RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_12_02_C_Border_Issues_Status_ReprotCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CAROLYNN PETRU, AICP, ACTING CITY MANAGER~
DECEMBER 2, 2014
SUBJECT: BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT
Project Manager: Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Administrative Analyst ~
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the current report on the status of Border Issues.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This month's report includes:
• An update on recent issues and events related to the Rancho LPG butane storage
facility in Los Angeles (San Pedro);
• A report on the proposed 4-unit detached condominium project at 5883 Crest Road
in Rolling Hills Estates; and,
• A report on the proposed lot-split at 80 Saddleback Road in Rolling Hills.
BACKGROUND
The following is the regular bi-monthly report to the City Council on various "Border
Issues" potentially affecting the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. The complete text of
the current status report is available for review on the City's website at:
http://palosverdes.com/rpv/planninglborder issues/2014120141202 Border/ssues StatusRpt. cfm
DISCUSSION
Current Border Issues
Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
Under the Border Issues Status Report at the October 7th City Council meeting, the
Council discussed sending a letter to the State Lands Commission (SLC) regarding the
C-1
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
December 2, 2014
Page 2
Rancho LPG-related item on its October 14th agenda. Mayor Duhovic had prepared a
draft letter and, after some Council discussion and revisions, read it into the record of the
meeting. It was Staff's understanding of the City Council motion that the letter read into
the record would be sent to Staff to then be routed to the Councilmembers for review, but
if any Councilmember objected to sending the letter as proposed, the letter would not be
sent to the SLC unless it was presented to the Council for formal review as an agendized
item at a subsequent, duly-noticed public meeting. An objection to the letter was raised
by a Councilmember, so the letter was not sent to the SLC.
On October 14, 2014, the SLC met in Santa Monica (see attached SLC staff report). At
the conclusion of its June 19, 2014, review of the revocable permit for the rail spur serving
the Rancho LPG facility that had been approved by the Port of Los Angeles, the SLC had
asked for additional information regarding the insurance coverage provided for the
Rancho LPG facility; the relationship of the owner/operator of the Rancho LPG facility to
its parent company, Plains All-American Pipeline, LP (Plains); and the status of the EPA
enforcement action initiated by the "show cause" letter of March 14, 2013.
With respect to insurance coverage, Rancho LPG provided a listing of insurance policies
totaling $500 million in liability coverage to cover 3rd_party claims. However, as it had
done with our City Council, Rancho LPG refused to provide either the SLC or the State
Attorney General with copies of its insurance policies. Rancho LPG legal counsel advised
the SLC that it had no authority to review these policies and that their contents were
proprietary. Interestingly, however, the Staff report noted that Plains had offered to
provide a 3-year parental guarantee agreement in favor of the SLC and the Port of Los
Angeles to cover uninsured losses or damages from a "casualty event" at the Rancho
LPG facility. Under questioning from the SLC, Rancho LPG legal counsel was unsure if
this agreement would cover loss or damage occurring outside the boundary of the Rancho
LPG facility, but he seemed to suggest that it might.
With respect to the familial relationship of the Rancho LPG facility to Plains, an
abbreviated organizational chart was provided to the SLC. The chart shows several
layers of limited partnerships and limited-liability corporations between Rancho LPG and
Plains.
Finally, with respect to the EPA's enforcement action, the SLC was updated on the
conclusion of the EPA's review and the assessment of the $260,000 fine earlier this year.
The September 101h meeting with EPA and the Department of Homeland Security (OHS)
was also discussed. The SLC was advised that the Rancho LPG facility was currently
operating on compliance with EPA and OHS regulations.
The SLC received public comments from nearly twenty (20) speakers, mostly local
community members opposed to the Rancho LP facility who raised issues and concerns
with which the City Council is already familiar. Although representatives of Rancho LPG
were present, only their legal counsel spoke (reluctantly) under questioning from the SLC.
C-2
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
December 2, 2014
Page 3
To Staff's knowledge, there were no representatives of the City or Port of Los Angeles in
attendance.
At the conclusion of the hearing, SLC Chair Alan Gordon (representing State Controller
John Chiang) acknowledged the concerns of the community regarding the Rancho LPG
facility, but noted that the SLC's authority was limited to the segment of the rail spur
covered by the revocable permit. He noted that even if the permit were revoked, it was
likely that Rancho LPG could and would continue to use the rail spur. At most, the SLC
would only be able to send a letter to the Port asking it to consider revoking the permit.
However, the SLC did approve a motion to direct its Executive Director to:
• Continue pressing the Port to review its permitting procedures;
• Negotiate with Plains regarding the proposed parental guaranty agreement; and,
• Contact the Los Angeles Mayor's Office and Fire Department regarding the status
of City inspections.
If this matter is agendized again in the future for the SLC's review, Staff will advise the
City Council of this as far in advance as possible.
In the past two (2) months, interested parties have continued to forward items regarding
and related to the Rancho LPG facility via e-mail. Copies of these e-mails are attached
to tonight's report. Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues
reports.
New Border Issues
5883 Crest Road Condominium Project, Rolling Hills Estates
In 2004, the City of Rolling Hills Estates granted development entitlements for a small
retail/office building on the site of a former gasoline service station and commercial plant
nursery at 5883 Crest Road (located at the northeast corner with Highridge Road). At the
time, Staff monitored this proposal in the Border Issues Status Report. In the past
decade, the property owner has been unsuccessful in developing the approved project.
In July 2013, the Rolling Hills Estates City Council and Planning Commission jointly
conducted a "first look" review at a proposal to subdivide this 0.52-acre parcel and allow
the development of four (4) residences (i.e., "patio homes"). Staff last reported on this
"first look" review in the Weekly Administrative Report of October 9, 2013, when
temporary framework "silhouettes" had been erected on the property. The property owner
subsequently filed the necessary applications with the City of Rolling Hills Estates for the
proposed project, including a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Zone Text
Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit,
Neighborhood Compatibility Determination and Minor Deviation.
C-3
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
December 2, 2014
Page 4
On October 10, 2014, the City received notification that a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) has been prepared for the proposed project (see attached Notice of Intent). The
complete MND may be reviewed on-line at the following link:
http://www.ci.rolling-hills-estates.ea.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=12297
The public comment period for the MND ended on Monday, November 24, 2014, and a
public hearing before the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission was scheduled for
7:00 PM on Monday, December 1, 2014. On November 17, 2014, Staff submitted the
attached comments on the MND to the City of Rolling Hills Estates. Staff will continue to
monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
80 Saddleback Road Parcel Map, Rolling Hills
As the City Council may recall, in August 2014 Staff was directed not to pursue the
acquisition of a 14.63-acre tax-defaulted property in George F Canyon. The Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) subsequently filed a timely application with the
County to acquire this property. The property was not redeemed by the property owner
prior to last month's County tax sale auction, so it is expected that PVPLC will be
completing the acquisition of this property from the County for open space purposes.
On November 3, 2014, Staff received a notice from the City of Rolling Hills regarding a
proposed lot-split at 80 Saddleback Road. This 7.05-acre property abuts the
northwesterly boundary of the George F Canyon parcel. The proposal currently before
the City of Rolling Hills is only to subdivide this property in two (2) lots, the previous home
on the property having been demolished in 2013. However, it is expected that each
resulting lot will eventually be developed with a new, single-family residence. The City of
Rolling Hills has prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to address the
potential environmental effects of the proposed project.
The Rolling Hills Planning Commission opened the public hearing for this proposal on
Tuesday, November 18, 2014 (see attached Staff report). The George F Canyon parcel
contains coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat and the creek bed in the bottom of the canyon
is identified as a "blue-line stream" on USGS topographic maps. Depending on the
placement and configuration of future structures on the new lots, it is possible that fuel
modification zones might encroach upon CSS habitat on the George F Canyon parcel in
Rancho Palos Verdes. Staff expressed these concerns to the Rolling Hills Planning
Commission, and followed up with written comments on November 19, 2014 (see
attachments).
Rolling Hills has asked for comments on the MND to be submitted by December 5, 2014,
and the Rolling Hills Planning Commission is expected to take final action on the proposal
on December 16, 2014. The Rolling Hills Planning Commission meets at 6:30 PM at
Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274. Staff will
continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
C-4
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
December 2, 2014
Page 5
Attachments:
• SLC Staff report and attachments (dated 10/14/14)
• E-mails related to the Rancho LPG facility (miscellaneous dates)
• NOi for 5883 Crest Road Condominium project (dated 10/9/14)
• Staff comments on MND for 5883 Crest Road Condominium project (dated
11/17/14)
• RH Planning Commission Staff report (dated 11/18/14)
• Staff comments on MND for 80 Saddleback Road parcel map (dated 11/19/14)
M:\Border lssues\Staff Reports\20141202_Borderlssues_StaffRpt.docx
C-5
SLC Staff report and attachments
C-6
A 70
s 28,35
CALENDAR ITEM
109
10/14/14
G 05-04
R. Boggiano
K. Colson
S. Scheiber
CONSIDER SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION INVOLVING AN EXISTING
REVOCABLE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES TO RANCHO
LPG HOLDINGS LLC FOR USE OF A RAILROAD SPUR LOCATED WITHIN THE
LEGISLATIVE TRUST GRANT TO THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES, IN THE CITY OF
LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this staff report is to provide an update to the California State Lands
Commission (Commission) on supplemental information related to Rancho LPG
Holdings LLC (Rancho LPG) that was requested at the June 19, 2014 Commission
meeting.
BACKGROUND:
The Commission has the statutory responsibility to oversee the management of public
trust lands and assets by legislative grantees who manage these lands, in trust, on
behalf of the State. (Pub. Resources Code, § 6301 et seq.; State of California ex rel.
State Lands Commission v. County of Orange (1982) 134 Cal App. 3d 20, 23).
The City of Los Angeles (City), acting by and through the Port of Los Angeles (Port), is
trustee of sovereign tide and submerged lands granted by the Legislature pursuant to
Chapter 656, Statutes of 1911 and Chapter 651, Statutes of 1929, and as amended, no
minerals reserved to the State.
At the June 19, 2014, meeting, the Commission reviewed a revocable permit for use of
a railroad spur issued by Rancho LPG (Calendar Item 91, attached as Exhibit A). The
Rancho LPG facility is located on private property and not on land under the Port's
jurisdiction; however, the railroad spur at issue is located on land that is held by the Port
as an asset of the trust, as shown in Exhibit B.
As detailed in Calendar Item 91, while the Commission has broad discretion and
authority to review activities of local trustees, such as the Port, it has limited authority to
stop an action or decision by a trustee. Should the Commission find that a trustee is
violating the terms of its statutory trust grant or the Public Trust Doctrine, the
-1-
C-7
CALENDAR ITEM NO. 109 (CONT'D)
Commission's only recourse is to pursue litigation against the trustee or report the
violation to the Legislature, as the ultimate trustee of these lands and resources.
Additionally, staff concluded that the Port did not violate its statutory trust grant or the
common law Public Trust Doctrine by issuing a revocable permit to Rancho LPG for use
of the railroad spur.
After hearing public comment, the Commission adopted staff's recommendation to
continue to work with the Port of Los Angeles on any issues involving the Rancho LPG
revocable permit and requested staff report back to the Commission concerning Rancho
LPG's liability insurance, the company's organizational structure, the pending U.S. EPA
investigation, and any further issues that may arise as staff continues to monitor the
facility.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The following concerns were discussed during the June 19, 2014 Commission meeting:
Rancho LPG's Liability Insurance Policy
Concerns were raised regarding the amount of liability insurance that was available to
the Rancho LPG facility and whether Rancho LPG's parent company, Plains All
American Pipeline, LP. (Plains), had liability insurance that adequately covered its
subsidiaries, including Rancho LPG. The Chair of the Commission suggested that the
company provide the actual insurance policy to the Attorney General's office for an in
camera review so that the State could determine the applicability of the insurance policy
to Rancho LPG while ensuring confidentiality.
Staff received a letter from Lockton Companies, LLC stating that Plains carried
insurance which totals $500 million to cover third party claims (Exhibit C). However,
Plains stated that they are unwilling to provide for or facilitate the Attorney General's
Office review of the actual liability insurance policy.
Staff received an offer from Plains for a parental guaranty agreement with a three year
term in favor of the Commission and the Port on behalf of Rancho LPG. The purpose of
the agreement is to cover Rancho LPG's casualty losses to the extent of uninsured
losses or damages arising in connection with a casualty event at the Rancho LPG
facility. Staff is currently evaluating the agreement.
Company Organizational Chart
The Commission also requested an organizational chart of Plains in order to determine
the liability for Plains if substantial damage to the Rancho LPG facility were to occur.
Rancho LPG is the owner of the LPG storage facility located in Los Angeles, California.
Rancho LPG is a subsidiary of Plains, which is a publically traded master limited
partnership and headquartered in Houston, Texas.
-2-
C-8
CALENDAR ITEM NO. 109 (CONT'D)
An abridged organizational chart for Plains has been provided and is attached as
Exhibit D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Review
During the June 19, 2014 Commission meeting, a review of the Rancho LPG facility and
its compliance with risk management plan regulations was currently underway by the
U.S. EPA. The Commissioners requested further information about the investigation as
it became available. The following six findings resulted from a regularly scheduled U.S.
EPA site inspection in April of 2010:
1. Failing to include the rail storage area of the site in the Risk Management Plan;
2. Failing to adequately evaluate seismic impacts upon the facility's emergency
flare;
3. Failing to address the consequences of a loss of City water for fire suppression
during an earthquake;
4. Failing to timely conduct an internal inspection of Tank 1 (storing 12.5 million
gallons of butane);
5. Failing to develop an emergency response plan to protect the public health,
welfare, or safety; and
6. Failing to include a drain pipe and valve in the containment basin in the
Mechanical Integrity Program.
As of July 2014, the U.S. EPA has completed its investigation of the Rancho LPG
facility and according to the U.S. EPA Rancho LPG had resolved all outstanding issues.
Since the U.S. EPA began its enforcement action, Rancho LPG has invested over $7
million in plant improvements to bring the facility into compliance with federal
environmental laws and to provide additional safety measures. Rancho LPG has
addressed its noncompliance with the risk management plan regulations and will pay a
civil penalty of $260,000.
During the investigation, there was a misunderstanding that the U.S. EPA had decided
to sue Rancho LPG. This statement was the result of a misinterpretation of a notification
letter sent by the U.S. EPA to Rancho LPG. The U.S. EPA often refers to letters of this
nature as "show-cause" letters, as they send them with the purpose to give the
addressee time to provide information that shows there is no cause to proceed with the
allegations. The U.S. EPA sent such a letter to Rancho LPG that stated the above six
potential or alleged violations. As with other "show-cause" letters, the U.S. EPA stated
that they are prepared to file a complaint but that they are extending to the company an
opportunity to advise U.S. EPA of any other information that the company believes
should be considered before the filing of such a complaint. Rancho LPG was required to
respond and did so prior to the May 15, 2014 deadline. The U.S. EPA never filed a
complaint and stated that Rancho LPG had cooperated with them on all issues.
-3-
C-9
CALENDAR ITEM NO. 109 (CONT'D)
On September 10, 2014, Commission staff attended a public meeting organized by
Congressman Henry Waxman's district staff to address concerns raised about the
Rancho LPG facility. During the meeting, officials from the Department of Homeland
Security and the U.S. EPA provided the public with an overview of federal chemical
security and safety programs and attempted to answer questions from the audience.
The agencies reiterated that the facility was in compliance with all federal laws and
regulations. After the discussion, it was unclear what next steps, if any, would be
initiated by Congressman Waxman's office.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION:
1. The Port is a municipal agency and not an agency of the State of
California. The Rancho LPG storage facility is not located on Port property
granted to the Port by the State Legislature. The railroad spur at issue is
located on land the Port purchased with trust revenues in the 1970s. This
land is considered after-acquired land that is held as an asset of the trust.
The State of California, acting by and through the State Lands
Commission, is not in the chain of title for this property. The Commission
did not participate in any of the land acquisition decisions, the revocable
permit decisions, or any decisions involving the Rancho LPG facility that is
located on private property. Based on consultation with the Attorney
General's Office, staff believes it very unlikely that the Commission has
any direct liability with regards to the Rancho LPG operations.
2. Under the revocable permit for the railroad spur, the Port currently has $1
million of liability insurance from Rancho and Pacific Harbor Line (PHL)
has $25,000,000 million of liability insurance for the operation of the PHL
rail line.
3. As described in Calendar Item 91, because of the relationship between
PHL and Rancho LPG, if the Port were to revoke Rancho LPG's permit to
use the railroad spur, Rancho LPG would still be able to continue using
the PHL rail line to transport LPG through the Port.
4. The staff recommends that the Commission find that the subject staff
analysis does not have a potential for resulting in either a direct or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and
is, therefore, not a project in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Authority: Public Resources Code section 21065 and California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, sections 15060, subdivision (c)(3), and 15378.
-4-
C-10
EXHIBITS:
A.
B.
C.
D.
CALENDAR ITEM NO. 109 (CONT'D)
Calendar Item 91, June 19, 2014 CSLC Meeting
Location and Site Map
July 10, 2014 Lockton Companies, LLC Letter
Plains All American Pipeline Abridged Organizational Chart
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the Commission:
CEQA FINDING:
Find that the subject staff analysis is not subject to the requirements of
CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15060,
subdivision (c)(3), because the subject activity is not a project as defined
by Public Resources Code section 21065 and California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, section 15378.
AUTHORIZATION:
Direct Commission staff to continue to work with the Port of Los Angeles
on any issues involving the Rancho LPG revocable permit.
-5-
C-11
A
s
70
28,35
EXHIBIT A
CALENDAR ITEM
91
06/19/14
G05-04
S. Scheiber
K.Colson
REVIEW OF AN EXISTING REVOCABLE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE PORT OF LOS
ANGELES TO RANCHO LPG HOLDINGS LLC FOR USE OF A RAILROAD SPUR
LOCATED WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE TRUST GRANT TO THE PORT OF LOS
ANGELES, IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY
INTRODUCTION:
The California State Lands Commission (Commission) has the statutory responsibility to
oversee the management of sovereign public trust lands and assets by legislative
grantees who manage these lands, in trust, on behalf of the State. (Public Resources
Code section 6301 et seq.; State of California ex rel. State Lands Commission v.
County of Orange (1982) 134 Cal App. 3d 20, 23).
The City of Los Angeles (City), acting by and through the Port of Los Angeles (Port), is
trustee of sovereign tide and submerged lands granted by the Legislature pursuant to
Chapter 656, Statutes of 1911 and Chapter 651, Statutes of 1929, and as amended, no
minerals reserved to the State.
During the public comment portion of the April 23, 2014 regularly scheduled
Commission meeting, numerous citizens raised concerns regarding a revocable permit
for use of a railroad spur issued by the Port to Rancho LPG Holdings LLC (Rancho
LPG). The Rancho LPG facility is located on private property and not on land under the
Port's jurisdiction; however, the railroad spur at issue is located on land that is held by
the Port as an asset of the trust, as shown in Exhibit A
Upon hearing the concerns, the Chair of the Commission requested that staff report
back to the Commission on the various issues and concerns surrounding the Rancho
LPG facility and specifically, the revocable permit issued by the Port to Rancho LPG for
use of the railroad spur track.
-1-
C-12
CALENDAR ITEM NO. 91 (CONT'D)
BACKGROUND:
In 1973, Rancho LPG's predecessor, Petrolane, began to develop a liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG) storage facility located on private property on North Gaffey Street in San
Pedro. The site has two storage tanks of refrigerated butane with 12.6 million gallons of
capacity, approximately 11 O feet in height and 175 feet in diameter. Additionally, there
are smaller horizontal tanks that store butane and propane, each with a capacity of
60,000 gallons. This facility primarily stores butane, which is a by~product from refining
petroleum (crude oil). During the summer months, California Air Resources Board
regulations prohibit blending butane into gasoline because of the occurrence of vapor
pressure. This regulation results in the need to store the butane until it can be
transported to refineries and blended into gasoline in the winter months. Much of the
butane that is stored at this facility is transported by pipeline to and from local oil
refineries. The butane is also transported by rail and tanker truck.
