RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_12_04_C_Border_IssuesCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM:CAROLYNN PETRU,AICP,DEPUTY CITY MANAGE~
DATE:DECEMBER 4,2012
SUBJECT:BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT,",n
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~.
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:
• A report on the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)for the
revised Ponte Vista project in Los Angeles (San Pedro);
• A final report on the legal challenge to the Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country
Club project in Rolling Hills Estates;
• A brieffollow-up report on the release of the DEIR for the Brickwalk,LLC mixed-use
condominium project in Rolling Hills Estates;
• A follow-up report on the release of the DEIR for the San Pedro Community Plan
Update in Los Angeles (San Pedro);
•An update on recent issues and events related to the Rancho LPG butane storage
facility in Los Angeles (San Pedro);
• A follow-up report on the release of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)for
the Marymount College San Pedro campus on Palos Verdes Drive North in Los
Angeles (San Pedro);and,
• A report on the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)forthe
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts'Clearwater Program in the City's Eastview
area and in Los Angeles (San Pedro).
C-1
MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Status Report
December 4,2012
Page 2
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/planning/border issuesl2012120121204 Borderlssues StatusRptcfm
DISCUSSION
Current Border Issues
Ponte Vista Project at Former Navy Housing Site,Los Angeles (San Pedro)
On November 8,2012,the City of Los Angeles released the Draft EIR (DEIR)for the
revised,1,135-unit Ponte Vista project at the former Navy housing site on Western Avenue
in San Pedro (see attached Notice of Availability/Completion and Daily Breeze and PV
News articles).Among the alternatives analyzed in the DEIR are:
• A 385-unit single-family alternative that is consistent with the current R-1 zoning;
and,
•An 830-unit proposal that is consistent with previous Los Angeles Planning
Department Staff recommendations.
The public comment period for the DEIR is scheduled to end on Monday,January 7,2013,
at 4:00 PM.City Staff will be reviewing the DEI R and submitting comments prior to the end
of the public comment period.The DEIR and appendices may be reviewed on-line at the
following link:
http://planning.lacity.orgieir/PonteVistaProj2lDEIRIDEIR%20Ponte%20 Vista %20Project html
Staff attended the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council (NWSPNC)Board Meeting
on November 12,2012,to hear a presentation by the project developer.Copies of Ponte
Vista fact sheets from that meeting are attached.The presentation was somewhat
confusing in that the site plan of the developer's 1,135-unit proposal did not match the
proposed 1,135-unit project that is depicted and described in the DEIR.Upon further
research,Staff found that the plan presented by the developer is actually Alternative 0,
which is a revised version of the 1,135-unit project that has been modified to avoid an
earthquake fault running through the property.Alternative 0 does not include the 2.8-acre
public park and other public amenities that are described in the DEIR as a part of the
"proposed"project.There was also a great deal of discussion by the developer regarding
Alternative C,which is the revised 830-unit plan that is purportedly consistent with the Los
Angeles City Planning Department's previous recommendations for the site.It appears to
Staff that it is the developer's preference to obtain entitlements to build either Alternative C
C-2
MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Status Report
December 4,2012
Page 3
or Alternative D rather than the "proposed"project described in the DEIR.Staff will
continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club Project,Rolling Hills Estates and Torrance
Staff has recently learned that the plaintiffs and the City of Rolling Hills Estates reached a
settlement earlier this year in the lawsuit challenging the Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills
Country Club project.As such,Staff will remove this project in future Border Issues
reports.
Brickwalk,LLC Mixed-Use Condominiums,Rolling Hills Estates
On October 15,2012,Staff attended the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission's
continued public hearing for the DEIR (see attached agenda and Staff report).After
receiving a presentation from the project's traffic consultant,the public hearing was left
open and the matter continued to December 3,2012.Staff will continue to monitor this
project in future Border Issues reports.
San Pedro Community Plan Update,Los Angeles (San Pedro)
In response to requests from the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council (NWSPNC)
and other interested parties (including Staff),the City of Los Angeles granted a 15-day
extension of the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
for the San Pedro Community Plan Update to October 9,2012.On that date,Staff
transmitted the attached comments to the City of Los Angeles.Staff's comments focus
upon issues related to two (2)subareas,encompassing the Rancho LPG facility and the
commercial area surrounding the intersection of Western Avenue and 25 th Street.Staff
also noted concerns regarding proposed modifications to 25 th Street that could adversely
impact traffic on Palos Verdes Drive South.
Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility,Los Angeles (San Pedro)
As was reported in the Daily Breeze on October 18,2012 (see attachments),the City
Council received a report from Staff laying out options to address community concerns
about the Rancho LPG facility on October 16,2012.The City Council unanimously agreed
to "step up"monitoring of the facility as a part of the Border Issues Status Report;to reach
out to surrounding jurisdictions and agencies;to evaluate the applicability of the Contra
Costa County Risk Management Ordinance as model legislation;and to ask Rancho LPG
to provide information about liability coverage for the facility.Staff is actively working on all
of these initiatives.
C-3
MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Status Report
December 4,2012
Page 4
On October 20,2012,the Daily Breeze reported on complaints about an odor emanating
from the Rancho LPG facility on October 18,2012 (see attachments).Nearly forty (40)
complaints were received from residents all over the South Bay.The South Coast Air
Quality Management District (AQMD)has issued a notice of violation to Rancho LPG and
launched an investigation (see attached Daily Breeze article of November 3,2012).
In response to the City Council's direction of October 16,2012,Staff prepared a letter from
the Mayor to Councilman Buscaino on November 7,2012.The attached letter expresses
support for Councilman Buscaino's recent motions regarding the facility,and urges him to
fOllow-up with the AQMD regarding the leak on October 18,2012.Copies of this letter
were provided to the City Councils and City Managers of Lomita,Palos Verdes Estates,
Rolling ~ills and Rolling Hills Estates.
Councilman Buscaino made a further motion regarding the Rancho LPG facility on
November 13,2012 (see attachments).This motion directs the Los Angeles City Attorney
to report on the insurance requirements and liability coverage of Liquid Bulk Storage/Liquid
Petroleum Gas facilities,and to suggest improvements to City laws in this respect.
Also attached to tonight's report are copies of e-mails and correspondence received
regarding the Rancho LPG facility between October 17,2012 and November 20,2012.
These include:
•E-mail from Janet Gunter expressing thanks for the City Council's action,received
on October 17,2012;
•E-mail from Janet Gunter regarding 1990 Los Angeles Times article about the 1987
Mobil refinery fire in Torrance,received on October 25,2012;
•E-mail from Janet Gunter regarding correspondence about Rancho LPG with Los
Angeles County,received on October 30,2012;
•Materials submitted by Noel Weiss under "Public Comments"at the City Council
meeting of October 30,2012;
•E-mail from Jeanne Lacombe regarding the Rancho LPG leak,received on
November 1,2012;
•E-mail from Janet Gunter regarding the Rancho LPG leak,received on November 3,
2012;
•E-mail from Janet Gunter regarding Rancho LPG parent company's plans for Pier
400,received November 6,2012;
•E-mail from Noel Weiss in response to Janet Gunter's e-mail,received November 6,
2012;
•E-mails from Cat Spydell regarding Rancho LPG facility,received November 15,
2012;
•E-mail from Janet Gunter regarding Councilman Busciano's November 13th motion,
received November 16,2012;and,
C-4
MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Status Report
December 4,2012
Page 5
•E-mail from Janet Gunter regarding CityWatch article about Rancho LPG facility,
received November 20,2012.
Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
Marymount College San Pedro Campus Master Plan,Los Angeles (San Pedro)
Shortly after Staff commented on the adequacy of the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND)for the Marymount College San Pedro Campus project on September
17,2012,we noted that the City of Los Angeles re-published the notice for the MND on
September 27,2012,for an additional20-day public review and comment period.Staff was
also able to obtain a copy of the July 24,2012,memorandum from the Los Angeles
Departme'nt of Transportation (LADOT)that was not included with the previous MND (see
attachments).
Staff has reviewed the LADOT memorandum,which has raised a number of additional
questions about the adequacy of the MND.These questions were articulated in the
attached letter sent to the City of Los Angeles on October 17,2012,and included:
•Ensuring that traffic impacts and mitigation identified in the MND are consistent and
compatible with those identified in the 2010 Marymount College Facilities Expansion
project Environmental Impact Report (EIR):and,
•Requesting the inclusion of eight (8)additional study intersections that were
analyzed by the College's traffic consultant,but were not included in the LADOT
memorandum.
On November 16,2012,Staff received notification that the MND and related project
entitlements were scheduled for public hearing on December 12,2012 (see attachments).
The joint public hearing of the Advisory Agency and Hearing Officer will be held at 9:30 AM
at Los Angeles City Hall,200 N.Spring St.,Rm.1020,Los Angeles,CA 90012.Staff will
continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts'ClealWater Program,Eastview Area and Los
Angeles (San Pedro)
On November 5,2012,Staff received a copy of the Districts'responses to our April 9,2012,
comments on the Draft EIS/EIR (see attachments).Staff is satisfied that the Districts have
adequately responded to our comments on the project EIR.
The Districts'Board of Directors was scheduled to consider certification of the Clearwater
Program Final EIR on November 28,2012.As of the date that this report was distributed,
Staff was not yet able to confirm the Districts'action on the EIR.Separate action will be
C-5
MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Status Report
December 4,2012
Page 6
taken by the Army Corps of Engineers on the project EIS for those portions of the project
under Federal jurisdiction.
Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
New Border Issues
There are no new Border Issues on which to report at this time.
Attachments:
•N<;>tice of Availability/Completion for Ponte Vista EIR (received 11/8/12)
•Daily Breeze article regarding Ponte Vista EIR (published 11/9/12)
•Ponte Vista fact sheets from NWSPNC Board meeting (dated 11/12/12)
•PV News article regarding Ponte Vista EIR (published 11/15/12)
•RHE Planning Commission agenda and Staff report for Brickwalk,LLC project (dated
10/15/12)
•Comments on DEIR for San Pedro Community Plan Update (dated 10/9/12)
•Daily Breeze article regarding City Council review of Rancho LPG facility (published
10/18/12)
•Daily Breeze articles regarding leak at Rancho LPG facility (published 10/20/12 &
11/3/12)
•Letter to Councilman Buscaino regarding Rancho LPG facility (dated 11/7/12)
•Councilman Buscaino's motion regarding Rancho LPG insurance requirements
(dated 11/13/12)
•E-mails and correspondence regarding Rancho LPG facility (received 10/17/12 to
11/20/12)
•LADOT memorandum regarding traffic study for Marymount College San Pedro
Campus (dated 7/24/12)
•Comments on MND for Marymount College San Pedro Campus (dated 10/17/12)
•Public hearing notice for Marymount College San Pedro Campus (received
11/16/12)
•Response to comments for LACSD Clearwater Program EIR (received 11/5/12)
M:\Border Issues\Staff Reports\20121204_Borderlssues_StaffRpt.doc
C-6
Notice of Availability/Completion for Ponte Vista EIR
C-7
DEPARTMI!NT Of
OTV PLANNING
.200 N.SPllING SmElT,RooM S2S
lOS ANGllW,CA 90012·4801
AND
6262 VNl NUYS BLVD.,SUITE 3S1
VNl NUYS,CA 91401.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONW1L~OlfHEN
REGINA M.FREER
VICl-PMSIOliNT
SEAN O.BURTON
DIEGO CARDOSO
GEORGE HOVAGUIMIAN
ROBERT LESSIN
DANA M.PERLMAN
8ARaARA ROMERO
VACANT
JAMES WILLIAMS
COMMISSlON EX£CUTM ASSlSTANT II
(213)978-1300
CITY OF Los ANGELES
CAUFORNIA
ANTONIO R.VILL.ARAIGOSA
MAYOR
November 8,2012
NOTICE OF AVAILABlLlTY/COMPLETION OF
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NO.ENV-20054516-EIR
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.2010101082
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
MiCHAEL J.LOGRANDE
1lIll&C'l0il.
(213)978'1271
ALAN SEll.AlCP
OiPUTVIlIll&C'lOR
(213)978-1272
USA M.WEBBER,AlCP
0iPUTV IllIlKTOR
(213)978-1274
WA YUAN-MCDANIEL
0iI'UiY Dllt£CfOR
(213)978-1273
FAX:(213)978-1275
INFORMATION
www.p1anning.lacity.org
To:Owners of Property and Occupants and other interested parties.
PROJECT NAME:Ponte Vista Project
SITE LOCATION:The Project Site is located at 26900 South Western Avenue,in the San
PedrolHarbor City area of the City of Los Angeles,CA 90732.
COMMENT REVIEW PERIOD:November 8,2012 -January 7,2013 (60 DAYS)
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Project Site is currently improved with 245 residential dwelling units,a community center,
and a retail convenience facility that were constructed in approximately 1962 by the U.S.Navy
for the purpose of housing personnel stationed at the Long Beach Naval Shipy~d.All of these
buildings and uses are vacant.The dwelling units and facilities were built by the United States
government without compliance with building codes enforced by the City of Los Angeles,and
are required to be demolished.In addition,the dwelling units,facilities,infrastructure,streets,
and landscaping at the Project Site were abandoned after the site was closed in the late 1990s and
are in a state of disrepair.As part of the Project,all existing improvements would be removed
from the site.
The Project consists of the development of a residential community comprised of 1,135 dwelling
units featuring a combination of for-sale and rental single-:family homes,duplexes,townhomes,
and flats.The Project would be comprised of a combination of for-sale and rental dwelling units
within the following categories:
C-8
•Two-and three-story detached single-family homes with alley-loaded private garages
•Three-story buildings containing townhomes and flats with elevators and motor-court
private garages
•Two-and three-story townhome duplexes with alley-loaded private garages
•Three-story buildings containing townhomes and flats with alley-loaded private garages
•Three-story townhomes in row house buildings with alley-loaded private garages
•Four-story buildings containing flats with elevators and secured common garages
•Four-story buildings with elevators over a secured common basement garage containing
rental apartments
The Project would require the following discretionary actions:
1.General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation in the Wilmington-Harbor
City Community Plan for the Project Site from Low Residential to Low Medium I
Residentialt Low Medium n Residential t and Medium Residential;
2.Zone change to change the zoning designation for the Project Site from RI-IXL and OS-
IXL to a new Specific Plan Zone;
3.Specific Plan adopted for Ponte Vista establishing project-specific development standards
and guidelines;
4.Vesting Tract Map for the development of It135 residential dwelling units on the 61.5-
acre Project Site;
5.Development Agreement between the project developer and the City of Los Angeles in
order to provide reasonable assurances and certainty to the developer concerning
applicable regulations while providing the City of Los Angeles with public benefits;
6.Haul Route Permit for the removal of demolished structures and associated materials
from the Project Site;
7.B-Permit for necessary stree4 sewer t storm draiDt and lighting improvements;
8.Grading Permits;
9.Building Permits;
10.Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1603 of the California Fish &Game
Code;
11.Permits pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act;
12.Encroachment Permit from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans);and
13.Any other necessary discretionary approvals or ministerial permits required for the
construction or operation of the Project.
C-9
ANTICIPATED SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:Based on the analysis
contained in this Draft Environmental Impact Report (OEIR),the Project would result in
significant unavoidable environmental impacts related to operational air emissions,construction-
related noise and vibration,and operational noise at some units within the Project.In addition,
although mitigation is available to reduce all Project traffic impacts to a less than significant
level,the implementation of such mitigation at locations outside the City of Los Angeles is
beyond the control of the Lead Agency.If approval for implementation of these mitigation
measures is not received from each applicable jurisdiction,a significant unavoidable traffic
impact would result
All other potential impacts identified would be mitigated to less than significant levels.
DOCUMENT REVIEW AND COMMENT:If you wish to review a print copy of the DEIR or
the documents referenced in the DEIR,you may do so at the City of LQs Angeles,Department of
City Planning,at 200 N.Spring Street,City Hall,Los Angeles,CA,Room 750.The DEIR is
available online at the Department of City Planning's website at http://cityplanning.!AAity.org
(click on "Environmental"then "Draft EIR"),and digital versions are also available at the
following Library Branches:
1.San Pedro Regional Branch Library,931 S.Gaffey Street,San Pedro,CA 90731
2.Harbor City-Harbor Gateway Branch Library,24000 S.Western Avenue,Harbor City,
CA90710
3.Wilmington Branch,Library,1300 N.Avalon Boulevard,Wilmington,CA 90744
4.Los Angeles Central Library,630 W.5th Street,Los Angeles,CA 90071
The Project Site is located near the jurisdictions of Los Angeles County,Lomita,and Rancho
Palos Verdes.The DEIR will also be available in digital format for review at these libraries that
are outside the City of Los Angeles Public Library system,due to their proximity to the Project
Site:
5.Lomita Public Library (County of Los Angeles,Public Library),24200 Narbonne
Avenue,Lomita,CA 90717
6.Miraleste Library (City of Ranchos Palos Verdes),29089 Palos Verdes Drive East,
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
The DEIRs can also be purchased on CD-ROM for $7.50 per copy.Contact Erin Strelich of the
City of Los Angeles at (213)978-1351 to purchase one.
C-10
If you wish to submit comments following review of the DEm..please reference the file number
abovet and submit them in writing by MODgy,JaDuary 7,2913.DO later than 4:00 PM.The
45-day comment period was scheduled to end on Dec 24,2012.However,because of the holiday
season,the comment period is being extended to Jan 7,2013,which will allow for a 60-day
review period.
Please direct your comments to;Erin Strelich,Planning Assistant
Los Angeles Department of City Planning
200 N.Spring Street,Room 750
Los Angeles,CA 90012
Fax:(213)978-1343
Email:erin.melich@lacity.org
When a ~ublic hearing is required for the Project,a separate hearing notice will be mailed at a
later date for such purpose.If you have any questions t please contact Erin Strelich at the
location and e-mail above.
Michael J.LoOrande
Director of Planning
Erin Strelich
Planning Assistant
Environmental Analysis Section
C-11
r
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT -ZONE CHANGE -DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN -VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP -HAUL ROUTE
~~;:~-
aiie
----_.-
PA:433-WlLMINGTON
TRACT:3192 M.B.44-91-94
-SEE APPLICATIONS"USES:FIELD
CONTACT:FUSCOE ENGINEERING
uall Ma In service
1__&1,5.301
VlnNuyll,~91_
Phone (B1B)ttHIMt • F..(818)997_1-ong(lqooqmo.-
DRAWN BY:
THOMAS IIIOTMIRS
""'793,823 Glfd:J-7,J.1
LEGAL
LOr:POR LOT 1
A.P.N.
7442-«l1-{QO$.Q12)
CD:15
en 2951,01
:Tfi!~
SITE ADDIlISS Updat.:OfOiH2
26900 WESTERN AVENUE
CASINO:
SCALI:1"=200'
o.M.:~,0248193
P-213-tll84l802 NET AC:61.53'QMS:fll-IIU C C-12
~
UJ
....J
Cl
~
#EASTVIEWifPARK
(
--<.v",I WES~\STONEWOOD
1 ~~
"I-0 C
,.u ~1:;1 THISTLEWOOD WYo,:,:;z OJ
TOSr.ANINI;:Q J~,g;l~r:DR
Source:Rand McNally,The Tilomas Guide Digi~.Edilion,2003/4,State of California.
CfAJA Environmental Services.llC
C1
o o
~
l1
1/2
Scale (Miles)
s
Project Location and
Regional Vicinity Map
C
-
1
3
Product Type Diagrams
Total:1.135 Uolts
-:ktory townhomes in row-houl8 bulding
-alley Iooded private garages
143 Units
136 Units
101 Units
392 Units
161 Units
-+story bUlding over basement gorogo
-oporlmantflatswithtllevotor
•secured common garage
o
ProductType 1
•2&J.1,lory delotched.
single fomiy homes
-oDey-looded private gOfoges
ProductType 2 74 Units
-2&3·dOlY townhomes.duplexes
•aley-looded privc:sle go/ages
PloductType3 128 Units
-~lorybuikfl/'lQ
•lownhomes &1Ioies Vvilh elevololl
-molor court private g010ges
ProductType 4
·3-J;forybUldlng
•fownhomes &lIotJ
•aBey loaded private 9or098S
ProdudType'
-.wtoTYbui1cling
-llabwilhelevolor
-secured common garage
Product Type 7
Product Type 5
#'
CD
®
®
®
o
o
Public Park
2.8 Acres
BioSwale
Entry Drive
Open Space
0.4 Acres
Community Entry
Community Entry
Recreation Center
0.25 Acres
Recreation Center
Primary Loop Road
Secondary Loop Road
Community Recreation
Center 1.3 Acres
Community Spine Street
Source:TCA-Architects,ValleyCrest Design Group,Fuscoe Engineering and Robert Hidey Architects •.Oct!>ber 14,2010.
u 250 500
Scale (Feet)
I CCA><__UC Prnoo'"'"s;!.P",I
C
-
1
4
Daily Breeze article regarding Ponte Vista EIR
C-15
DailyBreeze.com
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_21959618/san-pedro-downsized-plan-ponte-vista-housing-development?IADID=Search-wv
San Pedro:Downsized plan for Ponte Vista housing development debuts
By Donna Littlejohn Staff Writer Daily Breeze
Posted:
After seven years of off-and-on debate,a new downsized version of the proposed Ponte Vista housing
development in San Pedro was rolled out Thursday.
The latest project,now under a new development team,will be presented in coming weeks at a series of public
meetings,with the first set for 6 p.m.Monday at a meeting of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council.
Scaled down from an original 2,300 to either 1,135 or 830 homes,developers are confident they now have a plan
that will pass community approval.
"We have an entirely new project,"said Dennis Cavallari,project manager,adding that Ponte Vista has been
"completely redesigned from the ground up."
Instead of what he called an "ultra-dense"project in its first generation,Ponte Vista now is a project that has the
feel of a suburban -and specifically of a San Pedro -community.
Single-family homes,condominiums and apartments will be feature a Spanish,Mediterranean and California
contemporary design.
Included are two outdoor pools,several pocket parks,a playground and clubhouse for Ponte Vista residents.
While the project -planned on 61.5 acres of former Navy housing property at 26900 S.Western Ave.-will be a
gated community,there will be walking/jogging and bike trails around the perimeter that will be accessible to the
public.
Two entry and exit ways will be included and an additional northbound lane will be added to W estern Avenue to
help accommodate the flow of motorists heading into the development.
The city's new draft environmental report for the project was released Thursday by the city of Los Angeles.It had
been in the works for two years.
Members of the public now have 60 days to submit comments (the period ends Jan.7)011 the new plans that also
will be the subject of several upcoming community presentations.
The plans include a new traffic study.Developers said all impacts on all affected intersections can be mitigated,
according to the report.
As for density,the new proposal calls for 1,135 units.But a smaller alternative also studied -one that is preferred
by the council office and no doubt will be more appealing to many of Ponte Vista's community critics -would
build 830 units on the property.
Included in both plans are single-family homes with backyards and detached garages;multi-and single-story
condominiums and townhomes with smaller units suitable for singles,retirees or empty-nesters;and a section at
the south end of the property for new apartment buildings.
Mature trees and drought-resistant landscaping will be added and the housing elements are planned to best
Page 1 of3 13/11/2012 13:09 PMC-16
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci~1959618/san-pedro-downsized-plan-ponte-vista-housing-development?IADID=Search-wv
preserve views of the Vincent Thomas Bridge,developers said.
Ponte Vista was first envisioned by the Bisno Development Co.,the property's first owner,as a 2,300-home
project with flats along with multi-story townhomes and condominiums along with a retail center.
But the project received heavy criticism from the start after its public debut in October 2005.
The development was far too dense,many residents complained.The Gardens townhome development,for
example -the most densely planned housing development in San Pedro -had 13.3 units per acre.
Under the Bisno plan,Ponte Vista would have had 37 units per acre.
But of even greater concern was how the project would affect traffic along an already crowded Western Avenue
thoroughfare.
And traffic no doubt will remain the primary concern as residents begin a new round of discussions over the latest
proposal.
In addition to the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council on Monday,future presentations will be planned at
the Central San Pedro,Coastal San Pedro,Harbor City-Harbor Gateway and Wilmington neighborhood councils,
developers said.
Developers also will make presentations to area chambers of commerce -the first one is planned for Tuesday
morning at the San Pedro chamber -and appointments can be made by anyone to see the drawings and ask
questions of the developers by calling the Ponte Vista office.
The property once was home to hundreds of Navy shipyard workers.When the shipyard was closed,the property
was declared surplus by the federal government and Bisno Development paid $88 million in an online auction in
early 2005 to purchase most of the property.The company later bought out owners of the rest of the land,with the
total purchase price amounting to $125 million.
A later proposal for 1,950 homes also was rejected by the community.
The property was purchased by iStar Financial Inc.in 2010 and a new plan was then put in motion.
The land sits along Western Avenue mostly north of Avenida Aprenda and partially across from Green Hills
Memorial Park cemetery.
The long vacant Navy houses are still standing on the land.
If agreement can be reached on one of the new plans to move forward,building could begin in 2014 and take five
years for completion.
Projected sale prices for the homes will be determined by the housing market once the development is approved
and built,Cavallari said.
Also studied in the city's draft EIR was a 500-unit single-family home option.
The 830-home alternative,however,would be the "only economically viable"alternative for developers, he said.
Building iStar's primary 1,135-home option would cost less for the developer.
There is no estimated cost for building Ponte Vista at this time,Cavallari said.
Page 2 of3 13/11/2012 13:09 PMC-17
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_21959618/san-pedro-downsized-p1an-ponte-vista-housing-development?IADID=Search-wv
The 830-unit alternative would include 208 single-family homes;224 two-story townhomes with private garages;
180 multi-level and single-story "flat"condominiums;and 218 luxury apartments.
The larger 1,135-unit proposal calls for 143 single-family homes;140 townhomes with private garages;120
single-and multi-level condominiums;514 single-level condominiums or "flats;" 218 luxury apartments.
The project also has been set back from Western Avenue by about 40 feet.Trees will be planted in front of the
development.
The project,Cavallari said,took in feedback received from the community throughout the years and will bring
needed new housing stock to the South Bay.
"It's a new Ponte Vista,"Cavallari said.
Over the next few months,residents will have to determine whether the project is new enough to finally get their
stamp of approvaL
donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com
Follow Donna Littlejohn on Twitter at http://twitter.com/donnalittlejohn
What's next?
What:Presentation on the latest Ponte Vista housing proposal at the monthly meeting of the Northwest San Pedro
Neighborhood Council
Where:St.Peter's Episcopal Church,1648 W.Ninth St.,San Pedro
When:6 p.m.Monday
Information:www.pontevista.com (where there also is a link to the city's draft EIR;www.nwsanpedro.org/;Ponte
Vista office,310-241-0699.
Page 3 of3 13/11/2012 13:09 PMC-18
Ponte Vista fact sheets from NWSPNC Board meeting
C-19
The new Ponte Vista is a proposed In 1999,the Planning Department and City approved
residential community in San Pedro,a plan for redeveloping the site as a mixed-use
development.That plan ultimately did not moveincluding1,135 residential units,a mixture
forward,and the property is currently vacant.Until a
of single family homes,townhomes,project is approved by the City,the site will remain
single and multi-story condominiums,in its current state,with blighted,abandoned homes
and luxury apartment homes.Ponte Vista standing unoccupied.
is proposed for a 61.5 acre site located In March,2010,iStar Financial took ownership and
at 26900 S.Western Avenue,in the control ofthe Ponte Vista property.iStar has been
Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan working with the Council office,LA City Planning
in the City of Los Angeles.The site was Dept.and the community to develop a new,revised
previously owned by the federal govern-plan for the site that is in keeping with the Harbor area
community.The project is currently moving through
ment,providing housing to naval per-the environmental review process and City approval
sonnel and their families until the Naval process.iStar's goal is to transform the blighted site
Shipyards closed in the late 1990s.into a productive residential community.
--~.
I
..:
C-20
.•X::::>.;X.::-y '\}jrw·.~xIIIII.,~
During its construction,Ponte Vista will emPlOY.III-
hundreds of local construction workers.Once '.
complete,additi.onal ?enefits will include incr~asing II~'.II.:~
the ~ax base,which w~1I fund ~chools and public.~II
services,and gene~a~lng project park and r~cr:atlon IW.?t._;
fees .of over ~2.5 million to f~nd new and eXisting ~.:?1.-~
public parks In the surrounding areas.]!II·JTI
lTdl3t
".@lIiW":@:fm.wftt:*.%.~I
••m
Improvements
As part of the EIR (Environmental Impact Report,
which is part of the California Environmental Quality
Act),a completely new traffic study was completed.
Twenty intersections were identified that need
improvements in order to offset any potential impact
from future traffic from the Ponte Vista development
16 of the intersections are within the City of Los
Angeles,and the remaining intersections are in
neighboring cities or on the border between cities.
All potential traffic impacts from the project are
able to be fully addressed through transportation
improvements in the Harbor area.Improvements
may include new turning lanes,left-turn lights and
new signals,for example.
to Sustainability
Ponte Vista will be designed and built to LEED
standards,and issues of energy and water conservation
are central to the project's design.Our landscaping
team has designed the project with drought-resistant
landscaping to reduce water use,as well as irrigation
systems using recycled grey water through purple
pipe.In addition,rainwater runoff will be captured in
bioswales,a natural groundwater filtration system that
cleans and recharges local groundwater.
Outdoor recreation is an important part of the overall
site design.Ponte Vista will feature a number of small
parks and playgrounds.Hiking and biking trails will
allow both residents and the community to enjoy the
beautiful,environmentally-sensitive landscape features.
We welcome your comments and invite you to
contact us at info@pontevista.com,or visit our website
www.pontevista.com for more information.
-
San Pedro's Families
Ponte Vista is designed to meet the residential
housing needs of Harbor-area families.The project
will contain many housing options,including 143
single family homes,140 townhomes,120 single
and multi-level condominiums,514 single-level
condominiums (flats),and 218 luxury apartment
homes.iStar is committed to building a high-quality
residential community with amenities that meet the
needs of working men and women,families and
seniors,as well as being affordable to residents
who currently live in the Harbor area.
Designed with the Community
As the EIR process launched in November,2010,a
public Scoping Session was held in San Pedro.At that
event,and through other events in the past,we have
gathered dozens,if not hundreds,of suggestions and
comments on past and present plans for Ponte Vista.
This ongoing conversation with the community has
been critical to developing the new plan for Ponte
Vista.Many of the suggestions made by community
members are reflected in the present design.
We have designed a project that is less dense,
with a suburban feel that matches the surrounding
neighborhoods,with less than half the units
proposed by the original developer (1,135 units
versus over 2,300).Over 40%of the project site is
devoted to single family homes,and the layout of
the project has been designed to preserve views of
the Harbor,and to ensure a generous setback from
Western Avenue.Additionally,Ponte Vista will include
a system of walking and biking trails,as well as small
parks and playgrounds for residents,and a permanent
and direct access road to Mary Star of the Sea High
School from Western Avenue.
