientation of the adjacent Seaview Villas project.
Alternatively, if a free-standing patio home option is still preferable, then, the project should
consider eliminating the corner unit on Crest and Highridge to improve the open space and
landscaping of the project when viewed from the roadway intersection. The single building
option, if considered, should also be setback to the rear corner of the site to achieve this same
goal of maximizing corner open space and landscaping.
E
we
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Open the Public Hearing;
2. Take Public Testimony;
3. Choose One of the Following Two Options:
A. Close the Public Hearing and Direct Staff to Bring Back a City Council
Resolution denying PA -25-14, Upholding the Planning Commission's
Recommendation; OR
B. Remand PA -25-14 Back to the Planning Commission for Further
Consideration of Three Free-standing Patio Homes (instead of four) OR One
Single Building with Three to Four Attached Units.
Attached
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. PA -25-14
2. Minutes and Staff Reports dated July 9, 2013, December 1, 2014, May 4, 1015 and June
1, 2015
3. Letters to City Council received from the applicant
4. Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) dated October 9, 2014
Separate
1. Architectural Drawings, dated June 1, 2015
Pa25-14.cm(2).DW.doc
E
47
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. PA -25-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
DENIAL OF PA -25-14 A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, A
ZONE CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL LIMITED (CL) TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (RPD), A ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR LOT SIZE IN THE RPD ZONE, A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR A ONE -LOT
SUBDIVISION, A GRADING APPLICATION, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, A NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
DETERMINATION; AND 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 FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND GRADING OF LAND FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY PATIO HOMES ON A 0.51 -ACRE PARCEL IN
THE COMMERCIAL LIMITED (CL) ZONE. APPLICANT: JUDY CHAT. LOCATION: 5883
CREST ROAD.
WHEREAS, Ms. Judy Chai filed an application with the Planning Department requesting
approval a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood
Commercial to High Density Residential, a Zone Change from Commercial Limited (CL) to
Residential Planned Development (RPD), Zone Text Amendment for development standards for
lot size in the RPD Zone, a Tentative Parcel Map for a one -lot subdivision, a Grading Application,
a Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Planned Development, a Neighborhood Compatibility
Determination for the construction of four single-family patio homes on an 0.51 -acre parcel in the
Commercial Limited (CL) Zone (see Exhibit A); such an application as required by Chapters
16.12, 17.07, 17.18, 17.62 and 17.68 of the Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared by the City in conformance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It was found that the project
Would not have a significant impact on the environment with proper mitigation. As such, a.
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 65033 of the Government Code, the public,
abutting cities, affected agencies and districts were notified of the availability of the Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration and were given an opportunity to review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department responded in writing to said comments in the Initial
Study; and
WHEREAS, upon giving the required notice, the Planning Commission conducted Public
Hearings on the 1 st day of December, 2014, the 4r" day of May, and the 15` day of June, 2015. All
interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, there was general consensus of the Planning Commission that the site
should be re -zoned from Commercial Limited (CL) to Residential Planned Development (RPD)
and linked to the adjacent Seaview Villas development which is also zoned RPD, providing the
Code's minimum 10 acres ,for an RPD project; and
WHEREAS, there was general consensus of the Planning Commission that a commercial
use on this property does not lend itself to the surrounding land uses which are all residential,
consisting of single-family homes and attached condominiums or townhomes; and
Resolution No. PA -25-14 1
July 6, 2015
WHEREAS, there was general consensus of the Planning Commission that four free-
standing two-story patio homes as presented in the revised project plans of June 1, 2015, is not
consistent with the residential pattern (neighborhood character) of development in the immediate
vicinity of the project site; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission suggested that the application be re -designed to
incorporate a style of development more consistent with the Seaview Villas project, which consist
of two-story townhomes, located in attached buildings, typically with three to five units per building
and averaging about 1,900 sq. ft. in livable area; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission suggested that the proposed architectural style and
materials be more compatible with the adjacent Seaview Villas project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission suggested that the project's CC&Rs incorporate a
common maintenance program and a "tie" to the CC&Rs of Seaview Villas to ensure that the
project is consistently maintained with its adjacent development, in terms of general architectural
style, landscaping and maintenance; and
WHEREAS, the driveway entrance to the project on Highridge Road should be set back
as far as feasible from the intersection of Crest and Highridge Roads (towards the rear of the site)
and the driveway grade exiting the project should not be too steep so as to create a visibility issue
from motorists to pedestrians on the sidewalk; and
WHEREAS, the project applicant was given the opportunity to address the Planning
Commission's suggestions, as summarized above in a project re -design; however, the applicant
chose to request a determination by the Planning Commission of the project as presented with
four two-story patio homes; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, for reasons stated above, is unable to recommend
City Council approval of this project as designed and attached as Exhibited A, and hereby
recommends that the City Council deny the project; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 16.04 of the Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code requires the
Planning Commission to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council, which body shall approve,
conditionally approve, or deny such application for a subdivision map; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills Estates does
hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. That the foregoing facts constitute conditions necessary to recommend
denial or a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Zone Text Amendment, Tentative Parcel
Map, Conditional Use Permit, Grading Application, Neighborhood Compatibility Determination,
and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration.
ADOPTED this 6"' day of July, 2015.
TIM SCOTT, CHAIR AN
ATTEST: `'/
15OUGLAS RICHARD, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. PA -25-14 2
July 6, 2015
we
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. PA -25-14 was adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rolling Hills Estates at a regular meeting held thereof on the 6'h day of
July, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Schmitz, Schachter, Southwell, Conway, Scott
NOES:
ABSENT: Yoo, Medawar
ABSTAIN:
DOUGLAS ItPRICHARD, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. PA -25-14 3
July 6, 2015
50
5883 CREST ROAD
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
4 DETACHED HOMES
/.I \SITEPLAN 5'eE Ex:Sf:.vG SJavEv cOk.cGG;^ew:: �N-G%U.a'-�0:
SHEETINOEX
Al CO'JER SHEET d SITE —N
A' FIRST FLOOR I—S �•��
N?
NRP
A-3 SEEOON0 FLOOR PLANS
H
'.A!JDSCAP^_5'JPAh'ARY -
Al ROOFPLANS
�.
STREET ELEVAT,ONs F'—' a
Bryant • P21me(• Soto, Ir;a
OWTER!7.59 WATcP EFFICIENT-ANOGOAPE OF'PHE..`-'
{ 5UIL01NG ELE'vA'ilONS
m amG _LerAnoNs
m� r
- '
ROL'..ING NILS ESTATES ZO—U ORDINANCE
A4 Srt-SEOTIONS
SURVEY FOR REFERE.NGE
owNER JWTDHV
Pti_Gx
P OS VEre.ES PEnIu�NSUW
-REL1.11— .EEMAP
d PRELIMNVARY GRAU:ISG PTA,'.