Although the Port does not own or have any control over the Rancho LPG storage
facility, the Port has issued a revocable permit to Rancho LPG for a railroad spur track
located at the intersection of Gaffey Street and Westmont Drive, which is property the
Port acquired in 1970 from the Watson Land Company.
The Port entered into a permit, Revocable Permit (RP) No. 1212, with Petrolane in 1974
for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the industrial railroad spur track to
serve the storage facility. There was an existing track owned by Southern Pacific
Railroad (SPA) that ran along Gaffey Street that served other customers in the area. In
order to allow Petrolane access to the existing rail system a spur track had to be
constructed on Port property.
In 1994, as part of a larger land acquisition with the Port of Long Beach in connection
with the Alameda Corridor project, the Port acquired the land underlying the existing
track from SPR that runs parallel to Gaffey Street up to the land covered by RP 1212.
Therefore, the Port currently owns the land under the entire railroad track that parallels
Gaffey Street that serves the Rancho facility. Although Rancho LPG uses the entire
track, the only portion currently permitted to Rancho LPG is the original portion of the
track within the intersection of Gaffey Street and Westmont Drive.
The spur track, as well as the rail along Gaffey Street, is also under another permit,
Permit No. 1989, between the Port and the Pacific Harbor Line (PHL). PHL is the
operating railroad that provides rail switching service to customers within and adjacent
to the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Rancho LPG continues to use the rail line
along Gaffey Street to transport butane product in tank cars to and from the facility
using the rail service provided by PHL. Although the Port could revoke the permit to
Rancho LPG, it would be unable to prevent rail service to the Rancho LPG facility,
which would continue under Permit 1989. Permit 1989 grants PHL operational and
-2-
C-13
CALENDAR ITEM NO. 91 (CONT'D)
maintenance responsibilities of the rail facilities in the Port, including the switching of
railcars in and around the Port and the ability to operate as a federally recognized
common carrier on the track along Gaffey Street that serves the Rancho LPG facility.
This includes the section of track that is also the subject of the Rancho LPG permit.
Until 2004, Rancho LPG used the railroad spur and the PHL rail line in addition to
transferring LPG through a pipeline to Berth 120 at the Port. Today, Rancho LPG no
longer utilizes Berth 120, but it still uses the PHL rail line, which runs through the Port
and connects to long haul rail lines.
In 2011, the Port entered into RP No. 10-05, the successor to RP No. 1212, with
Rancho LPG. The Port is authorized to terminate RP No. 10-05 upon 30 days' notice,
pursuant to paragraph 3 of the RP. However, if the Port would like to eliminate the spur
track from Permit No. 1989 with PHL, approval would be required from the Surface
Transportation Board (STB), a federal agency. STB discontinuance/abandonment
proceedings largely involve questions of a line's economic viability. If the STB finds
that there is still economic viability in the use of the line to serve the Rancho LPG
facility, it is unlikely that the STB would allow discontinuance or abandonment of the
line.
In addition, although termination of RP 10-05 would not terminate rail service to the
Rancho LPG facility, the revocation of the permit would result in the loss of: 1) $1
million in comprehensive general liability and property damage insurance provided by
Rancho LPG; 2) indemnification of the Port from any claims resulting from Rancho
LPG's operations on the RP No. 10-05 premises; and 3) the loss of $14,244 in
compensation per year generated from the RP 10-05.
Regulatory Oversight:
The Rancho LPG facility is subject to regulation by numerous local, state, and federal
agencies, including but not limited to the following:
Federal:
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security
• U.S. Department of Transportation
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
• U.S. Defense Logistics Agency
• U.S. Department of Occupational Health and Safety Administration
State:
• California Environmental Protection Agency
• California Emergency Management Agency
-3-
C-14
CALENDAR ITEM NO. 91 (CONT'D)
• California Department of Toxic Substances Control .
• California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational
Safety and Health
• South Coast Air Quality Management District
Local:
• Los Angeles City and County Fire Departments, as the designated Certified
Unified Program Agency (CUPA)
• Los Angeles Police Department
• Los Angeles Emergency Management Department
• Los Angeles City Attorney
• City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation Industrial Waste Management
Division
• City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The California Legislature, as the representative of the people of California, has primary
authority over sovereign public trust lands of the State. That authority includes the
ability to make, amend, or repeal statutory grants of trust property to local jurisdictions.
The Legislature transferred general authority to the Commission to manage ungranted
trust lands in 1938. Unless otherwise expressly stated in the Constitution or statutes,
the common law Public Trust Doctrine mandates the criteria for the Commission's
management of trust lands. In carrying out its management responsibilities, the
Commission commonly leases trust lands to private and public entities for uses
consistent with the Doctrine. Subject to the criteria in the Constitution, statutes and
case law, the Commission may also exchange public trust lands for non-trust lands, lift
the trust from public trust lands, enter into boundary line agreements, and otherwise
generally manage trust property. While much of the authority over the State's public
trust lands is vested in the Commission, the Legislature has not delegated the authority
to modify uses specifically provided for in a particular trust grant. It is rather the
Legislature, exercising its retained powers as the ultimate trustee of sovereign lands,
that may enact laws dealing with granted public trust lands and specify uses for
particular properties or areas. This may include, in limited circumstances, special
legislation allowing some non-trust uses when said uses are not in conflict with trust
needs, in order to serve broader public trust purposes.
-4-
C-15
CALENDAR ITEM NO. 91 (CONT'D)
State Lands Commission Jurisdiction and Authorit~f
By 1941, the California Legislature vested all jurisdiction over ungranted sovereign
lands and certain residual and review authority for sovereign lands legislatively granted
in trust to local jurisdictions to the Commission. Public Resources Code section 6301
provides, inter alia, "[a]ll jurisdiction and authority remaining in the State as to tidelands
·and submerged lands as to which grants have been or may be made is vested in the
Commission."
In order to promote public trust purposes, the California Legislature has, by statute,
conveyed approximately 330,000 acres of public trust lands (often referred to as
granted lands), in trust, to cities, counties, and other governmental entities, including the
five major ports. There are approximately 70-plus statutory trust grants that operate
under more than 300 granting statutes. It is through this method the Legislature seeks
to ensure that tidelands are utilized and developed by the local grantee for the benefit of
all the people of the state. The local grantee has day-to-day control over operations
and management and reaps the benefits such utilization and development directly
brings to a local economy. However, the mechanism of a grant-in-trust provides that
the state tidelands, as well as all revenues generated, directly or indirectly, by the
tidelands are used only for authorized purposes of statewide benefit and as provided by
the applicable granting statute.
Thus it was that municipalities, given the land and the power to govern, control, improve
and develop the lands in the interests of all of the people of the state, developed the
State's major ports. Today the ports are operated and maintained locally, without State
involvement in their day-to-day management. However, the State has not, by these
statutory trust grants, relinquished all authority over these lands; the State has the
reserved authority and the duty to oversee the administration of the granted lands.
The Commission represents the statewide public interest to ensure that the local
trustees of public trust lands operate their trust grants in conformance with the California
Constitution, granting statutes, and the Public Trust Doctrine. This oversight has
ranged from working cooperatively to assist local trustees on issues involving proper
trust land use and trust expenditures, to judicial confrontations involving billions of
dollars of trust assets, e.g. serving as amicus curiae in Mallon v. City of Long Beach
(1955) 44 Cal.2d 199, 211 and as plaintiff in State of California ex rel. State Lands
Commission v. County of Orange (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 20.
The Commission has general oversight authority which may be carried out in a variety
of ways; however, the Commission has only limited specific responsibilities that involve
the day-to-day management decisions of grantees. In most cases, the Commission
staff conducts its oversight by commenting on projects, such as during the CEQA
process, or through consultation and advice. In the past the Commission staff has
-5-
C-16
CALENDAR ITEM NO. 91 {CONT'D)
conducted its oversight through financial and management audits of grantees on a
case-by-case basis. Unless the legislative grant provides for specific duties to the
Commission, its only remedy to overturn an action taken by a grantee, which the
Commission believes is inconsistent with the grantee's trust responsibilities in managing
its granted lands, is through. litigation. The Commission may also report its concerns
relating to trust administration by a local grantee to the Legislature.
In summary, the Commission has the authority to involve itself in issues relating to
operations of granted public trust property when it deems appropriate. The
Commission's authority includes the power to monitor the administration of the trust
grant to ensure compliance with the granting statutes and the Public Trust Doctrine.
However, it should be noted that except for statutory provisions specifically involving the
Commission, the California Legislature has transferred legal title to its grantees and
these grantees have the primary responsibility of administering the trust on a day-to-day
basis.
In conclusion, while the Commission has broad discretion and authority to review
activities of local trustees, it has limited authority to stop an action or decision by a
grantee. Should the Commission find that a trustee is violating the terms its statutory
trust grant or the Public Trust Doctrine, the Commission's only recourse is to pursue
litigation against the trustee or report these violations to the Legislature, as the ultimate
trustee of these lands and resources.
Trust Consistency of a Railroad Spur:
Issues have been raised about the trust consistency of Rancho LPG's revocable permit.
The allegations state that the Rancho LPG facility has no connection to the Port
because the products imported and exported through the facility no longer have a direct
connection to Port operations.
In order to determine trust consistency, one must look at the terms of the Port's
statutory trust grant and the common law Public Trust Doctrine. Pursuant to the terms
of the Port's statutory trust grant, authorized uses include, but are not limited to, the
establishment, improvement, and conduct of harbors, all commercial and industrial uses
and purposes, construction, reconstruction, repair, and maintenance of highways,
bridges, belt line rail roads and parking facilities, protection of wildlife habitats, and the
acquisition of property.
Pursuant to the common law Public Trust Doctrine, uses of public trust lands, whether
granted to a local agency, like the Port of Los Angeles, or administered by the State
directly, are generally limited to those that are water dependent or related, and include
fisheries, commercial navigation, environmental preservation and water related
recreation. Public trust uses may include, among others, ports, marinas, docks and
-6-
C-17
CALENDAR ITEM NO. 91 (CONT'D)
wharves, buoys, hunting, commercial and sport fishing, bathing, swimming, and boating.
Public trust lands may also be kept in their natural state or restored and enhanced for
habitat, wildlife refuges, scientific study, or open space. Ancillary or incidental uses,
which are uses that directly promote trust uses, are directly supportive and necessary
for trust uses, or are uses that accommodate the publlc's enjoyment of trust lands, are
also permitted. Examples include facilities to serve waterfront visitors, such as hotels
and restaurants, shops, parking lots, and restrooms. Other examples are commercial
facilities that must be located on or directly adjacent to the water, such as warehouses,
container cargo storage, and facilities for the development, production and distribution
of oil and gas. Uses that are generally not permitted on public trust lands are those that
are not trust related, do not serve a statewide public purpose, and can be located on
non-waterfront property, such as residential and non-maritime related commercial and
office uses.
Generally, use of public trust lands for railroad purposes has long been considered a
trust consistent use, particularly in a working waterfront/port setting. Railroads are the
traditional means by which goods were imported or exported through the Port, and, still
today, railroad use is necessary to promote interstate commerce. The PHL is a common
carrier and operator of the short track rail lines that primarily serves the Port and port
tenants but also serves other nearby clients. The PHL rail line is a trust consistent use
because it is used to transport goods throughout the Port.
Temporary uses that do not interfere with trust uses and needs, but support and benefit
the trust economically such as short-term leasing of facilities that are vacant and for
which no traditional trust needs currently exist (warehouses used for non-maritime
commerce) may be determined to be "not inconsistent with trust needs." The Rancho
LPG Revocable Permit fits this description of a use not inconsistent with public trust
needs.
Furthermore, as a fiduciary of the trust, the Port has a duty to make the trust property
productive in furtherance of the purposes of the trust. The Port has continued to permit
Rancho LPG to use the railroad spur and, in consideration, has obtained insurance,
indemnity, and approximately $15,000 a year in compensation. In addition, PHL pays a
certain amount of money to the Port in consideration of its permit based on its number
of clients, which includes Rancho LPG.
The allegations also go to whether Rancho LPG should be allowed to use the railroad
spur and/or PHL rail line which are located on Port property. The PHL rail line or the
relationship between PHL and Rancho LPG is outside the control of the Port because
they are regulated and controlled by federal agencies. It is important to note that if the
Port were to revoke Rancho LPG's permit to use the railroad spur, Rancho LPG could
still use the PHL rail line to transport LPG through the Port.
-7-
C-18
CALENDAR ITEM NO. 91 (CONT'D)
In conclusion, staff does not b.elieve that the Port has violated its statutory trust grant or
the common law Public Trust Doctrine by issuing a revocable permit to Rancho LPG for
use of the railroad spur.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION:
1. Previously, the Port had issued a permit for a 16-inch pipeline from the
Rancho LPG facility to Berth 120 where vessels were loaded with butane
for export. In March 2004, the Port denied the reissuance of the permit. In
July 2004, the berthing rights were terminated. In October 2010, the
pipeline permit was terminated. The Rancho LPG facility does not
currently have any berthing rights or pipeline permits with the Port.
2. The Port is a municipal agency and not an agency of the State of
California. The Rancho LPG storage facility Is not located on Port property
granted to the Port by the State of California. The railroad spur at issue is
located on land the Port purchased with trust revenues in the 1970s. This
land is considered after-acquired land that is held as an asset of the trust.
The Commission is not in the chain of title for this property. The
Commission did not participate in any of the land acquisition decisions, the
revocable permit decisions, or any decisions involving the Rancho LPG
facility that is located on private property. Based on consultation with the
Attorney General's Office, staff believes it very unlikely that the
Commission has any direct liability with regards to the Rancho LPG
operations.
3. The U.S. EPA calculated the worst-case consequence radius from the
main tanks at the Rancho LPG facility to be 0.5 mile based on U.S. EPA's
regulatory formula. The calculation factors in the benefit of Rancho's
containment basin and the consequence radius would likely be greater
without the benefit of this secondary safety feature. In a worst case
scenario with the benefit of the secondary safety feature, a 0.5-mile radius
from the Rancho LPG facility would extend approximately 0.16 mile at its
greatest point onto Port property that includes a Los Angeles Harbor
Police Station, an office building for the Yang Ming terminal, two cell
towers, and a container storage and truck loading area. It is uncertain
what the consequence would be or whether the Port would have to shut
down operations as a result of such a "worst-case scenario."
Rancho LPG uses railcars that are approximately 65 feet in length and
have the capacity to hold approximately 30,000 gallons of LPG per railcar.
When the railcar is loaded at the Rancho LPG facility, it is transported on
the track that parallels Gaffey Street and continues on the rail line using
-8-
C-19
CALENDAR ITEM NO. 91 (CONT'D)
services provided by PHL on the periphery of the Port's property. The
PHL permit includes $10,000,000 in general liability insurance and
$15,000,000 of excess liability insurance for operating the railroad. The
insurance held by PHL also includes pollution liability, railroad liability,
auto liability, federal employers liability, all risk and earthquake/flood
liability coverage. In addition, the individual railroad companies that use
the line also have general liability insurance. As mentioned above, Rancho
LPG provides $1 million in comprehensive general liability and property
damage insurance and indemnification of the Port from any claims
resulting from Rancho LPG's operation on the RP No. 10-05 premises.
4. The Commission is unaware of any regulatory agency that requires the
Rancho LPG facility to hold insurance. Commission staff has contacted
the U.S. EPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control and the CUPA LA
Fire Department. Based on information known to Commission staff,
Rancho LPG is current with all of its required permits, approvals, and
other required entitlements. It is staff's understanding that the Los
Angeles Fire Department, as the designated CUPA, inspects the Rancho
LPG facility every three years. The next inspection for the Rancho LPG
facility is scheduled for August 2014.
5. Commission staff requested insurance and bond information for the
Rancho LPG facility and was informed that insurance and bond
information is proprietary.
6. Rancho LPG's predecessor, Petrolane, was unsuccessfully sued on both
private and public nuisance theories in a case decided in 1980 (Don
Brown v. Petrolane (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 720).
7. As mentioned above, the Port currently has $1 million of liability insurance
from Rancho LGP related to RP No 10-05 and PHL has $25,000,000
million of liability insurance for the operation of the PHL rail line.
8. The staff recommends that the Commission find that the subject staff
analysis does not have a potential for resulting in either a direct or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and
is, therefore, not a project in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
-9-
C-20
EXHIBIT:
A.
CALENDAR ITEM NO. 91 (CONT'D)
Authority: Public Resources Code section 21065 and California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, sections 15060, subdivision (c)(3), and 15378.
Location and Site Map
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the Commission:
CEQA FINDING:
Find that the subject staff analysis is not subject to the requirements of
CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15060,
subdivision (c)(3), because the subject activity is not a project as defined
by Public Resources Code section 21065 and California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, section 15378.
AUTHORIZATION:
Direct Commission staff to continue to work with the Port of Los Angeles
on any issues involving the Rancho LPG revocable permit.
-10-
C-21
NO SCALE
srrE
PORT OF LOS ANGELES
NO SCALE LOCATION
This Exhibit is solely for purposes of generally defining the lease premises, is
based on unverified information provided by the Lessee or othe-r partiell and ii>
not intended to be, nor shall it be construed as, a waiver or limitation of any Stnle
interest in the subjecL or any other property.
Exhibit A
G 05·04
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
RANCHO LPG FACILlTY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
TS 06/12/14
C-22
NO SCALE
srrt:
PORT OP LOS ANGELES
NO SCl\Lli
MAP SOURCE: usas QUAD
1lti:'l. E:d1ibii is $Okly for punm:se·5 of gcw:rnll;y defin&ng RM k:asc prcm.ise!'li, 1s
oo~d mi unverified infrumnliu" provlded by the Lessee or other pnriir.it and h.
. not 'inteTuded tQ be, 1mr shllil it be con$fru~d t:cs., a wruvcr l'lir lirrtitntto~ t1r tmy Sbile 1 inte111iist ln l~ s~bjett Dr any other lllnpeny.
Exhibit B
G 05~04
CITY OP LOS ANGELE'~
RANCHO LPG FAClUTV
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
C-23
July 10, 2014
California State Lands Commission
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South
Sactatnento, CA 95825-8202
Dear Sirs:
Please be advised that Plains All American Pipeline, LP. (PAA) currently carries insurance which
totals $500 million to cover third party claims. A summary of that insurance program is
attached. This .insutance applies to P AA's principal assets including those held under Ranc:.ho
LPG Holdings ILC.
Sincerely,
/,~;~~/la6J
L/' ~a J. Skiles
Sr. Vice President
Lockton Houston Series
LcnmN CoMPANiES, LLC
5847 San Felipe, Suite 320 /Houston, TX 77057-3183
713-458-5200 /FAX: 713-458-5299
www.lockton.com C-24
Plains All American General Liability Insurance Limit Summary
Effective June 1, 2014 through May 31, 20151
Coverage Carrier A M Best Rating
S1f'IMM lt<: S1MM2 Asoen, Lloyds (UK) A
Aegis, Lloyds (UK) A
Aspen, Lloyds (UK) A
Catlin, Lloyds (UK) A
$25MM xs $10MM Markel {UK) A
Hannover (UK) A+
Swiss Re (Luxembourg) A+
Axis (US) A+
$SOMM XS $35MM Energy Insurance Mutual (US) A
$1SMM xs $85MM Oil Casualty Ins. (Bermuda} A·
Aegis, Lloyds (UK) A
Amlin, Lloyds (UK) A+
COF/QBE, Lloyd's (UK) A
$50MM XS $100MM SCOR (UK) A
Lancashire (UK) A
lronshore (UK) A
AXIS (U.S.) A+
$SOMM XS $1SOMM Xl (Bermuda) A
$25MM XS $200MM Oil Casualty Ins. (Bermuda) A-
$25MM XS $225MM Endurance (Bermuda) A
$25MM XS $250MM Argo (Bermuda) A
$SOMM XS $27SMM ACE {Bermuda ) A++
Iron-Starr (Bermuda) A3
$75MM xs $325MM Arch (Bermuda) A+
Axis (Bermuda) A+
$SOMM xs $400MM ACE {Bermuda) A++
$10MM XS $450MM Swiss Re {Luxembourg) A+
$40M XS $460M AIG (Bermuda) A
1 Insurance coverage renews annually.
Existing $500MM coverage level is representative of historical coverage level.