Benefits
The Ponte Vista site presents a unique opportunity
to master plan a residential community on one of the
larger undeveloped parcels of land in the Harbor area
and the City of Los Angeles.The Ponte Vista site is
located near public transit and jobs,with the nation's
busiest port less than 2 miles away.The Port is the
region's biggest job generator,and the location of
Ponte Vista offers the opportunity to build new
housing close to existing jobs.
C-21
_,II,.'·'~
•m.1111%,::~~j :"
%
homes ~nd I
landscaping •
•-.W1.1lli.__IA.II
since the closure of the local naval base/
the Ponte Vista site has sat vacant/and
the abandoned housing on the site
has been a blight on the surrounding •dlxd!community.The new plan for Ponte ._r~t.]I.
Vista is an exciting project that will lilli'rili:~::v~:~~~et~::i:r::;~~e:r:~%~~~:1 11111miltheexistingneighborhood.•••
-m~
The new Ponte Vista is a proposed
residential community in San Pedro/
including 1/135 residential units/a
mixture of single family homes/
townhomes/and apartments.A former
U.S.Navy family housing development/
the 61.5 acre Ponte Vista site is located
on Western Avenue.For over 15 years/
C-22
for Design
The project designers,Robert Hidey Architects (RHA),
is a Southern California-based company.Firm
principal and founder Robert Hidey grew up in Palos
Verdes Estates,where he developed his passion for
architecture and design.RHA specializes in designing
homes rich in architectural detail and history,and for
Ponte Vista,the team looked to the unique history of
the San Pedro area for inspiration.
At Ponte Vista,housing and community buildings will
be built in one of two distinct styles:Mediterranean
and California Modern.The vision is to have an
overall design that incorporates a variety of historical
and stylistic references native to the area,while
maintaining a cohesive feel for the community.
Landscape architects ValleyCrest Design Group
specialize in sustainable design.ValleyCrest worked
in close collaboration with the architecture and
engineering firms to develop a plan that highlights
the natural beauty of the site and maximizes the use
of green and open space.Water conservation is a
key element of the overall design,and drought-
tolerant native and Mediterranean plantings will be
featured throughout.In addition,mature trees will be
planted to provide shade,and to make sure the new
Ponte Vista blends organically into the surrounding
neighborhood.
Options
Ponte Vista is designed with 143 detached single-family
homes on traditional lots (with backyards),comprising
over 40%of the total project site area.These homes
will be built in the Mediterranean style.Other housing
types include:
•140 Townhomes,all with private garages
•120 Single-and multi-level condominiums
•514 Single-level condominiums (flats)
•218 Apartments
"ill
•IIIII.~.The new Ponte Vista is designed to meet the unique •tm
needs of a range of household types and sizes -W ::x:
from young families to singles and seniors.At Ponte _._:
Vista,everyone can find the perfect home for their family.~;.;b_1I
iVwftt4f-"q •
Far less dense than previous plans (less than half
the number of units originally proposed),the new
Ponte Vista is designed with the families of San Pedro
in mind.Housing types feature a diversity of sizes
and layouts to meet the needs of families,young
professionals and seniors,across income levels.
The overall design is crafted to highlight the natural
beauty of the site,preserve the unique views of the
Harbor,and lessen the environmental footprint of
the buildings,wherever possible.
The new Ponte Vista will feature abundant
opportunities for on-site outdoor recreation,
including hiking and biking trails and multiple parks,
playgrounds and even a dog park.On-site amenities
will include several swimming pools and a clubhouse.
Drought-tolerant landscaping and water recycling
will help promote the conservation of natural
resources.Landscaping with mature trees will give
the community a settled,lush appearance that will
enhance views into the community from Western
Avenue and provide the natural cooling and shade
to reduce energy consumption.
with the Community
Starting from the ground up,the Ponte Vista creative
team designed the project to reflect input and ideas
from the community.In addition to the project
being re-designed from those proposed by previous
developers,a new Environmental Impact Report
has been completed,including a completely new
traffic study.Significant community input was
included to ensure that the new plan meets the
community's goals,and creates a quality project
that will be embraced by its neighbors.
Building on ideas and input from the community,
the current design calls for less than half the number
of units originally proposed for the site,as well as
lower density,more single-family homes,and
numerous green design features.
C-23
Traffic Study?
Traffic studies are carried out as part of
the City of Los Angeles's environmental
review process.Completed by certified
engineers,these studies examine a wide
variety of issues,including the type and
location of the proposed project,and
the existing traffic and environmental
conditions in the area.The goal of the
study is to determine what,if any,impacts
the proposed development will have on
traffic in the surrounding community,and
how those impacts can be addressed
through traffic improvements.
Traffic studies must meet the requirements of the
City of Los Angeles and LADOT (Los Angeles
Department of Transportation)/as well as CEQA
(California Environmental Quality Act).The
intersections studied are primarily determined
by LADOT.
Traffic Study
A new traffic study has been conducted by
the Ponte Vista development team/as part of the
EIR process.Through our conversations with the
community,it became clear that there was concern
about relying on the 2006 traffic study for the new
EI R.Therefore,we made the decision to complete
an entirely new traffic study.
C-24
Improvements have been identified that will mitigate
the potential impacts to specific intersections.These
improvements will be constructed before traffic
impacts due to Ponte Vista could occur.Permits for
the improvements will be issued by the City of Los
Angeles,CALTrans,or another jurisdiction,depending
on where the intersection is located.Improvements
may include new turning lanes,left-turn lights and
new signals,for example.
Forward
Keeping traffic moving around and through
Ponte Vista is important to the project's success
and crucial to preserving the quality of life in the
Harbor community.The Ponte Vista team is pleased
that all traffic impacts listed in the EIR are able to be
fully addressed through traffic improvements in the
Harbor area.
Mary Star of the Sea High School
As part of the Ponte Vista project,a dedicated road
from Western Avenue to the Mary Star of the Sea
High School will be built.This is just one of many
benefits and improvements that will come to the
community through the Ponte Vista project.
_.-
The study examined intersections in the City of Los
Angeles as well as neighboring cities such as Rancho
Palos Verdes and Lomita,and unincorporated areas
of Los Angeles County.Additional intersections
evaluated in the new study were identified from public
comments to the previous Draft EIR for the property
(for example,Western Avenue/Peninsula Verde Drive,
and Western Avenue/Fitness Drive).
Traffic counts were taken in the fall,when school
was in session,during peak weekday morning and
afternoon hours,as well as on Saturdays.In addition,
the timeframe for traffic counts was extended in
order to capture school traffic,from 2pm to 6pm.
Recommendations
With the new,completed traffic study in hand,
Ponte Vista is proposing a transportation plan that
maximizes the flow of traffic along Western Avenue
and other important roadways within the community.
As outlined in the EI R,the new traffic study has
identified 20 intersections where potential impacts
exist once Ponte Vista is built.Of these intersections,
most are within the City of Los Angeles,and many of
the intersections are located on the border between
cities/jurisdictions.
C-25
Sustainability is an essential element
of the overall design plan for Ponte Vista l
a proposed residential development
in San Pedro.The New Ponte Vista
architecture l landscaping and engineering
teams are highly experienced in
sustainable design l and bring creative l
practical and proven solutions to the
issues our community is facing l including
water supplYI energy consumption l and
preservation of open space.
11"11"'1111I1111'11"11
1
11I_•.
Site History
Located on Western Avenue in San Pedro,
Ponte Vista is a 61.5 acre former naval housing site.
Currently,the site is covered with dilapidated,
vacant housing.The new plan for Ponte Vista will
reinvigorate the area with a residential community
that is designed to fit into the existing neighborhood,
including 1,135 residential units,a mixture of
single family homes,townhomes,condominiums
and apartments.
C-26
Sustainable Community
Ponte Vista is being designed as an 'urban in-fill'
project,meaning that it is being built within the
boundaries of an existing city and with existing
transportation and other infrastructure in place.
These urban in-fill projects are,by definition,
more environmentally-friendly as they limit urban
sprawl and keep residents close to existing jobs
and transportation centers.
Ponte Vista residents will have easy access to
public transportation on Western Avenue,and
easy freeway access to the 110 freeway.Also,the
project is located within 2 miles of the Port of
Los Angeles,a hub for thousands of local jobs.
Ponte Vista promotes the economic and
environmental sustainability of the Harbor area
by locating new housing close to employment.
Living
All buildings at Ponte Vista will be designed and
built to the City's Green Building Code and LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
standards.In addition,Ponte Vista will seek
opportunities to design and build to the highest
LEED standards wherever possible.
Sustainability informs both large and small decisions
in the design and building phases.For example,
during construction,efforts will be made to reduce
waste.Low-flow water faucets will be standard in
all units,as will Energy Star appliances.Landscape
elements are designed to support sustainable
elements of the project:planting mature trees to
shade people and buildings,and using plantings as
natural buffers between roads and buildings.The
result will be a community of energy-efficient homes
with lush landscaping that supports a clean and
healthy environment.
Open Space
Water conservation is a central element of the
sustainable design practices at Ponte Vista.
Our landscaping team designed the project with
drought-resistant landscaping to reduce water use,
as well as irrigation systems using recycled grey
water through purple pipes when made available
through future City improvements.Our engineering
and landscaping teams use the natural grading of
the site to capture and direct rainwater.Rainwater
runoff will be directed to bioswales and other
possible natural water filtration systems to clean
local groundwater.This rainwater capturing system
also prevents flooding,and will be a model for
other developments on how to design with the
health of the environment in mind.
Outdoor recreation is an important part of the
overall health of the community;Ponte Vista will
feature a number of small parks and playgrounds
for residents.There will also be walking and
biking trails,allowing the community to enjoy the
landscape features and views from Ponte Vista.
C-27
PV News article regarding Ponte Vista EIR
C-28
Print Version Page 1 of2
[Print Page)
DEIR released for latest plan for former Navy site
By Mary Scott,Peninsula News
Thursday,November 15,2012 11:37 AM PST
SAN PEDRO -While more than 200 vacant duplexes at a former U.S.Navy site on Western Avenue in San
Pedro deteriorate,planners have tried to get the city of Los Angeles to approve various incarnations of a
residential development proposed for the property.But San Pedro residents,as well as their neighbors in
Rancho PaloS'Verdes,have contested the plans over the years,saying the Ponte Vista project is just too big.
Last Thursday,the city of Los Angeles released the draft environmental impact report for the latest
incarnation of the project.The scaled-down project is proposed for the former naval housing site,empty
since 1997,on Western Avenue,across from Green Hills Memorial Park,at the San Pedro-RPV border.
The revised plan calls for 1,135 units (the same number proposed in 2010)of mixed housing types:40
percent of the property will be devoted to single-family homes (143),while the remainder of the property is
slated for single-and multilevel condominiums,townhomes and luxury apartments.None are offered as
affordable senior housing units.It also features more than 6 acres of open space (playgrounds,pocket
parks,and hiking and biking trails),swimming pools and a recreation center,and "green"elements such as
water conservation features,rainwater collection and drought-tolerant landscaping,as well as improvements
to Western Avenue and traffic improvements for about 20 nearby intersections.
"We listened to the community and understand that traffic is a top concern.That is why we undertook a
completely new traffic study and went above and beyond in the analysis to ensure the proposed
improvements will address the issues we've heard,"said David Shender,a traffic engineer with Linscott,Law
and Greenspan,an engineering firm helping with the Ponte Vista project.
The project originally suggested 2,300 units,offering 575 of those units for senior housing.That plan would
have added 4,300 residents.Residents complained about the influx of traffic and overcrowding the project
would bring.
"We agreed with many in the community who told us that the previous project was not in keeping with the
neighborhood,"said Dennis Cavallari,Ponte Vista's project manager."So,the first thing we did was to scrap
the old plans and completely start from scratch."
The new proposal is said to be "on par"with The Gardens,an adjacent residential development.
The new DEIR includes other options,one of which is a plan for 830 units.
The RPV city staff will review the DEIR and update the City Council at its Dec.4 meeting during staff's
Border Issues Status Report.
The city of Los Angeles will take public comment on the DEIR until Monday,Jan.7,2013.
"The community has been waiting for over a decade for a thoughtful development at Ponte Vista,"Cavallari
said."We are eager to move forward with a residential project that fits the unique character of San Pedro
and the Harbor area."
Residents interested in viewing Ponte Vista's DEIR can do so at
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/PonteVistaProj2/DEIR/DEIR%20Ponte%20Vista%20Project.html.
http://www.pvnews.com/articles/20 12/11 /15/local_news/news3 .prt 11/15/2012C-29
Print Version
mscott@pvnews.com
Page 2 of2
A 1,135-unit residential project,Ponte Vista,is proposed for this site on Western Avenue in San Pedro.The
site was owned by the U.S.Navy and was used as military housing.The more than 200 duplexes on the
property hav~sat vacant since 1997.(File Photo)
http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2O 12/11 /15/local_news/news3.prt 11/15/2012
C-30
RHE Planning Commission agenda and Staff report
for Brickwalk,LLC project
C-31
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates.CA 90274
Phone-(310)377-1577·Fax-(310)377-4468
www.RollingHillsEstatesCa.Gov
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
October 15,7:00 pm Regular Meeting
Reports and documents relating to each agenda item are on file available for public inspection on our website.
1.CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2.SALUTE TO THE FLAG
3.ROLL CALL
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES (10/1/12)
5.AUDIENCE ITEMS
6.CONSENT CALENDAR -None
7.BUSINESS ITEMS -None
8.PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.PLANNING APPLICATION NO.01-07;APPLICANT:George Daneshgar;LOCATION:
655-683 Deep Valley Drive and 924-950 Indian Peak Road;A mixed-use residential project
requiring approval of the following:1)Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67553;2)A
Conditional Use Permit for a mixed-use development;3)a Precise Plan of Design for
buildings and structures;4)a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted building height;
5)a Variance to permit a smaller setback than required by Code;6)a Variance to permit
fewer parking spaces than required by Code;7)a Grading permit;and 8)Environmental
Impact Report.(NC)
9.COMMISSION ITEMS
10.DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
11.MATTERS OF INFORMATION
A.Park and Activities Commission Draft Minutes (10/2/12)
B.City Council Actions (10/9/12)
12.ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,if you require a disability-related mDdiJication or accommodation to attend or participate
in this meeting,including auxiliary aids or services,please call the City Clerk's Office at (310)377-1577 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
C-32
AGENDA
OCT f!5 2012
ITEM NO.~A
Staff Repor
City of Rolling Hills Estate
L:..:..:::':'::"':":':::':"'=:::::::::::::.III
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
OCTOBER 15,2012
PLANNING COMMISSION
NIKI CUTLER,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER
PLANNING APPLICATION NO.01-07
APPLICANT:MR.STEPHEN JORDAN,THE AURIC GROUP,LLC
PROPERTY OWNER:BRICKWALK,LLC (MR.GEORGE DANESHGAR)
LOCATION:655-683 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE/924-950 INDIAN PEAK ROAD
OVEElliJEW
The following is a request to approve:
1.Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67553;
2.A Conditional Use Permit (CUP)for a mixed-use development including 148
condominium/town home units and 14,200 square feet of commercial space in the
Commercial General (C-G)/Mixed-Use Overlay Zone;
3.A Precise Plan of Design (PPD)for buildings and structures;
4.A Variance to exceed the maximum permitted building height;
5.A Variance to permit a smaller setback than required by Code;
6.A Variance to permit fewer parking spaces than required by Code/shared parking
agreement;
7.A Grading application is required to permit stabilization of the landslide and building pads for
buildings and structures;and
8.An Environmental Impact Report,Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
BACKGROUND
This item was last heard on September 4,2012.At that time,the Planning Commission opened
the public hearing,took public testimony including a presentation by the project applicant,
discussed the issues and continued the public hearing to tonight's meeting to allow staff and the
applicant to prepare further information.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare further information on a variety of issues
including traffic,geotechnical and fiscal issues for this meeting.Staff has been working with the
C-33
applicant over the past several weeks to compile this information and has received a few items
which are presently being reviewed by our consultant team.Rather than provide the
Commission with piecemeal information,staff will present all of the requested information at a
future meeting,perhaps by November.
One requested item by the Commission was a presentation of all proposed traffic impacts and
mitigation measures.Richard Barretto of Linscott,Law and Greenspan Associates (LLG)will be
in attendance to provide said presentation.Unfortunately,our traffic engineer has a prior
commitment to another City,so he will not be able to answer questions on the City's behalf;
however,our traffic engineer is in support of the required traffic improvements that are required
of the project.
Any other Commission or public questions would also be appreciated at this meeting,so that
staff can prepare responses in advance of the next meeting for the project.Staff would like to
continue this item,tentatively,to the meeting of November 19,2012,which incidentally is the
same week as Thanksgiving on Thursday,November 22 nd .
RECOMMENDATIO N
The Public Hearing for this item remains open.Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
1.Continues to take Public-Testimony;
2.Discusses the issues;and
3.Continue the Public Hearing to the November 19,2012 meeting.
Exhibits
Attached
1.Planning Commission minute excerpt from 9/4/12
Pa01-07 pm2
2
C-34
MINUTES EXCERPT
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 4,2012
8.PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.PLANNING APPLICATION NO.01-07;APPLICANT:GEORGE DANESHGAR;
LOCATION:655-683 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE AND 924-950 INDIAN PEAK
ROAD;A MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT REQUIRING APPROVAL OF
THE FOLLOWING:1)VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.67553;2)A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT;3)A
PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES;4)A
VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTEQ BUILDING HEIGHT;5)
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SMALLER SETBACK THAN REQUIRED BY
CODE;6)A VARIANCE TO PERMIT FEWER PARKING SPACES THAN
REQUIRED BY CODE;7)A GRADING PERMIT;AND 8)ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT.
Principal Planner Cutler gave a brief Staff Report,per written materials.
COMMISSIONER BAYER moved,seconded by COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ,
TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
There being no objection,CHAIRWOMAN HUFF so ordered.
Stephen Jordan (The Auric Group,PO Box 831,Manhattan Beach)came forward and
gave an overview presentation.
Ted Wolfe (Petra Geotechnical,18610 Caballero Court,Tarzana,representing the
applicant)came forward and gave a geological presentation.
Dan Bolton (Bolton Engineering,25834 Narbonne Avenue,Lomita,representing the
applicant)came forward and gave a civil engineering presentation.
Medinah Adal (300 West Ocean Boulevard,Long Beach,representing the applicant)
came forward and gave an architectural presentation.
CHAIRWOMAN HUFF asked whether a Rancho Palos Verdes consultant has looked at
the project.Mr.Wolfe responded that the geotechnical engineer for Rancho Palos
Verdes has done a secondary review and given his approval.
COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ asked whether the slide took out all of the fill from the '60s
and '70s,and Mr.Wolfe responded that the majority of it is fill,but the loose soils below
it also failed.
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt
September 4,2012
1
C-35
COMMISSIONER SCOTT asked about the projected costs to even attempt to get ready
to build,and Mr.Jordan responded that it's such a desirable location in this community
and there will be a strong demand for the housing,although the project does present a
challenge.He does not have the numbers ready but can provide them to Staff.
COMMISSIONER BAYER expressed her concern with the history of starts and stops
and problems with financing projects in the city and that adequate financing would be
very important knowledge.COMMISSIONER SCOTT added that it's critical the city not
wind up with a big hole in the ground.Mr.Jordan then spoke positively about the
housing market,the economy and the highly desirable location and special community.
Craig Stevens came forward,representing the partnership,and stated that the
abandoned project at Hawthorne Boulevard/Rolling Hills Road is a Sunrise development,
and Sunrise has several projects that they went belly-up on.However,in upper-end
neighborhoods there is a lot of demand for housing right now.Costs kept changing,and
the applicant is looking to understand what it's going to cost,who will give a loan for it
and what the cost will be to move dirt and put caissons and crossbeams in.$2M or $3M
was estimated previously,but costs have gotten higher as the project design has
changed to work with the City.
COMMISSIONER REIN raised the issue of drains behind and under the multi-owner
residential project,whether they could be easily accessed and serviced and whether
there is a groundwater problem on the site.Mr.Wolfe responded that there is not per se
a groundwater condition on""the site,but theissueiswith 5urface"waterthat percolates
down.The pipes will catch the water during wet years,and to go even further,there will
be horizontal drains 150 feet deep into the slope to pick up water before it even reaches
the excavations.COMMISSIONER REIN pointed out that a drainage problem would
impact a large number of individuals,and how long these drains last and whether they
are serviceable without disrupting residents would be key issues.Mr.Wolfe responded
that in most cases standard drains are not maintained.They are basically gravity drains
discharged into approved storm drain facilities.The horizontal drains could simply be
serviced with a Roto-Rooter type situation every five to seven years on a limited basis
only where the outlets are.There's not a lot to it.They are designed for a long life.
Mr,Bolton added that he designs drains similar to this and observe their installation on a
weekly basis.They are very common and represent a canary in a coal mine.The only
time you see water coming out of those drains is during a very significant rain event.
They would be dry all the time and water would only represent a sign that there is
something wrong with the infrastructure at the site,giving the owners an opportunity to
fix it prior to creating another problem.
COMMISSIONER REIN asked further about situations where people leave sprinklers on
and cause landslides.Mr.Wolfe responded that that situation can't recur.The
calculations assume saturated conditions.
COMMISSIONER REIN then asked about the factor of safety for the slope as designed
now,and Mr.Wolfe responded that it is a factor safety of 1.5,which means resisting
forces are 50%greater than driVing forces on the slope,and that's Code standard for
Southern California.
COMMISSIONER REIN then asked about the Indian Peak slope,and Mr.Wolfe
responded that it will be constructed at a 2:1 slope.
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt
September 4,2012
2
C-36
COMMISSIONER REIN then asked about the still occupied commercial bUildings and
other possible alternatives to dealing with the landslide area and the 1.3 million yards of
earth movement going on for months.Mr.Jordan responded that any alternative
solution is a temporary solution.This is a short-term impact but a long-term fix for the
landslide area.
COMMISSIONER REIN pointed out that the core problem is the incredible cost to the
developer.It may not pay for itself,as commercial real estate in the area is a problem.
Mr.Jordan responded that the mixed use will provide the revenue to offset the costs.
COMMISSIONER REIN pointed out that it won't work if it doesn't turn a profit and again
asked whether there are any alternatives that could be used to mitigate the costs.
Mr.Jordan responded that this is the first step to get the project moving forward.
Marilyn Forsythe (31 Cypress Way)came forward as a resident of the Terraces.
Ms.Forsythe pointed out that when you include the 655-683 Deep Valley Drive project to
the cumulative projects already approved for construction on Deep Valley Drive,in less
th-an half a mile on a narrow,curving street with businesses,office buildings,a library
and a post office and add a large amount of commercial and residential space,the traffic
and parking become issues and may destroy the ambiance thatdraws people to Rolling
Hills Estates in the first place.
Kit Fox (Administrative Analyst with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes)came forward and
disctJssedthe comment letter as part oHhe-fina+EI-R addressing a number of issues.
RPV has not yet had time to digest the responses given to RPV's comments,which are
technical in nature.Also,there are some additional items that RPV's geologist would
like to see.RPV has a nature preserve,and there's some discussion about a gOO-foot
distance,and there may be some confusion regarding that.Also,there have been some
changes in responsibility for different segments and intersections that RHE had
maintained for many years,and those responsibilities have reverted back to RPV,and
RPV's engineer is interested in looking at those.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT asked Mr.Fox about the tiebacks that run into the hill into
RPV's property.Mr.Fox agreed that is one of the concerns.COMMISSIONER SCOTT
then asked for any history or policy on approving those types of tiebacks,and Mr.Fox
responded that RPV is not at a stage yet where it's permitting anything but assumes at
some point there would be a coordinated permitting between the two public works
departments and the county to address those issues to everyone's satisfaction.
COMMISSIONER REIN pointed out that this would stabilize RPV's property,and
Mr.Fox responded that RPV can certainly see the benefit of anything done on this
property to enhance the stability of Indian Peak Road and stabilize the landslide.
Craig Knickerbocker (827 Deep Valley Drive)came forward as an owner of existing
property next door and condos that have been approved but not yet built.
Mr.Knickerbocker would love to see some nice homes and a nice development on that
slope.However,great geologists have given previous assurances about stable property
that did not hold true (e.g.,the crack in his driveway,the Trump golf course,several
homes in Palos Verdes Estates).Mr.Knickerbocker would be a big advocate of second
and third geologist reviews.Mr.Knickerbocker also expressed concern about his
medical building and the doctors'practices,should this fail and the buildings that are
precariously high above his building that could come down.Also,almost any time of the
year there is groundwater bubbling up when trenches are dug.The grading routes are
also a concern with kids and moms running back and forth across the street all day long.
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt
September 4,2012
3
C-37
The City has powers to force mitigation for public safety and public welfare.The owner
should clean up that property,whether they build on it or not.The finances will probably
never work,but there should be some plan that could at least stabilize the hillside and
get the plastic out of there or a grading bond that they have to finish it.The caissons
and the depths were all wrong on the Sunrise project,so a lot of backup consulting is
needed.
Cat Spydell (50 Ranchview Road)came forward as a long-time resident and pointed out
the problem with keeping retail in the mall (even offering one year free).Also,to get an
occupancy permit PVDN and Hawthorne Boulevard has to be widened into seven lanes,
and there are plans for a triangle in the crosswalk because a pedestrian can't make it
across the street all in one go.There are already a lot of empty condos and retail space.
Fixing the landslide and taking out old buildings is good,but maybe it's too much for the
small community.Maybe a little less so the roads don't have to be widened all the way
down at Hawthorne and PVDN.
Oonna Tarr (63 Ranchview)came forward and stated that she was blind-sided by this
item and happened to see it yesterday.This is a major project that will have major
impacts on the community,and there should be a better way for the City to communicate
with the residents.COMMISSIONER BAYER clarified that anything the Commission
does is advisory to City Council.Ms.Tarr further commented that the draft EIR process
took place in the middle of the summer when people were not around to really study
something like this,and there's only 8 handful of the8,OOO residents present at this
meeting.Ms.Tarr is concerned about the design of two-story condos and the view from
the back window.New condos were built at Crenshaw and Silver Spur.None of the 78
condos sold (Readers,please note that the actual number of condos is 18),and they all went to
auction.Ms.Tarr further suggested making the cliff more scenic by planting wildflowers
or shrubbery for the time being.
CHAIRWOMAN HUFF,COMMISSIONER SCOTT and Planning Director Wahba pointed
out the notifications in the Peninsula News,the billboard advertising at major
intersections in the city,the notifications to the homeowner's association representatives
and the L1STSERV on the City's website.Planning Director Wahba further clarified that
the City has been working on this project for many,many years,and any decision is a
recommendation to City Council.There will be more Planning Commission meetings,
and City Council will advertise a whole series of other public hearings.
Jim Forsythe (31 Cypress Way)came forward as a resident of the Terraces and stated
that he has a homeowner's association of roughly 1,000 residents,and there was
absolutely no communication about this project.Mr.Forsythe then pointed out the
groundwater problem in Portuguese Bend.There is a stream that comes down and is
being fed by an underground stream,and that stream has to be at least halfway up the
hill at its source.There is underground water coming out year-round.In addition,there
was a heavy rainstorm and water was pouring out of the canyon on Island View (housing
tract),and RPV said it was a normal underground stream,so it appears that there is
groundwater in Palos Verdes.Mr.Forsythe and Mr.Wolfe then discussed drains.Mr.
Wolfe commented that there will be water.Mr.Forsythe then discussed the retaining
wall behind the mixed use shops and stabilization of Crenshaw and Indian Peak and the
possibility of leaVing the earth out and keeping a relatively flat surface.
Jennifer Ise (RPV resident)came forward and spoke regarding her concerns of traffic
congestion and the glut of condos,office space and retail space on the hill.Further
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt
September 4,2012
4
C-38
development might drive down property values and add to the problem.Also,widening
the roads and intersections all adds up to changing the character of the peninsula.
Ms.Ise supports fixing the landslide but questions what alternatives exist,and possibly
something smaller scale can be considered and incorporate preservation of open space
and the natural environment.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT again clarified that the Commission is not voting on the EIR at
this meeting,and the community will have more chances to look at this.Staff and the
applicant will also have a chance to answer questions presented tonight.There has
been a lot of discussion about tiebacks,but there is no section in the EIR on those.How
are Crenshaw and Indian Peak holding up where they intersect?Also,more
specification is needed on mitigation measures,including graphics.There needs to be a
discussion about the parking deficiency (e.g.,surface public parking as part of 6 or 7 or
13 spaces overuse and 104-space shortfall on the office bUilding today).Clarification is
needed regarding landscaped walls.More is needed on the export of dirt (200,000
yards at Chandler may not be something they're interested in).More is needed about
ti~backs going into RPV.There is a reference to demolition of 2,000 square feet in the
Brickwalk building,but there's no mention of the square footage being demolished in the
655 Deep Valley Drive office buildings across from the library.
COMMISSIONER BAYER appreciated Mr.Knickerbocker's significant concerns and
would like to see his concerns addressed.His historical knowledge is quite valuable,
and although there isgreatrespect for the opinion received,there is value in second and
third opinions.Planning Director Wahba pointed out that there have been a number of
peer reviews.
COMMISSIONER BAYER further commented that she would like more information on
the impact on Mr.Knickerbocker's building and the other buildings in front and what will
happen when they tear down the buildings on top.What safety precautions are in
place?There will be a lot of tear-down,a lot of importing and exporting and great
potential for land movement during the immediate construction.Planning Director
Wahba pointed out that there are a number of requirements through Building &Safety;
however,that we will work with the applicant to get more information.
COMMISSIONER BAYER asked whether the traffic impact mitigation is different than
the current proposals already gong forward,and Planning Director Wahba responded
that there is an overlap between the projects.COMMISSIONER BAYER asked for
clarification on that and to take into consideration the views of other residents in the
community about seven lanes and the traffic impact.Also,there is an issue with the
backyard opening on to a terrace and then a giant retaining wall behind it.Planning
Director Wahba suggested some more cross-sections from the applicant to help
understand how those retaining walls relate to the buildings.
COMMISSIONER BAYER further commented that the height of the buildings is a
concern.Also,a Variance has been requested for front setback requirements,and
having looked at other places on Silver Spur and where the setback is less,she would
prefer to have more green space than setback.Planning Director Wahba pointed out
that in the Peninsula Village overlay zone it was desirable to have zero front setback to
engage the street,but with condos turning their back to the street it would be
advantageous to have that greenback separation.