A-1
(=I015af 1W,
SUSMP SITE PIN
PROD=CT DATA \��
ADDRESS 6683 CREST ROAD
LE- :.'iA—P TION PARCEL t, ROOK 2. PAGE 36
API: 1-1 11-0
LOT AREA 22.366 S.F,
OENSfTY,.b Owls: ACRE
SF -El PARKING, 8 SFEl , SPACES PER UNIT
mwe
.,'_sT PAaxmc 6seAces 1.5 PER UNIT
5883 CREST ROAD
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
FLDOR AREA SUMMARY
r—TFLOORL:—PERHOMG t.G165.F.
SECOND F', Dl LII PER HOME t bTfi G.F.
.O. AL_IVASL--AREA PER nOME 2<31 S..
—SER OF HOMES <
__
To -1 PRDIECT FLOOk AREA 9,720 S
SUBMITTALS
J
PRO�E::I FLOOR AREA I S II'E RAT IO <34°i°
YR iCLSR'r1M
CI Ne 5V6N.plw
LGT COVE` eAG'-_' SJM.I.;ARY
-all wG 5V
ostw— PE—11
_
--'
FIRST. LOOK IN,— = <.—SF.:
REVISIONS
GARAGE <2's< = tI065F_
DA—RIi 215 T < B6c a
TOTAL i..714 - 6.626 S.F..
TOTAL LOT :OvEAAGE: 6.526 (--D1 = 29.8°.:
FRO, YAR" COVERAGE suwl ARY
tI
FRONT YARD AREA 3,616 S.F.
'
j
PROW YARD DRNE— -1 4I6 S.F.
FRONT "AD, COVERAGE 1311
- _.l:.uw�E tlAio-
1A
c:S nrarvafErrAYwIUE._
5umy.
...�'iW�
GRADING SUMIJARY f
t
aROPOSEp -1 cii
PROPOSED RAN FI 668CY
nqa
PeeJPOSE0 EIC"GRT '. SIVZ SROCtY.
V"°V°a 6I' j
N?
NRP
smv.
eguolEr
'.A!JDSCAP^_5'JPAh'ARY -
PROPGoE0 LAN05°.APEAP.EA
pp
uNDscAaING ANn IRRIGAnON :o sE:NA_caHDAvcE wlr;
-�� .LOVER SHEET AND
OWTER!7.59 WATcP EFFICIENT-ANOGOAPE OF'PHE..`-'
!
SITE PLAN
ROL'..ING NILS ESTATES ZO—U ORDINANCE
owNER JWTDHV
Pti_Gx
P OS VEre.ES PEnIu�NSUW
Anal
A-1
(=I015af 1W,
51
52
-- — - — - — - Bryant - Paitner - Soto, Inc.
5883 CREST ROAD
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
SUBIA 71ALS
53
�� ROOF o�N
Rz
Bryant - Palmer • Soto, Inc.
5933 CREST ROAD
ROLLING HIL'' -S ESTATES
SUBMIT; ALS
vra�e 6nn-}ae f
Jrnner 0419
Sa4.' NOtHI '
ROOF PLANS
A-4
54
z
-------------- Mc
4
UNIT #1
UNIT #3
Ah
17 -�1— TMIF—E
UNIT #3 UNIT #4
02
Bryant * Palmer * Soto, In—
R GI
vl-
j,
ru
STREET ELEVATIONS
A-5
55
N
KE' FtgN
5883 CREST ROAD
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
SUBMITTALS
—M—
REVISIONS
STREET ELEVATIONS
A-5
55
7
UNIT #1 UNIT V-2
0
UNIT #4 UNIT #3
a
I R,--Vlsioks 1
I —
IF Lll=11=17 ,
F�
UNIT #3 UNIT -41 ELEVATIONS
EAST B_'cVAT10N
A-6
56
Bryan{ - Pairne, - Scio, Inc.
N cvsaow
5883 CREST ROAD
ROLLING HI -L5 ESTATES
SUBMITTALS
I R,--Vlsioks 1
I —
IF Lll=11=17 ,
F�
UNIT #3 UNIT -41 ELEVATIONS
EAST B_'cVAT10N
A-6
56
m �
Bryant •Palmer • Soto, Inc
5 x..
--------'---- - - ri
UNIT #2 UNIT 44 �N`�
6 WEST E!E'JATION �` KE�'PLAN
5883 CREST ROAD
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
R a
;? T "USM!-TALS
L 1 snmr
,
� 51'ONS
UNIT #4 UNIT' 2
�\ EFS'ELEV.ATION p.✓BtnovS '_ REva:O�
I
I
i sono
l
,. oc
I ELEVATIONS
UNIT Y+2 UNIT n1 -
I�8INORTH ELEVATIpN
.`J soy. ur a
A-7
ft -
57
,1 \ SEC:'o- -
rircexrn cc zoeo � � c_scm
UNI' :1
III
--
U'117 82
!_0
5ryant Palmer • Soto, Inc.
=1
5883 CREST ROAD
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
SUBMITTALS
u�nm Srema
w,t
I
SITE SECTIONS
A-8
s•
BCUNDARY ANC) 'OPOGPAPHC SURVEY OF
HE -3 CREST POAD
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
L"S ANGELES, CA! CRNI-'
W,
zl-
W.,
Palmer - Soto. Inc.
5883 CREST ROAD
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
SUBM17ALS
SURVEY FOR
REFERENCE
59
Tentative Parcel Map No.
_
~ - - Preliminary Grading --.
- ----
DATE ~PREPARATION ALT- MIAPROPOSED LAND US
^~ F\
ASSE�SOW$ PARCEL NUM86kS.
��
........ .... . ,max_
slCiiBd PLUS j� K Std Ente O ses Incl
61
SITE DRAINAGE S`.'STEM'.
e a+s..._.xx ax.✓+. ,-x `�o�. la` �a.v._..,..wv^..,enwnrt.T.n.....v.,.:
L:.a..,. s.w[ti,.v: ..urn.