Terms and coverage level are subject to market availability.
2 $5MM retained limit for pollution claim
3 Joint venture between lronshore (A )and Starr {A). Iron-Starr ls not rated
7 /10/2014 11:22 AM C:\Users\cklngswellsmltli\Documents\2014 F'M tlatillity Insurance Summar; (3)
C-25
Plains All American General Liability Insurance Limit Summary
A.M. Best Rating .. Credit Rating Correlation
Rank A.M .. Snt Standard& Moody•s Fitch Po·or•s
1 A++ AAA Aaa AM
2 A+ AA+ Aa1 AA+
3 A AA Aa2 M
4 A-AA-Aa3 AA-
5 B+·i-A+ A1 A+
6 B+ A A2 A
7 B A-A3 A-
" =~~·
8 B-BBB+ Baa1 BBB+
9
~. c+:f BBB aa!'l~ .. ~.~·~·~ BBB
"'''""'""'''""''""'""'~~~'"'.,.,,,..._,,,,,=,, ·10 C+ HBB-Baa3 BBB---~=' BB+ 11 c Ba1 BB+
12 C-BB 882 BB
13 D BB-Ba3 BB-
14 E B+ 81 B+
15 F B a2 B
16 B-BJ B-
17 CCC-t-Caa·1 CCC+
18 CCC Cao2 CCC
19 CCC. caa3 CCC-
20 cc co cc
21 c c
C-26
EXHIBIT D G 05-04
Plains All American Pipeline, LP. ("PAA") Org. Chart (Short Form)
0.001% Interest
99.99% LP Interest
1 Sole Member
C
-
2
7
E-mails related to the Rancho LPG facility
C-28
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Janet Gunter <arrianeS@aol.com>
Sunday, October 12, 2014 6:48 PM
noelweiss@ca.rr.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; amartinez@earthjustice.com; det310
@juno.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; darzavalney@aol.com; rregSS@hotmail.com;
burling102@aol.com; igornla@cox.net; pmwarren@cox.net; dlrivera@prodigy.net;
mandm8602@att.net; peter.burmeister@att.net; jhwinkler@me.com;
diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org;
fxfeeney@aol.com; billharris2275@gmail.com; chateau4us@att.net; hvybags@cox.net;
leneebilski@hotmail.com; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; mattk@forestethics.org;
jnm4ej@yahoo.com; billgallegos@cbecal.org; nancy.kalthoff@yahoo.com;
radlsmith@cox.net; lhermanpg@cox.net; pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net;
jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net; rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net;
konnica@ca.rr.com; dakotahpat@sbcglobal.net; Kit Fox; johngoya@westoceanmd.com;
fmillarfoe@gmail.com; d.pettit@nrdc.org; dpettit@nrdc.org; hanslaetz@gmail.com
Fwd:IMPORTANT: Sierra Club letters to State Lands Commission and AQMD on Rancho
LPG
Letter_ to _State_La nds_ Comm issio n_fro m_S i err a_ CI u b. pdf;
NOP _Letter_ Tesoro_from_SierraClub_to_SCAQM D.pdf
1 C-29
October 11, 2014
California State Lands Commission
CSLC. Comm issionmeetings@slc.ca .gov
Agenda Item 109, October 14, 2014 meeting
We appreciate that the State Lands Commission took a closer look at the issue of whether or not a rail
spur permit is appropriate for Rancho LPG at 2110 North Gaffey St. in San Pedro and we are encouraged
by the staff's recommendation that the SLC continue to work with the Port of Los Angeles on issues
involving the revocable permit issued to Rancho LPG.
You should be aware of the increase in crude oil processing going on now and planned for the future* in
nearby Carson and Wilmington. This likely means additional production, processing, and transport of
byproducts such as propane and butane. While this may be good for the economy in the short term, the
long term impacts to Californians are not so good, threatening our goals to reduce reliance on and
exposure to dirty fossil fuels. Moreover, the neighborhoods in the vicinity of the processing, storage and
transport operations bear much of the burden of the increased risks attendant to such growth. Liability
coverage only goes so far to assuage concerns residents have for their health and well-being. Certainly
$14,244 in permit fees is no comfort to residents a few hundred feet from the Rancho LPG storage tanks.
The SLC staff report indicates that Commission staff attended the September 10, 2014 meeting hosted by
Congressman Waxman's office at which Department of Homeland Security and EPA staff fielded
questions and concerns about the Rancho LPG tanks. At that meeting, EPA staff acknowledged that
their regulations may not be adequate to address concerns raised regarding the propane and butane
stored at the Gaffey St. site. EPA enforcement staff is limited by the regulations that exist today,
notwithstanding that common sense paired with an understanding of the properties of butane make it
clear that the passive mitigation measure --an impound basin equivalent in size to the volume of one of
the liquid butane storage tanks--would be wholly inadequate to contain a substance that expands in
volume 200 fold when exposed to ambient air temperature, and an explosion resulting from the
overflowing gas vapor finding an ignition source has the potential to have devastating consequences not
only to nearby residents and schools but to the Port of LA. Common sense paired with such
understanding of the properties of butane is precisely why the issue has received so much attention from
local leaders and no doubt why EPA staff welcomed recommendations for amending regulations to better
address environmental hazards of these particular materials.
The Sierra Club has previously indicated its support for relocating the propane and butane tanks from the
Gaffey St. location to another location more remote from schools and residences. We reiterate that
support. The Commission responsibility to manage State Lands assets to assure that the greatest
possible public benefit is derived therefrom should consider the potential costs to the public in relation to
the benefits. In this case, the public derives a negligible benefit while bearing a very weighty burden--the
risk of loss of property, health, and life.
Sincerely,
/s /s
Eva Cicoria Al Sattler
Chair, Conservation Committee Chair, Executive Committee
Sierra Club Palos Verdes-South Bay Group Sierra Club Palos Verdes-South Bay Group
*See, e.g., Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Tesoro Refining & Marketing
Company, LLC Los Angeles Refinery Integration and Compliance Project,
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/permit-
projects/2014/tesoro _ nop _is. pdf?sfvrsn =2
P.O Box 2464 • Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274
@ Printed on Recycled Paper C-30
,\SIERRA
.I CLUB
.... ·····---····· -Palos Verdes -South Bay Group I Angeles Chapter
FOl.!NDfD 18'!2
October 10, 2014
Michael Krause, Program Supervisor
Planning, Rules and Area Sources SCAQMD
mkrause@aqmd.gov
Re: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Tesoro
Refining and Marketing Company, LLC (Tesoro), Los Angeles Refinery Integration and
Compliance Project (Project)
Dear Mr. Krause,
The Tesoro NOP indicates that, in addition to crude oil operations, both the Carson and Wilmington
operations involve receiving, processing and transporting liquid petroleum gas (LPG) by ship, truck and
railcar and that the Project will involve very significant modifications to storage, processing and
transporting LPGs. In particular, regarding LPGs the Project contemplates:
• modifications to the Carson Operations alkylation unit, to process propylene (more volatile than
propane) and butylene, including "installation of a propylene chiller and associated piping and
instrumentation";
increased deliveries of approximately 4,000 BPD of Alkylation Unit feedstocks (LPG including
propane, propylene, butane, butylene);
• modification of existing LPG rail facilities at either the Carson or Wilmington Operations to
accommodate the increase of LPG handling at the refinery to the tune of approximately 10
railcars per day;
construction of a new PSTU at the Wilmington Operations to condition liquid propane for sale--up
to approximately 2,000 BPD--including eight vessels and four pumps to purify recovered propane;
and
• changes in the descriptions of the commodities in tanks from specific liquefied gases, such as
propane, to more generic terms such as LPG.
While there is a significant risk of fires, explosions, releases of flammable or toxic materials, or other
accidents at the Property or from the processing, storage, transporting, or other handling of petroleum
products, in general, the risk is elevated in the case of LPG, resulting in greater potential for injury, lasting
health effects, or death to members of the public. LPGs, such as propane and butane, which are stored
under pressure and upon tank rupture will vaporize, differ from other petroleum products in that a spill
cannot easily be contained. Upon exposure to ambient air temperature, butane, for example, vaporizes
and increases in volume 200 times. Being heavier than air, the gas will not dissipate but will travel along
the ground, eventually reaching an ignition source and leading to an explosion. Impound basins built to
mitigate potential spills are often designed to contain the volume of liquid stored in a tank, but in the case
of liquid gas that vaporizes upon exposure to ambient air temperature, increasing 200-fold in volume, an
impound basin can be expected to be inadequate mitigation.
In July 2013, explosions at a propane gas plant in Florida underscored the potential dangers to local
communities from facilities that store LPG. The Florida plant was relatively small, but the incident there
nonetheless critically injured workers and forced an evacuation of the surrounding community.
P.O Box 2464 • Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274
@ Printed on Recycled Paper
C-31
In addition to identifying what measures will be put in place to ensure safe processing, storage, transport,
and other operations relating to petroleum products, in general, at the Property, the DEIR should 1)
identify the elevated risks associated with the processing, storage, transport and other operations related
to liquid gases such as butane and propane, in particular, and 2) identify and address any and all storage,
transport and other operations offsite that are related to the operations at the Property. It is imperative
that the DEIR indicate what will be stored, processed, and transported where and what mitigations will be
put in place to address the particular properties of the specific stored, processed, and/or transported
materials.
Given the relatively close proximity of the Property, and Tesoro's activities related thereto, to residences
and schools, greater scrutiny is called for relative to projects where facilities are more remote from
residences, schools and other sensitive receptors. It is critical that the DEIR address any storage,
transport and processing operations of Tesoro related to the operations on the Property that may not be
undertaken strictly within the Property boundaries as well. The DEIR must identify who will be the first
responders in the event of upset. Will Tesoro rely on the Fire Department and, if so, is the Fire
Department trained to respond to LPG accidents on the Property site and off?
The Project description in the DEIR should identify, separately from other petroleum products, any and all
LPG storage facilities, transport routes, and/or operations onsite or off that are related to Tesoro Project
operations. The DEIR should differentiate LPGs from other petroleum products given the explosive
properties of these gases, describing all aspects of Tesoro's LPG storage facilities, including age,
identifying environmental impacts including those related to operational safety and those related to a
possible natural factor (earthquake, tsunami, severe environmental conditions, etc.), human error, or
equipment failure, or terrorist activity with a view to disclosing the possible hazards to the environment
and the public of such impacts. The DEIR should fully disclose liability coverage for any and all LPG
storage tanks owned, leased, or otherwise used by Tesoro related to its operations on the Property. The
DEIR should present mitigation measures Tesoro may undertake in view of the extreme hazards of each
particular LPG product.
The NOP indicates that butane is currently received from rail cars into pressurized tanks for use in the
refining process and that the Project would involve increasing the rail cars bringing butane to the
Property. The DEIR must address where this butane will be coming from, the route anticipated, and any
changes in environmental impacts associated with the increase in butane transport.
If Tesoro is currently storing butane and/or propane at the Rancho LPG facility at 2110 N. Gaffey St. in
San Pedro, for example, that raises specific concerns. If that is the case, the DEIR should disclose that
there is considerable public concern regarding the safety of that facility and the risk to nearby schools and
residences .. If that is the case, the DEIR should analyze the relative hazards and risk to human life
associated with storing propane and butane at the Gaffey St location versus on the Property, with
consideration given to all relevant factors including tank location relative to fault lines, likelihood of
terrorist threat, availability of personnel trained to deal with worst case scenarios, and proximity to schools
and residences. The DEIR should disclose that the State Lands Commission is currently reviewing the
revocable permit issued by the Port of Los Angeles for a segment of the rail spur that serves the Rancho
LPG facility. In addition, the DEIR should identify how the propane and butane stored at the Rancho LPG
facility would be transported, in the event the rail spur permit is not renewed in the future. If such
transport would be by truck on city streets, the hazards of such transport must be addressed. The DEIR
should address the impact of the potential loss of offsite LPG storage to Tesoro's operations and the
environmental and potential human impacts associated with changes related thereto due to the ultra-
hazardous nature of these materials.
Sincerely,
Is Is
Eva Cicoria Al Sattler
Chair, Conservation Committee Chair, Executive Committee
Sierra Club Palos Verdes-South Bay Group Sierra Club Palos Verdes-South Bay Group
P.O Box 2464 • Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274
@ Printed on Recycled Paper
C-32
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Janet
Jesse Marquez <jnm4ej@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:29 AM
Janet Gunter; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net;
amartinez@earthjustice.com; det310@juno.com; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net;
darzavalney@aol.com; rregSS@hotmail.com; burling102@aol.com; igornla@cox.net;
pmwarren@cox.net; dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net;
peter.burmeister@att.net; jhwinkler@me.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002
@yahoo.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org; fxfeeney@aol.com; billharris2275
@gmail.com; chateau4us@att.net; hvybags@cox.net; leneebilski@hotmail.com;
claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; mattk@forestethics.org; billgallegos@cbecal.org;
nancy.kalthoff@yahoo.com; radlsmith@cox.net; lhermanpg@cox.net;
pjwrome@yahoo.com; katyw@pacbell.net; jwebb@usc.edu; c.jjkondon@earthlink.net;
rcraemer@aol.com; goarlene@cox.net; konnica@ca.rr.com; dakotahpat@sbcglobal.net;
Kit Fox; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; fmillarfoe@gmail.com; d.pettit@nrdc.org;
dpettit@nrdc.org; hanslaetz@gmail.com
Jesse Marquez; Jesse Marquez
Re: Fwd:IMPORTANT: Sierra Club letters to State Lands Commission and AQMD on
Rancho LPG
CFASE SLC Rancho LPG Letter 10-10-2014.doc
Here is the letter that I sent to the SLC.
Jesse
California State Lands Commission
100 Howe Avenue, Ste. 100 South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
916-574-1800
916-574-1810 Fax
cslc.comissionmeetings@slc.ca.gov
Re: October 14, 2014 SLC Agenda Item # 109
Su: Request To Deny Authority of the City of Los Angeles Harbor Department/Port of Los Angeles Board of
Harbor Commissioners/City of Los Angeles To Continue To Issue Revocable Permits Without Adequate
& Periodically Updated Public Safety Conditions & Mitigation Considerations
Dear CSLC:
The Coalition For A Safe Environment (CFASE) on behalf of our San Pedro, Wilmington, Harbor City and Carson
Community members and residents wish to submit this request to revoke and suspend the City of Los Angeles
Harbor Department -Port of Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners non-elected body authority to issue
Revocable Permits i.e. REVOCABLE PERMIT No. 10-05 dated 2-15-2011 & Others which allows a Right-of-Way
1 C-33
Use Permission for Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC to use City of Los Angeles and Port of Los Angeles publicly owned
railroad lines and properties.
We believe that the California State Lands Commission does have the authority to:
1. Challenge the adequacy of issued Revocable Permits by a non-elected body.
2. Require upgrades to older facilities which would not meet today's building safety requirements.
3. Require additional land use requirements.
4. Require additional public safety requirements
5. Require additional insurance liability & bonding requirements.
6. Require updated Environmental Impact Report.
7. Enforce the SLC Environmental Justice Policy.
Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC owns two refrigerated 12.6 million gallon gas storage tanks, several smaller above
ground storage tanks, underground interconnecting pipelines to local oil refineries, gas tanker truck and tank
rail car loading/unloading racks and uses publicly owned rail lines to transport product
A. This facility is now considered by residents and the public as an extremely dangerous and hazardous
gas chemical storage facility that is operating illegally (research verified) and is no longer a compatible
land-use near residential communities, public housing, increased residential population, youth sports
fields, local small businesses and public transportation streets. Ref: California Air Resources Board and
South Coast Air Quality Management District land use guidelines.
B. It is the belief and opinion of residents that this facility is used by local oil refineries to shift some of the
major risk of fire, explosion, disaster and terrorists attacks from their refinery locations.
CF ASE and the public has reviewed the September 2010 Amerigas propane LP the former owner of the tank
facility "Quantitative Risk Analysis for Amerigas Butane Storage Facility (QRA)" and determined that it is not a
comprehensive assessment of all risks. The San Pedro Northwest Neighborhood Council commissioned its
own study which also validates the inadequacy and incompleteness of the QRA previously performed.
CF ASE has identified the following Quantitative Risk Analysis for Rancho LPG/ Amerigas Butane Storage Facility
(QRA)" deficiencies:
a. The study only considered a "worst case scenario" using one storage tank when in fact it should have:
1. Used the two storage tanks as the "worst case scenario."
2. Included a cascading and domino worst case scenario with multiple ignition sources such as the
seven (7) listed in b.
b. The study failed to include any other potential "ignition sources." On page 6 it states on (2) No
external ignition sources were assumed ... , which is unacceptable. We have identified seven (7) other
potential and realistic ignition sources:
1. Ignition by a company or employee vehicle source parked or parking nearby. In the 1960's the
Fletcher Oil Refinery fire and explosion in Carson which bordered the City of Los Angeles
2 C-34
Wilmington residential area, killed two employees and burned over 300 residents was caused by
employee failure to ground their company truck near fuel storage tanks causing ignition by
electrical spark.
2. Ignition by railroad locomotive engine parked or parking nearby or tanker car via a electrical spark.
3. Ignition by a brush fire adjacent to the gas tank farm facility. In the recent past there was a brush
fire along the east side of Gaffey Street across which burned for several hours within 100" of the
gas tank farm facility.
4. Ignition by a small aircraft crashing due to mechanical failure. Occurs numerous times a year in Los
Angeles County and Southern California.
5. Ignition by a disgruntled employee. In 2010 at the Port of Los Angeles a disgruntled truck driver
was able to illegally enter the port and was apprehended by Longshoremen dock workers until the
police finally arrived.
6. Ignition by domestic or foreign terrorist. Incidents occur regularly throughout the US.
7. Ignition by a fire or explosion by the adjacent ConocoPhillips Oil Refinery. Fires, explosions and
equipment malfunctions happen every year at this facility.
c. The Geological Description fails to state if the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and
California Dept. Of Toxics Substances Control (DTSC) certified the remediation and issued a permit. A
new geological study have been performed in 1993 upon the sale of the facility to Amerigas and
included as part of the EIR and Risk Assessment. Based on the description it does not meet
governmental regulatory agency requirements or industry documentation and reporting standards nor
current land remediation requirements.
d. Does not address atmospheric impacts when there is a low inversion layer and its impacts on
dispersion patterns.
e. Does not mention the outdated design and construction of the two gas storage tanks which would not
meet today's tank safety design standards nor does it describe the hazards with the current tank
design.
f. Rancho LPG regularly allows the train tanker cars to illegally leave open the roof top hatch to air out
VOC's.
We make this request for the following reasons:
1. We cannot find and are not aware of any new or supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
having being prepared for Rancho LPG Holdings, any public hearings being held or EIR certification by
the City of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles. Therefore there has been no:
a. Comprehensive identification or assessment of all environmental impacts at the facility and along
the rail transportation corridor.
b. Mitigation for all negative air quality, noise, aesthetic, public health, public safety and socio-
economic impacts.
3 C-35
Our research has disclosed that the Harbor Department Revocable Permit No. 1212 dated July 1, 1974
and last EIR prepared for this project, property and rail line use was circa 1974 was approved and
certified by the City of Los Angeles.
We now charge the City of Los Angeles and the Harbor Department of gross negligence and intentional
violation of CEQA in certifying an EIR which did not comply with CEQA in 1974.
We further charge the City of Los Angeles and Harbor Department of again violating CEQA law and the
Public Trust Doctrine by entering into a new Revocable Permit No. 10-05 dated 2-15-2011 without a
new EIR, without additional public interests protections and without adequate public right-of-way rail
line usage compensation.
In addition, new storage tanks were built in later years which also did not have and Environmental
Impact Report prepared.
2. We have reviewed the City of Los Angeles and Harbor Department Revocable Permit No. 10-05 dated 2-
15-2011 entered into by Rancho LPG Holdings and it does not provide adequate public interests
protections, adequate public right-of-way rail line usage compensation and CEQA compliance as
described herein.