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt
September 4,2012
5
C-39
COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ commented that her understanding is that in order to take
care of the landslide the only alternative that will work is this development because it's
what will pay for it.It has to be this large because in order to fix the landslide this is what
it's going to take to pay for it.This needs to happen with this dollar cost.Also,she
would like to see more about the parking deficiency and agreed with Mr.Knickerbocker's
concerns to guarantee tenant safety.She agrees with the idea of bringing mixed use
into the city,but she lives here because she sees green space and it's a quiet,rural
community.
COMMISSIONER REIN commented that members of the public have made some very
good points.The geotechnical challenges of this site are daunting,and the City needs
every assurance that this project will hold up geotechnically,both during and after the
construction to guarantee potential homeowners will be able to retain the value of their
property and not be adversely affected by earthwork issues in the future.This is a very
cutting-edge,high-density project embedded deep into the hill,and all issues must be
resolved.
COMMISSIONER SOUTHWELL commented that this project is important because
there's a potential significant public benefit out of it to stabilize the hill and remove the
slide area,making the unique characteristics of the project fit the unique circumstances
of the slide area.This project is a reasonable approach.With the geotechnical and
economic risks involved a lot of sensitivity would need to go into the risk analysis,and
it's a formidable task to take on.A huge potential-downsideweuld be if the prejeetgets
approved,proceeds and then defaults in the middle.Therefore,it should proceed in
phasing,with the first phase bonded where the public benefit is taking place.That way,
if there were a default the public interest would be protected and the city would be left
with a safe area for the public.It would drive up the costs somewhat but be minimized.
COMMISSIONER SOUTHWELL stated that he can't get behind the project unless there
was a financial assurance like that.The public would benefit first,and at some point the
benefits would go to the owners.Traffic and parking problems are also issues,but those
can wait until later.
CHAIRWOMAN HUFF agreed that the amount of work that's gone into this is impressive
and expressed her appreciation.The safety issues are of utmost concern,especially for
the residents and business owners in the immediately vicinity.
COMMISSIONER BAYER moved,seconded by COMMISSIONER SCHMITZ,
TO CONTINUE PLANNING APPLICATION NO.PA 01-07 TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 15.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Scott,Schmitz,Rein,Bayer,Southwell,Chairwoman Huff
None
None
Conway
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt
September 4,2012
6
C-40
Comments on DEIR for San Pedro Community Plan Update
C-41
CITYOF
9 October 2012
Debbie Lawrence,AICP
City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning
200 N.Spring St.,Rm.667
Los Ang'eles,CA 90012
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
ADMINISTRATION
VIA ELECTRONIC &U.S.MAIL
SUBJECT:Comments Regarding the Proposed Draft Environmental Impact
Report (Case No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR)for the San Pedro Community
Plan Update
Pt/J6ItDear~ce:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)for the above-mentioned project.We also
appreciate that our request for a 15-day extension on the public comment period was
granted.As you may recall,the City previously commented upon the scope of the DEIR
for this project on 12 February 2008.We have reviewed the Notice of
Completion/Availability and the DEIR,and offer the following comments:
1.The discussion of Project Implementation in the DEIR (Section 3.4)includes the
description of proposed land use changes (pp.3-12 to 3-25).Of particular
interest to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are the proposed land use
designations for two (2)of the subareas identified on Figure 3-4 and in Table 3-2:
a.Subarea 10 is a 76.02-acre area located at the northeast corner of Gaffey
Street and Westmont Drive,which includes the existing Rancho LPG
(formerly AmeriGas and Petrolane)facility.The plan calls for the existing
land use designations of "Heavy Manufacturing"and "Light Manufacturing"
in this subarea to be replaced with a single designation of "Heavy
Industrial."How will this proposed change the affect future operations and
limit the expansion and/or modification of the current Rancho LPG facility?
b.Subarea 260 is a 15.69-acre area that includes the existing commercial
centers surrounding the intersection of Western Avenue and 25th Street.
The plan calls for the existing land use designations of "Neighborhood
Office Commercial"and "Low Residential"in this subarea to be replaced
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391/(310)544-5205/FAX (310)544-5291
WWWPALOSVERDES.COMjRPV
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER C-42
Debbie Lawrence
9 October 2012
Page 2
with a single designation of "Community CommerciaL"We understand
that the intent of this proposed change is to encourage the re-
development of this subarea into a mixed-use,pedestrian-oriented
community commercial center serving the southernmost portion of the San
Pedro community.The intersection of Western Avenue and 25 th Street is
located along one of the major transportation corridors providing access to
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (25 th Street becomes Palos Verdes Drive
South a mile or so to the west of this intersection).We understand that
site-specific re-development proposals within this subarea would be
subject to additional CEQA review in the future.However,we remain
concerned that the environmental impacts of the higher density/intensity of
future development envisioned in this subarea-particularly Transporta-
tionlTraffic impacts-have not been adequately addressed in the DEIR.
2.The discussion of Safety/Risk of Upset in the DEIR (Section 4.7.p.4.7-6)states:
The transport of hazardous materials through the CPA is regulated
by the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans)and California
Highway Patrol (CHP).The CPA is situated at the southern
terminus of 1-110 and adjacent to the Port of Los Angeles.There is
a heightened risk of a hazardous material leak or spill in the CPA
due to the volume of traffic and the nature of the materials that are
be routinely transported from the Port of Los Angeles through 1-110.
Although this statement is correct,it is incomplete in that neglects to address the
transportation of hazardous materials via other modes,most notably by rail.We
understand that much of the transport of butane and propane at the above-
mentioned Rancho LPG facility occurs by rail tank car.
Elsewhere in this section (p.4.7-8),the DEIR notes that although oU fields may
pose a hazard to nearby residences,"there are no oil wells or state-designated
oil fields within the CPA."Again,although this statement is technically correct,it
fails to acknowledge the presence of the Rancho LPG facility in the CPA,which
stores materials that are by-products of oil refining from nearby facilities located
just outside of the CPA boundary.
Based upon the foregoing comments,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
respectfully suggests that the assessment that environment impacts regarding
the use,storage and transportation of hazardous materials and the creation of
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions are less than significant
(pp.4.7-20 to 4.7-25)should be reassessed.Also,we note that the location of
C-43
Debbie Lawrence
9 October 2012
Page 3
Crestwood Street Elementary School in Rancho Palos Verdes is depicted
incorrectly on Figure 4.7-2 (p.4.7-27).
3.The discussion of TransportationlTraffic in the DEI R (Section 4.13,p.4.13-27)
states:
Development proposals that involve large areas that are not
expected to be fully implemented until 2030 or beyond (such as
Community Plans)are not analyzed effectively by detailed
intersection volume/capacity analyses.In cases such as these,
roadway segment level of seNice analyses ar~sufficient as a
means to determine seNice capacity and projected deficiencies of
the roadway network in the community.
As depicted in Table 4.13-13 (p.4.13-42),the implementation of the proposed
plan and Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Program (TIMP)results in a
net increase of seven (7)roadway segments within the community plan area that
will operate at Level of Service (LOS)E or F by 2030,as compared to existing
traffic conditions.The DEIR identified these impacts as significant and
unavoidable.Our detailed review of the TIMP and traffic modeling tables reveals
that the LOS for six (6)additional segments of Western Avenue-all wholly or
partially within Rancho Palos Verdes-will deteriorate to LOS E or F J as will the
LOS for two (2)additional segments of 25th Street between Western Avenue and
our City boundary.This amounts to one-third (%)of the segments that will
experience significantly reduced LOS (compared to existing conditions)under the
proposed plan.We are concerned that these impacts may disproportionately
affect the Rancho Palos Verdes residents who use these roadway segments,
and question the factors that may be contributing to these impacts,including:
•The density assumptions modeled for the Ponte Vista project In the adjacent
Wilmington-Harbor City community plan area,which are merely described as
"moderate"in the TIMP (p.34);
•The proposed changes in land use designations within Subarea 260 at the
intersection of Western Avenue and 25 th Street,as described above;and,
•The necessity to eliminate an eastbound travel lane on 25th Street to accom-
modate a Class II bike lane.
The DEIR offers Mitigation Measure 4.13-1 (p.4.13-43)to address the
deterioration of LOS and related metrics (Le.,VMT,VHT,average speed and
weighted average VIC ratio)within the community plan area,to wit:
C-44
Daily Breeze article regarding City Council
Review of Rancho LPG facility
C-45
Debbie Lawrence
9 October 2012
Page 4
Implement development review procedures to ensure that the
applicable Mobility policies of the San Pedro Community Plan are
applied and implemented by individual discretionary development
projects when they are considered for approval in the plan area.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully suggests that this proposed
mitigation measure is inadequate to address the impact of this project upon our
residents,and should be augmented by additional mitigation measures and
modifications to the proposed plan.
4.The discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Plan in the DEIR (Section 6.2.3,
p.6-9)dismisses as infeasible any alternative that would reduce building heights
and/or floor-area ratios (FAR)to address significant and unavoidable environ-
mental impacts of the plan.Notwithstanding this,the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes respectfully requests that the proposed plan be revised to:
•Reduce the proposed density/intensity of development to be allowed within
Subarea 260;and,
•Provide a Class II bike lane on 25th Street without eliminating an eastbound
travel lane between Mermaid Drive and Western Avenue.
Again,thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the DEIR for this important
project.Please note the City reserves the right to submit additional comments on the
draft community plan itself at a future date.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.
s~
Kit Fox,AICP
Senior Administrative Analyst
cc:Mayor Misetich and Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
Caro[ynn Petru,Deputy City Manager
Eduardo Schonborn,Senior Planner
Nicole Jules,Senior Engineer
M:\Border Issues\San Pedro Community Plan Update\20121009_Lawrence_EIRComments.doc
C-46
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/c()1796319/rancho-pa10s-verdes-step-up-monitoring-butane-storage
Rancho Palos Verdes to step up monitoring of butane storage tanks in San
Pedro
By Donna Littlejohn Staff Writer Daily Breeze
Posted:DailyBreeze.com
Rancho Palos Verdes officials agreed this week to step up -slightly -the city's monitoring of two butane storage
tanks in neighboring San Pedro.
In a unanimous vote,City Council members agreed to make the city a "more active participant"in reaching out to
the city of Los Angeles and other agencies that have jurisdiction over the Rancho LPG facility at 2110 N.Gaffey
St.
"I think the council sees it as a public safety concern that's shared by our residents and the residents in San Pedro,"
said Kit Fox,the city's senior administrative analyst."A lot of speakers made the point that public safety issues
really don't observe city boundaries and that our citizens could be affected as wel1."
The action moves the city out of its more passive or "status quo"position regarding the issue.
The option that was adopted calls on the city of Rancho Palos Verdes to reconsider its former position and to
become more active in reaching out to agencies that have jurisdiction over the plant.
Despite the plant's clean record and frequent inspections,critics have long believed that the tanks'presence near
homes and a school pose an extreme danger and are,in effect,a disaster waiting to happen.
They have been taking their message to government officials and consulting with attorneys in an effort to force the
facility to move.
Established in 1973 by Petrolane and later operated by Amerigas,the facility is now owned by Plains LPG,which
has a long-term lease for the land.
The Rancho Palos Verdes staff report presented to council members at Tuesday night's meeting states that "it
seems very unlikely that the facility will be shutting down and/or going away any time soon."
The facility stores 25.3 million gallons of butane and propane in two large,refrigerated,double-walled storage
tanks and a series of smaller horizontal tanks scattered on the l8-acre private property.
According to company representatives,the operation is frequently inspected and audited,with nearly a dozen
local,state and federal regulatory agencies now overseeing the plant.
But when a gas line exploded in San Bruno in 2010,members of the San Pedro Homeowners'Coalition renewed
their call for the tanks to be moved,saying the stored materials were far too volatile and could be set off by
anything from an earthquake to a terrorist attack.
Los Angeles school board member Richard Vladovic also has expressed concerns about the facility,which is less
than a mile from Taper Avenue Elementary School in north San Pedro.
Two years ago,the San Pedro Neighborhood Council spent $10,000 of its annual budget to commission a risk
assessment study.The findings indicated that devastating impacts could reach an area in a 6.8-mile radius.The
report also noted,however,that such a worst-case scenario would be unlikely to happen.
Page 1 of2 18/10/201209:39 AMC-47
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/c(21796319/rancho-palos-verdes-step-up-monitoring-butane-storage
Another risk assessment report reached less alarming conclusions.
In adopting a more proactive stance,the neighboring city of Rancho Palos Verdes took a middle road.More
aggressive options council members considered included those that would have put the municipality in more of a
leading position to push for further investigation or perhaps even legal action.
donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com
Page 2 of2 18/10/201209:39 AMC-48
Daily Breeze articles regarding leak at Rancho LPG facility
C-49
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci....2181513 8/butane-leak-at-rancho-lpg-storage-facility-san?IADID=Search-www.dailybreeze
Butane leak at Rancho LPG storage facility in San Pedro may be source of
odor
By Donna Littlejohn,Staff Writer Daily Breeze
Posted:
DailyBreeze.com
DailyBreeze.com
Air quality officials on Friday were investigating what appears to have been a butane leak from the Rancho LPG
storage facility in San Pedro.
Odors were reported to the South Coast Air Quality Management District on Thursday afternoon.
"We have received at least 37 complaints as oflate yesterday,"AQMD spokesman Sam Atwood said Friday."It
included four different schools so we sent inspectors out and were able to verify odors in several of the locations."
Complaints came from "all over,"Atwood said,including Harbor City,Lomita,San Pedro and Rancho Palos
Verdes.
Before the AQMD can issue a violation,Atwood said inspectors must verify that odors reported at some
half-dozen of the spots can be traced back to the facility.
Investigators were carrying out that task on Friday,he said,and it was still unclear whether a violation would be
issued.
There were no reports of anyone needing medical attention due to the odors,he said.
The Rancho LPG facility at 2110 N.Gaffey St.stores 25.3 million gallons of butane and propane in two large,
double-walled storage tanks.
Established in 1973 by Petrolane and later operated by Amerigas,the facility now is owned by Plains LPG,which
has a long-term lease on the land.
While the plant has a clean record and undergoes frequent safety inspections,it has been the focus of concern for
years.
Several community groups recently have renewed a push for the facility to move,saying that it is located too close
to homes and schools.
Earlier this week,the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council unanimously voted to step up its participation in
monitoring the plant,which falls under the jurisdiction of several agencies.donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com
Follow Donna Littlejohn on Twitter at http://twitter.com/donnalittlejohn
Page 1 of1 29110/201216:31 PMC-50
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci ...21918160/foul-odor-south-bay-1eads-violation-rancho-lpg
Foul odor in South Bay leads to violation for Rancho LPG in San Pedro
By Donna Littlejohn,Staff Writer Daily Breeze
Posted:
DailyBreeze.com
DailyBreeze.com
An air quality violation has been issued to the Rancho LPG storage facility in San Pedro for an Oct.17 leak that
spread foul odors throughout the South Bay.
It is still not clear if the leak was of propane or butane --both materials are stored at the facility at 2110 N.Gaffey
St.--and an investigation continues into the cause of the incident,an air quality spokesman said Friday.
"We issued a violation (to the company)for what we call a public nuisance due to foul odors,"said Sam Atwood,a
spokesman for the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
The facility owners,Plains LPG,could not be reached for comment.
A violation is issued when the agency receives complaints from a "considerable number of people"and the source
can be traced to a facility by an AQMD inspector,Atwood said.
"We ended up getting 37 complaints from a pretty wide area,including San Pedro,Carson,Torrance,Harbor City,
Wilmington,Lomita and Rancho Palos Verdes,"he said.
The agency also received complaints that day from four schools:Eshelman Elementary,Fleming Middle and
Narbonne High schools in Lomita;and Hickory Elementary School in Torrance.
"We did take some air samples and they were mostly the kinds oflevels you'd expect to see anywhere around
Southern California,"Atwood said."There were a couple of compounds that were somewhat elevated,but they
were not at levels that would be considered toxic in relation to state health or safety standards."
Some levels were sufficient,however,to have caused symptoms such as nausea and headaches,he said.
The complaints reported "foul odors of a various nature,including natural gas,propane,rotten eggs and suffer,"
Atwood said.
When the AQMD investigation concludes,the agency and company will then enter into negotiations for an
out-of-court settlement,reached in "well over"90 percent of cases,Atwood said.
"First they have to fix whatever problem caused the violation and we have to be satisfied that this is not something
that's going to occur again,"he said."If the problem is with improper maintenance,we have to be satisfied that it's
been remedied."
Established in 1976 by Petrolane and later operated by Amerigas,the facility is now owned by Plains LPG,which
has a long-term lease on the land.The facility stores 25.3 million gallons of butane and propane in two large,
double-walled storage tanks on the site.
The facility has come under fire through the years by community groups and others who believe it needs to be
moved away from homes and schools.
When a gas line exploded in San Bruno in 2010,members of the San Pedro Homeowners United group renewed a
call for the tanks to be moved,citing the potential danger that could come from earthquakes and terrorist attacks.
Page 1 of2 05/111201208:34 AMC-51
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci.....21918160/foul-odor-south-bay-leads-violation-rancho-Ipg
Currently,the plant is the subject of frequent safety inspections by several government agencies.
donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com
Follow Donna Littlejohn on Twitter at twitter.com/donnalittlejohn
Page 2 of2 05/11/201208:34 AMC-52
Letter to Councilman Buscaino regarding Rancho LPG facility
C-53
ANTHONY M.MISETICH,MAYOR
BRIAN CAMPBELL,MAYOR PRO TEM
SUSAN BROOKS,COUNCILWOMAN
JERRY V.DUHOVIC,COUNCILMAN
JIM KNIGHT,COUNCILMAN
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
November 7,2012
Councilman Joe Buscaino,15th District
City of Los Angeles
200 N.Spring St.,Rm.425
Los Angeles,CA 90012
SUBJECT:liquid Bulk Storage in the Los Angeles Harbor Area and the Rancho
LPG Butane Storage Facility .
:roE.:'IJ>
Dear~ino:
As you are aware,residents in San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes have been concerned
for many years about the Rancho LPG (formerly AmeriGas and Petrolane)butane storage
facility at North Gaffey Street and Westmont Drive.In the past two (2)years,these
concerns have returned to the forefront in the aftermath of the catastrophic gas pipeline
failure in the Bay Area community of San Bruno in September 2010.In January 2011,the
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council formally expressed its concerns about this facility in a
letter from then-Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Tom Long to your 15th District predecessor,
Janice Hahn (see enclosures).
My City Council colleagues and I applaud your leadership in convening a special meeting of
the Los Angeles City Council's Public Safety Committee to receive testimony regarding
liquid bulk storage facilities in the harbor area this past June.We understand that the
Committee subsequently instructed the City of Los Angeles'Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA)
to convene meetings with various City departments to improve safety and hazard mitigation
measures for liquid bulk storage facilities,and to develop a comprehensive map or list of
such facilities.We anxiously await the results of the CLA's efforts in this regard.We also
support your recent motions (see enclosures)to:
•Direct the Department of City Planning to report on the permitted uses of the Rancho
LPG property at the time of its original development;and what use restrictions a
change in the property's current zoning would have upon its operations;and,
•Direct the Port of Los Angeles to report on the feasibility of annexing or purchasing
the Rancho LPG property to place it under the Board of Harbor Commissioners'
jurisdiction;and to explain (if applicable)why such action may not be possible under
the Los Angeles City Charter,the Tidelands Trust Act or the California Coastal Act.
On October 18,2012,there were widespread reports of odors emanating from the Rancho
LPG facility (see enclosed Daily Breeze article of October 20,2012).The South Coast Air
30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD /RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391 /(310)544-5205;FAX (310)544·5291 /WWW.PALDSVERDES.COM/RPV
@ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
C-54
Councilman Joe Buscaino
November 7,2012
Page 2
Quality Management District (AQMD)reportedly received nearly forty (40)complaints about
this odor.The Daily Breeze subsequently reported on November 3,2012 (see enclosures),
that the Rancho LPG facility operator had been issued a notice of violation by the AQMD as
a result of the October 18th incident,and that an investigation is underway.My City Council
colleagues and I strongly encourage you to follow up with the AQMD on the results of this
investigation,including the full public disclosure of its source,cause,remediation and
penalties.
At its meeting on October 16,2012,the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council unanimously
agreed to "step up"its monitoring of issues related to the Rancho LPG facility,and to reach
out to \he bther cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in this regard.·This letter is a first step
in this effort,and you will note that copies of this letter and engJosures have been provided
to officials in the cities of Lomita,Palos Verdes Estates,Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills
Estates.
Again,I thank you for your leadership in addressing this critical public safety issue,which
potentially affects all of our constituents.We look forward to working with you and the
facility's owner/operator to ensure the future safety and tranquility of our respective
communities and residents.If you have questions or need additional information,please
contact Senior Administrative Analyst Kit Fox at (310)544-5226 or kitf@rpv.com.
Anthony M.Miset ch
Mayor
enclosures
cc:Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr,Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager
Mayor James Gazeley and the Lomita City Council
Michael Rock,Lomita City Manager
Mayor George F.Bird,Jr.,and the Palos Verdes Estates City Council
Judy Smith,Palos Verdes Estates City Manager
Mayor James Black and the Rolling Hills City Council
Anton Dahlerbruch,Rolling Hills City Manager
Mayor Susan Seamans and the Rolling Hills Estates City Council
Doug Prichard,Rolling Hills Estates City Manager
Kit Fox,Senior Administrative Analyst
M:\Border Issues\Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility\20121107_Buscaino_RanchoLPG.doc
C-55
January 6,2011
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Councilwoman Janice Hahn,15th District
City of Los Angeles
200 N.Spring St.,Room 435
Los Angeles,CA 90012
SUBJECT:City of Rancho Palos Verdes'Concerns regarding the Rancho LPG
Butane Storage Facility,2110 North Gaffey ~tr'eet,San Pedro,...
Dear Councllwoman Hahn:
As you may be aware,residents in San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes have been
concerned for many years about the Rancho LPG (formerly AmeriGas)butane storage
facility at North Gaffey Street and Westmont Drive.Recently,these concerns have
returned to the forefront,particularly in the aftermath of the catastrophic gas pipeline
failure in the Bay Area community of San Bruno In September 2010.
We understand that plans were made several years ago for this facility to be re-tocated
to Pier 400 in the Port of Los Angeles-away from homes,schools and local buslness-
plans that (for some reason)have never come to fruition.The facility was approved for
this site more than thirty (30)years ago,at a time when less~rigorous environmental
review and public participation processes were in effect than is the case today.
Earlier this year,the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council (NWSPNC)
commissioned a quantitative risk assessment of the Rancho LPG facility.The risk
assessment-released in September 2010""":ldentified a variety of possible accident
scenarios for the facility.These ranged from a relatively small,on-site mishap with
impacts mainly contained to the site.to a sudden,catastrophic failure of the butane
storage tanks with impacts extending for a 5-to 7-mile radiLls from the facility.
The facility's operator,Rancho LPG Holdings,LLC,has refuted the conclusions of the
NWSPNC risk assessment.and the assessment's authors have not (to the City's
knowledge)responded publicly to questions about how the risk assessment was
prepared or how its conclusions were reached.Although Rancho LPG has stated that it
intends to prepare its own risk assessment of the facility and to publicly release its
findings,there remain today many unanswered questions about the safety of this facility
for residents living nearby.
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVO /IWieHO PALOS VERDES.CA 90275·5391
C-56
Councilwoman Janice Hahn
January 6,2011
Page 2
Ideally,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and its residents would like to see this facility
relocated to another site that does not pose such a significant "risk of upset"to
surrounding property and n.eighborhoods.Failing that,however,we wish to be assured
that the facility is operated as safely as possible,and in complete accordance the
regulations of all local,State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction over this site and
these types of facilities.To these ends,we respectfully request your assistance in the
fUlfilling the following community objectives:
•Regularly monitor the Rancho LPG site and facility,and enforce (to the maximum
'extent possible)the City of Los Angel.es'land use regulations and the State's
environmental review processes (i.e.,CEQA)with,respect to the on~golng
operation of the facility and any possible future proposals for its modification,
renovation and/or expansion;and,
•Provide to the general public a transparent and accountable clearinghouse for
the dissemination of information and the discussion of issues about the Rancho
LPG site and faoility.
Our Planning Staff continues to monitor issues related to the Rancho LPG site and
facility,and to report these issues regularly to our City Council.We look forward to
working with you and the facHitis owner/operator to ensure the future safety and
tranquility of our respective communities and residents,
Sincer~Jy'YOU~SI
\
.'-....-
Thomas D.Long
Mayor
/
cc:Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
/Joel Rojas,Community Development Director.J Kit Fox,Associate Planner
M:\Border Issues\Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facillty\20101221_Hahn_RanchoLPG.doc
C-57
MOTION
Residents and neighbors surrounding the Rancho LPG facility located San Pedro
have expressed various concerns regarding the safety and legality of this facility.This
particular liquid bulk tank facility was built in 1973,and is located on private property
outside the Port of Los Angeles.It includes two 12.5 million gallon refrigerated tanks
containing butane,a liquefied petroleum gas which is a by·product of the refining
process.Within the past decade,there have been various city reviews of the storage
facility,dating back to 2004,and have involved the Planning Department,City Attorney,
Harbor Depaliment,Fire Department,the City Administrative Office (CAO)as well as
the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA).
Aside from the Rancho LPG facility in San Pedro,there are a variety of other
liqUid 'bulk storage facilities both above and below ground in the Harbor area,which
have also raised concerns among nearby residents.It is imperative"1:hat the City ensure
that any potential threats are thoroughly explored and mitigated.'I>-
The first step toward this is to request Information from all the regUlatory and
enforcement agencies at the local,state and federa/level,including,but not limited to,
the following:U.S.Department of Homeland Security,U.S.Department of
Transportation,U.S'.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),U.S.Department of
Occupational Safety and Health Administration,Cal/EPA,California Emergency
Management Agency,California Department of Toxic Substances Control,the South
Coast Air Quality Management District,the Los Angeles County Fire Department,the
City of Los Angeles Fire Department,the Los Ange/es Pollee Department,the City of
Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation Industrial Waste Management Division,City of Los
Angeles Bui.lding and Safety Department.City of Los Angele.s Emergency Management
Department,and the Los Angeles City Attorney,among others.
Seconded by -r:-:7:-:t'="::::±'=-:-:--1r--:;"-------
I THEREFORE MOVE that the Public Safety Committee hold a special meeting
in the Harbor Area and request the pertinent regulatory and enforcement agencies at
the /ocal,state,and federal level to prOVide a presentation regarding the permitting and
safety requirements for liquid bulk storage facilities._
Pmsenred bd«~
JOE BUSCAINO
Council member,15th District
C-58
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
CAUFORN1A
JUNELAGMAY
City Clerk
HOLLY L.wOl.con
Executive Officer
When maklng inquiries relative to
this matter,please refer to the
Councll File No.11-1813,51
ANTONIO R.VILLARAIGOSA
MAYOR
Omcoofthe
CITY CLERK
Council and Public Services
Room 391i,City Hall
Loll Angell••,CA 90012
a"nerallnfonnatlon.(2.13)978·1133
Fax:(213)11711-1040
SHANNON HOppeS
Council and Public Services
Division
y/ww.l;!ty"lark,lanltV,I,!'1!
Gerry F.Miller,ChIef LegIslative Analyst
Room 255,City Hall
Dear Mr.MlIJer:
At its special meeting held June 27,2012,the Public Safety Committee consfdered Motions
(Buscalno -Perry -Englander)and (Perry -Krekorlan)relative to permitting and safety
requirements for liquid bulk storage facilities located in San Pedro.At that time,Committee
Instructed you to:
1.Convene meetings With the Fire Department,Building and Safety,Harbor Department,
City Attorney,Planning,Emergency Management,Bureau of Sanitation.and any other
City .departments as needed,and to report to the Public Safety Committee with
recommendations to improve safety and hazard mitigation measures of liquid bulk
facilities.Recommendations can include,but should not be limited to:
a~Enlisting the assistance of an independent consultant to examine the risks
/"'associated with liquid bulk storage facilities in the Harbor area.
.
b'l Recommendations for any new amendments to local,state or federal
~.~requirements that pertain to liquid bulk storage facilities.
2.Develop a comprehensive list and/or map of all such facilities In Harbor area,including
those on Port property.
Please submit your report to the Public Safety Committee,in care of the City Clerk's Office,City
Hall,Room 395,
Sincerely,
John A.White,Legislative Assistant
Public Safety Committee
213"978-1072
1.1.:.1!lll...rpt,jJB]-24-2012
An Equal Employment Opportunity -Affinnative ActIon Employer
C-59
MOTION
Residents and neighbors surrounding the Rancho LPG facility located in San Pedro have
expressed various concerns regarding the safety and legality of this facility.This particular liquid
bulk tank facility was built in 1973,and is locate~on private property outside the Port of Los
Angeles.It includes two 12.5 million gallon refrigerated tanks containing butane.a liquefied
petroleum gas which is a by-product of the refining process.Within the past decade,there have
been various city reviews of the storage faciflty,dating back to 2004,and have Involved the
Planning Department,City Attorney.Harbor Department.Fire Department,the City
Administrative Office (CAO)as well as the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA).
Aside from the Rancho LPG facility in San Pedro.there are a variety of other liquid bulk
storage facUitles both above and below ground in the Harbor area,which·have also raised
concerns among nearby residents.It Is Imperative that the City ensure that,jlny potential threats .
are thoroughly explored and mitigated.,.<'
Concerned about the potential risks posed to local res·idents by a breach of a liquid Bulk
Storage (LBS)and Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG)facility In the event of an accident,residents
have expressed interest In knowing how the land at Parcel 7412026006,on which the Rancho
LPG·facflity Is located,was originally zoned,and what options a change in zoning for the parcel
would mean for continued operations of a LBS facility.
I THEREFORE MOVE that the Department of City Planning be Instructed to report on the
original zoning designation of Parcel 7412026006 and what industrial activities were authorized
at that site when It was constructed and what industrial activities are currently authorized.
I FURTHER MOVE that the Department of City Planning be instructed to report what
restrictions,if any,a change in zoning at Parcel 7412026006 would have on the operations of the
Rancho LPG facility and what effect zoning changes wo.uld have on·other LBS/LPG facilities
located In the City of Los Angeles.~~.
Presented By \
JOE BUSCAINO
Councilmember,15th
Seconded BY..:;::::r;;~;s....o:::::O--{,L:.._.L-:::~-F;.t;;..._
OC~.I -'1;1 '1"._:,1:;,
i;
I·
j
L
L;
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
}
I
1·
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
C-60
MOTION
I.'.J it lHIlI'It I ".I.•jl Illj.,'l ."