LEGEND:
'P0.07EC"TNfORMATION ";
'i
DUMPING
�
-,.---s�wx. aanxv
'CATE&OR.. Dc,ACN_D RE5TOENTiALNO
:LOCATION: 5883 CREST ROAD,
�US ESTATES, CA
ux:
IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.262 ACRES
P RYZDUS RE 0.252 ACRES _
'I IMAINS 10 IIEEAN
".)Lt. 64.7a
STENCTLLALL AREA DRA?NS AND
DRAIN INLE' STENCIL DETAIL
NI L$ PER l A M C 64.70
w, rosu
SOILS ENGINEER L
GEOLOGIST
4r 4
I AMILTON&ASSO1cu,TES
CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS ESTA7
1
DEPARTMENT OF BJILUING AND SAFETI'
SUSMP SITE PLAN
'-_"'
PLAN REVIEW AT DEC. 01, 2014 —I
s.qe
nGh^LLI EA— N`
SRR lm -IN
CR ST ROAD PARCEL MAP
INFtLTRATIO TRENCH DETAIL
SET FOR REFERENCE ONLY
H/
61
CITVOF I NCA10PALOSVF RS
DF -
(.;
DFSP San Pedro Draft E
24 August 2015
Page 2 1
the Palos Verdes fault zone. We believe that this is another important reason for
this alternative to be rejected by the Navy.
3. The analysis of transportation impacts in the draft EA seems to suggest that all
demolition -related trips will utilize North Gaffey Street for access to and from the
site. This appears to be at least part of the basis for determining that the project
has no significant transportation impacts under any of the proposed alternatives.
However, nowhere in the draft EA do we find explicit assurances that demolition -
related traffic would not use Western Avenue for access to and from the site. The
City of Rancho Palos Verdes believes that direct exposure of its residents to
demolition -related traffic (including the attendant air quality and noise impacts)
would be a significant impact that must be fully addressed in an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS).
4. With the recent commencement of demolition and site preparation for the adjacent
Ponte Vista project, surrounding residents have begun to observe an increase in
the numbers of rodents and larger predatory mammals appearing in their
neighborhoods. With the proposed demolition and grading activity associated will
each of the proposed alternatives, this problem is only likely to become worse.
The draft EA should be revised to more fully assess the public health and safety
impacts of displaced wildlife upon the neighborhoods surrounding the site.
5. For several years, the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Los Angeles have been
working cooperatively on plans to improve the appearance and economic vitality
of the Western Avenue corridor that we share. The existing aboveground storage
tanks (ASTs) at the northwesterly corner of the site do not serve to enhance the
image of this important regional corridor. With respect to the impact of the project
upon visual resources, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes supports Alternative 1
(Complete Closure with Partial Demolition) because it is the only alternative
(beside Alternative 3) that would result in the demolition and removal of these
tanks. We also believe the project should include plans for visual enhancements
to the Western Avenue frontage of the site, include perimeter fencing and foliage.
6. The assessment of the project's cumulative impacts concludes that there will be
none, aside from the biological and geological impacts associated with Alternative
3, The only cumulative project analyzed in the draft EA is the adjacent Ponte Vista
project, At several points in the cumulative impact analysis, the draft EA seems to
suggest that the construction of the Ponte Vista project will be well underway or
nearing completion by the time that any demolition activities at DFSP San Pedro
might begin. However, recent media reports suggest that the Ponte Vista
developer has been having difficulty getting a grading permit from the City of Los
Angeles, and that site grading may not begin until late 2015 or early 2016. We
respectfully suggest that the Navy should re -assess the cumulative impacts of this
Me
DFSP San Pedro Draft E
24 August 2015
Page 3 1
project in light of the unrealistically optimistic construction timeline assumed for the
Ponte Vista project,
7. In conclusion, and based upon the information available in the draft EA at this
point, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes believes that the Navy should select
Alternative 1 for the complete closure and partial demolition of DFSP San Pedro.
Selecting this alternative avoids the significant biological and geological impacts
under Alternative 3, and goes farther to address the visual impacts of the project
along Western Avenue than do Alternative 2 (Complete Closure with Minimal
Demolition), Alternative 4 (Partial Closure with Minimal Demolition) or the "No
Action" Alterative.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this important project. If you have
any questions or need additional information, please feel to contact me at (31 g) 544-5226
or via e-mail at kitf@rpvca.gov,
Sincerely,
Kit Fox, Alc'�
Senior Administrative Analyst
cc: Mayor Jim Knight and Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Doug Willmore, City Manager
Carolynn Petru, Deputy City Manager
MABorder ISSLIes\DFSP Sari Pedro Closure120150824—DraftEAComments.docx
ME
Northwest Son Pedro Neighborhood Council
August 22, 2015
Department of the Navy
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
Attn: Code JE20.TB
1220 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA
RE: Comments on Draft I
Closure of DFSP San
Thank you for the oppor
for the DFSP property..}"'
certified Neighborhood i
20,000 stakeholders livi
requests by a number of
Environmental Assessm
short review time, did nc
Board, however outYla>
meeting and adopted. the
This property is very imp,(
to San Pedro, Gaffey and''
Gnatcatcher and the Palos
good protection.
"Your Community Voice"
Ray Regalado
President
Laurie Jacobs
Vice President
Sarah Valdez
Treasurer
Cynthia Gonyea
Secretary
While the future uses of this property were not a part of this study, as soon as possible the
community would like to again raise the possibility of a road through the property
connecting the Ponte Vista development to either Gaffey and/or Palos Verdes Drive
North.
During the development of the Ponte Vista EIR and in the comments on the DEIR, there
was extensive discussion of the possibility of putting in a road to Ponte Vista from
Gaffey St. along the southern edge of the DFSP site. While noting that there would be
emergency vehicle access on the road there, the military said that regular access would
not be permitted due to national security concerns.
Now that fuel is no longer stored there, national security should not be a concern. Will
the road be accessible for vehicle access to and from Gaffey Street and Ponte Vista? Is
638 S. Beacon Street Box 688 • San Pedro, CA 90731 • (310)-732-4522
www.nwsanpedro.org
AM
the proponent obligated to discuss the growth -inducing impacts of the closure on the road
access? We believe it is a likely impact that must be discussed in an EA.
In general, we are supportive of the demolition of the above ground tanks and pipelines
and filling of the underground tanks and pipelines. We do not support Option 3 which
includes removal of the underground tanks and which, as discussed in the EA, would
have significant environmental impacts.
We are concerned about the lack of maintenance of the trees along Gaffey in the southern
portion of the property which were planted by Homeowners United and until recently
were maintained by our Neighborhood Council. About two or three years ago we were
notified that we could no longer go on the property to maintain the trees. With the partial
or full closure of the base the question arises of who will maintain the trees. We would
appreciate a direct answer to this question.
General Comments
1. The EA states that
under Alternatives
Alternative 3; this
2. We request that
anticipated plan
Comments on
Socio -Economics — W
contractors for demoli
have a beneficial socio
impact.
l for public
of
ige will not be impacted
of the utilities under
Ainto the details of
t be added for civilian
on activities. This would
:,environmental justice
Protection of Children — The section should be amended to include the VOA housing, 73
units of former military housing that will house women veterans and their children. This
property is located along USS Missouri and USS Princeton along the North side of the
DFSP. The impact and mitigation measures of potential airborne pathogens, noise, dust,
and equipment emissions on children should be addressed in the final EA.