3. We have reviewed the cannot find and are not aware of a Spill/Release Prevention, Control &
Countermeasures Plan, impact & cost assessment study, public hearings being held or plan approval for
Rancho LPG Holdings by the City of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
4. We cannot find and are not aware of a Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan, impact & cost
assessment study, public hearings being held or plan approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by the City of
Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
5. We cannot find and are not aware of a Public Emergency Evacuation, Relocation & Assistance Plan, for
disaster relief and mitigation, especially since there several youth baseball and recreational sports fields
and residential areas near-by, impact & cost assessment study, public hearings being held or plan
approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by the City of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
6. We cannot find and are not aware of a Public Health Impact Assessment (HIA), cost assessment study,
public hearings being held or HIA approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by the City of Los Angeles or Port of
Los Angeles.
7. We cannot find and are not aware of a Public Health Care Resources Plan, impact, needs & cost
assessment study, public hearings being held or plan approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by the City of
Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
8. We cannot find and are not aware of a Public Utilities Impact Emergency Response Plan, impact & cost
assessment study, public hearings being held or plan approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by the City of
Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
9. We cannot find and are not aware of a Public Transportation Infrastructure Impact Emergency
Response Plan, impact & cost assessment study, public hearings being held or plan approval for Rancho
LPG Holdings by the City of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
10. We cannot find and are not aware of a Public Liability Insurance Requirement, impact & cost
assessment study, public hearings being held or insurance approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by the City
of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
4 C-36
11. We cannot find and are not aware of a Public Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, public hearings being
held or plan approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by the City of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
12. We cannot find and are not aware of an Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment,
mitigation plan, public hearings being held, assessment study or plan approval for Rancho LPG Holdings
by the City of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
13. We cannot find and are not aware of a Right-of-Way Maintenance Plan for vegetation and vector
control, the use of non-toxic herbicides, impact & cost assessment study, public hearings being held or
plan approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by the City of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
We request the following:
1. SLC revoke and suspend the City of Los Angeles Harbor Department -Port of Los Angeles Board of Harbor
Commissioners non-elected body authority to issue Revocable Permits which allows a Right-of-Way Use
Permission for Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC to use City of Los Angeles and Port of Los Angeles publicly owned
railroad lines and properties.
2. Require upgrades to older facilities which would not meet today's building safety requirements.
3. Require current & additional land use requirements.
4. Require current & additional public safety requirements
5. Require current & additional insurance liability & bonding requirements.
6. Require updated Environmental Impact Report.
7. Enforce the SLC Environmental Justice Policy.
We request that the CEQA EIR and a new Revocable Permit be prepared that addresses the issues,
inadequacies, omissions, errors of the prior EIR, prior Revocable Permits and regularly renewed Revocable
Permit.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jesse N. Marquez
Executive Director
jnm4ej@yahoo.com
310-704-1265
On Sunday, October 12, 2014 6:48 PM, Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com> wrote:
5 C-37
Coalition For A Safe Environment
1601 N. Wilmington Blvd. Ste. B, Wilmington, California 90744
310-704-1265
California State Lands Commission
100 Howe Avenue, Ste. 100 South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
916-574-1800
916-574-1810 Fax
cslc.comissionmeetings@slc.ca.gov
Re: October 14, 2014 SLC Agenda Item # 109
October 10, 2014
Su: Request To Deny Authority of the City of Los Angeles Harbor Department/Port of Los Angeles
Board of Harbor Commissioners/City of Los Angeles To Continue To Issue Revocable Permits
Without Adequate & Periodically Updated Public Safety Conditions & Mitigation Considerations
Dear CSLC:
The Coalition For A Safe Environment (CFASE) on behalf of our San Pedro, Wilmington, Harbor City and
Carson Community members and residents wish to submit this request to revoke and suspend the City
of Los Angeles Harbor Department -Port of Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners non-elected
body authority to issue Revocable Permits i.e. REVOCABLE PERMIT No. 10-05 dated 2-15-2011 &
Others which allows a Right-of-Way Use Permission for Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC to use City of Los
Angeles and Port of Los Angeles publicly owned railroad lines and properties.
We believe that the California State Lands Commission does have the authority to:
1. Challenge the adequacy of issued Revocable Permits by a non-elected body.
2. Require upgrades to older facilities which would not meet today's building safety requirements.
3. Require additional land use requirements.
4. Require additional public safety requirements
5. Require additional insurance liability & bonding requirements.
6. Require updated Environmental Impact Report.
7. Enforce the SLC Environmental Justice Policy.
Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC owns two refrigerated 12.6 million gallon gas storage tanks, several smaller
above ground storage tanks, underground interconnecting pipelines to local oil refineries, gas tanker
truck and tank rail car loading/unloading racks and uses publicly owned rail lines to transport product
A. This facility is now considered by residents and the public as an extremely dangerous and
hazardous gas chemical storage facility that is operating illegally (research verified) and is no C-38
longer a compatible land-use near residential communities, public housing, increased
residential population, youth sports fields, local small businesses and public transportation
streets. Ref: California Air Resources Board and South Coast Air Quality Management District
land use guidelines.
B. It is the belief and opinion of residents that this facility is used by local oil refineries to shift
some of the major risk of fire, explosion, disaster and terrorists attacks from their refinery
locations.
CF ASE and the public has reviewed the September 2010 Amerigas propane LP the former owner of the
tank facility "Quantitative Risk Analysis for Amerigas Butane Storage Facility (QRA)" and determined
that it is not a comprehensive assessment of all risks. The San Pedro Northwest Neighborhood Council
commissioned its own study which also validates the inadequacy and incompleteness of the QRA
previously performed.
CF ASE has identified the following Quantitative Risk Analysis for Rancho LPG/ Amerigas Butane Storage
Facility (QRA)" deficiencies:
a. The study only considered a "worst case scenario" using one storage tank when in fact it should
have:
1. Used the two storage tanks as the "worst case scenario."
2. Included a cascading and domino worst case scenario with multiple ignition sources such as
the seven (7) listed in b.
b. The study failed to include any other potential "ignition sources." On page 6 it states on (2) No
external ignition sources were assumed ... , which is unacceptable. We have identified seven (7)
other potential and realistic ignition sources:
1. Ignition by a company or employee vehicle source parked or parking nearby. In the 1960's
the Fletcher Oil Refinery fire and explosion in Carson which bordered the City of Los
Angeles Wilmington residential area, killed two employees and burned over 300 residents
was caused by employee failure to ground their company truck near fuel storage tanks
causing ignition by electrical spark.
2. Ignition by railroad locomotive engine parked or parking nearby or tanker car via a electrical
spark.
3. Ignition by a brush fire adjacent to the gas tank farm facility. In the recent past there was a
brush fire along the east side of Gaffey Street across which burned for several hours within
100" of the gas tank farm facility.
4. Ignition by a small aircraft crashing due to mechanical failure. Occurs numerous times a
year in Los Angeles County and Southern California.
5. Ignition by a disgruntled employee. In 2010 at the Port of Los Angeles a disgruntled truck
driver was able to illegally enter the port and was apprehended by Longshoremen dock
workers until the police finally arrived.
6. Ignition by domestic or foreign terrorist. Incidents occur regularly throughout the US.
7. Ignition by a fire or explosion by the adjacent ConocoPhillips Oil Refinery. Fires, explosions
and equipment malfunctions happen every year at this facility. C-39
c. The Geological Description fails to state if the US Environmental Protection Agency {US EPA)
and California Dept. Of Toxics Substances Control {DTSC) certified the remediation and issued a
permit. A new geological study have been performed in 1993 upon the sale of the facility to
Amerigas and included as part of the EIR and Risk Assessment. Based on the description it
does not meet governmental regulatory agency requirements or industry documentation and
reporting standards nor current land remediation requirements.
d. Does not address atmospheric impacts when there is a low inversion layer and its impacts on
dispersion patterns.
e. Does not mention the outdated design and construction of the two gas storage tanks which
would not meet today's tank safety design standards nor does it describe the hazards with the
current tank design.
f. Rancho LPG regularly allows the train tanker cars to illegally leave open the roof top hatch to air
out VOC's.
We make this request for the following reasons:
1. We cannot find and are not aware of any new or supplemental Environmental Impact Report
{EIR) having being prepared for Rancho LPG Holdings, any public hearings being held or EIR
certification by the City of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles. Therefore there has been no:
a. Comprehensive identification or assessment of all environmental impacts at the facility and
along the rail transportation corridor.
b. Mitigation for all negative air quality, noise, aesthetic, public health, public safety and socio-
economic impacts.
Our research has disclosed that the Harbor Department Revocable Permit No. 1212 dated July
1, 1974 and last EIR prepared for this project, property and rail line use was circa 1974 was
approved and certified by the City of Los Angeles.
We now charge the City of Los Angeles and the Harbor Department of gross negligence and
intentional violation of CEQA in certifying an EIR which did not comply with CEQA in 1974.
We further charge the City of Los Angeles and Harbor Department of again violating CEQA law
and the Public Trust Doctrine by entering into a new Revocable Permit No. 10-05 dated 2-15-
2011 without a new EIR, without additional public interests protections and without adequate
public right-of-way rail line usage compensation.
In addition, new storage tanks were built in later years which also did not have and
Environmental Impact Report prepared.
2. We have reviewed the City of Los Angeles and Harbor Department Revocable Permit No. 10-05
dated 2-15-2011 entered into by Rancho LPG Holdings and it does not provide adequate public
interests protections, adequate public right-of-way rail line usage compensation and CEQA
compliance as described herein. C-40
3. We have reviewed the cannot find and are not aware of a Spill/Release Prevention, Control &
Countermeasures Plan, impact & cost assessment study, public hearings being held or plan
approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by the City of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
4. We cannot find and are not aware of a Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan, impact &
cost assessment study, public hearings being held or plan approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by
the City of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
5. We cannot find and are not aware of a Public Emergency Evacuation, Relocation & Assistance
Plan, for disaster relief and mitigation, especially since there several youth baseball and
recreational sports fields and residential areas near-by, impact & cost assessment study, public
hearings being held or plan approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by the City of Los Angeles or Port
of Los Angeles.
6. We cannot find and are not aware of a Public Health Impact Assessment {HIA}, cost assessment
study, public hearings being held or HIA approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by the City of Los
Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
7. We cannot find and are not aware of a Public Health Care Resources Plan, impact, needs & cost
assessment study, public hearings being held or plan approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by the
City of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
8. We cannot find and are not aware of a Public Utilities Impact Emergency Response Plan, impact
& cost assessment study, public hearings being held or plan approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by
the City of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
9. We cannot find and are not aware of a Public Transportation Infrastructure Impact Emergency
Response Plan, impact & cost assessment study, public hearings being held or plan approval for
Rancho LPG Holdings by the City of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
10. We cannot find and are not aware of a Public Liability Insurance Requirement, impact & cost
assessment study, public hearings being held or insurance approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by
the City of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
11. We cannot find and are not aware of a Public Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, public
hearings being held or plan approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by the City of Los Angeles or Port
of Los Angeles.
12. We cannot find and are not aware of an Environmental Justice Community Impact Assessment,
mitigation plan, public hearings being held, assessment study or plan approval for Rancho LPG
Holdings by the City of Los Angeles or Port of Los Angeles.
13. We cannot find and are not aware of a Right-of-Way Maintenance Plan for vegetation and
vector control, the use of non-toxic herbicides, impact & cost assessment study, public hearings
being held or plan approval for Rancho LPG Holdings by the City of Los Angeles or Port of Los
Angeles.
C-41
We request the following:
1. SLC revoke and suspend the City of Los Angeles Harbor Department -Port of Los Angeles Board
of Harbor Commissioners non-elected body authority to issue Revocable Permits which allows a
Right-of-Way Use Permission for Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC to use City of Los Angeles and Port
of Los Angeles publicly owned railroad lines and properties.
2. Require upgrades to older facilities which would not meet today's building safety requirements.
3. Require current & additional land use requirements.
4. Require current & additional public safety requirements
5. Require current & additional insurance liability & bonding requirements.
6. Require updated Environmental Impact Report.
7. Enforce the SLC Environmental Justice Policy.
We request that the CEQA EIR and a new Revocable Permit be prepared that addresses the issues,
inadequacies, omissions, errors of the prior EIR, prior Revocable Permits and regularly renewed
Revocable Permit.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jesse N. Marquez
Executive Director
jnm4ej@yahoo.com
310-704-1265
C-42
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Janet Gunter <arrianeS@aol.com>
Wednesday, October 15, 2014 10:16 PM
noelweiss@ca.rr.com; amartinez@earthjustice.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det310
@juno.com; connie@rutter.us; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; igornla@cox.net;
dwgkaw@hotmail.com; chateau4us@att.net; darzavalney@aol.com; hvybags@cox.net;
rregSS@hotmail.com; diananave@gmail.com; overbid2002@yahoo.com; burling102
@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; Kit Fox; mandm8602
@att.net; peter.burmeister@att.net; dlrivera@prodigy.net; owsqueen@yahoo.com;
lljonesin33@yahoo.com; billharris2275@gmail.com; irene@miraclegirlproductions.org;
fxfeeney@aol.com; joethedoor@sbcglobal.net; carl.southwell@gmail.com;
fbmjet@aol.com; lpryor@usc.edu; rgb251@berkeley.edu; cicoriae@aol.com;
alsattler@igc.org; mattk@forestethics.org; jnm4ej@yahoo.com; jhwinkler@me.com;
bonbon90731@gmail.com; jody.james@sbcglobal.net
jwilliamgibson@ca.rr.com; bdellinger@the-tidings.com; jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov;
helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov; wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov;
lara.larramendi@mail.house.gov
Another slap on the wrist for Rancho operators "Plains Midstream Canada" for their
major Canadian oil spill
Typical ... and horrifying about our system as well as Canada's. Let them operate .... no worries.
http://www. h uffington post. ca/ecojustice/weak-laws-and-enforcement_ b _ 5482455. html
1 C-43
Plains Midstream Settlement Shows Lack Of Pipeline Accountability I Ecojustice Page 1 of j..
1.Q..gJn Create Account
November 17, 2014
(http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/canada-alberta)
Edition: CA..... Region: AB .. Log tn Newsletters Huffington Post Search
FRONT PAGE POLITICS BUSINESS WORLDPOST
IHTTP· //WWW.HUFFINGTONPOST.CAl !HTTP://WWW.HUFFINGTONPOST .CA/POLITICS/) !HTTP:! /WWW .HUFFINGTONPOST.CA/BUSI NESS/l !HTTP: I/WWW .HUFFI NGTONPOST
Alberta (http://www.huffinqtonpost.ca/alberta/) • Alberta Politics (http://www.huffinqtonpostca/nel/v'S/alberta-politics)
• Alberta Business (http://www.huffingtonpostca/neVvS/alberta-business) • Alison Redford (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/news/alison-redford)
• Calgary (http://www.huffingtonoost.ca/news/calgarvl • Edmonton (http:/fvw.rw.huffingtonpostca/nevvs/edmonlon)
Featuring fresh takes and real-line analysis from
Huff Post's signature /ireup of contributors
··~ Ecojustice UecojusticeD Become a fan ??~J~ Uusers/becomeFan.php?of=hp blogger Ecojusticel
,, "'''' Using the law to protect Canada's environment
(!uset!sttoa7Mitter.com/@ecojustice cal
Plains Midstream Settlement
Shows Lack Of Pipeline
Accountability
Posted: 06/13/2014 4:00 pm EDT I Updated: 08/13/2014 5:59 am EDT
Log 10 0avscript:void(O)) Z1
Share
ADVERTISEMENT
(https:/lwww.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffinqtonpost.ca%2Fecojustice%2Fweak-laws-and-enforcement b 5482455.htrr
Lastm~ek,just days after regulators laid federal aud provincial charges against MOST POPULAR
~~.~i,~tllf.tl\fRtfnfJRiJ\wel),1W~~r\\~JTh.Fe~!¥/lf.l\ht~MiiflsWJ1Wls~hfillff£~~/!Ws+lack+of+ i eline+account.a.bi.lit .. "."3A+%.40.eco ustice ca+htt. %3A%2F%2Fhuff.to%2F1kwQP
: : www. 1 m on .ca 201 o a1ns-m1 s ream-ne -m -
~r'l.i..!1. 5440640.htmll and agreed to pay just over a million dollars in environmental
fines for its role in two of the most notorious oil spills in Alberta's recent history.
Q.
In April 2011, 4.5 million litres of oil spilled from Plains' 46-year-old Rainbow
pipeline near Zama, Alberta. Just over a year later, 475,000 litres of sour crude were
leaked from Plains' Rangeland pipeline into the Red Deer River near Sundre.
Following the spills, Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) investigators reviewed both
incidents and found it was likely that Plains' failure to implement proper practices
had either caused or contributed to the size of the release
Chttp://www.aer.ca/documents/reports/IR 20130226-PlainsMidstream.pdfl.
Albe11a Environment announced in April 2013 that it was bringing three separate
charges against Plains for the 2011 Rainbow spill. Similarly, in late May 2014, the
AER brought two charges against Plains for the 2012 Rangeland spill.
Just days after the Rangeland charges were brought it was announced that both
Alberta's Wildrose Backtracks On
Equal Rights Statement
Not Too Happy With The Media
(http://www.huflnqtonpostcal2014111n4/danielle-
smith-wildrose-quit n 6162472.hml?
utm hp ref=mostpopular&ir=Canada+Alberta)
http ://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ecojustice/weak-laws-and-enforcement_ b _ 5482455 .html 11/17/2014
C-44
Plains Midstream Settlement Shows Lack Of Pipeline Accountability I Ecojustice Page 2 ofi
matters had been settled: Plains would avoid two potentially lengthy trials and
pleaded guilty to three of the five charges.
In the aftermath of the Rangeland spill, then-Premier Alison Redford stated that the
Regulators would take whatever steps necessary prevent similar events in the future.
With Plains' regulatory liability from both matters now finalized, one has to wonder
whether the Regulator's actions have ensured proper accountability and why futther
charges with more and stiffer penalties were not pursued.
It took provincial prosecutors just shy of two years to lay charges on both spills
despite the fact that the Regulator had already concluded that Plains was at least
pattially responsible. On the basis of the conclusions in the Regulator's own repotts, it
would have been reasonable to bring a number of charges under various
environmental statutes. However, only charges relating to Plains' actions after the
spill --particularly failing to inform regulators and mitigate damage --were laid.
Because the matter was settled without a trial, details of the spills --including the full
extent of the environmental damage --will likely never be made public.
In the settlement, Plains agreed to pay $850,000 for failing to report and mitigate or
remedy the Rangeland spill under the Fisheries Act and Alberta's Environment
Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA). It was charged another $450,000 under
the EPEA for failing to remedy or confine the effects of the Rainbow spill. The
settlement will see Plains responsible for roughly 10 cents for every litre spilled from
the Rainbow pipeline.
This lack of transparency is problematic and is another example of how weak
regulatorv oversight (http://www.ecojustice.ca/publications/oilsands-pollution-and-
the-athabasca-river#.U4-kzfldW0Il has the effect of shielding the oil and gas industry
from public scrutiny. These actions don't occur in a vacuum and are a part of an
alarming trend.
As we reported in "Getting Tough on Environment
Crime?" (http://www.ecojustice.ca/publications/repmts/getting-tough-on-
environmental-crime/attachmentl, Canada has a surprisingly weak record when it
comes to enforcing its own environmental laws. Our research indicates that since
2005-06, the number of investigations, prosecutions, and convictions under federal
environmental laws has been on a steady decline.
For example, each year there are only about 20 convictions under the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), one of Canada's most impottant pollution
laws. Put it this way: According to our research, it took Environment Canada more
than 20 years to collect $2-4-million in fines under CEPA. The Toronto Public Library
collected $2.6-million in fines for overdue books in 2009 alone.
While they are just one of the tools available to regulators, fines are crucially
important as they are the ultimate deterrent to polluters. Weak enforcement, coupled
with substantially weakened environmental laws
(https://www.ecojustice.ca/blog/weaker-environment-laws-means-a-weaker-
canada), have created a climate in which financial regulatory repercussions for
polluters are rare.
With major pipeline projects like Enbridge's Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan's
Trans Mountain expansion moving their way through the review process, the public is
now more aware than ever of the dangers of these risky projects. If Plains can get
away with a slap on the wrist for two large oil spills, does this mean Canadians should
expect the same light treatment in the event of a Notthern Gateway or Trans
Mountain pipeline break?