OCT 2 3 2012
Reslclents and neighbors surrounding the Hancho LPG facility located in San Pedro 11ave
expressed various concerns regarding lhe saFely and legalily or 1I1ls facilily.This particular liquid
bulk tanl<faclllty was buiU In 1973.and Is located on private properly outside the Port of Los
Angeles.II includes two 12,5 mUlIon gallon refrigerated tanks containing butane,a liquefied
petroleum gas which is a by-product of the refining process,Within the past decade,thele have
been various city reviews of tile storage facility,dating bacl<to 2004,and have involved the
Plannin~1 Department,City Attorney,Harbor Department.Fire Departmenl,tile City
Achnlnistrative Office (CAO)as well as the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA).
Aside from the Rancho LP~facility in San Pedro,there are a variety of cUler IiqLIId bull<
storage facilities both above and below ground in the Harbor area,whicb have also raised
concerns among nearby residents.It is imperative that the City ensure th<:lt <:lIllY potential threats
are thoroughly explored and mitigated.'1-
Concerned about the potential risks posed to local residents by a breach of a Liquid Bulk
Storage (LBS)and Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG)facility In the event of an accident,residents
have expressed interest in knowing how the land at Parcel 7412026006,on which the Rancho
LPG faeflity Is located,could be annexed b,y the Harbor Department and bring the inspection and
direction of safoly protocols of the site under the jurisdiction of the Port of Los Angeles and the
Board of Harbol'Commissioners.
I THEREFORE MOVE that tile Port of Los Angeles be instl'ucted to report on the
feasibility"",of ~!}ll!xj!:W,:.y purchasing Parcel 7412026006 and placing it L~~der the jurisdiction of
the Boa .Harbor Commissioners.",,'
"'ll'l!'r .
I FURTHER MOVE tllet in the event Parcel 7412026006 cannot be purchased or cll1l1exed
that the Port of Los Angeles reporl as to why suetl a move Is not possible uncleI'the reslrictlons
(Jr,but lIot limited to,the City Charter,lhe Tidelands Trusl Acl,or the California CrJBslal
Commission.
Presented By 1L-t.,'?-t.<....l.---........_j
~IO BUSCAINO
COllncilrnember,15tll District
i .'•"-,Jh
Seconded By lffi t.ft If vt!<(.-"rI'------
~"
.\II.
'tuhUc
C-61
DailyBreeze.com
http://www.dailybreeze.comlci_21815138/butane-leak-at-rancho-lpg-storage-facility-san?IADID=Search-www.dailybreeze
Butane leak at Rancho LPG storage facility in San Pedro may be source of
odor
By Donna Littlejohn,Staff Writer Daily Breeze
Posted:
DailyBreeze.com
Air quality officials on Friday were investigating what appears to have been a butane leak from the Rancho LPG
storage facility in San Pedro.
Odors were reported to the South Coast Air Quality Management District on Thursday afternoon.
"We have received at least 37 complaints as oflate yesterday,"AQMD spokesman Sam Atwood said Friday."It
included four different schools so we sent inspectors out and were able to verify odors in several of the locations."
Complaints c<J1TIe from "all over,"Atwood said,including Harbor City,Lomita,San Pedro and Rancho Palos
Verdes...
';
Before the AQMD can issue a violation,Atwood said inspectors must verify that odors reported at some
half-dozen of the spots can be traced back to the facility.
Investigators were carrying out that task on Friday,he said,and it was still unclear whether a violation would be
issued.
There were no reports of anyone needing medical attention due to the odors,he said.
The Rancho LPG facility at 2110 N.Gaffey St.stores 25.3 million gallons of butane and propane in two large,
double-walled storage tanks.
Established in 1973 by Petrolane and later operated by Amerigas,the facility now is owned by Plains LPG,which
has a long-term lease on the land.
While the plant has a clean record and undergoes frequent safety inspections,it has been the focus of concern for
years.
Several community groups recently have renewed a push for the facility to move,saying that it is located too close
to homes and schools.
Earlier this week,the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council unanimously voted to step up its participation in
monitoring the plant,which falls under the jurisdiction of several agencies.donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com
Follow Donna Littlejohn on Twitter at http://twitter.com/donnalittlejohn
Page 1 ofl 29/10/201216:31 PM
C-62
http://www.dailybreeze.comlnews/ct219 18160/foul-odor-south-bay-Ieads-violation-rancho-lpg
Foul odor in South Bay leads to violation for Rancho LPG in San Pedro
By Donna Littlejohn,Staff Writer Daily Breeze
Posted:DailyBreeze.com._--_._._------._--
DailyBreeze.com
An air quality violation has been issued to the Rancho LPG storage facility in San Pedro for an Oct.17 leak that
spread foul odors throughout the South Bay.
It is still not clear if the leak was of propane or butane --both materials are stored at the facility at 2110 N.Gaffey
St.--and an investigation continues into the cause of the incident,an air quality spokesman said Friday.
"We issued a violation (to the company)for what we call a public nuisance due to foul odors,"said Sam Atwood,a
spokesman for the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
The facility owners,Plains LPG,could not be reached for comment...
"A violation is issued when the agency receives complaints from a "considera,blt?'l1umber of people"and the source
can be traced to a facility by an AQMD inspector,Atwood said.
"We ended up getting 37 complaints from a pretty wide area,including San Pedro,Carson,Torrance,Harbor City,
Wilmington,Lomita and Rancho Palos Verdes,"he said.
The agency also received complaints that day from four schools:Eshelman Elementary,Fleming Middle and
Narbonne High schools in Lomita;and Hickory Elementary School in Torrance.
"We did take some air samples and they were mostly the kinds of levels you'd expect to see anywhere around
Southern California,"Atwood said."There were a couple of compounds that were somewhat elevated,but they
were not at levels that would be considered toxic in relation to state health or safety standards."
Some levels were sufficient,however,to have caused symptoms such as nausea and headaches,he said.
The complaints reported "foul odors of a various nature,including natural gas,propane,rotten eggs and suffer,"
Atwood said.
When the AQMD investigation concludes,the agency and company will then enter into negotiations for an
out-of-court settlement,reached in "well over"90 percent of cases,Atwood said.
"First they have to fix whatever problem caused the violation and we have to be satisfied that this is not something
that's going to occur again,"he said."If the problem is with improper maintenance,we have to be satisfied that it's
been remedied."
Established in 1976 by Petro lane and later operated by Amerigas,the facility is now owned by Plains LPG,which
has a long-term lease on the land.The facility stores 25.3 million gallons of butane and propane in two large,
double-walled storage tanks on the site.
The facility has come under fire through the years by community groups and others who believe it needs to be
moved away from homes and schools.
When a gas line exploded in San Bruno in 2010,members of the San Pedro Homeowners United group renewed a
call for the tanks to be moved,citing the potential danger that could come from earthquakes and terrorist attacks.
Page 1 of2 05/111201208:34 AM
C-63
http://www.dailybreeze.com/n.ews/ci_21918.l60/foul-odor-south-bay-J.eads-v1.o1ation-rancho-l.pg
Currently,the plant is the subject of frequent safety inspections by several government agencies.
donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com
Follow Donna Littlejohn on Twitter at twitter.com/donnalittlejohn
Page 2 of2 05111/201208:34 AM
C-64
Councilman Buscaino's motion regarding Rancho LPG insurance
requirements
C-65
NOV
Residents and neighbors surrounding the Rancho LPG facility located in San Pedro have
expressed various concerns regarding the safety and legality of this facility.This particular liquid
bulk tan!<facility was built in 1973,and is located on private property outside the Port of Los
Angeles.It includes two 12.5 million gallon refrigerated tanks containing butane,a liquefied
petroleum gas which is a by-product of the refining process.Within the past decade,there have
been various city reviews of the storage facility,dating back to 2004,and have involved the
Planning Department,City Attorney,Harbor Department,Fire Department,the City
Administrative Office (CAO)as well as the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA).
Aside from the Rancho LPG facility in San Pedro,there are a variety of other liquid bulk
storage facilities both above and below ground in the Harbor area,which have also raised
concerns among nearby residents.It is imperative that the City ensure that any potential threats
are thoroughly explored and mitigated.
Residents have expressed interest in knowing what existing City,County,State,and or
Federal safety regulations and laws are in place to ensure that LPG and LBS facilities are being
monitored,what safety standards are in place that must be followed,and if there is any room for
improvement on existing laws and regulations.In particular,they are interested to know if there
are any existing requirements,by City,County,State,or Federal statute,that specify the amount
of liability coverage the owner/operator of a LBS/LPG facility must carry to be in compliance with
the law.
I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Attorney be instructed to report on existing City,
County,State,and Federal laws and regulations concerning insurance requirements of LPG and
LBS facilities,and report on the required liability coverage that operators of said facilities must
carry to remain in compliance and stay in operation.
-:;r/.;
{:::::
:m.w}.~~~;::}~
%!1k;~JJ.:
istrict
'I
I FURTHER MOVE that the City Attorney report on any suggestions,based on their
findings,of ways to improve City laws on liability coverage requirements for LBS/LPGfacilities,
as well as any recommended change to County,State,and Federal laws and~regulations that
the City would consider lobbying to that respective level of government.r'---"\
.,..'.':::1Pt.~~n;.!
P dB ')"1 -,,"·t ''resente yo,;;#i;"',-i,..l;.A;:""""""",,,.J
)O~BUSCAINO
I '"'Cour;ilmemberf\i 5
,I )1'
Seconded By'A II I <{'
'/yt<C)
C-66
E-mails and correspondence regarding Rancho LPG facility
C-67
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Page 1 of 1
Kit Fox
From:Janet Gunter [arriane5@aol.com]
Wednesday,October 17,201210:07 AM
Susan Brooks;Brian Campbell;Jim Knight;Jerry Duhovic;Anthony Misetich;Kit Fox
jody.james@sbcglobal.net;chateau4us@att.net;det310@juno.com;connie@rutter.us;
carl.southwell@gmail.com;cary@carybrazeman.com;noelweiss@ca.rr.com;igornla@cox.net;
marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net;bonbon31@earthlink.net;overbid2002@yahoo.com
SUbject:Rancho LPG &RPV City Council Mtg last night
Dear RPV Council Members:
It is difficult to put into words the gratitude that the warriors in this long fight to protect our community feel
toward you.A little "voice"in my head prior to coming last night told me to bring that letter from Michigan
Tech which vividly points out the manipulation that Rancho LPG has been using to "spin"any scrutiny of
their facility away from it's very terrifying reality.I had never seen the document that was in your packet
last night before ....(apparently,it had been taken from Councilman Buscaino's website)that had been
provided by Ra,ncho.That document,in and of itself,was riddled with mUltiple inaccuracies (to be kind)
meant to diffuse the true harm of that site and assure RPV,and everyone else,that their LPG operation
poses no threat.The consistent &multiple reference to the support and concurrence of Rancho's
consultant's report by "Michigan Tech University"....was intentional in that offering of assurance.And,
simply put....it was a lie.Not only did this consultant act without the University's knowledge or approval
but Mr.Crowl,is a lab chemical professor,who never visited the site and built his entire analysis only on
the information provided by the EPA (which was provided to them by the operators ...Petrolane,Amerigas
&Rancho LPG).Crowl has no expertise whatsoever in civil engineering or seismic studies.This is
evident in his assumption in analysis that if there is a total tank rupture and collapse ...the impound basin
(in USGS identified landslide area)will still remain intact??Plus,understanding that butane expands
more than 230x its volume when exposed to air temperature makes the concept of that basin as a
safeguard ...absurd.There are sooo many more very obvious flaws associated with this debacle that it is
painful to think that after so many years,the public is still forced to fight for sane government action to
remove the threat.I distributed a few of Professor Bea's personal emails to illustrate that Bea,who
currently is regarded as the premiere authority on these very issues related to safety by our government,
seriously questions why this hazard is being allowed to exist without proper investigation and proof that
it is "safe".Working so closely with those cities who have faced the grim consequences of death and
destruction resulting from ignorance and disregard of hazards,Bea is particularly wise to the process that
has abandoned the rights of normal citizens to safety.This Professor's opinion speaks volumes to the
import that should be placed on the jeopardy at this facility before the catastrophe.What it all boils down
to is the political proclivity to place profits over people.We are so hopeful that your City Council will
provide the leadership to restore common sense and safety to our area.Thank you again for your
concern and dedication to getting to the bottom of this issue.Please feel free to contact any of us for
information.There are several "experts"engaged in this issue with us who would be more than haPPY to
assist you.
Best to you all,
Janet Gunter
11/19/2012 C-68
Page 1 of 1
Kit Fox
From:Janet Gunter [arriane5@aol.com]
Sent:Thursday,October 25,20127:14 PM
To:connie@rutter.us;det31 O@juno.com;igornla@cox.net;dwgkaw@hotmail.com;chateau4us@att.net;
carl.southwell@gmail.com;MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net;noelweiss@ca.rr.com;Susan Brooks;Kit Fox;
Jim Knight;Brian Campbell;Jerry Duhovic;Anthony Misetich;dakotahpat@sbcglobal.net;
konnica@ca.rr.com;fbmjet@aol.com;cary@carybrazeman.com
SUbject:Interesting ..things just never seem to change ...perfect records because no one ever reports!
fyi
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-11/1ocal/me-1121 1 human-error
11/19/2012 C-69
Mobil Refinery Explosion Laid to Human Error:Industry:Documents reveal alarm and s...Page 1 of 3
Advertisement
Membership Services Jobs Cars Real Estate Subscribe Rentals Weekly Circulars Custom Publishing Place Ad
U.S.WORLD BUSINESS SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT HEALTH LIVING TRAVEL OPINION I \.',
L.A.NOW POLITICS CRIME EDUCATION O.C.WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS ENVIRONMENT OBITUARIES
YOU ARE HERE:l.i\T Home ....•Collections .....,Fir".--Los Angd".County
Ads by Google
Advertisement
FROM THE ARCHIVES
Release oiVapors Injures 3 at Mobil
June '4,1990
MORE STORIES ABOUT
Frres--LosAngclesCounty
Oil Refineries
Saiety Equipment
Indush'ial Accidents --Los Angeles County
Mobil Refinery Explosion Laid to Human Error:Industry:
Documents reveal alarm and safety devices were not
working on Nov.24,1987,and that plant personnel knew it.
February 11,1990 I GEORGE STEIN I TIMES STAFF WRITER
Newly obtained information about a devastating blast at Mobil's Torrance refinery reveals that human
error caused an explosion that has triggered two years of legal,poli tical and regulatory battles for the
nation's fifth-largest industrial corporation.
A federal safety report says that in the days before the accident,Mobil failed to follow its own written
procedures,which call for alarms to be working during refinery operation.Had those procedures been
followed,the federal report says,"the incident would have been avoided."
Ads by Google
EmergencyMgmt Degrees
100%Online Courses in Emergency Mgmt.Earn Your Degree.Apply Now.
wwwAMU.APUS.edu/EmergencyMgmt
Six Sigma Certification
Top Six Sigma Training Program.Earn Certification,100%Online.
www.yiUl\novaU.com/SixSigma
Although Mobil long had maintained that "malfunctioning instrumentation"caused the blast,the
company conceded that human error was a factor after being questioned about the federal documents by
The Times.
Since the accident on Nov.24,1987,which caused $17 million in damage and injured 10,Mobil has
declined to release details of the explosion and the results of various investigations into the cause of the
blast.
The Times obtained Mobil memos and the federal safety report,as well as other documents,months after
filing requests with the U.S.Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the city of Torrance
under the federal Freedom of Information Act and the Cali fomia Public Records Act.The docum ents
were gathered as part of the city and OSHA's investigation into the explosion.
The explosion was triggered by an undetected buildup of hazardous hydrofluoric acid,which is used to
boost the octane of unleaded gasoline refined at the plant.The acid overflowed into a tank and mixed
with another chemical,caus ing the blast.
http://artic1es.1atimes.com/1990-02-111Iocallme-1121_1_human-error 1111912012
C-70
Mobil Refinery Explosion Laid to Human Error:Industry:Documents reveal alann and s...Page 2 of 3
A confidential Mobil memo that is included in the newly available documents says that three alarm
syslerfi§fina ffi6IiItbfifig deViCeS designed [6 warn fefidery WorkerS 6f fin aIisAte buildup 6f iiydf6flti6fie
£0$At\ielts mimes Copyright 2012 Los Angel~ldma!re rjol'~ayl1eIlethBaellideme occurred.Moreover,Mobil officials knew that the systems were
not working.Instead,supervisors at the facility were relying on periodic chemical tests and a separate
alarm systIlmelTh~mah:yqJiIl~ilall&idlevels.However,what they did not know at the time was that
the backup alarm system was not hooked up,the company memo states.
The explosion sent a fireball 1,500 feet into the air,knocked out windows in nearby houses and sent
shock waves for miles.Six passers-by and four refinery workers have alleged that they suffered injuries,
including broken eardrums,back injuries and,in one case,lung damage from breathing acid fumes.
In the wake of the accident,Mobil spent millions to improve training and plant safety and asserts that the
public should not worry about any recurrence.
But trust between t he oil com pany and local officials evaporated after the accident and safety issues
raised by the explosion remain an urgent part ofthe public agenda in Torrance.City officials are vocal in
worrying that a similar or worse accident could occur.
Those issues are coming to a head in confrontations involving Mobil,the South Coast Air Quality
Management District and Torrance residents,who will vote March 6 on a ballot measure that could force
Mobil to spend up to $100 million to restructure its refinery operations.Mobil has said it is prepared to
spend more than $500,000 to defeat the measure.
Refinery manager Wyman Robb,saying in a recent interview that the accident "is old stuff'not worth
dredging up,declined to answer questions about the role that human error played in the explosion.
Ads by Ooogle
Elite Leather Program
100%Top Grain Leather by Elite.Sofas,Sectionals,Accent Chairs
www iInteriors.LA
Free Long-Term Care Quote
6 Free Long-Term Insurance Quotes.You May Already Be Overpaying!
www.ltcfp.com/FreeQuotes
"If we have to deal with it in court,we have to deal with it in court.I don't think we necess arily have to deal
with it ...with the public right now."
Reading from a prepared statement,he added:"Any allegation that Mobil knew that the (unit that
exploded)was unsafe and went ahead to operate it is absurd.Safety is,and has been,our top priority."
"Obviously mistakes were made,such as equipment failure and human error,"said Mobil spokesman Jim
Carbonetti in a separate recent statement."We have learned from these mistakes and have invested
millions of dollars to improve our operations to make certain it does not happen again."
Despite Mobil's assurances,the new information about the central role of human error in the accident is
already providing ammunition to those arguing that hydrogen fluoride--which in its liquid form is
hydrofluoric acid--should be banned from the Mobil facility and from three other refineries in Los Angeles
County.They argue that the plants should be converted to use sulfuric acid instead.
Torrance Mayor Katy Geissert said the new information strengthens her resolve to pursue a city lawsuit
filed against Mobil last April that seeks increased regulatory power over the refinery.The documents,she
said,show "strong evidence"that "the potential for human error is so great that the further use of
hydrofluoric acid"may no longer be acceptable at the refinery.
Msby Googl"
5)Foods you must not eat
Cut down a bit of stomach fat every day by never eating these 5 foods.
Beyonddiet.com
Tired of eBay?
Then you'll love us!Live auctions on unique items everyday.
tophalter.com
112131 Next
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-11/local/me-1121 I human-error 11/19/2012C-71
Mobil Refinery Explosion Laid to Human Error:Industry:Documents reveal alann and s...Page 3 of 3
Are raspberry ketones a
'miracle'fat burrer?Dr.Oz
weighs in.
Nonwhite voters and
cultural shifts make 2012
election pivotal
Red meat:What makes it
unhealthy?
MORE:
The FDA warns against using quinine for leg cramps
Hormone may help protect monogamous relationships
http://artic1es.latimes.com/1990-02-11/locallme-1121_1_human-error 11/19/2012C-72
Mobil Refinery Explosion Laid to Human Error:Industry:Documents reveal alann and s...Page 1 of 3
Advertisement
Membership Services Jobs Cars Real Estate Subscribe Rentals Weekly Circulars Custom Publishing Place Ad
U.S.WORLD BUSINESS SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT HEAI:m LIVING TRAVEL OPINION I.\i'
L.A.NOW POLITICS CRIME EDUCATION O.C.WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS ENVIRONMENT OBITUARIES
YOU AHE HERE:LA:r Home ....,Collections .....•Fire",··Los /.\ngelt'.County
Ads by Google
Advertisement
FROM THE ARCHIVES
Release ofVapors Injures 3 at Mobil
June '4.1990
MORE STORIES ABOUT
Fires --Los Angeles County
Oil Refineries
Safety Equipment
Industrial Accidents --Los Angeles COlmly
(Page 2 of 3)
Mobil Refinery Explosion Laid to Human Error:Industry:
Documents reveal alarm and safety devices were not
working on Nov.24,1987,and that plant personnel knew it.
February 11,1990 I GEORGE STEIN I TIMES STAFF WRITER
"You eliminate hydrofluoric acid at the Mobil refinery and you eliminate the possibility of stupid acts and
honest mistakes killing our residents,"said Councilman Dan Walker,sponsor of the March 6 ballot
measure.
Hydrofluoric acid,which is more toxic than hydrogen cyanide gas,has the potential of forming a lethal,
ground-hugging cloud.The explosion and fire released an estimated 12 gallons of hydrofluoric acid.
Ads by Google
Best of Google in 3 sizes
Discover the new Nexus smartphone and tablets from Google.
www.google.com/nexus
Elite Leather Program
100%Top Grain Leather by Elite.Sofas,Sectionals,Accent Chairs
www ilnteriors.LA
In addition to local con cern,the Southern California Air Quality Management District staff has pending a
recommendation that the bulk use of hydrofluoric acid at the four refineries be banned.
Mobil,whose Torrance refinery produces 12%of all gasoline consumed in Southern California,says that
it would cost $100 million to convert to sulfuric acid.
The unit that exploded performs alkylation,a process discovered in the 1930S that uses hydrofluoric acid
as a catalyst to combine petroleum gases to produce high-octane unleaded gasoline.
The explosion took place s orne distance from the main part of the alkylation unit and the blast did not
rupture any of the tanks containing large amounts of hydrofluoric acid.Mobil typically has about 29,000
gallons of the substance on hand.It is used only for the alkylation process,with the bulk of it circulating
through the unit,rather than staying in storage.
The tank that exploded is part of a four-stage section whose job is to separate acid from propane,a by-
product of the alkylation reaction.
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-11/1ocal/me-1121 1 human-error/2 11/19/2012C-73
Mobil Refinery Explosion Laid to Human Error:Industry:Documents reveal alarm and s...Page 2 of 3
That is done first by gravity;the acid is heavier than propane and mixes poorly with it.The acid settles in
a bntiet-iliU!botit abodl tile size of a 55-gabon Wdffi.
Copyright 2012 Los Angeles Times I Privacy Policy I Terms of Service
The explosion occurred when the acid overflowed the boot and into a tank,known as the KOH treater,
which wasIR!l!5c'h~e~bt~ef ~RdJx1lfJj B¥t~roxide or potassium hydroxide.It has not been disclosed which of
the two chemicals was in the KOH treater,although they are equally hazardous when mixed with
hydrofluoric acid.
A trail oftrouble led up to the explosion.
Ten days before the explosion,there were problems with the acid level in the boot and the instruments
that measure it,according to a Mobil memo.
Four days before the explosion,the KOH treater overheated seriously,according to an OSHA report.
According to a transcript of an interview with Torrance investigators,Mobil instrument technician Steve
Bowling said:"The paint was peeling off (the KOH treater)....They knew that something was not right..
. .There's not supposed to be heat there at all."
Mobil found out that the drain valve in the acid boot "hadbeen blocked inappropriately,allowing some
acid to reach the KOH treater,"said a memo by refinery manager Robb.He wrote without elaboration
that "corrective follow-up was taken."The memo does not say whether the alarms were working at that
time.
Ads by Googlo
Free Long-Term Care Quote
6 Free Long-Tenn Insurance Quotes.You May Already Be Overpaying!
wwwltcw com/FreeQuotes
Ask a Vet Online Now
A Cat Veterinarian Will Answer Now!Questions Answered Every 9 Seconds.
Cat .fnstAnswer.com
The day before the explosion,a Mobil memo said that the acid boot alarms were still out of order and told
operators to check the acid boot levels twice a shift.The memo emphasized that it would be safer to bypass
the KOH treater "if you have any doubts about where the acid level is."
The memo ended:"Work safely."
The day of the accident,Mobil put the KOH treater on line at 2:30 a.m.
A number of things were unusual.Three devices that could signal or prevent an accident were not working
in the acid-removal system.
The automatic level controller for hydrofluoric acid in the boot --which wor ks on the same principle as the
float in a household toilet--"did not appear to be working,"said a Robb memo.Alarms connected to the
controller also were not working properly.Operators "were controlling the level of hydrofluoric acid
manually,"he wrote.
In addition,Robb wrote that an instrument used to check the acid visually-·caUed a sight glass--was
"inoperab Ie."
A Mobil work order for instrument technicians that day says that the automatic level controller and the
acid level alarms connected to it needed repair.
In response to that work order,Bowling,a 5 1/2-year veteran at Mobil,checked the system about 10 a.m.
He couldn't fix the alarms and told that to the unit operators.
In the interview,Torrance Police Detective Gary Hilton twice asked Bowling about Mobil's apparent lack of
response to learning he was unable to fix the alarms:
"If you told them at 10 in the morning,why didn't they do something about it?"Hilton asked.
"Well,I don't know why,..."Bowling said.
In addition to the decision to restart the alkylation unit with three alarm and safety devices not working,
Mobil also decided not to run the acid through an intermediary treatment station called the alumina tower.
http://artic1es.1atimes.com/1990-02-11/locallme-1121_1_human-error/2 11/19/2012C-74
Mobil Refinery Explosion Laid to Human Error:Industry:Documents reveal alarm and s...Page 3 of 3
Had the acid been run through the alumina tower,the overflow of acid might have been detected before it
reached the explosive contents ofthe KOH treater because the tower has its own set of alarms.OSHA and
the Torrance Fire Department criticized Mobil for bypassing the tower.
The reasons Mobil bypassed the tower have never been explained publicly.
Ads by Google
Lose Belly Fat Naturally
3 Sneaky Honnones That Are Making You Fat &How To Stop Them Now.
wwwReaIDose.comIWeight-Loss
Public Arrest Records
1)Enter Name and State.2)Access Full Background Checks Instantly.
InstantCheckmate.com
Prey 11 I 2 I 3 I Next
Are raspberry ketones a
'miracle'fat burrer?Dr.Oz
weighs in.
Nonwhite voters and
cultural shifts make 2012
election pivotal
Red meat:What makes it
unhealthy?
MORE:
How to breathe easier
Mayor feels a •sense offailure'in marital split
Bargains disappearing for distressed properties,Zillow says
Jindal says Romney 'gifts'argument 'absolutely wrong'
Time Warner Cable socks Internet customers with new mOcEm fee
http://artic1es.1atimes.com/1990-02-11/locallme-1121_1_human-error/2 11/19/2012C-75
Mobil Refinery Explosion Laid to Human Error:Industry:Documents reveal alarm and s...Page 1 of 3
Advertisement
Membership Services Jobs Cars Real Estate Subscribe Rentals Weekly Circulars Custom Publishing Place Ad
f!A 1,m'"'''''Il ...•'..~'...'i.~.((',.....
I .....OS .\ngIt!.ItS ',,~ttntS
U.S.WORLD BUSINESS SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT HEAr;rH LIVING TRAVEL OPINION ')\1'
L.A.NOW POLmcs CRIME EDUCATION O.C.WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS ENVIRONMENT OBITUARIES
YOU AHE HERE:u.;r Home .....Collections ......Fires --l..osAng("les County
Ads by Google
Stuck in your annuity?
if you have a $500,000 portfolio and own an
annuity,you have a lot at stake.Make sure
you understand the details by downl(hading
AnnUity Insights:Your Guide to Better
UndofSta.nding Annuities by Forbes
columnist Ken Fisher's firm.This guide is
desigMd to help you better understand
these investments.Act now!
Advertisement
FROM THE ARCHIVES-----
Release ofVapors Injures 3 at Mobil
June '4,1990
MORE STORIES ABOUT
Fires --Los Aogeles County
Oil Refineries
Safely Equipment
Industrial Accidents --Los Angeles COlmly
(Page 3 of 3)
Mobil Refinery Explosion Laid to Human Error:Industry:
Documents reveal alarm and safety devices were not
working on Nov.24,1987,and that plant personnel knew it.
February 11,1990 I GEORGE STEIN I TIMES STAFF WRITER
With the sight glass inoperable,the automatic acid-level controller shut off,its high-and low-level alarms
known to be malfunctioning and the alumina tower bypassed,all that Mobil had to warn of a potential
explosion was periodic chemical sampling and one last set of acid-level alarms,according to a Robb
memo and other documents.
The last chemical test was done 11/2 hours before the explosion and Robb's memo says it detected no
problems.
The alarms had been tested and Mobil believed they were working,Robb wrote later.
But Mobil found out after the explosion that the alarm system was not connected to the acid boot,Robb's
memo said.
Ads by 000gl0
Luxury Leather Furniture
100%Top Grain Leather by Elite.Sofas,Sectionals,Accent Chairs
www.iInteriors.LA
Coffee Exposed
A shocking secret coffee co's don't want you to know.
www.coffeefool.com
Noone has explained why Mobil's test failed to disclose that the alarm s were not connect ed.
However,OSHA Regional Administrator Frank Strasheim in a recent interview criticized Mobil's test as
"not valid"because it did not tell the difference between a device that was hooked up and one that was
not.John Hermanson,a former OSHA district director who released documents to The Times,said
Mobil was "dumb"not to ensure that the alarm was working when other safety devices were known to be
out of order.
Despite Mobil's assertions that employees believed the alarm system was working when they decided to
proceed,an OSHA investigative report says that a signal light in the refinery control room should have
alerted Mobil that the alarm was not working properly.
http://artic1es.1atimes.com/1990-02-11/local/me-1121_1_human-error/3 11/19/2012
C-76
Mobil Refinery Explosion Laid to Human Error:Industry:Documents reveal alarm and s...Page 2 of 3
At 5:53 p.m.,the KOH treater blew up.
Copyright 2012 Los Angel!H\m~d al rAAW~~spwJRs dfl~J;he blast destroyed a water gun at the alkylation unit that could
have been used to fight the fire or drench acid fumes.Flaming debris fell across Crenshaw Boulevard.A
quarter-Jnil,ll~'b~Kttwo~lloffn~~€)~~r.;out windows in 21 homes.
Mobil,which had a contractor working on the water line to the alkylation unit,"did not have water for 20
minutes,"said OSHA,which criticized the oil company for failing to put down emergency hose lines.
Employees ran in--some without safety suits--to turn off valves.That sealed the section from its supply of
acid and stemmed the flow of flammables to the fire,which burned itself out the next morning.