Biological Resources
Particular attention needs to be paid to the PV Blue Butterfly habitat, particularly in
light of the fact that none were found in either the 2014 or 2015 surveys. Because, as
stated in the EA, reestablishment of their habitat takes three to four years, and
reestablishment cannot start while the land is disturbed, it could potentially take 8
years for the habitat to be reestablished. The DFSP should immediately plant an
equivalent area of habitat in an area where no soil disturbance is planned.
638 S. Beacon Street Box 688 • San Pedro, CA 90731 . (310)-732-4522
www.nwsanpedro.org
Me
2. Revegetation provides a unique opportunity to increase habitat for PV Blue Butterfly,
Gnatcatcher, and migratory birds. The planting restoration plan should require a
significant increase in habitat as well as an overall increase in the ratio of native to
non-native plants.
3. Coyotes and Rodents are both identified as being present on the property. The
impact of the various alternatives on these populations should be discussed. Of
particular concern to us is the impact on the surrounding residential areas. When
grading began at the adjoining Ponte Vista property, we experienced an increase in
both of these populations in our neighborhoods. Mitigation measures should be
included to reduce that migration.
4. The discussion indicates that no Bald and Golden Eagles were found. While that
may have been true, the Daily Breeze has documented sightings of at least one bald
eagle in that vicinity. Rabbits, snakes and other small animals provide food for the
hawks and eagles. These resourcessh6:dld be addressed in the EA.
5. A number of trees are ldentfted on the p opei ty-:yet vye did ,not find any specific
mention as to what will happen to the
mnguage;shtul'd be..added to indicate that,
to the extent possible all gees should be preserved in place; Tf that is not possible,
trees should be boxed, saved, replanted, and„monitt'red to ensure their survival. Any
trees not surviving reel titina should be replaced t a ratio "of 2:1.
6. Appendix B —
a. B-13 should
schedule that v
of a watering
ion
Rationale: Drought cbnditidtig may adversely impact habitatrestoration. At the same
time watering should be suspended=during times of adbquate rain.
b. B-14 should be amended to strife the words "up to” and add an inspection after 6
months and then again at one year following completion of the project.
Rationale: If the re-seeding/re-planting, weed control, watering, and/or erosion
control are not sufficient, this should be evident and addressed at the 6 -month mark.
c. B -15.b should be amended to require eradication and elimination at least every six
months (rather than annually)
d. B -15.c should be amended to include the time frame for required elimination
e. B15.e.i should be amended to increase the ratio of non-native plant to native plant
cover from 1:1 to 1:2
638 S. Beacon Street Box 688 . San Pedro, CA 90731 . (310)-732-4522
www.nwsanpedro.org
Me
Water Resources
Though the Navy Department offers a range of options for closing DFSP San Pedro it
concludes that whatever one it may choose "[it] would not have a significant impact to
water resources." (pp 3-61 to 3-62). That may be a bit optimistic.
Runoff. The Navy's assessment does recognize that proposed demolition and
remediation may impact runoff and acknowledges that more demolition and
remediation will involve more soil disturbance and in turn will increase the likelihood
of runoff. (p. 3-60). It fails to mention, however, another aspect of runoff -related
problems -- time. The more work performed on the property, the longer the process is
likely to take and, therefore, the greater the chances are that the job will extend into
additional rainy seasons. Option 3, for example, is expected to take 4 years — one full
year more (and at least one rainy season more) than Options 2 or 4. (Table 2-1). What
is more, as the work period grows longer, chances increase that at least one of the
rainy seasons will bring significant stories: 'that will.generate enough runoff to cause
damage. In fact, prior yez
storm drains at the southe
will be used to control du
usually implemented, at ar,
obtaining water from, a pu
ant runoff and clogging of
ffey, this without any
ycle water on-site.
for erosion
of water that
aroi measures are
ypically involve
, the water is potable),
and spraying it over the c6usthkti4n site '�;The,,rriore demolition performed, the more
spraying, and the more potable water w 11 be tYsed The assessment's authors estimate
that 93 acres will be affected under Option, 3, whereas only 25 acres and 16 acres will
be impacted under Options 1 and 2, respectively. (Table ES -2, p. ES -5).
Unfortunately, those authors provide no estimates of how much water it takes to
control dust on one acre over the course of one year. (Approximately 326,000 gallons
of water are needed to cover just one acre to a depth of one foot.) Also, the more
extensive the demolition, the more likely the work will last into an additional dry
season and necessitate spraying for another year.
A mitigation measure should be added to require the use of non -potable water for dust
control.
Transportation
Clarification is needed on the proposed haul routes and we respectfully request that
community members have the opportunity to comment on the proposed routes.
638 S. Beacon Street Box 688 • San Pedro, CA 90731 • (310)-732-4522
www.nwsanpedro.org
ii
Cumulative Impacts
1. Section 4.2, second paragraph should be amended to
a. Add the expansion of Marymount College as an additional cumulative project.
Marymount College is located to the North of the project area on Palos Verdes Drive
North, on former military property.
b. Change the third sentence to read "...and then construct up to 700 new homes."
This is the number actually approved by the City of Los Angeles (Pone Vista Specific
Plan page 13).
c. Edit the next to the last sentence to indicate that Ponte Vista is still working on
obtaining a grading permit from the City of Los Angeles. As discussed in the Draft
EIR for Ponte Vista (page IV.N-160) the Project will be constructed in stages for
market absorption over approximately five -years.
2. Section 4.4.1, Biological Resources, acknowledges that"the Proposed Action's impact
on even small amounts of habitat (most particularly PVB) [are] potentially significant
when added to the aggregate effects of these past actions
The second paragraph of this section should be amended to discuss the cumulative
impacts on the biological resources of the recent removal of ALL biological resources
from the Ponte Vista site including Gnatcatcher and PV Blue habitat and the stream
and trees that abutted the southwest corner of the study area.[
3. Section 4.4, Transportation, should be amended to delete the statement that "It is
possible for construction of Ponte Vista to be winding down, as demolition/repair of
DFSP San Pedro would be ramping up .... no substantial change in LOS would occur."
This statement is very misleading since Ponte Vista has not yet received a grading
permit from the City of Los Angeles. They initially requested a 15 -year development
agreement from the City and have indicated that they plan to phase in the project over
at least five years.
Should you have any questions or want further clarification of any of these items, please
feel free to contact Diana Nave, Chair, NWSPNC Planning and Land Use Committee.