Canadians deserve assurances that environmental offenders will be held to full
account when they are responsible for causing harm to our air, water, and land. And
those assurances need to be backed up by meaningful action.
This piece was written by Ecojustice staff lawyer Fraser Thomson. Ecojustice is one
of Canada's leading charities using the law to protect and restore Canada's
environment. Learn m01·e at ecojustice.ca (httv:(/www.ecojustice.ca).
Follow Ecojustice on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@ecojustice ca
(http://www.twitter.com/@ecojustice cal
MORE: Environmental Laws Alberta Energy Regulator Enbridge. Alberta. Pipelines
Environmental Enforcement. Kinder Morgan Pipeline Ecojustice Plains Midstream Canada
WATCH: Alberta Fishermen Make
Once-In-A-Lifetime Discovery
(http://www.huftinqtonpostca/2014/11!12/alberta-
fishermen-fossil n 6147076.hbnl?
Toll Roads In Alberta Just Got A Major
Push
(http://www. huffinqtonpostca/2014/11ti6/alberta-
toll-roads n 6166254.htnl?
It Takes A Drone To Show Alberta At
Its Rugged, Natural Best
(http://www.huffinqtonpostca/2014/11ti3/blackbird-
aerials-alberta-drone-video n 6152394.htmP
Could Alberta's Oil Boom Be Coming
To An End?
(http://www.huffinqtonpostca/2014/11ti2/albertas-
oil-boom n 614521:e.html?
Brothers Charged After Horrific
Abduction. Sex Assault Of Teen
(http://www.huffingtonpostca/2014/11ti7 /calqary-
brothers-sexual-assault-bus-stop n 6171920.html?
http ://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ecojustice/weak-laws-and-enforcement_ b _ 5482455 .html 11117/2014
C-45
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Malave and EPA Staff,
Janet Gunter <arrianeS@aol.com>
Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:45 AM
malave.maria@epa.gov
noelweiss@ca.rr.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; amartinez@earthjustice.org;
jreynolds@nrdc.org; agordon@sco.ca.gov; don.holmstrom@csb.gov;
dan.tillema@csb.gov; Rafael.Moure-Eraso@csb.gov; carl.southwell@gmail.com; rgb251
@berkeley.edu; lpryor@usc.edu; fmillarva@gmail.com; Kit Fox;
commissioners@portla.org
Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance
Standards
I am a bit confused about whether myself and/or our homeowners, San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, INC. has
already commented or not. It all gets very confusing because there are a number of comment letters that we have
submitted already. Because it is the eleventh hour, I have decided to submit the following in case I/we have not provided
comment.
In the EPA's proposed revision of hazardous air pollutant emissions from oil refineries and also your new source of
performance standards, it is our contention that this rule should also apply to all oil and organic chemical terminals and
storage sites. Also, within the refinery, it should focus on the explosivity and flammability in addition to the toxicity of
emissions and releases. This is simply prudent practice.
Our community has been fighting for "decades" the existence of a 25 million gallon butane and propane gas storage
facility that has been allowed to use a "toxics" formula for calculating their worst case blast radius, rather than the proper
"flammables" calculation. This is due to the acceptance of an "impound basin" to be used as a measure of safety
mitigation in capturing the escaping butane gas. This notion of capture is completely unsupported by science. The nature
of butane gas is that it is only "liquefied" under tank refrigeration and/or pressure. Once the escaping "liquid" meets
ambient air temperature it will rapidly vaporize and expand over 200 times its volume as a liquid. The gas is heavier than
air and will quickly overflow any basin. In this particular case, the "impound basin" would capture less than 1 % of the
tank's contents. However, the EPA has accepted this extremely false premise of safety mitigation and the Rancho LPG
facility's reported .5 mile blast radius of impact. Again, they are reporting under the "toxics" classification rather than the
appropriate "flammables". Using the proper "flammables" calculation, the reported worst case blast radius is 3.1
miles! Both propane and butane are one of the most highly explosive commodities known. In the case of a leak, a
"spark" from any one of the "on site" back up generators, or one of the many passing cars (within only feet of this facility)
will cause an explosion of serious magnitude with the likelihood of causing a "cascading failure event" upon the multitude
of existing ignition sources surrounding the facility.
Such disparity (as a 3.1 miles radius to a .5 mile radius) and minimization of risk is a great disservice to establishing the
true hazard posed to local populations and to the environment. It is reckless disregard for public safety and should not be
a practice that the EPA supports.
Rather than finding ways to "minimize" and "circumvent" the harsh realities associated with these very hazardous
commodities and their operations, we urge the EPA to embrace a stronger and more honest policy of protection and
disclosure.
Thank you for your time.
Janet Gunter
Member: San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, INC.
1 C-46
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
EPA:
Marcie Miller < marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net>
Tuesday, October 28, 2014 3:43 PM
malave.maria@epa.gov
Noel Weiss; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; Janet Gunter; amartinez@earthjustice.org;
rgb25 l@berkeley.edu; j reynolds@nrdc.org; agordon@sco.ca.gov;
don.holmstrom@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; Rafael.Moure-Eraso@csb.gov; Kit Fox;
commissioners@portla.org
Re: Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source
Performance Standards
The current request for public comment of the industry fueled Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New
Source Performance Standards is yet another frightening example of the tail, privately owned and operated hazardous and ultra-
hazardous chemical facilities, wagging the dog, EPA.
Nowhere in the founding documents of the EPA or in its mission statement is a mandate for this agency to advocate on behalf of
privately owned and operated hazardous and ultra-hazardous chemical facilities.
It is unacceptable to lower standards to enable dangerous and toxic facilities to be green lighted through the inspection process. It is
not in the interest of the United States to allow calculable, unmitigated dangers to threaten our greatest natural resource -people.
Unfortunately, honest dialogue is NEARLY impossible. "Public comment" opp01tunities such as this make a mockery of ernest and
open government. The inherently dangerous petroleum refinery, storage, and transportation industry is allowed to claim that,
"proprietary information" is none of the government's business when determining risk.
EPA must require public disclosure of all corporate and chemical information in determining actual risk. EPA must calculate true risk
through scientific, not political, means.
Case in point, the EPA bowed to PRIVATE industry pressure to mischaracterize the toxicity and flammability of liquified butane and
propane, making "safety mitigation" a red herring for real discussion. For example, Rancho LPG, LLC in San Pedro, California is
allowed to hide the unacceptable risks its 25 million gallons of liquified butane and propane storage facility poses to its neighbors
BECAUSE EPA allows a "toxics" rather than a "flammables" calculation of that risk. IF EPA and the community really shared the
common goal of protecting citizens, the EPA would immediately reclassify this risk accordingly. The industry muscle, in this case,
forced EPA to protect private interest over public. Any discussion of"risk management" now falls on EPA's shoulders to:
1. Reclassify how chemical risk is determined
2. Recalculate genuine risk
3. Refuse to permit anything but FULL DISCLOSURE, denying claims of "privileged information" in determining public risks.
Thank you,
Marcie Miller
1 C-47
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
THANK YOU SIERRA CLUB!!!!!
Janet Gunter <arrianeS@aol.com>
Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:28 PM
MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; jody.james@sbcglobal.net;
marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; darzavalney@aol.com; rregSS@hotmail.com;
igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; bonbon9073l@gmail.com; fbmjet@aol.com;
billharris2275@gmail.com; jwilliamgibson@ca.rr.com; bdellinger@the-tidings.com;
burling102@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; rgb251@berkeley.edu;
carl.southwell@gmail.com; chateau4us@att.net; lpryor@usc.edu;
amartinez@earthjustice.org; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; Kit Fox;
leneebilski@hotmail.com; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; jreynolds@nrdc.org;
dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; deartoni@yahoo.com;
peter.burmeister@att.net; joethedoor@sbcglobal.net; radlsmith@cox.net;
hvybags@cox.net; james@randomlengthsnews.com; ksmith@klct.com; lljonesin33
@yahoo.com; efsmith@cox.net
Lara.Larramendi@mail.house.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov;
lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; rachel.zaiden@mail.house.gov; agordon@sco.ca.gov;
alsattler@igc.org
Fwd: Comments of Sierra Club to EPA & DHS to meet today's deadine .... .We are so
grateful!
Ltr_to_EPA_and_DHS_re_E0_13650Jinl.pdf
1 C-48
f: ~SIERRA ~~)CLUB
· ........... --·····Palos Verdes -South Bay Group I Angeles Chapter
FOUNDED 1892
October 29, 2014
Environmental Protection Agency
Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OEM-2014-0328
Department of Homeland Security
Docket No: DHS-2013-0075
eo.chemical@hq.dhs.gov
Re: Executive Order 13650
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are the Palos Verdes-South Bay Regional Group of the Sierra Club. We attended a September 10,
2014 meeting hosted by Congressman Waxman's office at which Department of Homeland Security and
EPA staff fielded the public's questions and concerns about the Rancho LPG tanks at 2110 North Gaffey
St. in San Pedro. For some 40 years, residents have expressed concern regarding the propane and
butane tanks situated within 1,000 feet of residences and schools. As Professor Bob Bea, a risk policy
expert at UC Berkeley, has said of this Gaffey St. location, multiple factors pile on to increase the risks of
a catastrophic event. Concerns have been elevated by the fact that the tanks are aging, the area is "due"
for a serious earthquake, and, as Department of Homeland Security's David Wulf confirmed at the
September 10 meeting, the Rancho LPG site is designated as a high risk target of terrorism. EPA
enforcement staff indicated that they are limited in what they can do by the regulations that exist today,
acknowledging that their regulations may not be adequate to address concerns the public raised
regarding the propane and butane stored at the site.
We are making a number of recommendations to the Working Group charged with implementing
Executive Order 13650 with the Rancho LPG facility in mind: LPG storage tanks are located in a
concentrated area of highly flammable liquids and gases, including butane tanks, propane tanks, refinery
tanks, and marine oil terminals, within close proximity (1,000 feet or less) to residences, schools,
businesses and parks, on a serious earthquake fault. There also are numerous potential ignition sources
nearby, including internal combustion engines and flares.
Recommendation 1: Identify existing high risk facilities at which the optimal means of preventing a large
scale catastrophe in the event of a system failure would be to convert the site to a less risky operation
and move the high risk operations to a location more remote from homes and schools. Factors that
should be considered in addition to proximity to densely populated urban areas are special circumstances
such as proximity to earthquake faults and proximity to other flammables, explosives, and ignition
sources.
Recommendation 2: Adopt regulations to ensure that hazardous chemical facilities are not built or
allowed to remain in close proximity to homes and schools. The May 2014 Report for the President on
Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security--A Shared Commitment states, "There was
agreement among facility owners and operators, plant workers, community members, environmental and
union organizations of the importance of prevention of risks including the benefits of implementing safer
alternatives where possible." The single step that is guaranteed to minimize the risk to human life from a
system failure, be it accidental, act of terrorism, or natural event would be to move existing hazardous
chemical facilities and site new facilities far from neighborhoods and schools. Yet, nowhere on the lists of
priorities in the Report for the President is it recommended that high risk facilities storing or processing
volatile chemicals be required to be sited, relocated if inappropriately placed currently, in locations remote
from residences, schools, and other receptors.
P.O Box 2464 • Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274
@ Printed on Recycled Paper
C-49
Recommendation 3: Adopt regulations that require a single Federal agency to take ultimate responsibility
to implement regulations and policies that bring us into the modern era of densely populated cities and
increased threats of terrorism--a single Federal agency that will exert oversight to ensure that hazardous
chemical facilities are not built or allowed to remain situated in close proximity to homes and schools. In
the case of Rancho LPG, local land use planning and oversight failed the community and there is no one
stepping up to take responsibility. Local leaders, community members, and environmental organizations
all seem to acknowledge that the solution to the risks attendant to Rancho LPG's operations is to move
the operations to a remote location. Yet we need a higher authority committed to actually getting it done.
Recommendation 4: Mandate insurance coverage that truly reflects costs associated with a worst case
scenario. In reading a CA State Lands Commission staff report generated recently in connection with a
matter involving Rancho LPG, it appears that the insurance policies in place total $500 million. That is
apparently the entire coverage for the parent company and all of its subsidiaries including Rancho LPG.
The blast radius for an event at Rancho LPG has been estimated between 0.5 and 3 miles. The Port of
LA is within 0.5 miles of Rancho LPG and its newest terminal build out has cost in excess of $500 million.
Add the costs of loss of life, residences, schools, businesses all within the blast radius and, clearly, $500
million of insurance is not adequate.
Recommendation 5: Adopt regulations to better address environmental hazards of LPG. In particular,
amend Table 3 to Section 68.130 to reduce the reportable quantity for flammable substances. Currently,
the list of regulated flammable substances and threshold quantities for accidental release prevention
presumes that all flammables are comparable, notwithstanding that some petroleum products, such as
LPG, are more volatile, have lower flash points, and will vaporize, then ignite without dissipating because
of the vapor cloud's density relative to air. Even small leaks can result in severe injuries, yet operators
who have had small, accidental releases are not required to report them. Thus, the public and
enforcement agencies will not learn of the history of accidents until an accident is so large as to be
catastrophic.
Recommendation 6: Amend 40 CFR Part 68 to eliminate the mitigation fallacy which allows an impound
basin that would contain the spill of liquid contents of an LPG tank to serve as passive mitigation in a
worst case analysis. LPG is maintained as a liquid in its pressurized or chilled tank conditions. When
exposed to ambient air temperatures, it vaporizes and expands in volume. At Rancho LPG, an impound
basin equivalent in size to the volume of one liquid butane storage tank at that site--12.5 million gallons--
enabled Rancho to use a calculation for its worst case which decreased the predicted area to be affected
to 1/36th of the result of the formula previously required by EPA in its Guidance document. The impound
basin would be wholly inadequate to contain a release of the butane tank's contents, as the butane would
expand in volume 200 fold when exposed to ambient air temperature. An explosion resulting from the
overflowing gas vapor finding an ignition source has the potential to have devastating consequences not
only to nearby residents and schools but to the Port of LA because existing regulations fail to account for
the chemical's properties.
Recommendation 7: Overhaul regulations 1) to ensure that volatile, flammable materials such as LPG,
while differing from extremely hazardous carcinogens, are nonetheless identified for their extremely
hazardous properties and the risks they pose to human life and the environment, 2) to establish a level of
exposure for such materials at which any additional release triggers facility shut down, and 3) to ensure
that even releases during transport are required to be reported in writing and become part of the public
record.
Sincerely,
/s /s
Eva Cicoria Al Sattler
Chair, Conservation Committee Chair, Executive Committee
Sierra Club Palos Verdes-South Bay Group Sierra Club Palos Verdes-South Bay Group
P.O Box 2464 • Palos Verdes Peninsula, California 90274
@ Printed on Recycled Paper
C-50
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jody James <jodyjames@sbcglobal.net>
Friday, October 31, 2014 5:42 PM
Janet Gunter; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com;
marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; darzavalney@aol.com; rregSS@hotmail.com;
igornla@cox.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; bonbon90731@gmail.com; fbmjet@aol.com;
billharris2275@gmail.com; jwilliamgibson@ca.rr.com; bdellinger@the-tidings.com;
burling102@aol.com; pmwarren@cox.net; rgb251@berkeley.edu;
carl.southwell@gmail.com; chateau4us@att.net; lpryor@usc.edu;
amartinez@earthjustice.org; johngoya@westoceanmd.com; Kit Fox;
leneebilski@hotmail.com; claudia.r.mcculloch@gmail.com; jreynolds@nrdc.org;
dlrivera@prodigy.net; mandm8602@att.net; deartoni@yahoo.com;
peter.burmeister@att.net; joethedoor@sbcglobal.net; radlsmith@cox.net;
hvybags@cox.net; james@randomlengthsnews.com; ksmith@klct.com; lljonesin33
@yahoo.com; efsmith@cox.net
Lara.Larramendi@mail.house.gov; laurie.saroff@mail.house.gov;
lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; rachel.zaiden@mail.house.gov; agordon@sco.ca.gov;
alsattler@igc.org
Re: Fwd: Comments of Sierra Club to EPA & DHS to meet today's deadine ..... We are so
grateful!
Yes! THANK YOU for the intelligent, firm and straight-sighted letter. Much appreciation, Jody James
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 3:28 PM, Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com> wrote:
THANK YOU SIERRA CLUB!!!!!
1 C-51
NOi for 5883 Crest Road Condominium project
C-52
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: Date: October 9, 2014
5833 CREST ROAD PROJECT (PA-25-14)
Project Location: The project site is located at 5883 Crest Road in Rolling Hills Estates, Los Angeles County,
California. The project site is bounded by Crest Road on the south, the Seaview Villas condominiums on the north and
east, and Highridge Road on the west and consists of Assessor's Parcel No. 7575-003-095. The project site is located
on the Redondo Beach, California, 7.5-minute US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle. The site was
formerly developed with a gasoline service station (1966-1971) and a commercial plant nursery (1972-2003) that have
since been removed.
Project Description: The proposed project consists of the construction of four two-story, detached patio homes with a
shared driveway, which connects to Highridge Road. The proposed homes would be four-bedroom/four-bath units, with
approximately 3,295 square feet in floor area (2,880 livable square feet plus 415 square feet of garage space). All units
would have a two-car garage and one additional guest parking space for a total of 12 off-street parking spaces. The lot
size is 0.51-acre (22,366 square feet), with proposed total lot coverage of 33 percent.
The proposed project would require the following discretionary approvals from the City of Rolling Hills Estates:
1111 Grading application
111 Zone Text Amendment for development standards for lot size in the Residential Planned Development (RPD) zone
11 Minor deviation for lot coverage
111 Tentative Parcel Map for a one lot subdivision
111 Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Planned Development
11 General Plan Amendment to change the land use designations from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density
Residential
111 Zone change from Commercial Limited (CL) to RPD
111 Neighborhood Compatibility Determination for the construction of four single-family patio homes
Presence of the Site on Hazardous Waste-Related Lists: The project site is not included on any lists of hazardous
waste sites enumerated pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. While not listed on such sites,
the site was previously occupied by a gasoline service station and a commercial plant nursery that have since been
removed. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments have been prepared for site, which conclude that
there are no recognized environmental conditions on the site.
Environmental Determination: The Initial Study/Environmental Checklist that has been prepared for the project
recommends that the lead agency adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
Public Review Period:
October 9, 2014 to November 24, 2014
Date, Time, and Location of Public Meeting: The City of Rolling Hills Estates has scheduled a Public Hearing before
the Planning Commission on December 1, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Rolling Hills Estates City Council Chambers, 4045
Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills Estates, CA, 9027 4. The project will also require a Public Hearing before the
City of Rolling Hills Estates City Council at the conclusion of the Planning Commission Public Hearing at a date to be
determined.
Address/location where the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for review:
City of Rolling Hills Estates City Hall
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
Hours: Monday -Thursday: 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Friday: 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Peninsula Center Library
701 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
Hours: Monday-Thursday: 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; Friday: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; Saturday: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.;
and Sunday: 1 :00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
City of Rolling Hills Estates Website, Project Updates Page
http://www.ci.rolling··hills-estates.ca. us/index.aspx?page=129
(City of Rolling Hills Estates Website; 4 What's New tab; 4 Project Updates tab; 4 5883 Crest Road Project tab)
Please send written comments to: Niki Wetzel, AICP, City of Rolling Hills Estates, 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North,
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 902741 tel. 310.377.1577 x 115 I fax (310) 377-44681 e: £::!.ikiW@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us
C-53
Staff comments on MND for
5883 Crest Road Condominium project
C-54
CITYC)F
17 November 2014
Niki Wetzel, AICP, Principal Planner
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Dr. N.
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
l~NCHO PALCJS VEr~oEs
--,1····1 v M "N \('Cf ·)is··-, c···>r1···1c '[-(_; I /·\ /\~.AL.'.."-... r· -.A ..