Six months later,OSHA issued five citations for serious violations of federal safety regulations.A serious
violation is a hazard with a substantial probability of causing death or serious injury and which the
employer knew abou t or should have known abou t.
The five citations said that Mobil should have had its alarms and controller working,that its operating
procedures were inadequate,that relief valves on the KOH treater were the wrong size,that firefighting
equipment had been inadequate,and that employees trying to close valves after the explosion should
have worn protective suits.
Mobil did not dispute four of the citations and paid a $4,000 fine.OSHA dropped the fifth citation last
April,after Mobil successfully argued that no relief valve could have prevented the explosion.
In rebuilding the alkylation unit,Mobil rewired the existing alarms on the acid boot for more reliability
and added another acid-level alarm.Procedures now require operators to check the instrument readings
against the sight glass.Mobil also installed an automatic shunt system,in case of another acid overflow,
to keep acid-laden propan e away from the KOH treater.The oil company plans to install an underground
tank protected against explosion to dump large amounts of hydrofluoric acid in the event of another
emergency.
Ads by Google
Arrest Records:2 Secrets
1)Enter Name and State.2)Access Full Background Checks Instantly.
InstantCheckmate com
Is Jesus Really God?
Scholars Examine the Facts About Jesus'Claims to be God
V-Jesus com
Since the accident,the refinery also has improved training;last year it installed a computer-assisted
learning program specially tailored to the Torrance alkylation unit.
One of the scenarios includes an overflow from the acid boot.
ANATOMY OF MOBIL REFINERY BLAST
The alkylation unit--where the explosion took place--comes after crude oil has been distilled,purified of
contaminants and "cracked"into lighter component s.Using hazardous hydrofluoric acid as a catalyst,the
alkylation process combines hydrocarbons to volatile to use in gasoline tOf6rm a high-octane gasoline
component.Two byproducts--isobutane and propane--are reclaimed and used elsewhere in the refinery;
the hydrofluoric acid is recycled.The explosion took place wh ere propane is separated from hydrofluoric
acid.
The explosion occurred away from the main part of the alkylation unit--where most ofthe hydrofluoric
acid is stored and used.It blew apart a tank in a four-stage unit that removes the acid from propane.
Most ofthe acid is first separated from the propane by gravity.The acid collects in a barrel-like "boot,"(1)
which hangs below a larger horizontal storage tank.
Acid from the boot is drained for reuse,while partially cleansed propane goes on thethe second stage,a
distillation process (2)that removes most ofthe remaining acid.
A chemical process using aluminum oxide further purifies propane in the third state--the alumina tower
(3).
The final stage removes what is supposed to be only trace amounts of acid in a steel tank,known as the
KOH treater (4),filled with highly reactive sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide.
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-1l/local/me-1121 1 human-error/3 11/19/2012C-77
Mobil Refinery Explosion Laid to Human Error:Industry:Documents reveal alarm and s...Page 3 of 3
WHAT WENT WRONG Acid overflowed the boot unnoticed and reached the KOH treater,which
detonated like a bomb.
WHY IT HAPPENED A.Sight glass on acid boot inoperable.B.Automatic controller on acid boot was not
working;alarms connected to controller were not working.C.Mobil fails to hook up remaining alarm
system on acid boot;relies on false readings from unconnected alarm.D.Alumina tower and its alarms
had been bypassed.
SOURCES:Mobil,OSHA,Torrance Fire Department
Ads by Google
Counterterrorism Degree
Study counterterrorism at AMU &receive an online college degree.
www AMUAPUS edulIntelligence
Online CookingLessons
Ready To Get Cooking?Enroll Today!Escoffier Online Culinary Academy.
www escoffieron1ine.coll1
FEATURED
Are raspberry ketones a
'miracle'fat burlEr?Dr.Oz
weighs in.
Nonwhite voters and
cultural shifts make 2012
election pivotal
Red meat:What makes it
unhealthy?
MORE:
Car review:Looks aside,Ford e-Max hybrid has leg up on Prius v
Green coffee beans show potential for losing weight
Skechers lawsuit:How to get your piece of the $4o-million payout
How to sell your iPhone 4 for enough cash to buy an iPhone 5
Statins may lower risk of cancer death
http://artic1es.1atimes.com/1990-02-11/local/me-1121 1 human-error/3 11/19/2012C-78
Page 1 of1
Kit Fox
From:kathleen dwgkaw [dwgkaw@hotmail.com]
Sent:Friday,October 26,2012 4:44 PM
To:janet gunter;Connie Rutter;chuck hart;John Miller;chateau4us@att.net;carl.southwell@gmail.com;
mrenvirlaw@sbcglobal.net;noelweiss@ca.rr.com;Susan Brooks;Kit Fox;Jim Knight;Brian Campbell;
Jerry Duhovic;Anthony Misetich;dakotahpat@sbcglobal.net;konnica@ca.rr.com;Frank Andersen;
cary@carybrazeman.com
Subject:RE:Interesting ..things just never seem to change...perfect records because no one ever reports!
Here we have another example of business as usual in the post-truth era.
Kathleen
To:connie@rutter.us;det310@juno.com;igornla@cox.net;dwgkaw@hotmail.com;chateau4us@att.net;
carl.southwell@gmail.com;MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com;susan.brooks@rpv.com;
kitf@rpv.com;jim.knight@rpv.com;brian.campbell@rpv.com;jerry.duhovic@rpv.com;
anthony.misetich@rpv.com;dakotahpat@sbcglobal.net;konnica@ca.rr.com;fbmjet@aol.com;
cary@carybrazeman.com
Subject:Interesting ..things just never seem to change ...perfect records because no one ever reports!
From:arriane5@aol.com
Date:Thu,25 Oct 201222:14:14 -0400
fyi
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-11/local/me-1121 1 human-error
11/1912012 C-79
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Page 1 of2
Kit Fox
From:Janet Gunter [arriane5@aol.com]
Tuesday,October 30,2012 9:02 PM
Brian Campbell;Susan Brooks;Jim Knight;Jerry Duhovic;Anthony Misetich;Kit Fox
chateau4us@att.net; det310@juno.com;connie@rutter.us;cary@thecorporatestoryteller.com;
MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net;noelweiss@ca.rr.com
Subject:Fwd:Daily Breeze Article on Palos Verdes Council action on Rancho tanks
Ms.Gandrizzi is the secretary to Bill Fujioka (CEO)at the County of LA.Their office was contacted
weeks ago on this issue and sent a copy of the DVD on Rancho along with other informational items.The
question to the County CEO goes to the fiscal liability of LA County to your municipalities and all other
relative costs incurred by a potential disaster at Rancho.Ms.Gandrizzi told me that "someone"would
contact me today with an answer as to the official position of the County on this matter.As I thought
about it all ....1decided that the concern of the nationally recognized "expert"on disasters of this nature in
the USA regarding Rancho should be revealed to the County before they gave their formal stance.I
therefore,sent the email below from Professor Bea ...and another that will follow this one ...to Ms.
Gandrizzi.I hav,e heard nothing from their office today.Supervisor Knabe appears to be MIA on this
issue as his representative,Rebekah Kim,has chosen to dismiss the issue.I think all of these folks need
to start paying more attention.I hope your council agrees.This is not a small issue and one that has
deadly potential.
Thank you for your recognition of the import of this situation,
Janet G
-----Original Message-----
From:Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
To:gandrizzi <gandrizzi@ceo.lacounty.gov>
Sent: Mon,Oct 29,20124:56 pm
Subject:Fwd:Daily Breeze Article on Palos Verdes Council action on Rancho tanks
Gwen ....Just had the thought that you/Mr.Fujioka should see a few of the emails that I have received
from Professor Bob Bea from UC Berkeley on Rancho.Professor Bea is the premiere expert hired by the
government to investigate the "why"of cataclysmic engineering failures.I am attaching a few links to who
he is for your review with the last email that I have received from him ...and another to come.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/En9in eer-Robert-Bea-a-student-of-d isaster-3186034.ph P
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37279113/ns/n bcnightlynews/tldeepwater-horizon-rig-what-went-
wronq/#.U18XdWdSTIo
-----Original Message-----
From:Robert Bea <bearams@gmail.com>
To:Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent:Fri,Oct 19,2012 8:08 am
Subject:Re:Daily Breeze Article on Palos Verdes Council action on Rancho tanks
thanks for helping keep me informed about the Rancho developments.
this is a good sign.however,the 'neutrality'of proposed 'monitoring actions'is not a good
sign ....."watching it fail".
i do not understand why the efforts of you and your neighbors have not been effective in impelling the
local and state governments to take appropriate actions to determine accurately the public safety risk and
alternatives that could be employed to help make those risks acceptable to the affected public/s.it seems
as though all of the groups represented ...with the exception of the affected public/s ....are determined to
'monitor the situation'....without doing what is really necessary to manage the situation in a positive way.
11/19/2012 C-80
Page 2 of2
i am continuing to give the Rancho challenge thought.....my work on the PG&E San Bruno and BP Deepwater
Horizon Macondo disasters are both 'heating up'in preparations for the trials scheduled for this coming January.
thanks again,
bob bea
On Thu,Oct 18,2012 at 5:33 PM,Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>wrote:
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci 21796319/rancho-palos-verdes-step-u p-mon itoring-butane-storage
Robert Bea
Professor Emeritus
University of California Berkeley
Email:bea@ce.berkeley.edu
Risk Assessment &Management Services
60 Shuey Drive
Moraga,CA 94556
925-631-1587 (office)
925-699-3503 (cell)
Email:BeaRAMS@gmail.com
11/19/2012 C-81
Page 1 of2
Kit Fox
From:Janet Gunter [arriane5@aol.com]
Sent:Tuesday,October 30,2012 9:06 PM
To:Brian Campbell;Susan Brooks;Jim Knight;Jerry Duhovic;Anthony Misetich;Kit Fox;
chateau4us@att.net
Cc:det31 O@juno.com;connie@rutter.us;MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net;noelweiss@ca.rr.com;
cary@thecorporatestoryteller.com;jody.james@sbcglobal.net
SUbject:Fwd:Link to article in City Watch LA today re:LPG situation
2nd email to Gandrizzi fyi
-----Original Message-----
From:Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
To:gandrizzi <gandrizzi@ceo.lacounty.gov>
Sent:Mon,Oct 29,2012 5:03 pm
Subject:Fwd:l-ink to article in City Watch LA today re:LPG situation
Please read these mails.The jeopardy of risk from this facility is only getting more probable with time.
Certainly,Prof.Bea's concern should give the credibility to our issue here that it deserves.We are not
hysterical....the greatest worry for Prof.Bea is the issue of "domino effect"...his consideration of the huge
blast potential of LPG accompanied by the multitude of ignition and fuel resources of oil terminals and
chemical facilities that are on the threshold of Rancho.This is a deadly combination.
thanks,
Janet
-----Original M essage-----
From:Robert G Bea <bea@ce.berkeley.edu>
To:Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent:Fri,Aug 3,2012 2:46 pm
Subject:Re:Link to article in City Watch LA today re:LPG situation
very good summary Janet.
i had a 'mild stroke'JUly 22nd.major effect was loss of left eye vision.still undergoing tests to determine
short and long term prognosis.no signs the circulation system 'trash'reached my brain.
perhaps the San Bruno trial will prOVide opportunities to raise the flags about Rancho and about the
prices of ignoring infrastructure risk assessment and management...industry and government.w~will
stay alert for the opportunities ...San Bruno is a perfect analog for a future Rancho disaster....lack of any
realistic assessment of the SYSTEM RISKS ...denial by industry....more denial by government.....public
not informed ....you know the rest.
bob bea
On 8/3/12 11:13 AM,Janet Gunter wrote:
http://citywatchla.com/component/content/article/317-8box-rig ht/3555-where-
theres-smoke-theres-fire-and-possibly-a-catastrophe?
utm source=General+CityWatch+List&utm campaign=f17bf8d350-
CW10628 2 2012&utm medium=email
11/19/2012 C-82
Professor Emeritus Robert Bea,PhD,PE
Department of Civil &Environmental Engineering
University of California Berkeley
Email:bea@ce.berkeley.edu
Home Office
Risk Assessment &Management Services
60 Shuey Drive
Moraga,California 94556
Telephone 925-631-1587
Cell 925-699-3503
Email:BeaRAMS@gmail.com
11/19/2012
Page 2 of2
C-83
/1~/g/~1~~'1
CO/so MOTION ocr ;2 3 20'12
Residents and neighbors surrounding the Rancho LPG facility located in San Pedro have
expressed various concerns regarding the safety and legality of this facility.This particular liquid
bulk tank facility was built in '1973,and is located on private property outside the Port of Los
Angeles.It includes two 12.5 million gallon refrigerated tanks containing butane,a liquefied
petroleum gas which is a by-product of the refining process.Within the past decade,there have
been various city reviews of the storage facility,dating back to 2004,and have involved the
Planning Department,City Attorney,Harbor Department,Fire Department,the City
Administrative Office (CAO)as well as the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA).
Aside from the Rancho LP<;'facility in San Pedro,there are a variety of other liquid bulk
storage facilities both above and below ground in the Harbor area,which have also raised
concerns -among nearby residents.It is imperative that the City ensure that any potential threats
are thoroughly explored and mitigated.
Concerned about the potential risks posed to local residents by a breach of a liqUid Bulk
Storage (LBS)and Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG)facility in the event of an accident,residents
have expressed interest in knowing how the land at Parcel 7412026006,on which the Rancho
LPG facility is located,could be annexed b,y the Harbor Department and bring the inspection and
direction of safety protocols of the site under the jurisdiction of the Port of Los Angeles and the
Board of Harbor Commissioners.
I THEREFORE MOVE that the Port of Los Angeles be instructed to report on the
feasibility,gf annexinJ4 ()r purchasing Parcel 7412026006 and placing it under the jurisdiction of
the Boar .HarbOr Commissioners.
---
;(~)~-~.
Presented By ..*-C..2·Z',(~1..l....(.."~.A'-.~...)
JO BUSCAINO
Councilmember,15th District..........).a'..(;..I .I
4"/b ~
Seconded By--~.lt~:~7/-··_
I FURTHER IVlOVE that in the event Parcell·412026006 callnot be purchased or annexed
that the Port of Los Angeles report as to WflY such a move is not possible uncJer the restrictions
of,but not limited to,the City Charter,the Tidelands Trust Act,or the California Coastal
Commission.
RECEIVED FROM-..I:.W:L-..Ia'~~-'::::-::'I
AND MADE A PART OF T ECORD AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING OF •~/,
OFFICE OF THE CITY CL K
CARLA MORREALE,CITY CLERK
C-84
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
CALIFORNIA
JUNE LAGMAY
City Clerk
HOLLY L.WOLCOTT
Executive Officer
When making inquiries relative to
this matter,please refer to the
Council File No.11-1813,51
ANTONIO R.VILLARAIG05A
MAYOR
Office of the
CITY CLERK
Council and Public Services
Room 395,City Hall
Los Angeles,CA 90012
General Infonnatlon -(213)978-1133
Fax:(213)978-1040
SHANNON HOPPES
Council and Public Services
Division
www.cltyclerk.laclty.org
S!,;!la
Gerry F.Miller,Chief Legislative Analyst
Room 265,City Hall
Dear Mr.Miller:
At its special meeting held June 27,2012,the Public Safety Committee considered Motions
(Buscaino -Perry -Englander)and (Perry -Krekorian)relative to permitting and safety
requirements for liquid bulk storage facilities located in San Pedro.At that time,Committee
instructed you to:
1.Convene meetings with the Fire Department,Building and Safety,Harbor Department,
City Attorney,Planning,Emergency Management,Bureau of Sanitation,and any other
City ,departments as needed,and to report to the Public Safety Committee with
recommendations to improve safety and hazard mitigation measures of liquid bulk
facilities.Recommendations can include,but should not be limited to:
Enlisting the assistance of an independent consultant to examine the risks
associated with liquid bulk storage facilities in the Harbor area.
Recommendations for any new amendments to local,state or federal
requirements that pertain to liquid bulk storage facilities.
2.Develop a comprehensive list and/or map of all such facilities in Harbor ar~a,including
those on Port property.
Please submit your report to the Public Safety Committee,in care of the City Clerk's Office,City
Hall,Room 395.
Sincerely,
John A.White,Legislative Assistant
Public Safety Committee
213-978-1072
An Equal Employment Opportunity -Affinnative Action Employer
C-85
Expert Assessment of the Washington Gas Proposal
Ronald P.Koopman,Ph.D.,P.E.
Hazard Analysis Consulting
4673 Almond Circle
Livermore,CA 94550
925-443-5324
rpkoopman@comcast.net
January 16,2006
Hyattsville Community Development Corporation
c/o Stuart Eisenberg
4904 40th Place
HyattsVille,MD 20782
Subject:An Assessment of the Washington Gas proposal to build an LNG storage
facility at Chillum Road in West Hyattsvile,MD.
The above mentioned report has been revised and is provided to the Hyattsville
Community Development Corporation for use as it sees fit,including presentation to the
County Zoning Hearing Examiner,the County District Council,and the circuit court,as
needed.The author has extensive experience in the area of LNG safety research and
analysis,starting in 1977.His resume and publications list are also attached.Any
questions ·on the content of the analysis can be directed to the author at the address listed
above.
Sincerely,
Ronald P.Koopman,Ph.D.,P.E.
Hazard Analysis Consulting
C-86
An Assessment of the Washington Gas proposal to build an
LNG storage facility at Chillum Road in West Hyattsville,MD.
By
Ronald P.Koopman,Ph.D.,P.E.
Hazard Analysis Consulting
4573 Almond Circle
Livermore,California 94550
925-443-5324
December 5,2005,revised January 14,2006
..
Liquefied natural gas (LNG)import,transport and storage facilities exist worldwide and
the industry has an excellent safety record.In these days of growing energy shortages in
the US,LNG provides a way to satisfy our increasing demand for clean burning natural
gas.That said,LNG is still a unique and very hazardous material.The recommendation
from the scientific community studying LNG hazards and from the various government
agencies responsible for public safety has been to build LNG facilities in remote areas in
order to provide an exclusion zone between the facility and the public.This
recommendation has been made each time LNG safety issues have been revisited for the
last sixty years,ever since the Cleveland LNG disaster that killed 130 people in 1944.
Theproposed Chillum Road LNG facility is too close to people to satisfy this simple and
fundamental requirement.In this case the responsibility for making this decision does not
rest with the various Federal agencies that have sponsored LNG safety research and have
recommended a safety exclusion zone.It rests with the county Office ofthe Zoning
Hearing Examiner.This is a heavy and technologically complex responsibility for a local
zoning authority to bear.This document will attempt to summarize what is known abo lit
LNG safety and make it available to the Zoning Hearing Examiner.
LNG Hazards
LNG is liquefied natural gas.In order to liquefy natural gas it is cooled to a temperature
below -260°F and stored in insulated tanks.This results in a 600 fold reduction in the
volume ofthe gas and makes storage and transportation more cost effective.LNG has the
same hazards as those of natural gas and in addition there are the effects of low
temperature and the 600 fold concentration in volume.LNG is highly flammable and
explosive when vaporized,mixed with air to within its flammability limits,and confined
in a room or building or some other structure.IfLNG is spilled.it rapidIv vaporizes to
cold natural gas,increasing bv 600 (old in volume,and mixes with air.cooling tlte air,
and (orming a cold vapor cloud that is denser than air and can travel downwind (01'
substantial distances,until it encounters an ignition source or dissipates.Natural gas at
ambient temperature is lighter than air and it rises and dissipates more rapidly when
released.However,because L.NG cools the air as it vaporizes and mixes with air,the
C-87
flammable vapor cloud remains denser than air as it moves downwind.This behavior is
well documented both by large scale experiment and model calculations.If the LNG
vapor cloud enters a confining structure and is ignited,it will explode.In the Cleveland
disaster,LNG flowed from a ruptured tank and entered the sewer system where it
vaporized and exploded.Vapor clouds also entered buildings and exploded,in addition to
fueling a huge fire in the vicinity of the spill.This type ofaccident is highly unlikely
today because modern tanks are built with materials that do not fracture easily at LNG
temperatures and the "ewest tanks have strong reinforced concrete outer walls to
withstand earthquakes.attacks or accidents and to act as secondary containers ifin-
tank equipme"t fails or inner tank failure occurs.They generally also have earthen
berms surrounding them with a volume large enough to contain the tank contents if
necessary.For these reasons,an accident or attack releasing the entire tank contents is
considered highly unlikely and most hazard analysis is focused on process equipment
failures .
.'
Exclusion Zones
Without detailed information on the design of the LNG storage tank and the associated
process equipment it is difficult to determine the potential hazards.It will be important to
get that information and a formal hazard analysis before approving this or any other
hazardous material facility.lOt is assumed that this facility will be similar to other LNG
storage facilities currently u"dergoi~g licensing review.rough estimates ofhazard
exclusion zones can be made.Using the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 49 CFRI93),
the National Fire Protection Association guidelines for LNG facilities (NFPA 59A)and
analyses performed for licensing of other LNG storage tanks as a guide,several failure
scenarios are identified.
For these scenarios,two types of exclusion zones are considered.Assuming the LNG is
ignited at the source,the thermal exclusion zone extends to a distance where the thermal
radiation from a fire falls below 1,600 Btu/ft2-hr,a threshold level where the fire is
hazardous to persons outdoors with bare skin after 30 seconds of exposure.The vapor
cloud exclusion zone is the maximum distance an unignited LNG vapor cloud can
travel and still be flammable.People and properlY in this zone would be burned ifthe
vapor cloud were ignited.Both ofthese exclusion zones are important.The vapor cloud
can kill those exposed if it is ignited and there are many ignition sources available in an
urban environment.A pool fire will burn those exposed to thermal radiation levels higher
than 1,600 Btu/ft2 -hr.Since no specific design information is available for this proposed
facility.the following scenarios are based on the hazard analysis done for the proposed
Long Beach LNG Import Project:
1.Rupture of the in-tank pump discharge header resulting in the flow of LNG at
.~~~.QQ{i)p?-for 10 minutes (75,000 gal spilled)into the outer concrete tank which
#aCts as an impound area.If ignition occurs,a large fire will erupt from the top of
the containment structure and the thermal exclusion zone will extend for about
800 ft.This assumes that the proposed outer tank is a state-of-the-art reinforced
concrete structure similar to that proposed for Long Beach (160,000 m 3 ,255 ft
C-88
diameter,176 ft tall).lOt is a simple carbon steel structure or a less capable
tank of whatever design.the risk and consequences could be higher and the
thermal exclusion zone could be longer.
2.Process equipment rupture resulting in LNG release of 9,600 gpm for 10 min
~~aWspilled)into the process area sump.If ignition occurs,a large tire
will erupt from the process area sump and the thermal exclusion zone will
extend for about 850 fl.IOgnition does not occur,the vapor cloud exclusion
zone could extend downwind for as much as 1700 ft.Anything within this zone
would be bumed if ignition occurred and buildings would bum or could explode
if the cloud entered them before reaching an ignition source.Details-of this
scenario depend on process equipment design and can be clarified when that
design information is available.
3.Tank damage from an a~~~,~~l2losivesor from an airplane crash would
result in larger release'Sbut these events are extremely unlikely to occur.Ifthey
.'did.these releases could produce a thermal exclusion zone 0(3000 fl.A
reinforced concrete outer tank would resist these events~xcept for the extreme
worst case.A lesser tank would be more vulnerable.
4.Tank damage or failure of both the inner and outer tank resulting in release of the
~~'i~~,~"~ashort time ~to the bermed area could occur as a result o(a very large
earthquake.TsunamI.or other natural phenomena or an attack WIth a truck load
of explosives,exceeding the design criteria ofthe tank.Tanks in areas prone to
earthquakes,Tsunami,or other natural phenomena are usually designed to
withstand all but the most severe and unlikely ofthese events.Attack scenarios
are considered extremely unlikely but the real probability is unknown.I(anv of
these events were to happen.and the vapor cloud was not ignited at the source.
the exclusion area could extend for 4 miles downwind.A reinforced concrete
outer tank would resist these events except for the extreme worst cases.A lesser
tank would be more vulnerable.
Summary
The report written following the Cleveland disaster in 1944 recommended that no facility
that "may be explosive or inflammable or which may present any hazard which would
endanger life and property in its vicinity,should be built in a residential,semi-residential,
business or congested factory district."
More recently,in 1978,the General Accounting Office released a Report to Congress
recommending that "all new,large liquid energy gas (includes LNG)storage facilities be
built in remote areas."
In 2004.Sandia National Laboratory revisited LNG hazards and concluded that the
most significant impacts to public safety and property from an accidental spill exist
witlrin approximately 250 m (762 ft)ofthe spill and for an intentional release.within
about 500 m 0524 ft)ofthe spill.This study was focused on spills from ships onto water
and had to define exclusion zones for protection of people and property along the transit
route,but is also good guidance for public impact anywhere.
C-89
The best guidance for public safety is still that from the GAO Report to Congress.
Large scale hazardous material faciUtiest including LNG "mporl and storage facilities.
should be built in remote areas.The population density and proximity of public facilities
and houses make the Washington Gas proposal to build an LNG storage facility at
Chillum Road in West Hyattsville,MD a bad idea.It is important to the safety of the
citizens of this area that the county Office of the Zoning Hearing Examiner recognize this
and have the courage to make this difficult decision.
References
1.Coroner's Report on East Ohio Gas Company Disaster,Cuyahoga County,
Cleveland,Ohio,July 1945
2.Report of the Technical Consultants Board of Inquiry for the Mayor of Cleveland
on the East Ohio Gas Company Fire,Cleveland,Ohio,July 1945.
3.'.Report to Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States,US General
Accounting Office,Liquefied Energy Gases Saftty,EMD-;78-28,July 31,1978.
4.Guidance on RiskAnalysis and Safety Implications ofa Large Liquefied Natural
Gas (LNG)Spill Over Water,Sandia Report,SAND2004-6258,December 2004.
5.Code of Federal Regulations,Title 49,Volume 3,Chapter I,Part 193 Liquefied
Natural Gas Facilities:Federal Safety Standards,Subpart B Siting Requirements
6.American National Standard~Institute (ANSI),National Fire Protection
Association guidelines for LNG facilities (NFPA 59A)
7.Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report,Long
Beach LNG Import Project,October 2005.
PRIVATE CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
I currently provide hazard analysis consulting on liquefied natural gas and other liquefied
gases.The analysis tasks involve document review,document preparation,scientific
assessment,atmospheric dispersion model calculations,combustion calculations,legal
testimony,and professional advice.
My private consulting clients and work include:
Sandia National Laboratory -Provided document review for Guidance on Risk
Analysis and Safety Implications ofa Large Liquefied Natural Gas SpillOver Water,
November 2004.Provide information from and connection to DOE sponsored LNG
research program of the 1980's,including the spill test facility at the Nevada Test Site.
Provide guidance and advice on LNG fire testing.
BHP BOOton -Provide guidance on safety analysis and safety issues associated with
proposed Cabrillo Port deepwater LNG port.
Malcolm Pirnie -Provided review of LNG terminal safety analysis information.
C-90
City of Vallejo -Participated on team of independent consultants to review LNG
terminal proposed for Mare Island.Provided safety analysis expertise including modeling
of worst case LNG releases from tanker ships and terminal storage and off-loading
facilities.Made presentations to the Vallejo Safety Committee and the city council.
Contributed to report presenting work,Liquefied Natural Gas in Vallejo:Health and
Safety Issues,January 16,2003.
US Department of Justice -Provided expert witness testimony on the consequences of
a bomb or RPG attack on LPG storage tanks in the city of Elk Grove,CA.Contributed to
Special Report,Consequences ofan Adversarial Attack on a Large Propane Storage
Facility,September,1999,for the FBI.
Law firms -Providedexpert witness testimony on the nature and possible consequences
of an accidental release ofHF and isobutene from a refinery in Texas City,TX.Provided
expert-opinion and documentation on the consequences of LPG releases from the storage
tanks in Elk Grove,CA.
EXPERIENCE AT LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Retired in 2003.
Manager of Special Projects,Chemical &Biological National Security Program,1999
-2003
Responsible for managing biosensor projects sponsored by DoD,DOE,USDA,managing
the Bioforensic Demonstration and Application Program,and commercializing the
handheld biosensor,HANAA.
AVLIS Plant Project Nuclear and Safety Analysis Manager,AVLIS Project,1995 -
1999
Responsible for managing nuclear criticality safety,integrated safety analysis,and
radiation safety groups associated with design,NRC licensing and deployment of a
uranium enrichment plant using the Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation (AVLIS)
technology.
Associate Energy Program Leader,Energy Program,1990-1995
Responsible for program development including the Zinc/Air Battery project,the Molten
Salt Mixed Waste Destruction project,the Energy Economic Modeling project,the
Environmental Technologies Program and organization of a review of weapons
plutonium disposition issues and options.
Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Program Leader,LGF Program,1984-1990
C-91
Managed and conducted research on the atmospheric dispersion and combustion of large-
scale,denser-than-air,hazardous gas releases.Conducted large-scale field experimental
programs with liquefied natural gas (LNG),ammonia,nitrogen tetroxide,and hydrogen
fluoride.Managed a research group (J-Group)of more than 20 people and a research
program involving international collaboration with the chemical and petroleum industry,
in particular with Gas Research Institute,The Fertilizer Institute,AMOCO and Mobil,
and with Federal agencies including DOT,DoD,EPA.Responsible for the development
of state-of-the-art dense gas dispersion models including FEM3,a unique three
dimensional finite element model.Responsible for the conceptual design of the DOE
Spill Test Facility and for oversight of Bechtel on the final design and construction at
Nevada Test Site.Provided testimony to the US Congress and the California State
Assembly on transportation and use of hazardous materials.
Fluid Dynamics Group Leader,LGF Program,1978-1984
Conducted experiments involving large-scale releases ofliquefie9 natural gas (LNG)and
other hazardous gases at China Lake,CA,and the Nevada Test Site.Responsible for
design and construction of a unique radio telemetry based data acquisition system and for
unique instrwnentation for measurement of gas dispersion and combustion,including
field deployable multiband infrared gas sensors.Broadened the program from liquefied
natural gas to include other hazardous chemicals such as ammonia,nitrogen tetroxide,
and hydrogen fluoride.'
Physicist,Physics Division and,Nuclear Test Department,1972-1978
Did experimental low energy nuclear physics research using protons and neutrons
coupled with nuclear reaction model calculations to investigate the systematic de-
excitation of even-even nuclei by gamma ray cascade.Did criticality safety analysis
using Monte Carlo neutron and gamma-ray transport codes.
Shift SupervisorlReactor Physicist,Livermore Pool-Type Reactor,1968-1972
Responsible for shift operations and safety at the LLNL research reactor.
Engineer,Space Power Program,1967-1968
Helped design exotic nuclear reactors for use in space.