Ray Regalado
President, NWSPNC
638 S. Beacon Street Box 688 . San Pedro, CA 90731 • (310)-732-4522
www.nwsanpedro.org
X11041
SIERRA
CLUBPalos Verdes - South Bay Group J Angeles Chapter
FOUNDED 1892
August 24, 2015
Department of the Navy
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
DFSP San Pedro EA Project Manager
Attn: Code JE20.TB
1220 Pacific Coast Highway
San Diego, CA 92132-5190
NAVFAC_SW_DesertlPTPublicComments@navy.mil
cc: nwssbpao@navy. miI
Re: Defense Fuel Support Point Proposal for Closure
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed
closure of the Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP). We appreciate that the document
addresses many of the concerns that we expressed in our April letter. We also appreciate the
inclusion of maps showing overlays of potential demolition impacts in relationship to the habitat
areas and sensitive species on site. However we have some questions about the representation
of biological resources on the site, about potential project impacts to those resources and about
mitigation for those impacts.
Mapping of Resources
Although the maps are extremely helpful, the scale of some of the overlays in relationship to the
mapped elements makes interpretation difficult. For example, we note that there is a
discrepancy between maps 3.1.6 and 3.1.8 in the depiction of the same potential Palos Verdes
Blue Butterfly (PVB) habitat areas in the southern part of the site and along the northern border.
Although that discrepancy may simply be due to an artifact of the stripes of the graphic overlays,
it gives the impression that the two Alternatives have different impacts in those areas. We also
note that the larger habitat areas seem to have several parallel boundaries adjacent to
undefined linear elements (road? pipeline?) as well as several small islands or holes within the
habitat area. These multiple heavy outlines can make it difficult to interpret the maps at page
scale, especially in relationship to existing infrastructure or closure activities.
Furthermore, it is difficult to distinguish the green outlines of habitat areas from the green lines
depicting PVB Survey transects in map 3.10.
Although the maps show vegetation classifications and the locations of some sensitive species,
we find the information included on the maps to be inadequate in regard to evaluating conditions
for and potential impacts to the PVB:
1. The EA clearly states that "Non-native grasslands may also support some coastal
sage scrub species, and in some areas encompass small patches of true coastal sage
scrub, which are important corridors for birds or butterflies, wildlife and native seed
sources. PVB host plants deerweed (Acmispon glaber) and coast locoweed (Astragalus
trichopodus lonchus) are scattered throughout the grasslands." p. 3-5
P.O Box 2464 • Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274
0 Printed on Recycled Paper
70
Why then are the habitat values of the non-native grasslands not acknowledged in the
biological resource maps or in the consideration of impacts to habitat and sensitive
species?
2. Please explain why the location of only one of the PVB host plants, coast locoweed
(Astragalus trichopodus lonchus), is clearly mapped, but the location of the second host
plant, deerweed (Acmispon glaber), is not mapped. If both the deerweed and the coast
locoweed are scattered throughout the non-native grassland, their presence there
should be acknowledged on the maps, and impacts to them should be quantified.
3. The sensitive species maps indicate two significant clusters of astragalus near the
center of the site, with one cluster located at the junction of several pipelines. Has the
occurrence of PVB ever been checked for or noted in the vicinity of those host plants?
Why is that cluster of host plants not considered and mapped as a potential PVB habitat
area? What amount of acreage is represented by those two clusters?
Impacts to Biological Resources and Mitigation Measures
Cumulative Impacts to Habitat and Sensitive Species
The EA identifies the number of acres of Habitat Area potentially impacted by the various
Alternatives. What is the cumulative impact when the ongoing IRP remediation/clean-up of
existing contamination is factored in?
The effects of climate change on habitat and sensitive species should also be considered as a
cumulative impact.
Concerns re PVB and Their Habitat Under Conditions of Extreme Drought
Given the current extreme drought conditions, the severe impacts that the drought has had to
the host plants for PVB, and evidence of declining populations of PVB on site, we are especially
concerned about issues of timing and impacts to the PVB and their habitat. Although we
understand that soil disturbance can be beneficial to the PVB if it results in increased
populations of the host plants, we are also concerned about potential risks of impacts to large
areas of soil on PVB pupae that may exist in diapause in some soil areas. For these reasons,
we would like to see procedures for timing and staging the demolition work to avoid and
minimize such impacts spelled out in more detail as a Mitigation Measure.
We are especially concerned about potential impacts to PVB pupae in the vicinity of the
astragalus clusters in the central area of the site where aboveground pipelines will be removed.
Significance of Impacts to PVB
This site is the only remaining natural habitat area for the PVB, therefore impacts to the butterfly
at any life stage should be considered Significant. Under the extreme circumstances that now
exist for the PVB, avoidance of impacts must be part of the Mitigation Measures. The risks are
too high to rely only on future restoration of habitat and monitoring.
Table ES -2 indicates No Significant Impacts to PVB habitat for Alternatives 1 and 2, but fails to
address what could be Significant impacts to the butterflies themselves if pupae in diapause are
destroyed. Similarly, page 3-17 of the EA states, "The excavation, demolition, and removal of
underground infrastructure (e.g., pipelines and USTs [under certain alternatives]) would result in
71
temporary impacts because the affected area would be replanted with a native species seed
mix in the Operations Area and would be restored as habitat for PVB or CAGN in Listed Species
Management/Habitat Opportunity Areas." Again, the document fails to address direct impacts
to butterfly pupae.
Destroying any existing pupae cannot be considered a temporary impact when no PVB have
been observed on site for the last two years. Impacts to pupae must be addressed specifically.
Although restoration of suitable habitat for the PVB is an essential component of assuring the
long term survival of that species — it is equally important to protect and avoid impacts to those
PVB pupae which may remain viable on site.
Mitigation for PVB
We are concerned that the EA's evaluation of impacts to PVB may be overly reliant on the
offsite captive breeding program. Although it is certainly a good thing that the captive breeding
program exists, it would be reckless to unduly risk impacting what might be the few surviving
viable pupae remaining on site on the assumption that they would be easily replaceable.
Mitigation Measure B16 for conserving the PVB at the DFSP should add avoidance of impacts
to PVB pupae. For instance, it may be prudent to schedule disturbances incrementally rather
than to impact large areas simultaneously. The demolition work should be staged area -by -area
in a way that is responsive to weather conditions and observations of the biological status of the
PVB and host plants.
Consideration of Alternatives
We would like to see closure and removal of much of the infrastructure at the DFSP. However, it
is most important that any such closure be done with the least impacts and most benefits to
native habitats and sensitive species. We are therefore opposed to Alternative 3, which would
have the largest environmental impacts, and to Alternative 4 and the "No Action Alternative"
which would resume operations.