ADMINISTl\ATIOf'-1
VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL
SUBJECT: Comments in Response to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for a 4-Unit Detached Condominium Project at
5883 Crest Road (PA No. 25~'14)
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above-mentioned project. We
have reviewed the MND and project exhibits, and offer the following comments:
1. The discussion of Aesthetics in the Initial Study (pp. 22-25) notes that the proposed
project is expected to have less-than-significant impacts with respect to the privacy
of surrounding properties. Table 111-1 makes specific reference to the impact of
proposed balconies or decks upon "the existing privacy of surrounding properties."
The Initial Study correctly notes that residences in Rancho Palos Verdes to the
south and southwest of the project site will be separated from the project, both
horizontally by the existing, improved right-of-way of Crest Road and vertically by
the difference in elevation. Nevertheless, the City remains concerned about the
potential for privacy infringement upon Rancho Palos Verdes residents as a result
of any 2nd_f1oor decks or balconies along the southerly facades of proposed Units
3 and 4. It is not clear if such decks or balconies are proposed for these units or
not, but if they are, the City suggests requiring them to include a solid, opaque 42-
inch-tall barrier around the perimeter, measured from the surface of the deck or
balcony. This will protect the privacy of downslope properties in Rancho Palos
Verdes while still affording opportunities for ocean and Catalina Island views for
future residents of the project.
2. The discussion of Transportation/Traffic in the Initial Study (pp. 26-27) concludes
that the proposed project will have no significant impacts on traffic. The· City
concurs with this assessment. In a related matter, however, we note that the
project proposes to remove and replace existing driveway approaches along Crest
'.lOrMu I 11\1N r11n1<NE BLvu. /RANCHO l'l\tus VtmJrn ( ;/\ no11:,·:<m1 I n1nJ ~A4·:>:>us / h'\X ('.l1U) :,4.1 :',;)(11
\\\.\1\VJ'.;\l (1S\-H~Uf-F.f ;( )>J/f<P\·
l)wnrrr:i <1ri f<tc'ii.::t.t.:u H\H .. k C-55
Niki Wetzel
17 November 2014
Page 2
Road as a part of the project. The driveway approaches, sidewalk and other right-
of-way improvements along the Crest Road frontage of the project site are located
within Rancho Palos Verdes. As such the project conditions should clearly state
that any proposed modifications require the approval of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Public Works Department. Furthermore, any other deficiencies in these existing
right-of-way improvements should be repaired by the project proponent.
3. The discussion of Air Quality and Noise impacts in the Initial Study (pp. 28-38)
identify less-than-significant air quality and noise impacts during project
construction. The Rancho Palos Verdes residences located closest to the project
site-and, therefore, most likely to be affected by dust and noise-are located on
Highridge Road in the Seacrest neighborhood and Sail View Avenue in the
Seabreeze neighborhood of Rancho Palos Verdes. The City of Rancho Palos
Verdes agrees that the proposed project seems unlikely to result in significant
construction-related impacts to surrounding properties. However, the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes asks to be kept apprised of project status as it moves
through the building permit process so that we will be able to advise our residents
and City Council about the project's construction status, and to refer residents to
the appropriate contacts in the event of any construction-related complaints.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this project. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5226
or via e-mail at kitf@rpv.com.
Sincerely,
/
/// -7 I< ., ,;,~~ ~c:7
1/v" v' /
Kit Fox, AICP
Senior Administrative Analyst
cc: Mayor Duhovic and City Council
Carolynn Petru, Acting City Manager
Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development
Michael Throne, Director of Public Works
M:\Border lssues\5883 Crest Road\20141117 _MNDComments.docx
C-56
RH Planning Commission Staff report
C-57
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
~-,_,~ A/ ~/~~A'A 11""7/_,/J/J"' ~ ~ "~ 1"'f'ta,,(,I. INCORPORATEDJANUARY
NOVEMBER 18, 2014
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: SB
Mtg. Date: 11/18/14
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 852, SUBDMSION NO. 93
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REQUEST
AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72232
80 SADDLEBACK ROAD
(LOT67-RH)
RA-S-1, 7.051 ACRES GROSS
MR. AND MRS. GERALD TURP ANJIAN
BOLTON ENGINEERING
QCTOBER30, 2014
1. The applicants request to subdivide one existing lot located at 80 Saddleback
Road totaling 7.051 acres (gross) into 2 parcels. Parcel 1 is proposed to be 2.40 acres
gross and 1.96 acres net and Parcel 2 is proposed to be 4.64 acres gross and 3.71 acres
net. The addresses of the proposed additional parcels will be established during plan-
check of the future development, however the two possible new addresses are "84" for
Lot 1 while "80" will be retained for Lot 2.
The lot is currently vacant. A residence that previously occupied the mid-portion of the
original parcel was demolished in 2013 and some landscaping in the form of lawns,
trees and shrubbery remains. No plans have been submitted for new home
development. The existing driveway that served the former home will be closed off and
a new access driveway will be constructed for each of the two lots from Saddleback
Road.
2. The project site is bounded on the north, west and north-east by properties in the
City of Rolling Hills that are similarly zoned (RA-S-1) and developed with single family
ZC 852 -TPM 72232
C-58
homes on minimum one-acre lots. To the south and south-west the project site is
bounded by a parcel owned by the City of Rolling Hills, similarly zoned a portion of
which is used for recreational equestrian purposes ("The Caballeros Ring"). The
property bordering on the south east, separated by a steep canyon, is an undeveloped
14.64 acre parcel ("The Georgeff Parcel") in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and is in
the process of being purchased by the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
3. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and after
reviewing the application, staff prepared an Initial Study (IS) for the proposed
subdivision. The Initial Study is a preliminary evaluation of potential impacts and also
identifies mitigation measures to address impacts. Staff has concluded that the project
will not have a significant effect on the environment, subject to incorporation of
mitigation measures, including a requirement for the applicant to conduct a Biological
Resource Evaluation and Assessment for the project site. The biological study will be
incorporated into the project application for review by the Planning Commission
during the course of the public hearing process.
Accordingly, a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared, copy
attached. As required by CEQA, staff mailed the Initial Study to local cities, and state
agencies for their comments. To date, no comments have been received from any of the
agencies.
REQUIRED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
4. Pursuant to the City of Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance, the Planning
Commission is the advisory agency for review of subdivisions and the Commission
therefore makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission's
recommendation must be supported by findings regarding both the subdivision map
and environmental determination (Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration). The City
Council is the final authority to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove a
subdivision request.
If the Planning Commission acts to recommend approval, the Commission must show
affirmative findings that Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 72232 complies with the City's
Subdivision Ordinance and General Plan, specifying that it does not require rejection
pursuant to Section 16.12.150 of the Municipal Code. That code section specifies that a
Tentative Map shall be rejected if it is found that:
1. The proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans;
2. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed;
3. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development;
ZC 852 -TPM 72232 C-59
4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure wildlife or their habitat;
5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to
cause serious public health or safety problems;
6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use
of, property within the subdivision. In this connection, the City Council
may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for
use, will be provided, and that these shall be substantially equivalent to
ones previously acquired by the public."
SUBDIVISION MAP REVIEW PROCESS
5. Willdan Engineering, acting as the City Engineer, has reviewed Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map 72232 pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act and
Chapter 16 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (Subdivisions) for compliance with
standards in areas including streets, soils, geology and grading. Willdan has also
coordinated map review by several agencies, including fire prevention, health services
and sewage disposal with Los Angeles County and water availablility with California
Water Service.
Reports containing the reviews and recommendations of the various agencies for the
subject subdivision are attached.
6. The conditions that are recommended by Willdan Engineering or identified in
the Initial Study will be incorporated in the Resolution of approval if and when this
subdivision is approved. The Planning Commission may recommend additional
requirements and conditions for this project as deemed appropriate to ensure
compliance with the Municipal Code and General Plan, including any that are
recommended from the bi9logical study.
Staff notes that the recommended conditions contained in the attached agency reports
are routine requirements. One special condition requested by the Los Angeles County
Fire Department is that the applicant upgrade fire hydrants on Saddleback Road to
meet water system /1 fire flow" standards.
7. The subject subdivision map is subject to separate review and approval by the
Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA). All requirements of the RHCA will be
incorporated by reference as a condition of the adopted resolution, if the subdivision is
approved.
ZC 852 -TPM 72232 C-60
ROLLING HILLS SUBDIVISION CODE STANDARDS
8. Pursuant to Title 16, Subdivision Ordinance and Title 17, Zoning Ordinance of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the following issues of code compliance are subject to
evaluation by the Planning Commission:
A. Lot Size. The subject property is located in the RAS-1 zone, requiring that
each lot be a minimum of one acre net in size (43,560 square feet). The applicants
propose to subdivide one existing 7.051 (gross) acre lot into two lots, consisting of
Parcel 1 having 2.40 acres gross and 1.96 acres net, Parcel 2 having 4.64 acres gross and
3.71 acres net. The proposed net lot areas exceed one acre (net) in size and therefore the
proposed subdivision complies with the minimum lot size requirement for the RAS-1
zone.
B. Lot sideline angles. Where practicable, the sidelines of lots shall be at
approximate right angles to or radial to the street upon which such lot fronts. The
proposed lots meet this requirement.
C. Setbacks. A subdivision shall not create a non-conforming situation for
any of the proposed lots. All structures on the subject have been demolished and the
property is currently vacant, therefore no nonconformities in terms of structure setbacks
will be created. Any future development, on both lots will be subject to City's
development standards, including setbacks.
D. Easements. 10-foot wide easements are proposed along both sides and the
rear of the proposed lot lines. The width of the easements will be confirmed when the
project is reviewed by the Rolling Hills Community Association. Saddleback Road has
varied roadway easements in the area of the lot. A portion of Saddleback has 55 feet
roadway easement and a portion has 50 feet roadway easement. The City's Subdivision
Ordinance (section 16.16.090) requires 60-feet roadway right of ways or easements,
therefore the applicant will dedicate additional frontage on his property to attain 30-
foot roadway easement. When and if the properties across the street from subject
property are subdivided, they too would have to dedicate additional frontage along
Saddleback Road.
E. Lot width along street frontage. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that
the width along the street easement line shall be equal to the lot depth divided by 2.5,
but in no case less than 150 feet. All of the proposed frontages, along Saddleback Road,
will be at least 150 feet and therefore comply: Parcel 1 will have approximately 178 feet
of frontage and Parcel 2 will have approximately 701 feet of frontage.
F. Lot width along all points. The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that
the width along all points of new parcels be not less than 150 feet. The two proposed
parcels are irrgular in shape, however both will meet or exceed the minimum
ZC 852 -TPM 72232 (0 C-61
requirement. The narrower lot, Parcel 1, has a width ranging between 178 and 200 feet
(approximately) within the front 85 feet of the lot, off Saddleback Road which increases
to 240 feet at the widest point.
G. Building pad. Pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance, a minimum of
12,000 square foot building pad must be shown as being able to be created on each
home site. The tentative map proposes a 27,650 square foot pad for Parcel 1, and 33,901
square foot pad for Parcel 2 and both lots also provide building pads in the rear for a
future minimum 450 square foot stable and 550 square foot contiguous corral. All of the
proposed pad areas are shown on the tentative map for demonstration and feasibility
purposes only. The building pads' size and location will be finalized when future
home development is designed. All new construction will be subject to the City's
development standards.
H. Grading. In order to create building pads and driveways the total amount
of grading for the subdivision will be 19,370 cubic yards. Factoring in fill with
shrinkage, over-excavation and recompaction, the grading will be balanced overall. The
amount of disturbed areas proposed as a result of grading is as follows: Parcel 1: a total
of 34,129 square feet is proposed to be disturbed (39.84%) and Parcel 2: 62,304 square
feet (38.56%). The amount of proposed disturbed area for both lots complies with the
maximum amount of permitted disturbed net lot area (40%). Future construction on
both parcels will be required to meet this standard.
I. Street Grades. The city's subdivison standards require that no street may
have a grade of more than 6 % , except where impractical with a grade no steeper than a
10% slope and maximum slope of 17% for a distance of not more than 150 feet. Both
parcels will have access from an existing street, therefore this standard does not apply.
J. Roadway access/Driveways. As noted, an existing driveway that served
the former residence on the property will be removed. Two new driveways will be
constructed, providing independent vehicular access for each lot from Saddleback
Road. Stable access will also be provided on each lot.
Each of the two new primary driveways will have a 26-foot wide apron, which will
taper to a 20-foot wide driveway and have a slope of 7% at the entry off Saddleback
Road and 12% at the steepest point. For Parcel 1 the accessway to the area set aside for
a future stable will be tributary from the main house driveway, however the stable
access for Parcel 2 will be taken directly from Saddleback Road. Because the Parcel 2
stable accessway will be a second driveway for that parcel intersecting Saddleback
Road, appproval is required from the City Traffic Commission. The driveway aprons,
inlcuding stable accessway on Parcel 2 will be considered by the Traffic Commssion at
its November 20, 2014 meeting.
ZC 852 -TPM 72232 C-62
Section 16.16.170 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that the grade for access to the
building pad have a maximum slope of 12 % , and 25 % maximum for the stable
accessways. The Zoning Code also requires that the width of a driveway not exceed 20
feet. Both of the proposed driveways and stable accessways will meet the applicable
slope and width criteria. The proposed 20-foot driveway width is also in compliance
with Fire Department requirements.
When constructed, the driveway to Lot 2 will require retainig walls ranging from a curb
to 5' in height.
K. Soils/geology. Upon its review of preliminary soils, geology and
percolation reports, Willdan Engineering has deemed the lot "buildable". However,
additional soils, geology, hydrology, percolation and other tests and studies will have
to be performed prior to issuance of any construction permit. Soils and geology have
been approved at this time for feasibility only.
L. Utility lines. Electric power is currently provided overhead from a utility
pole on Saddleback Road opposite Parcel 2. The applicant will be required to place all
electrical utility service to the parcels underground in accordance with Southern
California Edison requirements as a condition of final map approval.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Willdan Engineering, acting as City Engineers, completed preliminary engineering
review of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72232 pursuant to all state and City of
Rolling Hills subdivision regulations and has recommended to proceed to the Planning
Commission for City planning review and approval.
All construction of new homes on the proposed two lots that is shown on the tentative
map is provided at this time only to demonstrate future development feasibility. Any
future development will be subject to, minimally, Site Plan Review approval in a public
hearing to be conducted by the Planning Commission .
It is recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, take public
testimony and schedule a field trip to the project site.
ZC 852 -TPM 72232 C-63
October 14, 2014
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Ms. Y olanta Schwartz
~a. /wrLLDAN -W' Engineering
E
OCT 15 2014
City of Rolling Hills
BY~dW .. M -
Subject: Parcel Map 72232, 80 Saddleback Road
Dear Ms. Schwartz:
Willdan has completed its review of Parcel Map No. 72232, a proposed two lot division
located at 80 Saddleback Road. I have distributed the soils reports to Willdan
Geotechnical and they have reviewed the reports for the Subdivision of the land and deep
disposal of the sewerage. I have not been in contact with the Health Officer but the
disposal report has been reviewed. Attached with this letter please find my proposed
conditions, Fire Department recommended conditions of approval with the authorization
to proceed to the Planning Commission. As a two lot project rather than the three lot that
they began with the prominent lot take advantage of the high knob that the old home sat
on. They are proposing to widen the driveway to this lot and a very minor redesign may
be needed to allow the Fire Department to access this driveway entrance.
Willdan Engineering
~L~
Elroy L Kiepke
Consultant
extending
your
reach
Engineerlng and Planning I Energy Efficiency and Sustainability I Financial and Economic Consulting I National Preparedness and Interoperability
562.908.6200 I B00.499.4484 I fax: 562.695..2120 J 13191 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 405, Industry, California 91746·3443 I www.wllldan.com C-64
October 9, 2014
Project No: 101749-2010
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REVIEW
Submitted to: Elroy Kiepke, Willdan Engineering
Project Location: 80 Saddleback Road
City of Rolling Hills, California
WILLDAN
Geotechnical
extending
your
reach
Report Reviewed: "Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology Investigation,
Proposed Residential Development, 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills,
California" Dated February 5, 2013, Prepared by Hamilton & Associates,
Project No.: 12-1625
Review Status:
Notes to City
"Report of Deep Seepage Pit Percolation Testing, Three (3) Lot
Subdivision, 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills, California" Dated August
23, 2013, Prepared by Hamilton & Associates, Project No.: 13-1700
REPORTS ARE APPROVED from Geoteclmical View point for
Planning Level and Proposed Subdivision
This approval is only for planning and proposed subdivision purposes. Fo11owing reports are
required for grading and building pennits for each lot:
1. Update detail geotechnical reports, and
2. Copies of Referenced Reports for subject address and County of Los Angeles approval
for the previous work.
This review was performed in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical
engineering principles and practice in Southern California at this time. We make no other
warranty, either express or implied. Conclusions presented herein are based on review of work
by others. No field exploration or laboratory testing was performed. Please contact us if you
have questions or need additional services.
Respectfully Submitted
Respectfully submitted,
WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL
~-;;~_:;? r:\ .
d--~ l:_.,j /_,,____........,.....IL _.1ci.-._. ....
Ross Khiabani, PE, GE
Director of Geotechnical Engineering Services
C 37156, GE 2202
Distribution: Addressee (via e-mail)
Engineering I Geotechnical I Environmental I Sustainability I Financial j Homeland Security
Phone 714.634.3318 j fax: 714.634.337211515 South Sunkist Street, Suite E. Anaheim, CA 928061 www.willdan.com C-65
Page 1
MEMORANDUM
To: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
From: Elroy Kiepke, Consultant
Date: October 7, 2014
Re: TENTATIVE MAP NO. 72232
As requested I have reviewed the above referenced map and have no objections to its
Presentation to the Planning Commission. The following conditions of approval shall be
included in any conditional approval resolution adopted by the Commission.
GENERAL
1. Details shown on the tentative map are not necessarily approved. Any details,
which are inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of
approval, or City policies, must be specifically approved in the final map or
improvement plan approvals.
FINAL MAP
2. A final map prepared by, or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer
authorized to practice land surveying, or a Licensed Land Surveyor, must be
processed through the City Engineer's office prlor to being filed with the County
Recorder.
3. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and
encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final map is
released for filing with the County Recorder.
4. Monumentation of map boundaries, street centerline and lot boundaries is required
for a map based on a field survey.
C-66
Page 2
5. Approval for filing of this land division is contingent upon approval of plans and
specifications mentioned below. If the improvements are not installed prior to the
filing of this division, the developer must submit an Undertaking Agreement and a
Faithful ·performance and Labor and Materials Bond in the amount estimated by the
City Engineer guaranteeing the installation of the improvements.
6. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and/or permit fees
approved by City Council subsequent to tentative approval of this map.
DRAINAGE AND GRADING
7. A grading and drainage plan must provide for each lot having an independent
drainage system to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or by means of an
approved drainage easement.
ROAD
8. Driveways serving private property shall meet Fire Department standards for
access. The turn from south or west bound Saddleback Road to the driveway
serving parcel 2 shall be approved prior to the issuance of Grading or building
permits for Parcel 2 by the Fire Department.
9. The developer shall obtain HOA approval for the street adjoining this subdivision.
Any improvements required by the HOA shall be bonded for prior to the recordation
of the final map.
SEWER
10. Approval of this land division is subject to the Health Officers approval that a Septic
System can be installed on each Parcel.
UTILITIES
11. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the
developer's expense.
WATER
12. All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities, which shall
include fire hydrants of the size, type and location as determined by the Fire Chief.
13. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and
fire flow required for the land division. It appears based on the preliminary review by
C-67
Page3
the Fire Department the main line within Saddleback is not of sufficient size to meet
the fire flow and domestic needs of this property.
14. Plans and specifications for the water system facilities shall be submitted for
approval to the California Water Service for this land division. The subdivider shall
submit an agreement and other evidence, satisfactory to the City, indicating that the
subdivider has entered into a contract with the servicing water purveyor
guaranteeing payment and installation of the water improvements.
15. Prior to the filing of the final map, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a
statement from the water purveyor indicating subdivider compliance with the Fire
Chiefs fire flow requirements.
LID REQUIREMENTS
The City of Rolling Hills is regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los
Angeles Region by Order R4-2012-0175. As required by this Order, the City has adopted
Chapter 8.32 to establish development standards for maintaining the Water Quality of
storm water and non-storm water discharges from the City. This project is subject to the
LID provisions because:
1. It is a "single family hillside residential development0
2. It is a "new Development that is adjacent to or discharges directly to an ESA
and creates 2,500 sq. ft. of impervious coverage.