EDUCATION
•Ph.D.,Applied Science,University of California,Davis,1977
•M.S.,Nuclear Engineering,University of Michigan,1967
•B.S.,Mechanical Engineering,University of Michigan,1965
MEMBERSIDPS
C-92
•American Physical Society
•American Nuclear Society
•American Chemical Society
•Registered Professional Engineer,State of California
•Past Chairman,Joint Army-Navy-NASA-Air Force (JANNAF)Panel on
Atmospheric Hazards and Modeling
•Past member,Editorial Board,Institution of Chemical Engineers journal,Process
Safety and Environmental Protection
•Past member,FBI Scientific Working Group on Microbial Forensics
EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY
•Mary L.Greene et al.v.Marathon Petroleum Co.et al.,November 5,1990;
regarding hydrofluoric acid accident at Marathon Texas City refinery on October
"30,1987.
•United States of America v.Kevin Patterson,et al.,May J4,2002;regarding
conspiracy to blow up the Suburban Propane storage tanks,Elk Grove,California.
PUBLICATIONS
Over 60 publications,invited talks,apd papers.List available upon request.
C-93
3.Utane leak at Rancho LPG storage facility in San Pedro may be source 0...http://www.dailybreeze.comlnews/cL21815138lbutane-leak-at-rancho-lp..
Weather:..TORRANCE,CA I Now:7'Z'F I High:70"F I Low:6ZoF I 5-Day Forecast Live Trame 110N 1105 405N 4055 S1E 91W
Subscriber ServicesI Home Deliveryl e-Editionl
Login I Newsletter I AlertBll::It RSS
Home News Sports Business
Mosl\llews
Opinions Entertainment Life &Culture Info
~eooKMFiRt<rI':';;it _
Place Ad Shopping Classlfieds Jobs Autos Homes Obits Directories
fj erlnt G2i EmlIlI IiliI8l Font Resize
Complaints came from "all over,"Atwood said,including Harbor City,Lomita,San Pedro and Rancho Palos
Verdes.
Butane leak at Rancho LPG storage facility in San Pedro
may be source of odor -
January 2012
S M T W T F S
1 234 567
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
........4;,.l_......~
One person recommends
this.Sign Up to see what
Earlier this week,the Rancho Palos Verdes City
Council unanimously voted to step up its
participation in monitoring the plant,which falls
under the jUrisdiction of several agencies.
donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com
Follow Donna Uttlejohn on Twitter at
http://twitter.comidonnalittlejohn
Recommend
YESG
Sdltlllif &:Luclll Pllhlir Su!'>I\
Prote(~tion Act·
Several community groups recently have renewed a push for
the facility to move,saying that it is located too
close to homes and schools.Advertisement
There were no reports of anyone needing medical attention due to the odors,he said.
The Rancho LPG facility at 2110 N.Gaffey St stores 25.3 million gallons of butane and propane in two large,
dOUble-wailed storage tanks.
Established in 1973 by Petrolane and later operated by Amerigas,the facility now is owned by Plains LPG,
which has a long-tenn lease on the land.
While the plant has a clean record and undergoes frequent safety inspections,it has been the focus of
concern for years.
Before the AQMD can issue a violation,Atwood said inspectors must verifY that odors reported at some
half-dozen of the spots can be traced be<;\<to the facility.
Investigators were canying out that task on Friday,he said,and it was still unclear whether a violation would
be issued.
By Donna LJttiEUohn,Staff Writer
Posted:10/19/201209:38:07 PM PDT
Updated:10/19/201209:39:00 PM PDT
Air quality officials on Friday were investigating what appears to have bean a butane leak from the Rancho
LPG storage facility in San Pedro.
Odors were reported to the South Coast Air Quality Management District on Thursday afternoon.
"We have received at least 37 complaints as of late yesterday,"AQMD spokesman Sam Atwood said Friday.
"It included four different schools so we sent inspectors out and were able to verify odors in several of the
locations."
1.Charred body
found In
Inglewood
home may be
gunman who
shot family
2.UPDATED:
Inglewood
gunman
shoots 5 family
membel$.,
killing 2,sets '
home on fire
3.VINCENT
BONSIGNORE
on USC:
Trojans air out
their Issues on
offense for all
losee
4.San Pedro
High Schoors
plrata mascot
getaa
makeover
5.DATABASE:
LAPD'sMost
Wanted
6.As election
plays out,
small busIness
hopes for help
7.Wlndows8
baffles
consumers ...
and thars if
they're not In
shock
8.Off-leash dog
park In Rancho
Palos Verdes
lo open soon
9.Hawthorne
Mayor Daniel
Juarez
charged with
illegally taking
$2,000 from
Gold's Gym
owner
10.Things To Do
This Weekend
More News
Astrong economy
for the n'ext U-.ineration.
FIND OUT MORE
;~I Return to Top
Event ReglSlr81lon Online powered by
PDF compression,OCR,web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVlSION PDFCompresso
10f2 10/21/20124:361C-94
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CODE
Chapter 450-8 -RISK MANAGEMENT
Sections:
450-8.002 -Bm:k.ground and findings.
450-8'()04 -Purp-ose and goals.
450-8.006 -AUI.horitv.
450-8.008 -Administration.
450-8.0 I0 -Ap1?licabilitv-"
450-8.012 -Inspc9,tion.------......."'...~-....,......---
~50-&.z..014 -Definitions.
450-8.016 -Stationary source safet"requirements.
450-8.0 18 ~Review.audit and inspection.
:1:50-8.020 -Trade ?"~£@.,
450-8.022 -Hazardous materials ombudsperson.
450-8.024 -Public infonnation bank.
450-8.026 -Fees.
450-8.028 -PenaHies.,
450-8.030 -Annual perfonnance review and evaluation.
450-8.()32 -Construction,
450-8.002 -Background and fmdings.
The board of supervisors of Contra Costa County finds as follows:
(a)Recent incidents in Contra Costa County at industrial chemical,petrochemical,and oil
industry facilities have prompted the consideration of reviews,inspections,and audits
that supplement existing federal and state safety programs and the imposition of
additional safety measures to protect public health and safety from accidental releases.
(b)Section 112(1')(7)of'the Clean Air Act (4211.S.C.A.Section 7412(4»required the
Federal Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")to promulgate the rule known as the
"Risk Management Program,"which is intended to prevent accidental releases of
RECEIVED FROM.JjWJ~....IiL&:~~::":,:'
AND MADE A PART OF T~~~CORD AT THE---eooNCI~;~~::~:~c~~,gD1
CARLA MORREALE,CITY CLERK
C-95
regulated substances,as defined in the federal program,and reduce the severity of those
releases that do occur.All facilities subject to this federal regulation must prepare a risk
management plan (RMP)based on a risk management program established at the facility,
that includes a hazard assessment oftbe facility,an accidental release prevention
program,and an emergency response program (40 CFR Section 68).The facility must
submit the Federal RMP to the EPA by Jlule 21,1999 (40 CFR Section 68-150-68.185).
The federal RMP will be available to state and local government and the public.
(c)The California Health and Safety Code Article 2 (Section 25531 et seq.)of Chapter
6.95 wasanlended effective January 1.1997 to implement the federal EPA's risk
management program rule with certain state-specific amendments.The state's risk
management program is known as the California Accidental Release Prevention
(CaIARP)Program.
(d)TI,e cmlnt)l recognizes lhat regulaiOll'requ;rellumts alone will flot /luartmfee p"blic
I,galtll amI sJl[et)l,and that tlte public is 1I key stakeholder in chemical accidel'it
prevelftiOl'.prepare/lIIess,alld response at tI,e local level.Prevel!ting accidental
releases o{regulaled substances is ti,e shared responsibility ofilldus/rl'.governmelft
fllld tile ll,ublic.Tlle first stell,s toward accident prevention are idelui!yine the hazards
/md assessing the risk.s~Once infonnation about chemical hazqrds in the commlmm'is
openl!'shared!ilfdusto'.government.and the communitr can work together towards
reducing the risk to public health and sa{§t£..
(e)Tile success ola sa{efJl program is deQtmde1ll upon tire cllopera/I,m Qfindustritll
clN!mical and oil refill;j'!![acilities withill Cumru Costa COIlIlll'.The public must be
assured that measures necessary to prevent incidents are being implemented.including
changes or actions required by the department or the stationary source that are necessary
to comply with this chapter.
(Ord.98-48 §2).
450-.8.004 -Purpose and goals.
(a)The purpose ofthis chapter is to impose regulations which improve industrial safety
by:
(1)Requiring the conduct of process hazard analyses for covered processes handling
hazardous materials not covered by the federal or state accidental release prevention
programs;
(2)Requiring the review of action items resulting from process hazard analyses and
requiring completion of those action items selected by the stationary source for
implementation within a reasonable time frame;
(3)Requiring the review of accidental release prevention efforts of stationary sources and
providing for the conduct of investigations and analyses for the determination of the root
cause for certain incidents;
C-96
(4)Providing review,inspection,auditing and safety requirements that are more stringent
than those required in existing law and regulations;
(5)Providing for public input into the safety plan and safety program and public review
of any inspection and audit results;
(6)Facilitating cooperation between industry,the county,and the public in the prevention
and reduction of incidents at stationary soW"ces;
(7)Expanding the application of certain provisions of the federal and state accidental
release prevention programs to processes not covered by the federal or state acCidental
release prevention programs;
(8)Verifying that an approved security and vulnerability study is perfonned,and that the
recommendations are addressed within a reasonable time frame;
(9}Requiring the development and implementation of a written human factors program;
and
(10)Preventing and reducing the number,frequency,and severity of accidental releases
in the county.
(Ords.2006-22 §2,98-48 §2).
450-8.006 -Authority.
.TIu~ordinance codified ill tllis cJ,aptel'is adopted bv the county pursuant to its police
l!pwer for the f}.urposes o[protectilliUl,ublic health and saf!ty bl'l},relielltion of
f!ccidental releases o(hazardous materials ami to assure Plotection oftlle em'ironment.
(Ord.98~48 §2).
450-8.008 -Administration.
The department is charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing this
chapter.
(Ord.98-48 §2).
450~8.010 -Applicability.
(a)This chapter shall apply to stationary sources except that:
(b)The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter except Sections 450-
8.016(c)and (e),and 450-8.018(f)and (g):
(1)Storage tanks containing a nonregulated substance,except for storage tanks that
contain a material that has a flashpoint above one hundred forty-one degrees Fahrenheit
and below two hundred degrees Fahrenheit in accordance with the definition of
combustible liquid in 49 CFR 173.120(b);
C-97
(2)Drum storage of:(A)a nonregulated substance;(B)less than ten thousand pounds of
a hazard category B material located such that the drums could reasonably be expected to
be involved in a single release;and (C)a hazard category A material,located such that
the drums could reasonably be expected to be involved in a single release,at less than the
quantity specified as the threshold planning quantity on the extremely hw..ardous
substances list (Appendix A to 40 CFR Chapter 1,Subchapter J,Part 355,as amended
from time to time)or five hundred pounds,whichever is less;
(3)Activities in process plant laboratories or laboratories that are under the supervision
of a technically qualified individual as defined in Section 720.3(ee)of 49 CFR.This
exemption does not apply to specialty chemical production;manufacture,processing or
use of substances in pilot plant scale operations;and activities conducted outside the
laboratory;
(4)Utilities,except for fuel gas and natural gas systems to the battery limits of a process
,\lllit;and
(5)Any waste tanks,containers or other devices subject to the federal and state hazardous
waste laws,including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (ReRA),40 CFR
Chapter I,Subchapter I,commencing with Part 260,the Califomia Hazardous Waste
Control Law,California Health and Safety Code,commencing with Section 25100 and
the California Code of Regulations,Title 22 Division 4.5 Environmental Health
Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste.
(Ords.2006-22 §3,9848 §2).
450-8.012 -Inspection.
The department shall be allowed reasonable access to any part of the stationary source
subject to the requirements of this chapter,Sections_':!iQ.::&O 16 and 450-8.018 and to
supporting documentation retained by the source for the purpose of detel1uining
compliance with this chapter.
(Ord.98-48 §2).
450-8.014 -Definitions.
For purposes ofthis chapter,the definitions set forth in this section shall apply.Words
used in this chapter not defined in this section shall have the meanings ascri~d to them
in the Clean Air Act Regulations (40 CFR Section 68.3)and in California Health and
Safety Code Article 2 (Section 25531 et seq.)of Chapter 6.95,unless the.context
indicates otherwise.
(a)"Covered process"means any process at a stationary source.
(b):'Deaarlmeut"means fhe Contra Costa COlmtr IIealth ser~';C;l!;;,'i {lir~ctor a!J!!.tl."l'
director tl14l1wri;,ed del!lll;~~.
C-98
(c)"Feasible"means capable of being accomplished in a successfuJ manner within a
reasonable pel;od of time,taking into account economic,environmental,legal,social,and
technological factors.
(d)"Hazard category A materials"are substances which meet the hazard category A
material definition 8..<;set forth in Section 84-63.1016 of this code.
(e)"Hazard category B materials"are substances which meet the hazard category B
material definition as set forth in Section 84-63.1016 of this code.
(f)"Industry codes,standards,and guidelines"means the edition of the codes,standards,
and guidelines in effect at the time of original design or construction tor the design,
construction,alteration,maintenance or repair of process units,industrial equipment,or
other industrial facilities,structures or buildings published by,but not limited to,tllC
American Petroleum Institute (API),the American Chemistry Council (ACC),the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)or the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI),and meets recognized and generally accepted good engineering
practices (RAGAGEP).
(g)"Inherently safer systems"meanS'"inherently safer design strategies"as discussed in
the latest edition of the Center for Chemical Process Safety Publication "Inherently Safer
Chemical Processes,"and means feasible alternative equipment.processes,materials,lay-
outs,and procedures meant to eliminate,minimize.or reduce the risk of a major chemical
accident or release by modifying a process rather than adding external layers of
protection.Examples include,but are not limited to,substitution of materials with lower
vapor pressure,lower tlammability,or lower toxicity;isolation of hazardous processes;
and use of processes which operate at lower temperatures and/or pressures.
(h)"Major chemical tlccidelft or release"means an i"cidenl tllat meets the definition
ora level]or levell/ndden!in ti,e commutlitv wQming sJ's!em incident level
dilssificatioll system defined in the hazardow;materials incidlmt notification policv.as
determined bl:tlu de/1artmel'tj or results in tlte release ora regulated substance lmd
meetso1le or more oftlle tPlI9w.iml.criteria:
(1)Results in one or more fatalities;
(2)Results in greater than twenty-fom hours of hospital treatment ofthree or more
persons;
(3)Causes on-,mUDr otY:site proeertl1 damage (including clean-up ami re~loratiofl
activities)initialtv estimated at five hundred tllOlisand dollars or more.Oil-site
estimates slrall he,pel'rormed bv the statiOnllrr SOllrce.O((..site estimates shalll!£
performed bi'anTOnriale agencies and compiled bl'tire deeartmellt;
(4)Resu.lts in a ),'opor clOlid oln.ammoble~;and/or combustibles Ihat i...motif.titan [jl'€!
tlwusand nonl1ds.
(i)"Regulated substance"means (I)any chemical substance which satisfies the
provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 25532(g).8..<;amendf?d from time
C-99
to time,or (2)a substance which satisfies the provisions of hazard categories A or B in
Section 84-63.1016 of this code.Mixtures containing less than one percent of a regulated
substance shall not be considered in the determination of the presence of a regulated
material.
(j)"Risk management program"means the docwnentation,development,
implementation,alld integration o[managemenf Sl',vtem...by the facility to comply with
the regulations set forth in 40 CFR,Part 68 and the California Health and Safety Code,
Article 2,,commencing with Section 25531.
(k)"RMP"means the risk management plan required to be submitted pursuant to the
requirements of the 40 CFR Section 68.150-68.185 and the California Health and Safety
Code Article 2 (SectIon 25531 et seq.)of Chapter 6.95.
(1)"Root cause"means prime reasons,such as failures of some management systems,that
allow faulty design,inadequate training,or improper changes,which lead to an unsafe actorcondition,and result in an incident.If root causes were removed,the particular
incident would not have occurred.
(m)"Safety plan"means the safety plan required to be submitted to the department
pursuant to the requirements of Section 450-8.016 ofthis chapter.
(11)"Safety program"means the docwnentation,development.implementation,and
integration of management systems/by the stationary source to comply with the safety
requirements set forth in Section_450-8.0 16 of this chapter.
(0)"Statioilarr source"or "sollree"means a (adlitl'wllicll includes tit least olle
process as defined in 40 CFR 68.10 tllat is sublect to leeleral Tis~management pr0K!.am
leve13 requirements and whose primar)'North America1'1I,dustO'Classiflcation
Svste'!!fode tNAICSj is 324 (petroleum antl Coal Products Manufacillrim:)or 325
(,Clt~micalManufacturing),:
(P)"California accidental release prevention program"means the docwnentation,
development,implementation,and integration of management systems by a facility to
comply with the regulations set forth in California Code of Regulations,Title 19.
Division 2,Chapter 4.5.
(q)"Catastropl,it'release"means {J major 1m controlled emission,{ire,or explosion,
i1ll~Qb'jng one or more ltig/Il}'hazardous chemicals.tllOl presents serious danger 19.
emplol·ees ill ti,e workplace and/or the public.As used in this section,"highly hazardous
chemical"has the meaning ascribed to it in 29 CFR 1910.11 9(b)as of May 21,2003.
(r)"Human factors"means a discipline concerned with designing machines,operations,
and work environments so that they match human capabilities,limitations,and needs.
"Human factors"can be further referred to as environmental,organizational,and job
factors,and hwnan and individual characteristics that influence behavior at work in a way
that can affect health and safety.
C-100
(8)"Human svslems"meatlS tile sps/ems.SUell as Jiwittell and !lnwrittefJllOlicies,
procedures,and practices.in effect to minimize tile ex;ste.af!$/.P.e!!,i.'iterp:e llfJi!f&a!.
romlitiolls at the ,,,tatlonan'source.It also includes the broad area of safety culture of a
stationary SOurce to the extent that it influences the actions of individuals or groups of
individuals.
(Ords.2006~22 §4,98-48 §2).
450-8.016 -Stationary source safety requirements.
The stationary source shall submit a safety plan to the department within one year of the
effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter or within three yeats of the date a
facility becomes a stationary source,that complies with the provisions of this section and
that includes the safety elements listed in subsection (a)of this section.In addition,the
stationary source shall comply with the safety requirements set forth in subsections (a)
through (e)oftbis section and shall include a description of the manner of compliance
With these subsections in the safety plan.A new covered process at an existing stationary
source shall comply with subsections (a)through (e)of this section prior to initial startup.
(a)Safe!}'ProlY'Qm Elements.All covered prOCe5!ieS sllallbe subjec//o the safety
lJ.rogram elements listed ~R9!£.The safety plan shall include a description of the manner
in whkh these safety program elements listed below shall be applied to the covered
process.These safety program elements shall be implemented in conformance with the
California accidental release preventio,n program and the safety plan shall follow
Chapters 5,7,..a and..2 of the Contra Costa County health services department CalARP
program guidance document.
(I)Process Safety Information.
(A)n,t!stationary source shall complete a compilation of written process safety
iI!{Ormation hefore COIfdllCtillg (lit}'process Ilazard analysis as required hI!tllij'chapter.
The compilation of written process safety infonnation is to enable the stationary source
and the employees involved in operating the covered process to identify and understand
the hazards posed by the covered process.This process safety information shal~.include
infonnation pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced by the
process,infonnation pertaining to the technology of the process,informatio'1pertaining
to the equipment in the process,and information pertaining to the hazards of the
regulated substances in the process.
(i)TIus jnformation shall consist of at least the following:toxicity information;
permissible exposure limits;physical data;reactivity data;corrosivity data;thennal and
chemical stability data;and hazardous effects of inadvertent mixing of different materials
tJlat could foreseeably occur.
C-101
(ii)Material safety data sheets meeting the requirements of Section 5189.Title 8 of
California Code of Regulations may be used to comply with this requirement to the
extent they contain the information required by this subsection.
(iii)InfOrmation pertaining to tI,e technology DUne process shall include at least the
fOllowing:t1 block flow diagram or simplified process flow diagram;process chemistn1j
maximum intended invel1iorv;sat!lwper and lower limits 101'such items as
temTlerature..~,pressures.flows or compositions;anIL an evaluation oOhe
ctmsequence.f ofdeviations.WI,e.re the original techtdcal infOrmation no longer existsl
such infOrmation mav be delleloped in coniUllction witl$tile.process llazar!L"!,all'sis if!
sll(ficienf detail to support the analYsis.
(iv)Information pertaining to the equipment in the process shall include:materials of
construction;piping and instrument diagrams (P&ID's);electrical classification;relief
system design and design basis;ventilation system design;design codes and standards
ePlployed;material and energy balances for processes built after the compliance date of
the ordinance codified in this chapter;and safety systems (e.g.,interlocks,detection or
suppression systems).
(B)Ti,e stationaa source sl'lllf document tilat egujpment complies witl,recognized and
generally accepted good engilleering practices.
(C)For existing equipment designed and constructed in accordance with codes,
standards.or practices that are no lon~er in general use.the stationary source shall
determine and document that the equipment is designed,maintained,inspected,tested,
and operating in a safe manner.
(2)Operating Procedures.
(A)The stationary sou.rce shall develop alld implemenl writtell operating procedures
t~,at provide clear instructil!ns lor saf!ly conducting activities involved in each covered
process consistent 'i'itlt the process safety inlormauon and sllall address at least tlte
lollowing elements:
(i)Steps for each operating phase:initial startup;normal operations;temporary
operations;emergency shutdown,including the conditions under which emergency
shutdown is required,and the assignment ofshutdown responsibility to qualified
operators to ensure that emergency shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner;
emergency operations;normal shutdown;and,startup following a turnaround,or after an
emergency shutdown.
(ii)Operating limits:consequences of deviation;and steps required to correct or avoid
deviation.
(B)Safety and Health Considerations.Properties of, and hazards presented by.the
chemicals used in the process;precautions necessary to prevent exposure.including
engineering controls,administrative controls,and personal protective equipment;control
measures to be taken if physical contact or airborne exposure oeems;qllalitl'control tor
C-102
raw materials and cOlltrol ot'llazardous chemical inveplfon'levels;and.an"...pedal or
unique Iltlzards.
(C)Safety systems and their functions.
(D)Operating procedures shall be readily accessible to employees who work in or
maintain a process.
(E)Th.e operating procedures shall be reviewed as often as necessary to assure that they
reflect current operating practice,including changes that result from changes in process
chemicals,technology,and equipment,and changes to stationary sources.The stationary
source shall certify annually that these operating procedures are current and accurate.
(F)Tilt!statiol1ary source shall develop and implement safe work practices to provide
for ti,e control ofhazards during operations such as /ockoufltagout,confined space
entry;opening process equipment or piping;and control over entrance into a stationary
source by maintenance,contractor,laboratory,or other support personnel.These safe
work practices shall apply to employees and contractor employees.,
(3)Emplovee Particio.atioll.
(A)The stationary source shall de.velop a written plan ofaetien r.egardillg tl,e
lmplementatioll oOhe emo.1oyee Utlrticipation reguire.d bv this chapter.
(B)The stationary source shall consul~with employees and their representatives on the
conduct and development of process hazards analyses and on the development of the
other elements ofthe safety program in this chapter.
(C)The stationary source shall provide to employees and their representatives access to
process hazard analyses and 1:0 all other information required to be developed under this
chapter.
(4)TraiJ,ing.For each emplovee in sucll covered process:
(A)Initial Training.Each employee presently involved in operating a covered process,
and each employee before being involved in operating a newly assigned covered process,
shall be trained in an overview of the process and in the operating procedures as specified
in subsection (a)(2)(A)of this section.The training shall include emphasis on the specific
safety and health hazards,emergency operations including shutdown,and safe work
practices applicable to the employee's job tasks.In lieu of initial training for those
employees already involved in operating a process,an owner or operator ~certify in
writing that the employee has the required knowledge,skills,and abilities to safely carry
out the duties and responsibilities as specified in the operating procedures.
(B)Refresl,er Trainillg.Refresller training slwll he erovidefl at least everl'tllree years,
and more often if necessary,to each employee involved in operating a covered process to
assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of
the covered process.The stationary source,in consultation with the employees involved
in operating the process,shall detennine the appropriate t1"equency of refresher training.
C-103
(C)Training Documentation.The stationary source shall ascel1ain that each employee
involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required by this
section.The stationary source shall prepare a record which contains the identity ofthe
employee,the date of training.and the means used to verify that tbe employee understood
the training.
(5)Mecll.onicollnlegrity,Including lite Use oU"dUStrl'Codes,Staltdol'ds.alld
Guidelines.
(A)Application.Subsections (a)(5UBJ tltrough (a)(5)(F)ofthis sectlOiI oUJl.lv to thg
following process equipment:pressure vessels and storage tanks;piping subsystems
(including piping components such as valves);relief and vent systems and devices;
emergency shutdown systems;controls (including monitoring devices and sensors,
alarms.and interlocks)and pumps.
(B)Written Procedures,The stationary source shall establish and implement written
procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment.
(C)Training for Process Maintenance Activities.The stationary soUrce shall train each
employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment in an
overview of that process and its hazards and in the procedures applicable to the
employee's job tasks to assure that the employee can perfonn the job tasks in a safe
manner.
(D)Inspection aJld Testing.
(I)Inspections and tests sludl be performed onprQcess eqll;P1Rent.Inspection and
testing procedUres shall follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering
practices.The frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be consistent
with applicable manufacturers'recommendations and good engineering practices,and
more frequently if determined to he necessary by prior operating experience.The
stationary source shall document each inspection and test that has been performed on
process equipment The documentation shall identifY the date ofthe inspection or test,the
name of the person who performed the inspection or test.the serial number or other
identifier of the equipment on which the inspection or test was petformed,a description
of the inspection or test performed,and the results of the inspection or test.
(E)Equipment Deficiencies.The stationary source shall correct deficiencies in equipment
that are outside acceptable limits (defmed by the pl'ocess safety information in subsection
(a)(I)of this section)before further use orin a safe and timely manner when necessary
means are taken to assure safe operation.
(F)Quality Assurance.In the construction of new plants and equipment,the stationary
source shall assure that equipment as it is fabricated is suitable for the process application
for which they will be used.Appropriate checks and inspections shall be performed 10
assure that equipment is installed properly and consistent with design specifications and
the manufacturer's instructions.The stationary source shall assure that maintenance
materials,spare parts and equipment are suitable for the process application for which
they will be used.
C-104
(6)Mtwagemell'ofClumge.
(A)Tlte statiollan'SOllrce sliall establish and implemellf written procedures to manage
changes (except fOr "replacements in kind")to process chemicals,technology.
f!t]uipment,and pJ'ocedures,'llnd c1umges to stationary sources 111at affect a covered
process.
(B)The procedures shall assure that the following considerations are addressed prior to
any change:the technical basis for the proposed change;impact ofchange on safety and
health;modifications to operating procedures;necessary time period for the change;and
authorization requirements for the proposed change.-
(C)Employees involved in operating a process and maintenance and contract employees
whose job tasks will be affected by a change in the process shall be informed of,and
trained in,the change prior to startup of the process or affected part of the process.
(F»If a change covered by this section results in a change in the process safety
information required by subsection (a)(I)of this section,such information shall be
updated'accordingly.'.
(E)If a change covered by this section results in a change in the operating procedures or
practices required by subsection (a)(2)of this section,such procedures or practices shall
be updated accordingly.
(7)Pre-Startup Reviews.
(A)The stationary source shall perform a pre-startup safety review for new stationary
sources and for modified stationary sources when the modification is significant enough
to require a change in the process safety information.
(B)The pre-startup safety review shall confmn that prior to the introduction of regulated
substances to a covered process:construction and equipment is in accordance with design
specifications;safety.operating,maintenance,and emergency procedures are in place
and are adequate;for new covered processes,a process hazard analysis bas been
perfonned and recommendations have been resolved or implemented before startup;and
modified covered processes meet the requirements contained in management of change,
subsection (a)(6)of this section;and training of each employee involved in operating a
process has been completed.
(8)f,'ompliallce Altdits.
(A)The statw1Jarr source shall certify tllat ther IlOve evaluated cmnpJiollce witll tf!!
provisiolls oUllis section at le!j$t evell1tltree veal's to ller/fv tllot the procedures an!!
2/'jJctices del'eloped under tltis cltaf1.ter arfl q{ieg,uate of!.d are being followed.
(B)The compliance audit shall be conducted by at least one person knowledgeable in the
process.
(C)A report of the findings ofthe audit shall be developed.
C-105
(D)The stationary source shall promptly detennine and document an appropriate
response to each of the findings of the compliance audit,and document that deficiencies
have been corrected.
(E)The stationary source shall retain the two most recent compliance audit reports.
(9)Incident Investigation.
(A)The stationary source shall investigate each incident which resulted in.or could
reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release of a regulated substance.
(B)An incident investigation shall be initiated as promptly as possible,but not later than
forty-eight hours foHowing the incident.
(C)An incident investigation team shall be established and consist of at least one person
knowledgeable in the covered process involved,including a contract employee if the
il)Cident involved work ofthe contractor,and other persons with appropriate knowledge
and experience to thoroughly investigate and analyze the incident.
(D)A report shall be prepared at the conclusion ofthe investigation which includes at a
minimum:date of incident;date investigation began;a description of the incident;the
factors that contributed to the incident;and recommendations resulting from the
investigation.The written summary shall indicate whether the cause of the incident
and/or recommendations resulting from the investigation are specific only to the process
or equipment involved in tile incident,.or are applicable to other processes or equipment
at the stationary source.The incident investigation rep011 shall be made available to the
department upon request
(E)The stationary source shall establish a system to promptly address and resolve the
incident report findings and recommendations.Resolutions and corrective actions shall
be documented.
(F)The report shall be reviewed with all affected personnel whose job tasks are relevant
to the incident findings including contract employees where applicable.
(0)Incident investigation reports shall be retained for five years.
(10)Hot Work.
(A)The stationary source shall issue a hot work permit for hot work operations
conducted on or near a covered process.
(B)The permit shall document that the fire prevention and protection requirements in
Section 5189 ofTitle 8 of California Code Regulations have been implemented prior to
beginning the hot work operations;it shall indicate the date(s)authorized for hot work;
and identify the object on which hot work is to be performed.The pennit shall be kept on
file until completion of the hot work operations.
(II)CotUractors.
C-106
(A)Application.This sec/lOll applies to contractors performing maintenance or repair.
tl4.rnaroulld.major renovQ.;ion.or specialty work on or adjacent to (l covered process.It
does not apply to contractors providing incidental services which do not influence
process safety.such as janitorial work,food and drink services,laundry,delivery or other
supply services.