We do not find any mapping of the underground pipes or underground storage tanks (USTs).
Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 specify the removal of 9,600 linear feet of underground
pipeline, but without knowing the location of that pipeline we cannot evaluate what the potential
impacts to sensitive species or habitat might be due to that removal.
Likewise, it is difficult to evaluate the choice between filling the remaining USTs with soil,
concrete or "foamcrete" without a reference map showing locations, disturbance areas, and
impacts. The EA indicates that filling the remaining USTs with foamcrete or concrete would
entail fewer disturbances than filling with soil. That's certainly a good thing. On the other hand,
filling the USTs or underground pipelines with foamcrete or concrete would involve leaving
behind additional debris that may at some future time need to be hauled to a dumpsite.
The EA states that the underground pipelines may be disconnected and plugged and/or filled
with an inert solid via multiple injection points. What is the reasoning in making a determination
of whether to fill the underground pipes or to simply plug them?
Alternatives 1 and 2 differ in the degree of demolition of existing infrastructure. We are in favor
of removing as much of that infrastructure as possible as long as it is consistent with protecting
habitat and sensitive species.
72
As stated above, we do not feel we have enough information to evaluate procedures to address
the closure of the underground infrastructure at this point in time.
We are also particularly concerned about potential impacts to PVB as noted above.
If, for discussion purposes, Alternative 1 is considered as a baseline for maximum removal of
infrastructure, we would be concerned about the following areas of the site:
1. The proposed removal of the cluster of aboveground infrastructure in the south east
corner of the site. We are not able to determine from the maps provided whether
removal of these items would have significant impacts to PVB or CAGN habitat.
2. The removal of aboveground pipelines in the central Operations Area adjacent to the
occurrences of astragalus. This section might best be left in place, perhaps temporarily,
if removal is likely to disturb PVB pupae while the population is at such a precariously
low level.
3. The removal of aboveground infrastructure in the vicinity of the sensitive Kellogg's
horkelia should only be done if impacts to that species can be avoided.
We again request that an incremental approach to the closure be adopted in the spirit of
adaptive management.
In light of these outstanding questions, we request that a full EIS be prepared.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the alternative plans for closure of DFSP.
Very truly yours,
s/
Alfred Sattler
Chair
Palos Verdes -South Bay Regional Group
Sierra Club
s/
Eva Cicoria
Conservation Chair
Palos Verdes -South Bay Regional Group
Sierra Club
73
CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTLNS LLP
2200 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
TELEPHONE:(310) 798-2400 SUITE 318
FACSIMILE: (310) 798-2402 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254
www.cbcearthlaw.com
August 21, 2015
Via Email. NAVFAC SW DesertIPTPublicCommentsgnavy.ilai1
Department of the Navy
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
Attn: Code JE20.TB
1220 Pacific Highway San Diego, California 92132-5190
E-mail:
MNB@Cl3CLARTHLA W.COM
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
AUG 2 4 `'N15
city Manager's Office
Re: Defense Fuel Support Point, San Pedro California (DFSP San Pedro)
Complete or Partial Closure of DFSP San Pedro
Draft Environmental Assessment
To: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
We submit this letter on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Navy
Neighbors of San Pedro and Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society,
Endangered Habitats League, and others to provide comments on the Draft
Enviromnental Assessment (EA) prepared by the Navy for the proposed complete or
partial closure of the Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP), San Pedro.
As the Draft EA indicates, DFSP San Pedro Main Terminal contains critical
habitat and endangered, threatened and regionally significant biological resources that
coexist with the facility's fuel depot infrastructure. Preservation and enhancement of
these resources is critical to maintaining the biodiversity of Southern California and
should be an important objective of future uses of the site.
Preliminarily, we acknowledge the Navy's and Defense Logistic Agency's past
and continuing environmental stewardship efforts at DFSP San Pedro, carried out in
parallel with its mission support duties. Now that the Navy intends to close or partially
close DFSP San Pedro, it is important to understand and address the future operations,
maintenance practices, and management of biological resources that will occur on the
closed facility. This is particularly urgent in light of the apparent 2014-2015 crash to
zero of the Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly populations at DFSP San Pedro while the
facility's biological resources were being managed under the current Integrated Natural
Resources Management Plan (INRMP). (Table 3.1-3.)
74
Department of the Navy
August 21, 2015
Page 2
In order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Draft
EA's fundamental defects should be corrected with more comprehensive analysis of
impacts on biological resources of the Navy's proposed action, assessment of feasible
alternatives and issuance of a revised draft environmental document. The EA's specific
deficiencies are outlined below. Please note that these comments are limited to biological
resources at the Main Terminal at San Pedro; we do not consider the Marine Terminal,
associated pipelines or facility remediation in this comment letter.
A. The Draft Environmental Assessment Does Not Address Impacts on
Biological Resources Arising from Ongoing Site Maintenance After Closure,
or Partial Closure; The Analysis is Improperly Limited to Evaluation of
Temporary Impacts Associated With Demolition Activity.
An Environmental Assessment must evaluate the whole of an action. (40 C.F.R. §
1508.25(a)(1); Wetlands Action Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 222 F.3d 1105
(9th Cir. 2000) [applying regulations to EAs].) Although the Navy may now close DFSP
San Pedro, it is not abandoning the facility. While Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 all contemplate
complete closure of DFSP San Pedro, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach will continue
as the Class I property owner of the site. Accordingly, NEPA requires that post -closure
maintenance alternatives be considered in the environmental analysis.
At this time, the Navy has no plans for disposal or reuse of DFSP San Pedro.
Because the property may be needed to support future Navy or DoD needs (which are
currently unknown), this EA does not evaluate property disposal issues such as potential
reuse of the site by the Navy or others. (EA, p. 2-1.) While potential future uses are
speculative and therefore beyond the scope of the EA analysis, on-going site maintenance
by NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach is an integral component of the facility plan under all
alternative "complete closure" scenarios. Therefore post -closure maintenance of the site
must be included in the project description and the environmental alternatives analysis.
At DFSP the question of ongoing maintenance is important considering that
"[o]ver 90 percent of the Operations Area, which covers 208 acres, consists of non-native
grasslands and developed land types that have little resource value for non -grassland
species because a large portion of the area is routinely mowed for fire abatement around
active fuel tanks (DLA 2014)." (EA, p. 3-2, emphasis added.)