16. Based on this determination development of these two lots shall complywith section
8.32 of the Rolling Hills Municipal code.
C-68
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
C-69
..... -~
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT
5823 Rickrnbackcr Road
Commerce, California 90049
WATER SYSTEM UEQUIREMENTS -INCORPORATED
Subdivision No: PM 72232 Map Date March 5~ 2014
80 Saddl~back Road
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
City Ro!Ung Hills
[8} Provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land shown o
map which shall be recorded.
[8} The required tire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 2§00 gallons per minute al 20 psi for a duration (}f ..l. hours. over
and above maximum daily domestic demand. .!. Hydrant(s) flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flc
0 The required fire flow for on-site fire hydrants at this location is_ gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of_ hours, o
and above maximum daily domestic demand. _ Hydrant(s) flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire t
~ Fire hydrant requirements are as follows:
Install_ public fire hydrant(s). Upgrade 1 Verify (flow test) __ existing Public fire hydrant(s).
Install_ private on-site fire hydrant(s). Upgrade_ Verify (flow test) __ existing On-Site fire hydrant(s).
All hydrants shaU measure 6"x 4"x 2· 112" brass or bronze, confonning to current A WW A standard C503 or approved equal. All
on-site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25' feet from a stnlcture or protected by a two (2) hour rated firewall.
(8) Location: As per map on file with the Qffice.
[81 Other location: Ungrade two existing 4' fire h\·drants on Saddleback Road nearest the nroposcd development.
Existing single outlet 2 ~inch wharf hydrants sfrnU be upgraded to a double outlet 6" x 4"x 2 W' hydran.t(s) when
tlie reguired fire flow exceeds 1,25{) GPM. All new required fire hydrant installations shall be apnroved
6" x 4"x l W' hydrant(s)
[8J All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for prior to Final Map approval.
Vehicular access shall be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction.
181 Additi-Onal water system requirements may be required when this land is further subdivided and/or during the building pem1it
process.
0 Fire hydrant upgrade is not necessary if existing hydrant(s) meet(s) fire flow requirements.
Submit original water availability fonn to this office.
0 SUBMIT COMPLETED (ORIGINAL ONLY) FIRE FLOW AVAILABILITY fORM TO THIS OFFICE FOR REVIEW.
COMMENTS: Rc\•iew of the submitted Fire Flow Form 195, dated July 11, 2014, indicates inadequate Ore flow availability and
inadequate hydrant size for the existing fire hydrants. the existing fire protection water system is required to be
upgraded to complv with the required fire flow requirements and hydrant requirements. Upgrade the existing
fire protection water system to nrovide the mfnimµni regujrcd fire flow requirements.
Upgrade two existing 4' fire hydrants on Saddlcbatk Road nenrest the pr.oposcd deveJopmcnt.
Existing single outlet 2 1h inch wllarf hydrants shall be upgraded to a double outlet 6" x 4"x 2 !h" when the
required fire flow exceeds 1,250 GPM. Atl fire hvdr:mts shall measure 6'x4"x2 l/2'i, bn1ss or bronze, conforminE
to American Water Works Association Standard C503. or annroved equal, and shall be installed in accordance
wi'th the County of Los Angeles Fire Depnrcmcnt Regulation 8.
All required fire hvdrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for prior to Fina) Map approval.
All reau.ired nrc hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for nrior to final map aporoval.
Actual fire flow requirements for future structures may be rccalcu.h\ted utilizing the Countv of Los Angeles Fire
Code Appendix B Table Bl 05.1.
All hydrants shall be installed in confonnancc with Tille 20, Coumy of Los Angcfos -Om·emmc11l Code and County or Los Angeles Fjro Code. ru appropriate City rcgulatior
111is shall include minimum six-inch diamelcr. niains. AITllngc11u::111s to meet these requirements must be made with the wnler purveyor scl'\""l11g the nrea.
By Inspector Nancy r.Rocfelieffer jfl .. Date August 19, 2014
' Land Development Unit -Fire Prevention Division -(323) 890-4243. Fax (323) 890-9783
0)
...,_.,_~ C-70
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
FIRE DEPARTMENT
5823 Rickenbacker Road
Commerce, California 90040
CONDJTlONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDJV1SIONS -INCORPORATED
Subdivision No: PM 72232 Map Date March 5, 2014
80 Saddleback Road
C.U.P. -------------------City Rolling Hills
D FIRE DEPARTMENT HOLD on the tentative map shall remain until verification from the Los Angeles County fire Dept.
Planning Section is received, stating adequacy of service. Contact (323) 881-2404.
[8) Access shall comply with Section 503 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access.
All weather access may require paving.
181 Fire Department Access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion of all structures.
[81 Where driveways extend further than 150 foet and arc of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection
equipment use sbnll be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shalJ be designed, constructed and maintained
to insure their integrity for Fire Departmcm use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways
that extend over 150 feet in length.
l'2'J Private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Firelane" with the widths clearly depicted
and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code.
rzJ Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydratlts.
All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction.
t8J This property is located within the area described by the Fire D~artmcnt as "Very High Fire Hawrd Se\•erily Zone" {formerly
Fire Zone 4). A .. Fuel Modification Plan'' shall be submined and approved prior to final map clearance. (Contact the Fuel
Modification Unit, Fire Station #32, 605 North Angeleno Avenue. Azusa, CA 91702-2904. Phone (626) 969-5205, for details).
[8] Provide Fire Department or City approved street signs and building access numbers prior to occupancy.
D Additional tire protection systems shall be installed in lieu of suitable nccess and/or fire protection water.
0 The final concept map, which has been submitted to this departmenl for review, has fulfilled the conditions of approval
recommended by this department for access only.
0 The Fire Department, Land Development Unit has no additional requirements for this division of land at this time. Addilional
Fire Department requirements will be required when this land is further subdivided and/or during the building pennit process.
Comments: This project as submitted is cleared for public hearing.
Submit three copies of the final map to LACoF'D. Land Development for review and approval prior lo recordation.
INSPECTOR Nancv :llodi!lieffe'fL: DATE August 19, 2014
Land Dcvelopmenl Unit -Fire Prevention Division ·-{323) 890-4243, fax (323) 890-9783
Fo1111 266 9f01
C-71
APPLICATION NO:
PROPOSED PROJECT:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL STUDY
ZONING CASE NO. 852, SUBDIVISION NO. 93 AND
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72232
Request to subdivide one existing 7.051 acres (gross) vacant lot into 2
parcels each with a minimum area of 1 (net) acre. Prior to the tentative
map submittal, a residence that had occupied proposed Lot 2, was
demolished, therefore, while no new home construction is proposed at
this time, the development anticipated will be for 2 new homes and
related grading, of which 1 home is a net additional unit.
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS:
Mr. Jerry Turpanjian
22 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
LOCATION OF PROJECT: 80 Saddleback Road (Lot 67-RH)
ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel Nos.: 7569-005-008
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Agricultural-Suburban -2 acre minimum net lot area.
EXISTING ZONING: RA-S-1, Residential Agricultural-Suburban 1-Acre
PROPOSED ZONING: No change. RA-S-1, Residential Agricultural-Suburban 1-Acre
PROPOSED LOT SIZES: Parcel 1: 2.40 gross acres, 1.96 net acres
Parcel 2: 4.64 gross acres, 3.71 net acres
LOCATION MAP: Attached.
I. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY
A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section I. of the
City's CEQA Guidelines. If more than one application is filed on the same site,
consider them together as one project).
L Yes No
1. If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in
Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable
possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special
circumstances?
Yes No ..!L_N/A
II. INITIAL STUDY REVIEW
A.
ZC No. 852
PM 72232
Does the project require a 30-day State Clearinghouse review for any of the
following reasons?_Yes L No
1 C-72
.......,--1·. "7,,-¥:;.,-~,,,,_, .....,~,.. tollA_...,~ ~
••••• w _ ... ...._ --
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
TITLE VICINITY MAP CASE NO. ZONING CASE NO. 852, Subdivision No. 93
TPM No. 72232
APPLICANT Jerry Turpanjian
ADDRESS 80 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills SITE
C-73
1. The lead agency is a state agency.
2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has
discretionary approval over the project).
3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and
Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of
California, and State Lands Commission).
4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the
following:
(A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof
for which an EIR was prepared.
(B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or
maintenance of State or national air quality standards including:
(1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling
units.
(2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment
employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than
500,000 square feet of floor space.
(3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than
1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet
of floor space.
(4) A proposed hotel/motel development of more than 500 rooms.
(5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or
industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons
occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more
than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
(C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife
habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and
endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code
Section 903.
(D) A project, which would interfere with attainment of regional water
quality standards as stated in the approved areawide wastewater
management plan.
Ill. PROJECT ASSESSMENT
A. Project Description:
Request to subdivide one existing vacant lot 7.051 acres (gross) in area into 2 parcels
that will each have a minimum land area of 1 acre (net). No new development is
proposed at this time, however the submitted plans indicate potential future development
of two new homes with related grading.
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 2 C-74
Any future development on the proposed 2 parcels will require conformance with the City
of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance and all other City, County and Rolling Hills Community
Association's requirements.
B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the
present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or
scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the
structures.)
The project site consists of one lot (Lot 67-RH) with land area measuring 7.051 acres. It
is currently vacant - a residence that previously occupied proposed Lot 2 was
demolished in 2013. Non native landscaping from the prior home remain in part. Other
than the prior building pad area, the remaining lot area consists of undulating hills and
knolls covered by mature shrubs and trees, some native trees, plants and grasses with
some areas being heavily wooded. Native birds and animals frequent the area such as
sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers and an occasional fox. Historically,
no endangered species of animals have been identified in this area of the City.
C. Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Single family dwelling unit on lot of one acre or more within the City of
Rolling Hills zoned RA-S-1 -Residential Agricultural Suburban-1 acre.
East: Single family dwelling unit on lot of one acre or more within the City of
Rolling Hills zoned RA-S-1 -Residential Agricultural Suburban-1 acre.
South: Vacant land, "George F. Parcel" (APN 7568-006-008, 14.63 acres) in
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, currently zoned "OH" (Open Space
Hazard"). -being acquired by Palos Verdes· Peninsula Land
Conservancy for use as a nature preserve. (Source: RPV City Council
Report 9/16/14-Agenda Item E.)
West: Public Riding Ring -land owned by the City of Rolling Hills (Zoning:
RA-S-1 -Residential Agricultural Suburban-1 acre)
D. Is the proposed project consistent with:
City of Rolling Hills General Plan
Applicable Specific Plan
City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
South Coast Air Quality Management Plan
Congestion Management Plan
Regional Comprehensive Plan
Yes No N/A
E. Have any of the following studies been submitted?
1t_ Geology Report
~ Hydrology Report
~ Soils Report
_ Traffic Study
_ Noise Study
1t_ Biological Study (in process)
_ Native Vegetation
Preservation Plan
_ Solid Waste Generation Report
_ Public Service Infrastructure Report
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 3
-·-Historical Report
_Archaeological Report
_ Paleontological Study
_Line of Sight Exhibits
_Visual Analysis
LSlopeMap
_ Fiscal Impact Analysis
_Air Quality Report
Hazardous Materials/Waste
C-75
Geology, hydrology and soils reports and a slope map have been submitted to the City's
Engineer (Wllldan Engineering under contract to City of Rolling Hills) and it has been determined
that the subject site is feasible for subdivision purposes. Under a contract with the City of Rolling
Hills, Los Angeles County Health Department (septic system review) and Fire Department have
reviewed the proposed subdivision, finding it is feasible for subdivision purposes. A separate
review of soils, geology, hydrology and slope stability will be required by the City's Engineer and
Building Official prior to any development on either of the proposed lots subsequent to
subdivision;
In addition, the applicant has been directed to submit to the City a written report assessing the
biological resources if any for the subject site (see Item IV. Biological Resources).
IV. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one)
__ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
_X_I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
__ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
__ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
__ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
This initial study was prepared by:
Date: October 23, 2014
ZC No. 852
PM 72232
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
4 C-76
V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone}. A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards
(e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-
specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then
the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation lncorporatedb applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe
the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," above may
be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. See State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were
incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site·specific conditions for the project.
6} Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference
to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that
are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 5 C-77
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Issues:
b. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
!t. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model {1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
fil. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 6
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporation
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D ml
D ml
ml D
IXI D
D
D IXI
D ml
C-78
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 7
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
l ncorporation
D D D
D D
D D D !XI
D D D !XI
D D a
a D a
D D D
D IE D D
D D a
D D
C-79
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001 ), creating
substantial risks to life and property?
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 8
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
D D D
D D D
D D D [ii
D D D [ii
D
D D D
D D ml D
D D IE D
D D IE
D D IE D
D D [ii D
D D D
C-80
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
YU. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project areal
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 9
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation ---
D D D
D D 0
0 0 0
D D
D D
D D D
D D
0 D D
D D 0
C-81
vm. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
--Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or areas including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or areas including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f) Othetwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING --Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 10
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
·----------
D D a IE
D D D IE
D
D D D
D D D
D D D IE
D D D IE
Cl CJ CJ IE
D D D IE
Cl D
D CJ Cl
C-82
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL ~_ESOURCES --Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE-Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b} Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels.
f} For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 11
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
Cl Cl
Cl Cl Cl
Cl Cl Cl
Cl D
D D D
D D Iii Cl
D D ml D
D D D
D D D
C-83
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
xm. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 12
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
D D D
D D
D D D
D D !XI D
D D !XI D
D D D !XI
D D D !XI
Cl Cl Cl ml
D D D
D D D
C-84
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections?
b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 13
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
D D
0 D
0
D D D IE]
D D D IE]
D D D IE]
D D D IE]
Cl D D IE]
D D D
D D D
C-85
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater D D
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted D
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and D D
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MAND.A TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the D D
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually D D
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which D D
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Evaluation of
Environmental Impacts Issues Checklist Form, which preceded this page. A detailed discussion
of all potential environmental impacts checked "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant lmpacr is provided, along
with appropriate mitigation measures.
EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST IMPACTS
Item I. AESTHETICS.
a,b NO IMPACT-the City of Rolling Hills does not !lave a scenic vista areas designation in its
General Plan. Any future development is subject to Planning Commission review.
Neighbors will have an opportunity to view a silhouette of any future development during
the public hearing process for new development.
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 14
No
Impact
D
D
D
D
C-86
c., d LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT -There is no evidence that the subdivision of one
lot into two minimum 1-acre parcels and the potential future construction of two new
single-family residences and their attendant accessory structures on the subdivided
parcels will substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and/or
surrounding properties. Enforcement of all applicable Municipal Code zoning and building
standards and requirements, for all phases of the future development through
construction will ensure that the existing visual character or quality of the site and
surrounding properties is not substantially degraded. Enforcement includes field review
by the Planning Commission during both the Subdivision and subsequent discretionary
Ste Plan Review process for each of the two new homes. During the subdivision
approval process, the Planning Commission has the opportunity and authority to limit the
finished floor height of a future residence, and the height of the required landscaping. The
Planning Commission will have further opportunity to review and limit grading and
preserve scenic resources more explicitly for each individual home site under the Site
Plan Review process.
Residential building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings &
Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community
Association. Buildings are limited to one story in height and the Zoning Ordinance strictly
limits outdoor lighting on private properties. The future construction of up to two single
story single family residences and accessory structures, while introducing new sources of
light, is not expected to create substantial new levels of illumination or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Light and glare impacts, therefore,
are expected to be less than significant.
Item II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
a-c. NO IMPACT
The proposed subdivision is located on property that is zoned single-family residential on
one or more acres net. Single-family residences with incidental agricultural uses are
permitted uses. The subject subdivision of one lot into two parcels, facilitating two new
conforming residences will have no impact on agricultural resources.
Item Ill. AIR QUALITY
a-c. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed subalvlsion will not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The potential future
construction of two new residences, will not violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, will not contribute to a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people and will have a less than significil!nt impact on the existing
environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures.
During future construction of two new homes facilitated by the proposed subdivision, dust
may be created and on a temporary basis, there may be an increase in heavy
construction vehicle traffic. After construction, it is estimated that increased development
of two new single-family residential structures will generate insignificant increase in
gasoline emissions because it is estimated that each of the two single-family residential
structure generates 10 average daily trips (ADT) totaling 10 ADT for this project and will
have a less than significant impact on the environment according to the South Coast Air
Quality Management District's "Air Quality Handbook," revised April, 1987.
d, e NO IMPACT
This project is a subdivision into two lots with a potential for development of two new
single family residences and it is not expected that this would create any significant
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 15 C-87
objectionable odors. Additionally no objectionable odors are anticipated to occur during
construction.
Measures -(to be incorporated into conditions of approval of future Site Plan Review)
A. During construction the property owners shall be required to conform to South Coast Air
Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering
practices by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and
reduce dust generated by construction activities.
Fugitive Dust
1. A Comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Program will be developed and
implemented before commencement of grading activities, subject to review and
approval of the Building and Safety Department and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD). This Plan, at minimum, shall address compliance
with SCAQMD Rule 403, including:
-Regular site watering
-Application of soil stabilizers to inactive graded areas
-Covering and/or washing of transport trucks leaving the site
-Periodic street cleaning of roads adjacent to the site
2. A High Wind Response Plan in accordance with Rule 403 of the SCAQMD shall be
developed and implemented at times when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to reduce
PM_ emissions. The High Wind Response Plan shall be developed and implemented
before commencement of grading activities, subject to review and approval by the
Building and Safety Department and the SCAQMD.
3. Stockpiles of soil, sand and similar materials shall be stabilized by being enclosed,
covered, watered twice daily, or with application of non-toxic soil binders.
Construction Equipment Exhaust
1. Heavy construction equipment shait oe properly tuned and maintained to reduce
emissions. Construction equipment shall be fitted with the most modern emission
control devices. The construction manager shall monitor compliance with this
measure and is subject to periodic inspections by City Building Inspectors .
.2. The project shall comply with Rule 461, which establishes requirements for vapor
control from the transfer of fuel from the fuel truck to vehicles both during
construction and subsequent operations.
Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOUf3_Q!;~
a, b, d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION
No physical development is directly proposed concurrent with this subdivision proposal.
The subject subdivision map, however anticipates future development for two new
homes, one per each of the two lots. The proposed subdivision reduces the need for
new grading and disturbance by considering and incorporating existing graded and
relatively flat areas into the layout of the two proposed lots as future building pads. New
grading and disturbance is necessary, however, to establish two independent home sites
plus accessory equestrian use areas for each lot. For Lot 1 (2.4 gross acres) a total of
ZC No. 852
PM 72232
Q
16 '::J C-88
2,680 cubic yards of grading is estimated including 840 cy cut, 752 cy fill, 500 cy over-
excavation and 588 cy re-compaction. For Lot 2 (4.64 gross acres a total of 16,690
cubic yards of grading is estimated including 4,945 cy cut, 4,345 cy fill, 3,400 cy over-
excavation, and 4,000 cy re-compaction.
Future single family home construction will be subject to discretionary Site Plan Review
by the Planning Commission including field review prior to public hearings.
The large lot, estate density single-family development that is expected to occur provides
the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing vegetation and habitat. The
General Plan and Zoning Code that guides development in Rolling Hills restricts lot
coverage to 20% maximum of the net lot area, structural and pavement coverage to 35%
maximum and overall disturbance to 40% maximum net lot area.
City policies encourage the retention, use, and maintenance of native drought-tolerant
vegetation. (General Plan Land Use Element Goal 3; Policies 3.2 and 3.3). There are no
flood hazard zones on the project site. The site is adjacent to a large vacant parcel in the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes that is currently used and is in the process of being
purchased for use as a nature preserve.