(B)§tationarr Source Resp,onsibilities.
(i)TI,e stationacv sOllrce.when se/ectiflg a contractOT.sit all obtain and evaluate
information regarding tlte contract owner or operator's safer}!performatlce and
programs.
(ii)The stationary source shall infonn contract owner or operator of the known potential
fire,explosion,or toxic release hazardsrelau..-d to the contractor's work and the process.
(iii)The stationary source shall explain to the contract owner or operator the applicable
provisions ofthe emergency response program subsection (a)(12)of this section.
(iv)The stationary source shall develop and implement safe work practices consistent
with subsection (a)(2)of this section .to control the entrance,presence,and exit of the
contract owner or operator and contract employees in covered process areas.
(v)The stationary source shall periodically evaluate the performance of the contract
owner or operator in fulfI11ulg their obligations as specified in subsection (a)(II)(C)of
this section.'
(C)Contract O..,neror Operator Responsibilities.
(i)Tile contract owner or operator shall assure that each contract emolol'ee is traimul
'-11 t{Jiut.g,rli.l!.fpftices lIec;,ssar~to !iaf!!IJ!.l!.l!rfprm his/her job.
(ii)The contract owner or operator shall assure that each contract employee is instructed
in the known potential fire,explosion,or toxic release hazards related to hislher job and
the process,and the applicable provisions of the emergency action plan.
(iii)The contract owner or operator shall document that each contract employee has
received and understood the training required by this section.The contract owner or
operator shall prepare a record which contains the identity of the contract employee,the
date of training,and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.
(iv)The contract owner or operator shall assure that each contract employee follows the
safety rules of the stationary source including the safe work practices required by
subsection (a)(2)ofthis section.
(v)The contract owner or operator shall advise the stationary source of any unique
hazards presented by the contract owner or operator's work,or of any hazards found by
the contract owner or operator's work.
(12){imergencr Response Program.
C-107
(A)The stationary source shall develop alU!im.!!.Jement a~~emergenfJ're.fpgnse
program for tile purpose oipro/eel/lte public Ilealth and the environment.Such
program shall include the following elements:
(i)An emergency response plan,which shall be maintained at the stationary source and
contain at least the following elements:procedures for informing the public and local
emergency response agencies about accidental releases,emergency planning,and
emergency response;documentation of proper first~aid and emergency medical treatment
necessary to treat accidental human exposures;and procedures and measures for
emergency response after an accidental release of a regulated substance;
(ii)Procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection,
testing,and maintenance,including documentation of inspection,testing,and
maintenance;
(iii)Training for all employees in relevant procedures and the incident command system;
and
(iv)Procedures to review and update,as appropriate,the emergency response plan to
reflect changes at the stationary sourGe and ensure that employees are informed of
changes.
(B)A written plan that complies with other federal contingency plan regulations or is
consistent with the approach in the ~ational Response Team's Integrated Contingency
Plan Guidance ("One Plan'')and that,among other matters,includes the elements
provided in subsection (a)(12)(A)of this section.shall satisfy the requirements of this
section if the ~tationary source also complies with subsection (a)(l2)(C)of this section.
(C)The emergency response plan developed Wlder this section shall be coordinated with
the community emergency response plan developed under 42 U.S.C.Section 11003.
Upon request of the local emergency planning committee 01'emergency response
officials,the stationary source shall promptly provide to the local emergency response
officials information necessary for developing and implementing the community
emergency response plan.
(D)The stationary source whose employees will not respond to accidental releases of
regulated substances need not comply with subsections (a)(12)(A)through (a)(l2)(C)of
this section provided that they meet the following:
(i)For stationary sources with any regulated toxic substance held in a process above the
threshold quantity,the stationary source is included in the community emergency
response plan developed under Section 11003 of Title 42 of the United States Code
(USC);or
(ii)For stationary sources with only regulated flammable substances held in a process
above the threshold quantity the stationary source has coordinated response actions with
the local [LTe department;and
C-108
(iii)Appropriate mechanisms are in place to notifY emergency responders when there is a
need for a response.
(13)Safety P/'ogram Maru:u!ement.
(A)The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this chapter shall develop a
management system to oversee the implementation of the safety pt'ogram elements.
(B)Tile owner or operator sllal'assign a qualified person or position tllat has the
overall responsibilia for tl,e development,implementation.and illtegration oUke
sg(ety program elements.
(C)When responsibility for implementing individual requirements of this chapter is
aSsigned to persons other than the person identified under subsection (a)(13)(B)ofthis
section,the names or positions of these people shall be documented and the lines of
authority defined through an organization chart or similar document.
(b)Hum(lJl Factors Program.
(1)Stationary sources shaY develop a written human factors program tI,at follows the
human factors guidance dOfument dlfveloned or adellted hI'the department,The
program shall be developed within one year following the issuance of the Contra Costa
County guidance documents,tbe effective date of the ordinance codified in this section,
or as otherwise allowed by this chapter,whichever is later.The human factors program
shall address:
(A)The inclusion ofhum.an factors in the process hazards analysis process;
(B)The consideration of human systems as causal factors in the incident investigation
process for major chemical accidents or releases or for an incident that could reasonably
have resulted in a major chemical accident or release;
(C)The training of employees in the human factors program;
(D)Operating procedures;
(E)Maintenance safe work practice procedures and maintenance procedures for
specialized equipment,piping,and instruments,no later than June 30,2011;and
(F)The requirement to conduct a management of change pl;or to staffing changes for
changes in permanent staffing levels/reorganization in operations,maintenance,health
and safety,or emergency response.This requirement shall also apply to stationary
sources using contractors in permanent positions in operations and maintenance.Prior to
conducting the management of change,the stationary source shall ensure that the job
function descriptions are current and accurate for the positions under consideration.
Staffing changes that last longer than ninety days are considered permanent.Temporary
C-109
changes associated with strike preparations shall also be subject to this requirement.
Employees and their representatives shall be consulted in the management of change.
(2)Employees and their representatives shall participate in the development of the
written human factors program.
(3)The program shall include,but not be limited to,issues such as staffing,shiftwork and
overtime.
(4)A description of the human factors program subsections (b)(l)through (b)(J)ofthis
section shall be included in the safety plan prepared by the stationary source.
(c)Rwt Cause Analvsis mId Incident [n"estigatiOiI.
(1)Stationary sources shall conduct a root cause analysis for each major chemical
~ident or rel~which occurs after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this
chapter.Stationary sources shall periodically update the department on facts related to the
release or incident,and the status of a root cause analysis conducted pursuant to this
section,at meetings scheduled by the department in cooperation with the stationary
source.To the maximum extent feasible,the department and the stationary source shall
coordinate these meetings with other agencies with jurisdiction over the stationary
source.Within thirty days ofcompleting a root cause analysis performed pursuant to this
section,the stationary source shall submit to the department a final report containing that
analysis,including recommendations to be implemented to mitigate against the release or
incident reoccurring,if any.and a schedule for completion of resulting recommendations.
The department may require the stationary source to submit written,periodic update
reports at a frequency not to exceed every thirty days until the final report is submitted.
The methodology ofthe root cause analysis shall be one of the methodologies recognized
by the Center for Chemical Process Safety or shall be reviewed by the department to
determine substantial equivalency.
(2)The deparlment mal'elect to do its own indePendent root calise anall'sis or incidtmt
investigation lOr a major chemical accidellt or release.Ifthe department elects to
conduct a root cause analysis or incident investigation the stationary source shall
cooperate with the department by providing the following access and information in a
manner consistent with the safety (If department and stationary source personnel and
without placing undue burdens on the operation of the stationary source:
(i)Allow the department to investigate the accident site and directly related facilities such
as control rooms.physical evidence and where practicable the external andiftternal
inspection of equipment;
(ii)Provide the department with pertinent documentation;and
(iii)Allow the department to conduct independent interviews of stationary source
employees,subject to an rights of the stationary source and employees to be represented
by legal counsel and/or management and union representatives during such interviews.If
in the course of the department's root cause analysis or incident investigation access is
required to areas of the stationary source which in the judgment ofthe stationary source
l
I
IC-110
requires personnel entering the area to use protective equipment and/or have specialized
training the department shall provide its personnel with such equipment and training.To
the maximum extent feasible,the department shall coordinate any root cause analysis or
incident investigation it conducts with investigations conducted by other agencies with
jurisdiction over the stationary source to minimize the adverse impacts on the stationary
source and/or its employees.
(3)No part of the conclusions,findings or recommendations of the root cause analysis
conducted by the department or stationary source,or incident investigation conducted by
the department,relating to any major chemical accident or release or the invest~gation
thereof shall be admitted as evidence or used in any action or suit for damages arising out
of any matter mentioned in such report.
(d)Process RaWI'd Analysis/Action items.
(1)Process I,azard analvses will be cOJ,ducted for each orlbe coveret!erocesses
(iccordillg to one DUhe following methods:WI,a/-It:CI,ecklist.What-If/Checklist.
BarilI'd and OeerabililY.StudY (Jl,AZOP1.Failure Mode and E@f:g Analrsis (FMEAJ.
fault tree analysis or an tl/!)lrollriate eguivalent methodology approved by the
deeartl1}e!!t nt/or to conductillg the process hazard analysis.The process hazard
analysis shall be appropriate to the complexity of the covered process and shall identify,
evaluate,and control the hazards involved in the covered process.The process hazard
analysis shall address:the hazards of the process;the identification of any previous
incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences;engineering and
administrative control applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships such as
appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases
(acceptable detection methods might include process monitoring and control
instrumentation with alanns,anddetection hardware such as hydrocarbon sensors);
consequences of failure ofengineering and administrative controls;covered process and
stationary source siting;human factors;and a qualitative evaluation of a range ofthe
possible safety and health effects offailure of controls.PHAs should also include
consideration ofexternal events except for seismic analyses,which are only required
when criteria listed in subsection (d)(2)of this section are satisfied.All process hazard
analyses shall be perfonned by a team with expertise in engineering and process
operations,and the team shall include at least one employee who has experience and
knowledge specific to the process being evaluated.Also,one member of the team must
be knowledgeable in the specific process ha7...ard analysis methodology being used.
(2)The process hazard analyses shall be conducted within one year of the effective date
ofthe ordinance codified in this chapter and no later than the submittal date ofthe safety
plan.Previously completed process hazard analyses that comply with the California Code
of Regulations,Title 8,Section 5189,and/or the California Code of Regulatiol1s,Title 19,
Section 2760.2 are acceptable for the purposes of this chapter.Process bazard analyses
shall be updated and revalidated at least once every five years after completion of the
initial process hazard analysis.Updated and revalidated process hazard analyses
completed to comply with the Califomia Code of Regulations,Title 8,Section 5189,
and/or the California Code of Regulations,Title 19,Section 2760 are acceptable for
meeting the update and revalidation requirement.Seismic events shall be considered for
C-111
processes containing a substance defined in the California Code of Regulations.Title 19.
Chapter 4.51,Section 2770.5,ifthe distance to the nearest public receptor for a worst
case release scenario specified by the California Code of Regulations,Title 19,Chapter
4.5,Section 2750.3 is within the distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint as defmed in
California Code of Regulations,Title 19,Chapter 4.5,Section 2750.2(a).
(3)For all covered processes,the stationary source shall consider the use of inherently
safer systems in the development and analysis of mitigation items resulting from a
process hazard analysis and in the design and review of new processes and facilities.The
stationary source shall select and implement inherently safer systems to the greatest
extent feasible.If a stationary source concludes that an inherently safer system is not
feasible,the basis for this conclusion shall be documented in meaningful detail.
(4)For aU covered processes,the stationary source shall document the decision made to
implement or not implement all process hazard analysis recommended action items and
the results of recommendations for additional study.The stationary source shall complete
recommended actions from the initial PHA's and from PHA revalidations, identified by
the process hazard analysis and selected for implementation by the stationary source as
follows:aU actions not requiring a process shutdown shall be completed within one year
after submittal of the safety plan;all actions requiring a process shutdown shall be
completed during the first regularly scheduled turnaround of the applicable process
subsequent to one year after submittal ofthe safety plan unless the stationary source
demonstrates to the satisfaction ofthe department that such a schedule is infeasible.For
recommended actions not selected for implementation,the stationary source shall include
the justification for not implementing tIle recommended action.For all covered processes,
the stationary sow'ce shall retain documentation of closure,and any associated
justifications,of actions identified by the process hazard analysis.The stationary source
shall communicate the actions to operating,maintenance,and other employees whose
work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations or
actions.
(e)Accident History.
(I)The stationary source shall include an accident history in the safety plan of all major
chemical accidents or releases from June 1,1992,through the date of safety plan
submittal to the department.For each major chemical accident or release the .!>1ationary
sow'ce shaUreport the following information,to the extent known:
Date,time and approximate duration of the release;
Chemicals released;
Estimated quantity released in pounds;
Type of release event and its source;
Weather conditions at the time of the release;
On-site impacts;
C-112
Known off-site impacts;
Initiating event and contributing factors;
Root cause(s);
Whether off-site responders were notified;and
Operational or process changes that resulted from the investigation of the release.
(2)The stationary source sball annually submit a report of the accident history to the
depat1ment.The first report shall be due two years after the effective date of the
ordinance codified in this chapter,and subsequent reports shall be due by June 30th of
each year.
(t)Certification.Tile owner or optra/f)f s/uI11IJ/,bmit ill tlu!solen'plan a single
cerlificotioll tJ'al.to II,e best ofthe signer's knowledge.i"formation.alld belief formed
aDer reasonable inquirY.the infOrmation sltbmitted is true,accurate.and comn/,:.te.
(g)Security and Vulnerability Assessment.Each stationary source shall perfonn and
document a security and vulnerability assessment as defined in the Contra Costa County
CaiARP program guidance document,by June 30,2007,and at least once every five
years after the initial assessment,or as prescribed by federal regulation.The stationary
source shall document its process for assuring that recommendations are addressed.
(h)Safety Culture Assessment.The stationary source shall conduct a safety culture
assessment.The assessment shall be basedupan a method listed in the Contra Costa
County CaiARP program guidance document or shall be reviewed by the department to
determine sub~tantial equivalency.The initial assessment shall be performed by one year
fonowing the revisions to the Industrial Safety Ordinance guidance document that
addresses the safety culture assessment,and at least once every five years thereafter.The
safety culture assessment win be reviewed during the audit and inspection of the
stationary source.The department may perfonn its own safety culture assessment after a
major chemical accident or release or the occurrence of any incident that could
reasonably have led to a major chemical accident or release,or based on department audit
results of the stationary source.
(Ords.2006-22 §5,2000-20 §1,98-48 §2).
450-8.018 -Review,audit and inspection.
(a)Upo"submission (Jtll satety plall by tI,e sitltionarv source.tlie department shall
review the sa&tJ!plan to determine flail the elements tequired b"Sectiotl 450-8.016 o(
[/lis chapter are included and complete.The department shaH provide to the stationary
source a written notice of deficiencies,if any.The stationary source shall have sixty
calendar days from receipt of the notice of deficiencies to make any corrections.The
stationary source may request,in writing,a one-time thirty-day calendar day extension to
correct deficiencies.By the end ofthe sixty calendar days or any extension period,the
C-113
stationary source shall resubmit the revised safety plan to the department After the
department determines that the safety plan is complete,the department shall schedule a
public meeting on the stationary source's safety plan to explain its contents to the public
and take public comments.Public comments on the safety plan shall be taken by the
department for a period of forty-five days after the safety plan is made available to the
public.The department shall schedule a public meeting on the stationary source's safety
plan during the forty-five day comment period.The public meetings shall be held in the
affected community on evenings or weekends.The department shall respond in writing to
all written comments received during the forty-five day comment period and to all oral
comments received and not addressed at the public meeting.The department shall make
portions of the safety plan.which are not protected tl'ade secret information,available to
the public for the public meeting.
(b)(1)Tlte degartment sha/I.within nne rear oCtile submissin1t nOlle stationao'
source's safetv pJan.conduct alt initial audit and inseection oOhe stationao'source's
sqfetv erogram to determine cDmeliance with this cltaeter.Based upon the department's
review ofthe safety plan and the audit and inspection ofthe stationary source,the
department may require modifications or additions to the safety plan submitted by the
stationary source.or safety program to bring the safety plan or safety program into
compliance with the requirements ofthis chapter.Any determination that modifications
or additions to the safety plan or safety program are required shall be in writing.
collectively referred to as the l1 preliminary determination."The preliminary determination
shall explain the basis for the modifications or additions required to bring the safety plan
or safety program into compliance with the requirements of this chapter and provide a
timetable for resolution of the recommendations.The preliminary determination shaH be
mailed to the stationary source.
(2)The stationary source shall respond in writing to the preliminary determination issued
by the department.The response shall Slate tluz!the sta!ionarv source will incorporate
into tile safet.'plan or safety program tlte revis/OilS contained in the preliminary
determination or shall state that the stationarY SOllrce rejects tlte revisions;in whole or
in part.For each rejected revision,the stationary source shall explain the basis for
rejecting such revision.Such explanation may include substitute revisions.
(3)The stationary source's written response to the department's preliminary detennination
shall be received by the department within ninety days of the issuance of the preliminar>'
determination or such shorter time as the department specifies in the preliminary
determination as being necessary to protect public health and safety.Prior to the written
response being due and upon written request from the stationary source,the.department
may provide,in writing,additional time for the response to be received.
(4)After receiving the written response from the stationary source.the department shall
issue a public notice pursuant to the department's public participation policy and make
portions of the safety plan,the preliminary determination and the stationary source's
responses,which are not protected trade secret information.available for public review.
Public comments on the safety plan shall be taken by the department for a period of forty-
"five days after the safety plan,the preliminary determination and the stationary source's
responses are made available to the public.The department shall schedule a public
C-114
meeting on the stationary source's safety plan during the forty-five day comment period.
The public meetings shall be held in the affected community on evenings or weekends.
The department shall respond in writing to all written comments received during the
forty-five day comment period and to all oral comments received and not addressed at the
public meeting.
(c)Based upon the department's preliminary determination,review of the stationary
source's responses and review of public comments on the safety plan,the preliminary
determination and the stationary source's responses.the department may require
modifications or additions to the safety plan submitted by the stationary source-or safety
program to bring the safety plan or safety program into compliance with the requirements
of this chapter.Any determination that modifications or additions to the safety plan or
safety program are required,and any detennination that no modifications or additions to
the safety plan or safety program are required shall be in writing (collectively referred to
as "final determination"),shall be mailed to the stationary source and shall be made
a.vailable to the public.The department may not include in a final determination any
requirements to a safety plan or safety program that would cause a violation ot:or
conflict with,any state or federal law or regulation or a violation of any permit or order
issued by any state or federal agency.
(d)Within thirty days of the department's final determination,the stationary source
and/or any person may appeal the fmat determination to the board of supervisors pursuant
to Chanter 14-4 of this code by a vepfied written notice of appeal filed with the clerk of
the board of supervisors and payment of the applicable appeal fee.The appeal must be
limited to issues raised during the public comment period.The notice shall state the
grounds for 8D:Y such appeal,including (i)the reasoning that the appeal is necessary
because the stationary source is in compliance with this chapter.or (ii)the reasoning that
the appeal is necessary to bring the stationary source into compliance with this chapter.In
acting on the appeal,the board shall have the same authority over the final determination
as the department.The board may require modifications or additions to the safety plan or
safety program to bring the safety plan or safety program into compliance with the
requirements ofthis chapter.The board may not include in its decision on the final
determination any requirements to a safety plan or safety program that would cause a
violation of,or conflict wi~any state or federal law or regulation or a violation of any
permit or order issued by any state or federal agency.The decision ofthe board of
supervisors shall be final with respect to the fmal determination.
(e)The safetv pia"shall be valid for a period oUhree veal's from the date o!rece;pt b!'
the departmelu and slmll be reviewed and updated by tlte stationant source-eV60!tl,ree
years pursuant to the requirements oUhis chapter.Anv revisiollS to ti,e safety plan_as,(l
result oUhe review and update shaH be submitted to the department an!!.shaH he
subject to the prov;l.ions oftlzis section~
(f)The department may.within thirty days of a major chemical accident or release,
initiate a safety inspection to review and audit the stationary source's compliance with the
provisions of Section 450-8.016 ofthis chapter.The department shall review and audit
the stationary source's compliance with the provisions of Section 450-8.016 of this
chapter at least once every three years.The department may audit the stationary source
C-115
based upon any of the following criteria:accident history of the stationary source,
accident history of other stationary sources in the same industry,quantity of regulated
substances present at the stationary source,location of the stationary source and its
proximity to the public and environmental receptors,the presence of specific regulated
substances,the hazards identified in the safety plan,a plan for providing neutral and
random oversight,or a complaint from the stationary source1s employee(s)or their
representative.The stationary source shall allow the department to conduct these
inspections and audits.Tile deU,Q.l1ment.at its oetiem,may select an outside colt!mltant
to assist in com/lletillg slId,inseectiotl.
(g)Within thirty days of a major chemical accident or release the department may
commence an incident safety inspection with respect to the process involved in the
incident pursuant to the provisions of Section 450-8.016(c)ofthis chapter.
(h)(1)Based upon tile dt;R.artment's audit.safety inseecl;on or an incident inseeetioll,
tl,edengrtment mal'require modifications or additions to the safety e/all submitted bi'
tlte stationp!l'source 01'sa[e!V.J1.rogram to bring tI,e safety plml or Sllfety program ;1110
compliance wiil,ti,e requirements oftltis chaeter.Any determination by the department
shall be in writing and shall be mailed to the stationary source (referred to as the "notice
of findings").The stationary source shall have sixty calendar days from receipt ofthe
notice of findings to make any corrections.The stationary source may requeSt,in writing,
a one-time thirty-day calendar day extension to make corrections.The department may
not include in its notice of findings J;Cqwrements to a safety plan or safety program that
would cause a violation of,or conflict with,any state or federal law or regulation or a
violation of any permit or order issued by any state or federal agency.The notice of
findings made by tIle department will be available to the public.
(2)Within thirty days of the department's notice of findings,the stationary source and/or
any person may appeal the notice of fmdings to the board of supervisors P\II'Suant to
Chapter 14-4 ofthis code by a v,erified written notice of appeal filed with the clerk ofthe
board of supervisors and payment of the applicable appeal fee.The appeal must state the
grounds for any such appeal,including (i)the reasoning that the appeal is necessary
because the stationary source is in compliance with this chapter,or (ii)the reasoning that
the appeal is necessary to bring the stationary source into compliance with this chapter.In
acting on the appeal.the board shall have the same authority over the notice of findings
as the department.Ti,e board mj!l'require madmen/ians or additions to tile sarell'plan
or safety pl'Qgram to bring tile safety pion or safetv urogram into compliam:e ,vi/It the
requirements DUhis ellaeter.The board may not include in its decision on the notice of
fmdings any requirements to a safety plan or safety program that would caijSe a violation
of,or conflict with,any state or federal law or regulation or a violation of any permit or
order issued by any state or federal agency.The decision of the board of supervisors shall
be fmal with respe<:t to the notice of findings.
(i)Nothing in this section shall preclude,limit,or interfere in any way with the authority
of the county to exercise its enforcement,investigatory,and information gathering
authorities under any other provision of law nor shall anything in the chapter effect or
diminish the rights of the stationary source to claim legal privileges such as attorney
C-116
client privilege and/or work product with respect to infonnation and/or documents
required to be submitted to or reviewed by the department.
(Ords.2006-22 §6.98-48 §2).
450-8.020 -Trade secret.
The disclosure of any trade secret information required by this chapter shall be governed
by California Health and Safety Code Section 25538.as amended from time to time.or as
otherwise protected or required by law.
(Ord.98-48 §2).
450-8.022 -Hazardous materials ombudsperson.
Ti,e department shall COlltlllue to emplol/an ombudspersOlI for hazardous materials
Il.rfJ!l.rams.The ombudsperson will serve as a single point of contact for people who live
or work in Contra Costa County regarding environmental health concerns.questions,and
complaints about hazardous materials programs.The om!?utlseerson'will be emPowered
to identify and solve problems and make recommendations to the ',aaftme,,'.Tlte
ombudsperson's role will be one,plinvf!$tigating concems and COmPlaints.[,aci/ilat/ng
flleif resolution and assisting people in gathering information about programs.
procedures.or isslles.The ombudsperson may retain gppropritlte technit:al e.merts ill
order to (1l1tiP technical assistance requests from members oOhe public.The cost of
experts mar be funded tbrouel.programs established by the u.s.EPA or otller
appropriate entities.
(OreIs.2000-20 §2.98-48 §2).
450-8.024 -Public information bank.
The department shall collect and provide remll!.access.i"cludil,g the lise o[,electronic
accessibility as reasonably avqilablel to public documents wlJich are relevant to the
goals oftltis dumLer,inellldillMat a m;nimlUll,business plan inventories and
emergenC)'response pl/INsl risk mflllagement plans.safety plans.and departmeflt
incident reports.This section shall not applv to trade secret ill[,ormation or other
information protected from disclosure under federal or state law.The public
Information bank sitaR be completell bY.December 31.2000.
(Ord.98-48 §2).
450-8.026 -Fees.
TI,e department may,upon a majoriJv vote oUhe board ofsupervisors.adopt g,
schedule o[,kes to be collected from each stationan'source subject to the requiremellts
oLtl,L5 chapter.Any ret/lew,inspection,audit fee scl,edu/e shall be set in an amount
sufficient to pal'onlv fllOse costs reasonably necessaa to carry out the requirements 01
this chapter.inc/llding costs ofstaffandlor consultant time or pUblic hearings 011d
C-117
administflltb'e overhead.The fie scl'edule shall include the cost aftlte ombudsperson
position.
(Ord.98-48 §2).
450-8.028 -Penalties.
Regardless aUlte availability ofother civil or administrative remedies and procedures
for enfprcing tI,ls dapler,every act or cOI,dition prohibited or declared ,,"lawful bl'
tllis chapter,and everY knowiug or wilful failure or (}mission to act as requir~d herein.
is a violation oOhis code and shall be punishable andlor SUbi!!ct to enforcement
pursuant to ti,e provisions ofChap tel'14-67 ortll£!emIR'"Ordinll1tce Code specifically
including but not limited to Artie/e 14-6.4 (public nuisance),and Article 14-8 (criminal
enfprcementl,as misdemeQJlOrS or tnf!'actions.
(Ord.98-48 §2).
450-8.030 -Annual performance review and evaluation.
(a)The department shall annually:(1)review its activities to implement this chapter,and
(2)evaluate the effectiveness ofthis chapter in achieving its purpose and goals pursuant
to Section 450-8.004 of this chapter.
(b)An annual perfonl1ance review and evaluation report shall be prepared by the
department based upon the previous fiscal year's activities and shall be submitted to the
board of supervisors on or before October 31,2000 and each year thereafter.The report
shall contain:
(1)A brief description of how the department is meeting the requirements of this chapter
as follows:(i)effectiveness of the department's program to ensure stationary source
compliance with this chapter;(ii)effectiveness of the procedures for records
management;(iii)number and type of audits and inspections conducted by the
department pursuant to this chapter;(iv)number of root cause analyses and/or incident
investigations conducted by the department;(v)the department's process for public
participation;(vi)effectiveness of the public information bank,including status of
electronic accessibility;(vii)effectiveness of the hazardous materials ombudsperson;
(viii)other required program elements necessary to implement and manage this chapter.
(2)A listing of all stationary sources covered by this chapter,including for each~(i)the
status ofthe stationary source's safety plan and program;(ii)a summary of all stationary
source safety plan updates and a listing of where the safety plans are publicly available;
(iii)the annual accident history report submitted by the stationary source pursuant to
Section 450~8.0J6(e)(2)of this chapter;(iv)a sUmmary,including the status,of any root
cause analyses conducted or being conducted by the stationary source and required by
this chapter,including the status of implementation of recommendations;(v)a summary,
including the status,of any audits,inspections,root cause analyses and/or incident
investigations conducted or being conducted by the department pursuant to this chapter.
including the status of implementation of recommendations;(vi)description ofinherently
safer systems implemented by the stationary source;and (vii)legal enforcement actions
C-118
"
initiated by the department,including administrative,civil,and criminal actions pursuant
to this chapter.
(3)Total penalties assessed as a result of enforcement of this chapter.
(4)Total fees,service charges,and other assessments collected specifically for the
support ofthis chapter.
(5)Total personnel and personnel years utilized by the jurisdiction to directly implement
or admini&1er this chapter.
(6)Comments from interested parties regarding the effectiveness ofthe local program
that raise public safety issues.
(1)The impact ofthe chapter in improving industrial safety.
(c).The department shall provide a copy ofthe annual performance audit submission
required by Title 19 Chapter 4.5 Section 2780.5 of the California Code of Regulations to
the board of supervisors on or before October 31 st of each year.'
(Ords.2006-22 §7,98-48 §2).
450-8.032 -CODstrndion.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this code and for the purposes of this chapter
wherever it provides that the department shall act,such dh'ection in all instances shall be
deemed and is directory,discretionary and permissive and not mandatory .
...._-
NOTE:County Ordinance Chapter 450-8 expands on the Califomia Accidental
Release Prevention (CaIARP)Program for facilities meeting the follOWing:
•The facility is within an unincorporated area of the County
•The facility is either a petroleum refinery or chemical plant
•The facility is required to submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP)to the
U.S.EPA and Contra Costa County Health SefVice (CCHS)
•The facility has at least one Program 3 process
The seven facilities currently subject to the County's Industrial Safety Ordinance
(150) include:Air Products (within the Shell Refinery),Air Products (within the
Tesoro Refinery),ConocoPhillips Rodeo Refinery,Air Liquide-Rodeo Hydrogen
Plant,General Chemical West:Bay Point Works,Shell Oil Martinez Refinery and
Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery..TfJe City of Richmond has adopted an
industrial Safety Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 6.43,RISO}that is
almost identical (except for the 2006 amendment)to the County's Industrial
S~fe'tY Ordinant;.!.The two facilities located in the City of Richmond that are
subject to this ordinance include.:Chevron Richmond Refinery and General
Chemical West:Richmond Works.
C-119
Page 1 of 1
Kit Fox
From:Lacombe [chateau4us@att.net]
Sent:Thursday,November 01,2012 11 :21 AM
To:Jerry Duhovic;Brian Campbell;Jim Knight;susanbrooks01@yahoo.com;'Anthony M.Misetich';Kit Fox
Subject:Rancho Update
There was an article in the Daily Breeze on Oct.18th about complaints about an odor coming from
Rancho.
The incident happened Oct.17th.There were no warning sirens of a leak,no public address through the
LAPD system,and no mention of it on the Rancho website.There was obviously a leak and Rancho did
nothing to warn the public.Gaffey St.and Westmont were open that whole day.What if this was worse?