The existing maintenance regime with routine mowing appears to be continued
under Alternatives 4 (Partial Closure) and 5 (Reopen):
Under the No Action Alternative, operations would presumably resume to
historical levels at DFSP San Pedro. Operations would continue to occur in
compliance with measures developed through consultation with the USFWS to
avoid/minimize impacts to biological resources from operations and maintenance
75
Department of the Navy
August 21, 2015
Page 3
activities. In addition, biological resources would continue to be managed in
accordance with the INRMP.
(EA, p. 3-138, 3-139.) However the complete closure options of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
appear, based on information in the EA, to obviate the existing maintenance regime
required for an active fuel handling facility. The fuel tanks will no longer be active under
Alternatives 1, 2 or 3. Accordingly, the routine mowing now being carried out will no
longer be required for fire protection. While it is reasonable to continue some level of
mowing around the site perimeter, the EA does not provide any analysis of alternative
mowing and other natural land maintenance activities should the facility be closed. On-
going future maintenance of the site is an integral part of the project being evaluated by
the Navy. Post -closure maintenance may have significant impacts on site biological
resources. Therefore both closure demolition options and post -closure on-going
maintenance must be included in the EA analysis.
B. In Making Its Findings as to Impacts on Biological Resources and Feasible
Mitigation Measures, the Draft Environmental Assessment Relies on
Documents Either Not Readily Available to the Public or Not Yet Completed
and Issued.
The Environmental Analysis relies on several sources in reaching its conclusions
as to potential impacts on Main Terminal biological resources from closure demolition
and related activities.. These sources are listed at [3-2] and include:
• DFSP San Pedro Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP);
(NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach 2014);
• Biological Opinion (BO) for Routine Maintenance Operations, Defense Fuel
Support Point San Pedro, Los Angeles County, California (USFWS 2010a);
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2010a). Formal Section 7
Consultation (Biological Opinion) for Routine Maintenance Operations, DFSP
San Pedro, Los Angeles County California. FWS-LA-08B0606-08F0704. July 2;
• Biological Assessment (DLA). (2014) DFSP San Pedro Routine Operations and
Maintenance Activities;
• Biological Assessment (BA). (2015) DSFP San Pedro Proposed Complete or
Partial Closure (in preparation);
However reliance on these sources as presented in the current Environmental Analysis
does not comply with NEPA requirements for the following reasons:
76
Department of the Navy
August 21, 2015
Page 4
a. The environmental document must directly present the evidence on which its main
conclusions rely and not defer major questions of environmental impacts and
related mitigation measures to fixture studies or, as here, assessments "in
preparation" (Kern v. U.S. Bureau of I and Management, 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir.
2002);
b. The enviromnental document must allow agencies and the public to evaluate
evidence relied upon; however the referenced completed studies are not included
in the EA, internet links to the studies are not provided, standard search engine
inquiries do not return links to the studies, and telephone and internet information
for US Navy and USFWS points -of -contact are not listed. Consequently,
reviewers are unable to evaluate the sufficiency of environmental analysis and
provide meaningful comment to the Navy on its proposed alternatives for future
use of DFSP San Pedro (see, 40 C.F.R. § 1502.21, 40 C.F.R. § 1502.18);
c. The 2014 Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) for the facility
may be inadequate to protect site resources, as evidenced by the 2014-2015
apparent crash to zero of Blue Butterfly populations at the site (Table 3.1-3);
reliance on practices listed in this plan is therefore insufficient to protect site
resources. The failure to provide ready public access to the INRMP further
prevents meaningful evaluation of the INRMP's sufficiency and therefore of the
sufficiency of the EA.
In order to adequately evaluate impacts on biological resources arising from closure and
from on-going maintenance alternatives, the EA and NEPA process must:
Provide ready access to the environmental analysis on which it relies in reaching
findings, especially the INRMP';
1 NOTE: After this letter was in final form the Navy responded to telephone inquiries and
was able to provide the 2014 INMRP via. US Army Aviation and Missile Research and
Development Engineering Center's [AMRDEC] Safe Access File Exchange, as the file
was too large to upload and send via standard email systems.
Initial review of the 2014 INMRP indicates it was prepared to guide activities at DFSP
San Pedro under ongoing fuel depot operations and did not evaluate post -closure
operations. A substantially revised INRMP would be required to reflect the new military
mission of Alternatives 1, 2, 3 or 4 which envision a closed or partially closed DFSP San
Pedro.
77
Department of the Navy
August 21, 2015
Page 5
2. Include in public documents all relevant material such as a 2015 Biological
Assessment for DFSP and not defer analysis and disclosure to the final EA
document.
Without ready access to all underlying evidence documents, EA review cannot
adequately evaluate fundamental EA determinations such as the statement that
approximately 200 acres of operational areas regularly mowed do not have any biological
resource value.
C. The Draft Environmental Assessment Must Identify Alternative Ongoing Site
Maintenance Regimes And Evaluate Their Impacts on Site Biological
Resources.
The DFSP site is regularly mowed for fire protection as an active fuel handling
facility. However, DFSP San Pedro contains rare and critically endangered species onsite
as well as a range of natural plant communities that have been nearly eliminated from
urban Southern California. Thus, these mowing and other maintenance practices have
adverse impacts on biological resources that require analysis under NEPA. Specifically,
mowing and similar operations "subject the land to recurrent disturbance" which results
in adverse impacts to native vegetation and associated species:
Ruderal Grassland Series is a plant conununity that is typically in early
successional stages as a result of a severe disturbance by natural or human causes,
or because the land is subject to recurrent disturbance. This plant community is
dominated by annual and perennial, nonnative, pioneering, herbaceous plants that
readily colonize disturbed ground. Ruderal communities are a threat to the
biodiversity of open areas such as DFSP San Pedro, since they continually
distribute non-native propagules into native vegetation. These exotic species
colonize natural and human -influenced disturbances and create a competitive
environment for the more desirable natives; however, if Ruderal Grassland is left
undisturbed, it generally undergoes succession towards more stable and less
weedy plant communities, such as Coastal Sage Scrub.
(Zedler et al. 1997.) ( in David Magney Environmental Consulting. 2003. Botanical
Assessment: Defense Fuel Support Point, San Pedro, California. 20 August 2003. (PN
03-0120.) Ojai, California. Prepared for The Environmental Company, Inc., Solana
Beach, California. Page 8. emphasis added.)
In addition to threatening adjacent biological resources at native vegetation areas,
the mowing practices Kann fragments of native vegetation that exist within the non-native
grassland areas. Other maintenance activities not specified in the EA may also occur. In
Department of the Navy
August 21, 2015
Page 6
order to reduce or avoid these known adverse impacts to rare plant communities, the EA
prepared for facility closure must evaluate alternatives to the current ongoing site
maintenance and discuss their impacts on the site's biological resources. (NEPA §
102(2)(C)(iii), § 102(2)(E); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14.)