Measure to be incorporated as mitigation into the approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
72232:
B. The applicant will be required to prepare and submit for Planning Commission review, a
biological assessment in the form of a "Biological Resources Assessment Study" which
minimally shall involve; 1) a search of database and literature, including the review of
sensitive biological resource occurrence records within the California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Community Society (CNPS) rare
plant inventory; 2) Field Study of project area to perform vegetation mapping and assess
wildlife habitats; 3) a Biological Resources Assessment Technical Report to include:
Introduction with environmental setting and description of project location; Methods
describing literature review, database search, field surveys and assessments for special-
status species occurrence, Descriptions of the results of databases and mapping;
Discussion of distribution of biological features within the project area; Assessments of
potential project impacts to biological resources and Recommendations for mitigations.
The Study shall be reviewed, evaluated and acted upon by the Planning Commission as
part of the environmental assessment and prior to a final decision on Vesting Tentative
Parcel Map 72232. The applicant shall incur the cost for preparation of the Study and
shall be required to comply and implement all measures recommended as approved by
the City in accordance with a schedule incorporated into the conditions of approval a
full subject site has not been identified as containing any established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors. The Planning Commission could restrict removal of native
vegetation and/or created area for substitution of removed native vegetation on the lot.
Measures to be incorporated into conditions of approval of Site Plan Review for future home
construction:
C. Upon review and assessment of this project by the appropriate County, State and
Federal Resource agencies, the applicant will be required to meet the requirements of
these agencies.
D. Future individual Site Plan Review approvals by the Planning Commission shall include
the .following conditions with respect to mitigation for loss of native vegetation, unless the
City determines at the time of approval of a Site Plan, such measures are not necessary
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 17 C-89
or a reasonable alternative method of preserving and mitigating the impacts to mature
native vegetation protected areas is feasible:
1. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to
the greatest extent possible. In order to minimize impacts to the hillsides and
canyon areas on this property, the building pad and graded slopes shall be
designed and developed in a manner that retains and restores native drought-
tolerant plant life outside the building pad caused by pad grading and preserves
the existing contiguous topography, flora, and natural features of that area to the
greatest extent possible.
2. To prevent construction equipment from going beyond the limits of any building
pad, contractors shall use fencing or other barriers to the greatest extent
possible.
3. No contractor, operator of a bulldozer or other equipment or other construction
worker on the site shall allow equipment, supplies or soil to encroach into a
protected area, if any, except as specified on an approved Site Plan.
4. No chemicals, including but not limited to fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides,
detergents, chlorine or pool chemicals, shall be used, disposed of, or allowed to
drain onto the slopes.
5. All graded areas shall be planted with native plants subject to Fire Department
criteria and requirements.
6. A landscaping bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of
the landscaping plan plus 15%, shall be required to be posted prior to issuance
of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less
than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released
two years after the initial plantings by the City Manager if he determines that the
landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscape plan as approved, and that
such landscaping is properly established and in good condition.
e, f. NO IMPACT
The proposed subdivision including future development of two single family homes will
not conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree
preservation ordinance. Further, the proposed subdivision property is not identified on
any adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans, or any
other similar approved habitat conservation plans.
Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a -e. NO IMPACT
No unique historical, archaeological or pa1eontological resources have been identified in
the project area therefore it is expected that the development facilitated by the proposed
subdivision will result in an environmental impact to cultural resources that is less than
significant.
Measures (to be incorporated into conditions of approval of Site Plan Review for future homes)
E. Should significant unique archaeological resources be found during the grading or
construction within the project, the construction shall cease and the applicant at his sole
expense shall hire an archeologist to assess the resources. The City of Rolling Hills shall
approve of the archeologist. The archeologist shall establish procedures for
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 18 C-90
archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project
proponent, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling,
identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected
unique archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such
findings to the project proponent and to the City Manager. If the archaeological resources
are found to be · significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate
action, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and/or salvage.
Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a -e. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Because the City is located in seismically active southern California, future development
of this subdivision would be exposed to potential ground shaking in the event of an
earthquake. The subject site is not located on a known active or potentially active fault.
The Palos Verdes fault, although considered potentially active, is located approximately
one mile northeast of the City. Further, the site is not located within an Alquist-Priola
Fault Rupture Hazard Zone. The potential for ground rupture on the site is considered to
be very low.
The approval of the subject subdivision project is not expected to directly have the
potential to result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures.
While there are specific areas in the City that are know to have unstable earth conditions,
including active landslides and soil creep, the project site is not in such an area.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to
carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, and/or
increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure.
The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this subdivision project, is underlain by
expansive soil, which is subject to slippage. However, prior to construction, soils and
geology studies will be conducted and reviewed by the County Public Works Department.
Approval of the subdivision will result in disruptions, displacements and compaction of the
soil during the probable future construction of two homes when the new building pads are
built. The proposed new building pads will, with the new homes, be subject to approval
by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Also, during future construction, it is expected that removal of natural vegetative cover,
may potentially cause an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm runoff. The
reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with development may
cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean.
However, this is very unlikely, as Rolling Hills is not coastal. The development is limited
to the addition of a maximum of two single-family dwelling units; therefore the project will
not result directly or indirectly in significant impact on the environment from a geological
or soil stability perspective.
Measures (to be incorporated into conditions of approval of Site Plan Review for future homes)
F. The applicants shall provide sufficient evidence to show that the sustained use of
proposed private disposal systems are possible without inducing a geologic hazard.
G. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the future residences, an Erosion Control
Plan containing the elements set forth is Section 7010 of the 2001 County of Los Angeles
Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and
channels to control storm water pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles.
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 19 CB
C-91
H. A detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports,
for the future construction of a single-family residence on each lot will be submitted and
reviewed by the County of Los Angeles Public Works Department. Cut and fill slopes will
not exceed a slope gradient of a 2 to 1 (H:V).
Item VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDQUS MATERIALS
a-g. NO IMPACT
The proposed project involves the request for a subdivision of a single lot into 2 parcels
for potential development of two new single-family residences. It does not involve the
storage and distribution of materials that may be considered hazardous. Future
development contemplated will not be involved in any activities that would emit and/or
handle hazardous materials. The proposed project will not generate harmful emission
that may affect schools.
The City is located approximately 1.5 miles south of Torrance Municipal airport. The
project is not located within a designated aircraft crash zone, nor will it involve any
improvements that would otherwise affect airport operations. As a result, the proposed
project will not present a safety hazard related to aircraft or airport operations.
The project provides adequate street access, and project operations would not interfere
with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
h. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The City's Building & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills
Community Association (RHCA) closely and carefully regulate development including
construction activities and building materials. The future development will comply with all
pertinent fire code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire
hydrants and fire flows. Specific fire and life safety requirements will be addressed at the
building fire plan check, including annual brush clearing and fuel modification plans. The
City and the RHCA require that all roof materials be fireproofed. The effect of the
construction of two new single-family residences, therefore, is expected to be less than
significant.
Item VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a,b,f-j NO IMPACT
Section 402 of the Federal Clean water act requires National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System pennits (NPDES) for storm water discharges from storm drain
systems to waters of the United States. Applicants for development projects, including in
Rolling Hills, have two major responsibilities under NPDES permit. The first is to submit
and implement a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) containing
design features and Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate and applicable to
the project. The SUSMP describes how post construction pollutants in storm water
discharges will be controlled and reduced. Prior to issuance of any grading or building
permit, the County of Los Angeles Building and Safety Department must approve the
SUSMP.
The second responsibility is to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) for all construction projects with disturbed area of 1 to 5 acres. Should the final
proposal for a future single-family residence include disturbed area of one acre or more
this requirement will be implemented.
Specific mitigation measures have been incorporated into the SUSMPs for development
projects under the NPDES Permit. Implementation of these measures will ensure that the
quality of stonn water runoff leaving the project site will meet an regulatory standards and
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 20 C-92
will maintain the beneficial uses of the surface water for public and commerce. The City
of Rolling Hills, as part of a normal project approval and construction practice through the
contract with Los Angeles County monitors compliance with these requirements.
Due to the small scale of potential development, which is anticipated to occur on the site
and the share of the site, which would remain uncovered by hardscape, the proposed
project will not interfere with groundwater recharge.
The proposed project is not located in proximity to a river or stream and project storm
flows would be channeled to the storm drain system. The project site is not within an area
that would be subject to seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
c-e. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water
absorption by the placement of future structures, the introduction of impervious surface
materials and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development
proposed for potentially two new single-family residential units permitted by the General
Plan, the impacts will be less than significant, with appropriate measures to be applied by
incorporation in the conditions of approval of required discretionary permits (Site Plan
Reviews).
A septic tank system will be required when in the future the vacant parcels being created
are developed. As septic tank leach field effluent percolates into the watershed, some
discharge into surface waters downstream. However, the impact generated from the
addition of up to three dwelling units is not expected to be significant.
Measures (to be incorporated into the conditions of approval of Site Plan Review for future
homes)
I. The property owners shall be required to conform to County Health Department
requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks.
J. The property owner shall prepare and implement an Erosion Control Plan, SUSMP and
SWPPP, if applicable, in conformance with the County of Los Angeles Building Code
requirements.
Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
a-c. NO IMPACT
The project, facilitating the future development of 2 new single-family residences, is
consistent with the surrounding residential uses.
The project, is consistent with Zoning Ordinance and the Land Use Element of the
General Plan, which establish the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the
community's natural terrain, require a balanced cut and fill ratio and regulate the size and
coverage of developments.
The proposed project is not located on any habitat conservation plan.
Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES
a-b NO IMPACT
There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state or delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or land use plan
for the project site.
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 21 C-93
Item XI. NOISE
a-d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The goal of the City of Rolling Hills' Noise Element is to preserve and enhance Rolling
Hills' quiet rural atmosphere and promotes the use of landscaping to obscure noise
production from roadways and adjacent properties.
Although approval of the project will result indirectly, in the potential development that
may cause intermittent loud noise during construction, the noise is a necessary by
product of the construction of one additional building pad and two total residences that
will be limited in covering no more than 30% of the building pad. The building pad design
is subject to individual review and approval by the Planning Commission and the City
Council.
Any construction or traffic noise will be required to conform to all City and County
ordinances and engineering practices. The City requires that all construction work take
place only between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday.
As stated previously, there will be intermittent but loud noise levels during construction, if
and when and to the degree that it occurs. In such a scenario, the noise will be temporary
or periodic in nature and s necessary byproduct in order to construct new homes on the
parcels created by the subdivision. The level of nuisance associated with the
construction noise will be minimized due to the measures that are required to be taken as
conditions of approval as noted below
e,f NO IMPACT
The City is located approximately 1.5 miles south of Torrance Municipal airport. The
project is not located within a designated aircraft crash zone, nor will it involve any
improvements that would otherwise affect airport operations. As a result, the proposed
project will not present a safety hazard related to aircraft or airport noise.
Measures (to be incorporated into conditions of approval
K. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate
construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and
6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment
noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City
of Rolling Hills.
Item XII_, POPULATION AND HOUSING
NO IMPACT
a-c The impact on population and housing of the proposed future development of two homes
(1 net new, because one home that historically occupied the existing parcel has been
recently demolished} where each home will house approximately 3-4 additional people, is
expected to be less than significant.
Item Xtll. PUBLIC SERVICES
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT (Fire, Police) AND NO IMPACT (Parks and Schools)
a. The City of Rolling Hills contracts with the Los Angeles county Consolidated Protection
district, which provides fire protection services to the City Fire station No. 106, is located
within the City, on Crest Road. Other County Fire Stations are relocated in the vicinity
and are available to provide additional protection resources, if needed.
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 22 C-94
The City of Rolling Hills contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department for
police protection and law enforcement services. The main sheriffs station serving the
City is located at 26123 Narbonne Avenue, Lomita, California. The station is located
approximately 2.0 miles to the north of the site. Historically the emergency response time
in the City of Rolling Hills averages five minutes or less.
The impact on public services of the future development of 1 net new single-family
residences, each housing approximately 3-4 additional people, will be fess than
significant in terms of fire and police protection.
The small scale of the project is not expected to have any impact on schools, parks or
other public facilities.
Item XIV. RECREATION
a-b. NO IMPACT
No impact is anticipated on neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities of
the future development of 2 total or 1 net new additional single-family residences, which
would add approximately 3-4 people per home (4 net new people) The goals of the Open
Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan that include: continuing the City's
program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers,
encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian
trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued
upkeep of all City-owned recreation facilities within Rolling Hills, and providing expanded
recreational opportunities for children, do not conflict with the future development of up to
two new homes.
The subdivider will be required to dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu thereof for purposes
of park and recreational facilities {Quimby Act) in accordance with the proportional
standards set forth in Section 16.28.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. These funds
are used by the City continually maintain and upgrade the existing recreational facilities in
the City.
Item XV. TRANSPORTATIONfrRAFFIC
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Approval of the subject 2-lot subdivision project could potentially result in increased traffic
that will occur during the construction of two new building pads and up to two new single-
family dwellings. The circulation within the City during construction of the project will likely
be impacted but not to a significant degree as the work will be occurring in a limited area
and to specific lots.
The incremental increase of two new single-family dwelling units will not generate more
than an estimated 20 daily vehicle trips in the entire city. Future development of two new
single-family dwelling units will slightly affect the balance of transportation improvement
"credits" over new development "debitsb required to preserve compliance with the
Congestion Management Program of Los Angeles County (CMP) that is intended to
address the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system and air quality.
At 6.8 debits for every newly developed single-family dwelling unit, development of one
net unit will use up 6.8 credits. The City has 68 credits at this time, enough to
accommodate the construction of at least 8 additional residences in the City of Rolling
Hills. If and when the net build-out is completed for the subject project, the City will have
61.2 credits, enough for 9 additional residences in the City of Rolling Hills.
In addition, future development of one net additional single-family residential units will not
exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 23 C-95
county congestion management agency as there are no heavy congestion designated
roads or highways within the City of Rolling Hills.
b-g. NO IMPACT
The project is situated along a private, Rolling Hills Community Association maintained
street. The private driveway serving the prior home on the site will be abandoned and
closed off and two new private driveways will be constructed to serve the future new
homes, intersecting the adjoining roadway of Saddleback Road. The locations of the new
driveways are subject to review and approval of the City's Traffic Commission prior to
approval of the tentative subdivision map.
The lot Jines are proposed to be 90 degrees to the existing street and there are no sharp
curves or '"'blind" spots when exiting the lots. Therefore the project is not expected to
substantially increase hazards due to access design or result in inadequate emergency
access or inadequate parking capacity as the proposed driveways have adequate width
(24 feet at the entrance from Saddleback and 20 feet wide on each lot) and gradient
(maximum 12% slope) meeting all city and County Fire Department criteria for access.
Measures (to be incorporated into the conditions of Site Plan Review for future homes).
L. The property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate truck traffic throughout
the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM Monday through Saturday only so as not to
interfere with the normal flow of traffic within the City of Rolling Hills.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
a,b,g NO IMPACT
Subdivision of the subject property will not generate any wastewater that will impact a
public wastewater facility. The City of Rolling Hills is not connected to the County
Sanitation District sewage facility, as there are no sewers in the City (except in a small
area at the western end of the City).
The project would not result in a need for new or substantial alteration to local or regional
water treatment or distribution facilities, due to the limited amount of additional water
required to serve the project.
The developer will be required to comply with all local, state, and federal requirements for
integrated waste management (e.g., recycling, green waste) and solid waste disposal.
c-f. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board will not
be exceeded by the future development of one net additional single-family residential
unit.
The impact on water supplies available for the future development of one net additional
single-family residence, housing approximately 3-4 additional people each is expected to
be less than significant.
Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map the applicant shalt be required to obtain a letter
from the Water Company certifying that adequate water supply is available to serve the
proposed parcels.
Mitigation Measures (to be incorporated into the conditions of Site Plan Review for future homes)
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 24 C-96
M. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance
of septic tanks.
N. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance
of stormwater drainage facilities.
0. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's)
related to solid waste.
P. Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map the applicant shall be required to obtain a letter
from the Water Company certifying that adequate water supply is available to serve the
proposed parcel, should a single family development be proposed in the future.
Q. Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map the applicant shall be required to place all
utilities underground or file an improvement security, to the satisfaction of the City.
Item XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATION
Subject to a confirming study (Biological Assessment) the preparation of which is to be
incorporated as a condition of approval of the subdivision application and to be
considered in the public hearing, the project is not expected to degrade the quality of the
environment or substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal.
b , c. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The relatively small size of the project site, together with the fact that future development
enabled by the project is limited to a maximum of one net additional single-family
residence, supports a conclusion that the project impacts will be insignificant and not
expected to result in environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly.
ZC No. 852
PM 72232 25 C-97
Staff comments on MND for
80 Saddleback Road parcel map
C-98
CITY OF
19 November 2014
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Rd.
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
RANC~HC) PAIJ)S Vr]~LJES
--,1··1··y M \N /\ ·C-'Ef·J•c' c--··)rr1c·-~E (; / I\ :1 . '\ ' J .. l I . ; ::.
AlJMINl~3lT\ATION
VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL
SUBJECT: Comments in Response to the Notice of lnt<mt to Adopt a Mitigat<~d
Negative Declaration for a 2-Lot Parcel Map at 80 Saddleback Road
(Zoning Case No. 852, Subdivision No. 9:~ and Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map No. 72232)
!-4-'N/v:t··-·
Dear Ms hvilaffZ:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above-mentioned project. We
have reviewed the MND and project exhibits, and offer the following comments:
1. The discussion of Biological Resources impacts in the Initial Study (pp. 16-18)
notes that a biological resources assessment study will be prepared for the review
and approval of the Rolling Hills Planning Commission prior to its final approval of
the requested vesting tentative parcel map. To assist in this effort, the City offers
the enclosed exhibit from our geographic information system (GIS) database,
depicting coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat on the subji:!Ct property and on adjacent
property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. As shown on this exhibit, the purple-
shaded area of the subject property appears to contain Sa/via-dominated CSS
habitat. This vegetation data is from surveys conducted by the City in 2004.
2. The discussion of Hazards and Hazardous Materials impacts in the Initial Study
(p. 20) states that exposure to wildland fires will be less than significant, noting that
annual brush clearance and fuel modification plans will be required for the
development of future homes on the proposed lots. Related to Comment 1 above,
there is existing CSS habitat on private-owned property in Rancho Palos Verdes
that abuts the subject property to the southeast. The City requests that, when
considering the design and placement of future structures on the proposed lots,
any future brush clearance and fuel modification related to this proposed
subdivision would avoid any adverse impacts upon CSS habitat located upon
property in Rancho Palos Verdes.
:lU>i4u I i1\Wt HOl<f'lt'. Fltvu. / R1v1c;Ho 11\Los Vi rmu·>. CJ\ :¥12/S '.iJni J ci10) h·iH<1 0:1 I 1:Ax 010) b4+:i?'lt
\V\V\V.P..\LOSVf.:1{[)[~>.i.,l )"-'1/kPV
\J/(1N !"UJ Oh l~t'..(:Y(lf.f) 1-hPH~ C-99
Yolanta Schwartz
19 November 2014
Page 2
3. The discussion of Hydrology and Water Quality impacts in the Initial Study (pp. 20-
21) notes the project proponent's responsibility to comply with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, pursuant to Section 402
of the Clean Water Act. However, the City believes that the Initial Study
erroneously states that the subject property "is not located in proximity to a river or
stream." The subject properiy would appear to drain-at least in part-into the
unnamed stream in the bottom of George F Canyon, which is identified on the U.S.
Geological Survey's Torrance quadrangle as a "blue line" stream (see enclosed
excerpt). This stream flows northeasterly through abutting downstream properties
located in Rane.ho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this project. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (310) 544-5226
or via e-mail at kitf@rpv.com.
Sincerely,
/;
/ ·7 / / ::::·7
/ '"~"',/-' / I f·/ ,;;,c•----·;::#" / '···/··, //
//
Kit Fox, A1CP
Senior Administrative Analyst
enclosures
cc: Mayor Duhovic and City Council
Carolynn Petru, Acting City Manager
Joel Rojas, Director of Community Development
M:\Border lssues\80 Saddleback Road\20141119_MNDComments.docx
C-100
c:
0
~ c: n:s
(.)
u.
Q)
C'> a..
0
Q)
(!)
c:
c:
0
~ n:s .....
Q)
C'>
Q) > .c
:::l a..
(.)
en
Q)
C'> n:s en
n:s .....
"' n:s
0
(.) '
C-101
C-102