The EA must identify feasible alternative on-going maintenance regimes that are
consistent with the "Alternative Screening Factors" described in the EA. (EA, p. 2-1.)
The EA must then evaluate these alternatives for their potential impacts on existing
natural resources at DFSP San Pedro. Based on these "Alternative Screening Factors,"
information in the EA on biological resources and facility maintenance requirements, and
expert assessments such as Zedler (1997) and Magney (2003), we recommend the
following maintenance alternatives be evaluated in conjunction with closure alternatives
1,2 and 3:
® Maintenance Alternative A: Continue existing maintenance and mowing regime;
o Maintenance Alternative B: Significantly reduced mowing, with work limited to a
perimeter buffer and other areas determined as necessary for public safety and
facility security;
Maintenance Alternative C: Significantly reduced mowing as under Alternative B,
with the additional element of selective remediation and revegetation with native
species of approximately 100 acres of grassland;
Maintenance Alternative D: Significantly reduced mowing as under Alternative B,
with the additional element of substantial remediation and revegetation with native
species of approximately 200 acres of grassland;
The importance of restoring habitat for the Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly cannot be
overstated. The Butterfly Conservation Initiative of the American Zoo and Aquarium
Association states that recovery efforts should concentrate on providing more habitat
for the species to offset weed control efforts, off-road vehicle use, non-native plant
invasion, and fire suppression (such as that performed at DFSP) that have negatively
impacted the butterfly's habitat. (See, The Butterfly Conservation Initiative.
American Zoo and Aquarium Association. The Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly. Website
littp://www.butterflyrecovery.org/species_profiles/palos_verdes_blue/.)
D. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis Does Not Adequately Quantify and
Evaluate the Impacts on Biological Resources from Past, Present and
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Operation and / or Maintenance of the DFSP
Site.
The EA's cumulative impacts analysis must evaluate impacts on biological
79
Department of the Navy
August 21, 2015
Page 7
resources arising from establislunent of the DFSP site and from the continued
maintenance of the site by NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach. However, the cumulative impact
analysis baseline should not be the degraded condition of the site arising from regular
maintenance operations but the site's condition in the absence of continued activities at
DFSP. The cumulative impacts analysis must also quantify the baseline critical natural
habitat and endangered and threatened species population in measurable quantities such
as:
- acres of natural habitat by type
- population of species by number
The EA analysis should not simply address impacts arising from the current
contemplated facility closure demolition and on-going maintenance. (40 C.F.R. §
1502.16(b), 1508.8(b).) Rather, the EA analysis must include cumulative impacts on
natural habitat and species populations from past, present and reasonably foreseeable
future development in urban Los Angeles County and particularly on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula. (Kern v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002.)
After many years of intensive human development in Southern California, DFSP San
Pedro contains one of the few remaining "protected islands" of near -coast biodiversity in
the region. Thus, any future adverse impacts to this habitat carry greater significance.
The EA inust also evaluate cumulative impacts on biological resources within the
boundaries during its 70 -year operating history. For example, the active fuel facility
operations and the continuing related maintenance / mowing of approximately 200 acres
of non-native grasslands in the Operations Area constitutes a significant cumulative
impact on biological resources.
The Center for Biological Diversity's analysis of cumulative regional impacts and
DFSP San Pedro on-site cumulative impacts on Palos Verdes Blue butterfly habitat
found:
Estimated PVB populations have fluctuated without a discernible trend since 1994 [7]. In 2003 the
population dropped from an estimated 215 individuals to 30 but recovered to 282 in 2004 [7] and 204 in
2005 [3]. Large increases and decreases in population are expected since butterfly abundance is known to
vary with environmental conditions, especially with weather, and because they may be capable of multi-
year diapause [7]. Because this makes the detection of trends difficult, the number of locations that support
the butterfly is likely more important than the total number of butterflies at those locations [7]. An analysis
of occupancy trends at monitoring transects suggests a decline in area occupied by the PVB [7]. Although
this could be due to actual declines, it could also indicate a shift in occupancy [6]. Monitoring transects
have remained at fixed locations, and it is possible that the butterflies have moved as successional habitat
matured [7].
The analysis concluded that:
(Regardless), recovery efforts should concentrate on providing more habitat for the PVB. Currently weed
control efforts, off-road vehicle use, non-native plant invasion, and fire suppression negatively impact PVB
Department of the Navy
August 21, 2015
Page 8
habitat [2].
(http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/cainpaigns/esa_works/profile_pages/PalosVerdesBlu
eButterfly.html)
We also request that the EA identify and evaluate cumulative impacts on
biological resources at DFSP San Pedro from activities such as: dumping and fill of
construction debris at site ravines and modifications to original landforms, watercourses
and natural resources by the cutting / filling of earth and installation of concrete culverts
and artificial drainage systems.
The EA should also identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate
these regional and on-site cumulative impacts, including possible new, less invasive
maintenance regimes and a habitat restoration program reflecting the facility's new
closed status.
Conclusion
As DFSP San Pedro has rare, critically endangered and nationally significant
biological resources, particular care is required in evaluating and determining the future
use of the facility. The current EA does not comply with NEPA requirements. The EA
fails to provide sufficient information about the proposed project, potential impacts,
possible mitigation measures and feasible alternatives necessary for the public,
responsible agencies, and Navy decisionmakers to make informed judgments regarding
the project. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the EA be revised to incorporate
greater analysis of the proposed action's likely impacts on important biological resources
and re -circulated to the public.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. We look forward to
cooperating with the Navy, officials, and other interested parties to address and resolve
questions raised during this environmental review process.
Sincerely,
Michelle Black, on behalf of
Navy Neighbors of San Pedro and Palos
Verdes
/s/
Lisa Belenky, on behalf of
Center for Biological Diversity
/s/
David Quadhamer, on behalf of
Palos Verdes / South Bay Audubon
Society
Dr. Dan Silver, on behalf of
Endangered Habitats League
F�•
Department of the Navy
August 21, 2015
Page 9
/s/
Martin Byhower
/s/
Mitch Heindel
cc:
/s/
Frank O'Brien
/s/
Jeremiah Noel George, PhD
Redondo Beach, CA
Hon. Ted Lieu
United States Representative, 33rd District California
5055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 310
Los Angeles, CA 90036
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Attn: Mayor Jim Knight and City Council
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Field Office: Mendel Stewart
Via email inendel stewart ,fws.gov
Natural Resources Defense Council, Santa Monica: Damon Nagami
Via email dna ag i�ignrdc.org
Earthjustice, Los Angeles Office: Adrian Martinez
Via email amal-tinez@earthjustice.org