AQMD sent out inspectors to the area to investigate.I had a nice long talk with Ed Pupka yesterday who
is the Senior Enforcement Manager at the AQMD regarding Rancho.Rancho was the source of the
complaints.There were 37 complaints initially and he said he would find out if more were filed after the
Daily Breeze article at my request.The AQMD was issued 2 notices of violations one for violating the
AQMD public nuisance rule and one for violating the CA Health and Safety code.Fines were issued,but I
didn't bother asking how much because it really doesn't matter.
I asked him if there was any way the AQMD could initiate the nuisance abatement program with the
planning department.I sent him all the info for the links to the planning dept.website and to the RPV
website to view the City Council Meeting on Oct.16th.He said that he understands why the community
would want Rancho gone and he said he would bring that up with the AQMD lawyers to find out what can
be done.
He also wasn't aware that Rancho does not have a plan to get any liquid that goes into the basin back
into any safe container.Thank you Jim Knight for this brilliant question.
Thank you for raising this issue in such a timely manner.
Jeanne Lacombe
PS My huband noticed the odor too,but did not report it.I have a feeling many more also noticed the
smell but did not report it either.Maybe some even reported it to the LAPD and not the AQMD.Maybe
something to find out.
11/19/2012 C-120
Page 1 of 1
Kit Fox
From:Janet Gunter [arriane5@aol.com]
Sent:Saturday,November 03,2012 9:23 AM
To:Susan Brooks;Jim Knight;Brian Campbell;Jerry Duhovic;Anthony Misetich;Kit Fox
Subject:Fwd:The rail car accident....now obvious leaks from an antiquated system ...what's next?..we know ...
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci 21918160/foul-odor-south-bay-Ieads-violation-rancho-Ipg
11/19/2012 C-121
Foul odor in South Bay leads to violation for Rancho LPG in San Pedro -The Daily Breeze Page 1 of2
Foul odor in South Bay leads to violation for Rancho LPG in San
Pedro
By Donna Littlejohn,Staff Writer Daily Breeze
Posted:DailyBreeze.com
An air quality violation has been issued to the Rancho LPG storage facility in San Pedro for an Oct.
17 leak that spread foul odors throughout the South Bay.
It is still not clear if the leak was of propane or butane --both materials are stored at the facility at
2110 N.Gaffey St.--and an investigation continues into the cause of the incident,an air quality
spokesman said Friday.
"We issued a violation (to the company)for what we call a public nuisance due to foul odors,"said
Sam Atwood,a spokesman for the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
The facility owners,Plains LPG,could not be reached for comment.
A violation is issued when the agency receives complaints from a "considerable number of people"
and the source can be traced to a facility by an AQMD inspector,Atwood said.
"We ended up getting 37 complaints from a pretty wide area,including San Pedro,Carson,Torrance,
Harbor City,Wilmington,Lomita and Rancho Palos Verdes,"he said.
The agency also received complaints that day from four schools:Eshelman Elementary,Fleming
Middle and Narbonne High schools in Lomita;and Hickory Elementary School in Torrance.
"We did take some air samples and they were mostly the kinds of levels you'd expect to see anywhere
around Southern California,"Atwood said."There were a couple of compounds that were somewhat
elevated,but they were not at levels that would be considered toxic in relation to state health or safety
standards."
Some levels were sufficient,however,to have caused symptoms such as nausea and headaches,he
said.
The complaints reported "foul odors of a various nature,including natural gas,propane,rotten eggs
and suffer,"Atwood said.
When the AQMD investigation concludes,the agency and company will then enter into negotiations
for an out-of-court settlement,reached in "well over"90 percent of cases,Atwood said.
"First they have to fix whatever problem caused the violation and we have to be satisfied that this is
not something that's going to occur again,"he said."If the problem is with improper maintenance,we
have to be satisfied that it's been remedied."
Established in 1976 by Petrolane and later operated by Amerigas,the facility is now owned by Plains
LPG,which has a long-term lease on the land.The facility stores 25.3 million gallons of butane and
propane in two large,double-walled storage tanks on the site.
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_21918160/foul-odor-south-bay-Ieads-violation-ranc...11/19/2012C-122
Foul odor in South Bay leads to violation for Rancho LPG in San Pedro -The Daily Breeze Page 2 of2
The facility has come under fire through the years by community groups and others who believe it
needs to be moved away from homes and schools.
When a gas line exploded in San Bruno in 2010,members of the San Pedro Homeowners United
group renewed a call for the tanks to be moved,citing the potential danger that could come from
earthquakes and terrorist attacks.
Currently,the plant is the subject of frequent safety inspections by several government agencies.
donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com
Follow Donna Littlejohn on Twitter at twitter.comldonnalittlejohn
http://www.dailybreeze.comlnews/ci_21918l60/foul-odor-south-bay-leads-violation-ranc...11/19/2012
C-123
Page 1 of 1
Kit Fox
From:Janet Gunter [arriane5@aol.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 06,20129:53 AM
To:connie@rutter.us;det310@juno.com;mrenvirlaw@sbcglobal.net;jody.james@sbcglobal.net;
chateau4us@att.net;noelweiss@ca.rr.com;Susan Brooks;Brian Campbell;Jim Knight;Jerry Duhovic;
Anthony Misetich;Kit Fox;igornla@cox.net;dwgkaw@hotmail.com;stanley.mosler@cox.net;
burling1 02@aol.com;marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net;pmwarren@cox.net;roamerbill@yahoo.com;
carriescoville@yahoo.com;john@nrcwater.com;bonbon31 @earthlink.net;cary@carybrazeman.com;
fivegrants@msn.com;grgrysmth@aol.com
Cc:lucchej@slc.ca.gov;michaeLdavies@feinstein.senate.gov;michael.picker@gov.ca.gov;
sally.magnanidag@doj.ca.gov;brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov;gandrizzi@ceo.lacounty.gov;
jcynthiaperry@aol.com;laura.richardsonmc@mail.house.gov;lawanda.reynolds@mail.house.gov;
mandm8602@att.net;dlrivera@prodigy.net;guillermovillagran@sbcglobal.net;
nikitennant@asm.ca.gov
Subject:Official notice:PLAINS WILL NOT BUILD CRUDE TERMINAL ON PIER 400!!!(paragraph 1)
http://www.noodls.com/viewNoodl/16487439/plains-all-american-pipeline-Ip/plains-all-american-pipeline-
Ip-reports-third-quarter-201
This is great news on the issue of the hazardous tanks at Rancho and its future.But,we have seen an
effort lately to include the "Plains"owned Rancho LPG facility within the boundaries of the Port of LA as a
means to gain control over the facility.Call me cynical...but,I believe that this is an effort to find a means
for Plains to recoup some of their investment in Rancho through the buyout of the company "in the name
of safety for our community".All of this could come through the benevolence of public trust money from
the port.I would venture to guess that there has been a substantial amount of money crossing hands
during this political election time in an attempt to realize this goal.While we understand that this
opportunity could,in fact,have some effectiveness ..our homeowners have been skeptical at the very
least and have no trust whatsoever in any integrity coming from the Port of LA.What this boils down to is
simply that this Fortune 500 company,Plains All American Pipeline,made a bad business decision.They
gambled on the restoration of a LPG pipeline to their future new crude oil terminal with the anticipation of
a greatly increased profitability in transporting the commodity once again by sea.I don't believe that the
public should be interested in paying for that bad decision.I believe that this facility should be exposed for
the real hazard that it represents BEFORE the disaster strikes ...and that the government &its political
leadership should finally step up to remove this known threat immediately at "no further cost"to the long
and wrongly jeopardized pUblic.
Janet G
11/19/2012 C-124
Plains All American Pipeline LP (via noodls)1Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.Report ...Page 1 of 13
Plains All American Pipeline LP
11/05/2012 I Press release
Plains All American Pipeline,LP.Reports Third-Quarter 2012 Results
distributed by needls on 11/05/2012 16:23
Plains AU.Amer:ican Pipeline,L.P.Reports Thi.rd-Quarter 2012 Hesults
Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.(NYSE:PAA)today reported net income attributable to
Plains for the third quarter of 2012 of $165 million,or $0.27 per diluted limited partner
unit.These results include the impact of non-cash asset impairment charges totaling $125
million,primarily related to the Partnership's determination not to proceed with the
development of the Pier 400 terminal project in California.Such results compare to net
income attributable to Plains of $281 million,or $0.74 per diluted limited partner unit
for the third quarter of 2011.The Partnership reported earnings before interest,taxes,
depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA")of $470 million for the third quarter of 2012,
compared to lCeported EBITDA of $421 million for the third quarter of 2011.
The Partnership's reported results include the impact of items that affect comparability
between reporting periods.The impact of items impacting comparability are excluded from
adjusted results,as detailed in the table below.Accordingly,the Partnership's third-
quarter 2012 adjusted net income attributable to Plains,adjusted net income per diluted
limited partner unit and adjusted EBITDA were $322 million,$0.73 and $502 million,
respectively.The comparable amounts for the third quarter of 2011 were $274 million,$0.71
and $414 million.(Seethe section of this release entitled "Non-GAAP Financial Measures"
and ·the attached tables for discussion of EBITDA and other non-GAAP financial measures and
their reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP measures.)
"Continuing a multi-quarter trend,PAA delivered strong adjusted results for the third
quarter of 2012,"said Greg L.Armstrong,Chairman and CEO of Plains All American."The
environment for crude oil production growth in North Anlerica remains very favorable and we
continue to experience strong demand for our assets and services.As a result,we have
increased our midpoint guidance for adjusted EBI'rDA to slightly over $2 billion for the
full year of 2012,representing a 7%increase over our previous guidance midpoint for 2012.
"We are also expanding our asset base to meet the growing needs of our customers.Thus far
in 2012,we have invested approximately $2.5 billion in organic growth projects and
acquisitions and expect to incrementally invest over $1 billion in organic growth projects
through the end of 2013.These investments provide meaningful visibility for increased
baseline cash flow and distributions to unitholders."
Armstrong added,"In addition to delivering solid operating and financial results,we ended
the quarter with a strong balance sheet,credit metrics favorable to our targets and
approximately $2.4 billion of committed liquidity.As a result,we are well positioned to
finance our growth while maintaining a solid financial position."
The following table summarizes selected items that the Partnership believes impact
comparability of financial results between reporting periods (amounts in millions,except
per unit amounts):
Three Mont.hs
Ended
Ni.ne Mont.hs
Ended
September 30,---=------Sept.emb(-;r 3D,----------------------------
2012 2011 2012
Selected Items Impacting Comparability -Income /(Loss)(1)
(2):
$71$(18) $30$(31Gains/(:I.osses)from derivative activit.ies net.of invent.ory
valuat.ion adjustments (3)
------'---------------------------------
Asset impairments (4)(125
----'----------------------------------(12.5
http://www.noodls.com/viewNood1l16487439/plains-all-american-pipeline-lp/plains-all-a...11/19/2012
C-125
Plains All American Pipeline LP (via noodls)/Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.Report...Page 2 of 13
(40
(23
(17
(4
(50
{6
(13
(17
(6
11
(12Eqllitycomp(~nsation expense (5)---'-------'---------------------------------
Net loss eJl1 (oarly repayment of senior notes-------------------------------------------
Net gain/(loss)on foreign currency revaluation---------------'------------------------------------
Significant acquisition-related expenses---------------------------------------------------
Other (6)1 2---------------------------------------
Selected items impacting'comparability of nE~t income
attributable to .Plains $(157 )$7 ~I (211 )$(11====:::::::=========================-------
Impact to basic net:income per limited partner llnit $(0.46 )$0.02 $(0.64 )$(0.03)
-~-~--------------~---------'--~----------------._-
Impact to diluted net income per limibod partner unit $(0.46 )$0.03 $(O.63 )$(0.03 )
-----------------~~---~----~-------------------
=====--------------------------
(1)Per-unit amounts are presented as adjusted for the two-far-one unit split effected on
October 1,2012.
(2)Certain .,of our non-GAM'financial measures may not be impacte.d by each of the selected
items impacting comparability.
Includes mark-to-market gains and losses resulting from derivative instruments ·that are
(3)related to underlying activities in future periods or the reversal of mark-to-market
gains and losses from the prior period net of inventory valuation adjustments.
(4)ASset.impairments are reflected in "Depreciation and amortization"on OUr Consolidated
Statements of Operations and do not impact the comparability of EBITDA.
(5)
Equity compensation expense for the three and nine months ended September 30,2012 and
2011 excludes the portion of equity compensation expense represented by grants under
our Long-term Incentive Plans ("LT1Ps")that,pursuant to the terms of the grant,will
be settled in cash only and have no impact on diluted units.
(6)Includes other immaterial selected items impacting comparability,as well as the
noncontrolling interests'portion of selected items.
The following tables present certain selected financial information by segment for the
third quarter (amounts.in millions):
Three Nonths End",d
-------~----$eptember ~'lO,2011
--------~------'--
Sept",mbe1:30,2012------------
Supply
and
Supply
and
'l'ransportation Ii'acilities Logistics 'l'ransportation Facilities Logistics
---~--------Revenues (1)
Purchases and related costs
(1)
trield operating costs
(excluding equ.ity
compensation expense)(1)
Equity compensation expe."nse
-operat:i.ons
Segment G&A expenses
(excluding equity
compensation expense)(2)
(36
(119
(3
(23
$262
(29
(72
(16
$9,049 <:300y
(8,T76 (34
(.1.01 (97
(1 (1
(24 (16
$19.1.
(45
(38
(11
$8,545
(8,259
(84
(20
http://www.noodls.com/viewNoodl/16487439/plains-all-american-pipeline-lp/plains-all-a...11/19l2012
C-126
Plains All American Pipeline LP (via noodls)/Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.Report ...Page 3 of 13
$140 $142
2 27
$142 C!169'"
$17 '"4'"
$95 $179
1 (18
$96 $161
$6 $2
Equity compensation expQllse
-general and administrative
Equity earnings in
unconsolidated entities
Reported segment profit
Selected items impacting
comparability of segment
profit (3)
Segment profit excluding
selected items impacLing
comparability
Maintenance capitaJ
(8
9
6
$190
(5 (5 (4
4
$152
3
$15S
$1.7
(2 (3
Supply
and
Nine Months Ended
September 30,2011_:..-_------------
Supply
and
September 30,2012------------
Nine Months Ended------------
'TransportatiOn FaciLi.ties I.og:i.stics 'I'ransport:ation FaciLi.ties I.ogistics---------------
Maintenance capital $78----------------
(11 (16
(1 (1
(23,794 )
(225
$24,567
(88
(35 (67
$259 $464
14 (50
$273 $414
$16 $9
$516$785 $27,368 $864'·
(168 (26,414 )(88
(293
(2
(49
(21
9
$416
18 43
$362 $587 $434
$34 $11 $52
27
$543
Selected items impacting
comparability of segment
profit (3)
Segment profit excluding
selected i terns imp,v;ting
cornparabLLi ty
(1)Includes intersegment amounts.
(2)
Segment general and administrative expenses (G&A)reflect direct costs attributable to
each segment and an allocation of other expenses to the segments based on the business
activities that existed at that time.The proportional allocations by segment require
judgment by management and will continue to be based on the business activities that
exist during each period.Includes acquisition-related expenses for both the 2012 and
2011 periods.
http://www.noodls.com/viewNoodl/16487439/plains-all-american-pipeline-lp/plains-all-a...11/19/2012
C-127
Plains All American Pipeline LP (via noodls)/Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.Report ...Page 4 of 13
(3)Certain of our non-GAAP financial measures may not be impacted by each of the selected
items impacting comparability.
Adjusted Transportation segment profit in the third quarter of 2012 increased by 23%over
comparable 2011 results.This increase waS primarily driven by higher revenues from
acquisitions completed late in 2011 and early in 2012,organic growth capacity expansions,
increased pipeline volumes and higher average pipeline tariffs.These increases in revenue
were partially offset by higher operating and general and administrative expenses,
commensurate with the growth of the business.
Adjusted Facilities segment profit in the third quarter of 2012 increased 48%over
comparable 2011 results.This increased profitability is primarily related to capacity
addi tiems from the BP NGL acquisition and recently completed organic growth projects.
Adjusted Supply and Logistics segment profit in the third quarter of 2012 increased 5%over
comparable 2011 results.This increase was primarily due to favorable crude oil market
conditions and increased crude oil lease gathering and NGL sales volumes.
The Partnership's basic weighted average units outstanding for the third quarter of 2012
was 329 miliion units (331 million diluted)as compared to 299 million units (300 million
diluted)in last year's third quarter.At of the end of the thiJ;'d quarter,the Partnership
had approximately 331.6 million units outstanding.These amounts have been adjusted for the
two-for-one unit split effected on October 1,2012.'rhe Partnership had long-term debt
approximately $5.8 billion and a long-term debt-to-total capitalization ratio of 46%at the
end of the third quarter.
The Partnership has declared a quarterly distribution $0.5425 per unit ($2.17 per unit
on an annualized basis)payable November 14,2012,on outstanding limited partner
units.This distribution represents an increase of approximately 9.0%over the quarterly
distribution paid in November 2011 and an increase of approximately 1.9%over the quarterly
distribution paid in August 2012.
The Partnership will hold a conference call at 9:00 AM (Central)on November 6,2012 (see
details below).Prior to this conference call,the Partnership will furnish a current
report on Form 8-K,which will include material in this press release and financial and
operational guidance for the fourth-quar"ter and full-year 2012 as well as preliminary
financial guidance 2013.A copy the Form 8-K will be available on the Partnership's
website at
Non-GAAP Financial Measures
To suppLement our financial .information presented in aCcordance with GAAP,management uses
additional measures that are known as "non-GAAPfinancial measures".in itsevalui3,tion of
past performance and prospects for thefuture.These measures include adjus'tedEiBITDA and
implied.distributable cash flow .("OCF").lvlanagement believes that the.presentation of such
additional financial.measures provides usefuL information to investors Jregarding our
performance and results of operations because these measures,when used in conjunction with
relat.ed GMP financial measures,(i)provide additional information about our core
operating performance and ability t.o generate and distribute cash flow,(ii)provide
investors with the financial analytical framework upon which management bases financial,
operational,compensation and planning decisions and (iii)present measurements that
investors,rating agencies and debt holders have indicated are useful in assessing us and
our results of operations.These measures may exclude,for example,(i)charges for
obligations that are expected to be settled with the issuance of equity instruments,(ii)
the mark-to-market of derivative instruments that are related to underlying activities in
another period (or the reversal of such adj.ustments from a prior period),(iii)items that
are not indicative of our core operating results and business outlook and/or (iv)other
items that we believe should be excluded in understanding our core operating performance.
We have defined all such items as "Selected Items Impacting Comparability."These
additional financial measures are reconciled from the most directly comparable measures as
reported in accordance with GAAP,and should be viewed in addition to,and not in lieu of,
our consolidated financial statements and footnotes.
http://www.noodls.com/viewNoodV16487 439/plains-all-american-pipeline-lp/plains-all-a...11/19/2012C-128
Plains All American Pipeline LP (via noodls)1Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.Report ...Page 5 of 13
Although we present selected items that we consider in evaluating our performance,you
should also be aware that the items presented do not represent all items that affect
corrrparability between the periods presented.Variations in our operating results are also
caused by changes in volumes,prices,exchange rates,mechanical interruptions,
acquisitions and numerous other factors.A full analysis of these types of variations are
not separately identified in this release,but will be discussed,as applicable,in
management's discussion and analysis of operating results in our Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q.
Conference Call
'The Partnership will host a conference call at 9:00 AM (Central)on 'Tuesday,November 6,
2012 to discuss the following items:
1.The Partnership's third-quarter 2012 performance;
2.The status of major expansion projects;
3.Capitalization ane!liquidity;
4.Finf.mc:i.al anet operating'guidance for the fOll.Y."t:h-qua.t·b,:rrancl f\.lll~year 2012;
5.Pr:eli.rninary 2013 adjusted EBITDA guidance and growth capital investments;and
6.'rl16 Partnershi.p'(3 outlook for the futu.re.
Webcast Instructions
'To access the Internet webcast,please go to the Partnership's website at w~'lW.paalp.oom,
choose "Investor Relations,"and then choose "Conference Calls."Following-the live
webcast,the call will be archived for a period of sixty (60)days on the Partnership's
website.
Alternatively,you may aCcess the live conference call by dialing toll free (800)230-1085.
International callers should dial (612)332"'0226.No password is required.You may acces.s
the slide presentation accontpanying the conference call a few minutes prior to the call
under the Conference Call Summaries portion of the Conference Calls'tab of the Investor
Relations section of PM's website at wml.paalp.oom.
Telephonic Replay rnstructions
'To listen to a telephonic replay of the conferen.ce call,please dial (BOO)475-6701,or,
for international callers,(320)365-3844,and replay access code 260375.The replay will
be available beginning Tu.esday,Noveltl1)er 6,2012,at approximately 11:00 AM (Central)and
continue until 11 :i59 l?MThu.tsday,December 6,2012.
Forward Looking Statements
Except for the historical information contained herein,the matters discussed in this
release are forward~looking statements that involve certain risks and uncertainties that
could cause actual results to differ materially from results anticipated in the forward-
looking statements.These risks and uncertainties include,among other things,the
successful integration and future Performance of acquired assets or businesses and the
risks associated with operating in lines of business that are distinctarld $eparate from
our historical operations;failure to implement or capitalize,or delays in implementing or
capitalizing,on planned internal growth.projects;unanticipated changes in crUde oil
market structure,grade differentials and volatility (or lack thereof);maintenance of our
credit rating and ability to receive open credit from our suppliers and trade
counterparties;continued creditworthiness of,and performance by,our counterparties,
including financial institutions and trading companies with which we do business;the
effectiveness of our risk management activities;environmental liab.ilities or events that
are not covered by an indemnity,insurance or existing reserves;abrupt or severe declines
or interruptions in outer continental shelf production located offshore California and
transported on our pipeline systems;shortages or cost increases of supplies,materials or
labor;the availability of adequate third~party production volumes for transportation and
marketing in the areas in which we operate and other factors that could cause declines in
volumes shipped on our pipelines by us and third-party shippers,such as declines in
production from existing oil and gas reserves or failure to develop additional oil and gas
reserves;fluctuations in refinery capacity in areas supplied by our mainlines and other
factors affecting demand for various grades of crude oil,refined products and natural gas
and resulting changes in pricing conditions or transportation throughput requirements;the
http://www.noodls.com/viewNoodlll6487439/plains-all-american-pipeline-lp/plains-all-a...11/19/2012C-129
Plains All American Pipeline LP (via noodls)/Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.Report ...Page 6 of 13
availability of,and our ability to consummate,acquisition or combination opportunities;
our ability to obtain debt or equity financing on satisfactory terms to fund additional
acquisitions,expansion projects,working capital requirements and the repayment or
refinancing of indebtedness;the impact of current and future laws,rulings,governmental
regulations,accounting standards and statements and related interpretations;the effects
of competition;interruptions in service on third-party pipelines;increased costs or lack
of availability of insurance;fluctuations in the debt and equity markets,including the
price of our units at the time of vesting under our long-term incentive plans;the currency
exchange rate of the Canadian dollar;weather interference with business operations or
project construction;risks related to the development and operation of natural gas storage
facilities;factors affecting demand for natural gas and natural gas storage services and
rates;general economic,market or business conditions and the amplification of other risks
caused by volatile financial markets,capital constraints and pervasive liquidity concerns;
and other factors and uncertainties inherent in the transportation,storage,terminal ling
and marketing of crude oil and refined products,as well as in the storage of natural gas
and the processing,transportation,fractionation,storage and marketing of natural gas
liquids discussed in the Partnership's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.is a publicly traded master limited partnership engaged
in the transportation,storage,terminalling and marketing of crude oil and refined
products,as well as in the processing,transportation,fractionation,storage and
marketing or natural gas liquids.Through its general partner interest and majority equity
ownership position in PAA Natural Gas Storage,L ..P.(NY-BE:PNG),.PAA owns and operates
natural gas storage facilities.PAA is headquartered in Houston,Texas.
PLAINS AL1'.,·AMERIC.1\N PIPEr.:r.N~l,L.P.{,ND SDBSIDIARIF.:S
F.'INANCIAL SUMMARY (unaudited)
CONSOLIDATED·STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (1)
(in millions,~~XCE;pt per unit data)
TIlr:ee Iv!onths Ended Nine Months Ended
Septentber::3 0,---''--------September:30,-------------------------
2012 2011 2012
REVENUES $9,354 $8,837 ;;28,358 $========================----------390
COSTS AND EXPENSES
Purchases and related CO(,ts 8,524 8,142 2!3,8~:'5 23,423-------------------------------------------------------_._---------------------
860 638
264 199
356 191
27,335 24,4n
I,023 939
25 9
(214 (190
4
217
357
56
(62
65
9
292
247
210
81
(74
OPEI~A'1'ING INCOME
OTHER INCOME!(EXPENSE)
General and administrative expenses------------------------'---------------------------------
Depr:eciaUon and amortizatio!l (2)-------------------""----------------------------------------
Equity earnings in unconsolidated entities---------------------------------------
Field ope.rating costs-----""----""-------------------------------_._---
Interest expense------""--------------------------------------------
Total Gosts and expenses 9,107 8,480==================================---.._.--_.-----~------
===================================--------------
Ot:hE~r incomel (expense),n,~t:
INCOME BEFORE TAX
Current income tax expense
Deferred income tax (expense)/benefit
NET INCOME
4 (.5 6 (24-----
186 294 840 734----------
(10 (7 (32 (25----------
(3 1 (11 (3----------
173 288 797 706----------
http://www.noodls.com/viewNoodl/16487439/plains-all-american-pipeline-lp/plains-all-a...11/19/2012
C-130
Plains All American Pipeline LP (via noodls)1Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.Report...Page 7 of 13
Less:Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests (8 (7 (23 (18 ).
:;;688$774$281NETINCOMEATTRIBUTABLETOPLAINS$165========================-------NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO PLAINS:
$520$554$221LIMITEDPARTNERS$89---------------------------------------------
$168
$1.77$.1..7.1.
$220$60
$0.74$0.27BASICNETINCOMEPERLIMITEDPARTNERUNIT
GENERAL PAR'rNER ~~76========================-------
~--~----~--~----------------------------
DH,UTED NET INCOME PER 1,IMITED PARTNER UNIT $0.27 $0.74 $1.70 $1.""16========================--------------BASIC vJEIGHTED AVERAGE UNITS OUTSTANDING 329 299 322 294===================================------------~~
DILUTED WEIGHTED AVERAGE UNITS OUTSTANDING 331 300 325 296-----------------------------------
======------------------------
(1)Unit and per-unit amounts are presented as adjusted for the two-for-one unit split
effected'on October 1,2012.
(2)For both the three and nine months ended September 30,2012,includes impairment losses
of approximately $125 million,primarily related to the Pier 400 terminal project.
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE,L.P.l'>ND SUBSIDIA1UBS
E'INANCIAL SUMMARY (unaudited)
Nine Months
Ended
September.30,---------------------------------September.30,
OPERATING DATA (1)2012 20.1.1 2012 20.1.1
T:cansportatl.on activities (ave.r.'ICje di,l:i.ly V01UI\1es in thousands Cl.f
bar:r:els):
Crude Oil Pipelines
1\1.1 Ameri.can
Bas.in
Capline
Line 63/Line 2000
Salt :Lake City Area Systems (2)
Permian Basin Area Systems (2)
Hid-Continent Area Systems (2)
Hanito
Rainbow
Rangeland
Otbe:r:
NGIr Pipelines
Refined Products Pipelines
Tariff activities total
T.r.uckinq
Transportation activities total
38 38 31 36
474 443 495 432
159 121 144 165
131 126 126 114
146 142 1.41.139
451 408 450 402
257 217 247 21.7
51 65 59 66
142 96 1.4"1 132
57 60 60 57
1,141 1.,096 1.,140 1.,063
264 1.63
1.12 104 1.1.4 99
3,423 2,916 3,317 2,922
1.07 109 1.03 104
3,530 3,025
3,420 3.026
http:/Iwww.noodls.com/viewNood1l16487 439/plains-all-american-pipeline-lp/plains-all-a...11/19/2012
C-131
Plains All American Pipeline LP (via noodls)1Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.Report ...Page 8 of 13
Facilities activities (av(~rage monthly volumes):
Crude oil,refinE;d prod,lcts and NGL storage (average monthly
capacity in millions of barrels)
Natu:r:'al gas storage (average monthly capacity in biLLions of cubic
feet)
NGL fractionation (average throughput in thousands of barrels per
day)
F'acilit.:i.es acUvities tot.al (average mont.hly capacit.y in miLLions
of barrels)(3)
94
89
100
111
71 88 69
75 82 69
16 73 14
84 104 81
Supply and 1,09istics activities (average daily volumes in thousands
of barrels):
856
28
808
155
731---
97
852
748
3----
966
5
995
77---
27
NGL sales
Waterborne cargos
Supply and Logistics activities total
Crude oil lease gathering purchases
Volumes associated with acquisitions represent total volumes for the number of days or
(1)months we actually owned the assets divided by the number of days or months in the
period.
(2)The aggregate of multiple systems in the respective areas.
Facilities total is calculated as the sum of:(i)crude oil,refined products and NGL
storage capacity;(ii)natural gas storage capacity divided by 6 to account for the 6:1
(3)mcf of gas to crude Btu equivalent ratio and further divided by 1,000 to convert to
monthly volumes in millions f and (iii)NGL fr.actionation volumes multiplied by the
number of days in the period and divided by the number of months intte period.
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE/L.P.AND SUBSIDIARIES
~--~~....
FINANCIAL SUMMARY (unaUdited)
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET DATA
(in millions)
September 30,December'31,
--------------------------~
ASS F./l'S
Current assets
P:r:operty and equipment,net
Goo (hl.i LI.
LinefLll and base gas
Long-term inventory
Invest.ments in unconsolidated entities
Other,net:
Total assets
201.2 2011
$4,813 $4,351
9,348 7,740
2,119 1,854
714 564
287 135
289 191
617 !i46
$18,187 $15,381
LT.,\BILI'J.'TES AND P./\RTNKHS·CAPITA.L
http://www.noodls.comlviewNoodl/16487439/plains-all-american-pipeline-lp/plains-all-a...11119/2012C-132
Plains All American Pipeline LP (via noodls)/Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.Report ...Page 9 of 13
current liabilities
Senior notes,net of unamortize(i discount
Long-term debt und€)r credit facilities and other
Oth(-;r long-term liabilities and deferred credits
Total liabilities
Pa.rtn€).t's'capital exclud,i.ng noncontrol.U.ng interests
Noncontrolling interests
Total pcl.t'tne.r.:s'capi.ta 1
Total liab;i,:U.ties and partners'ca.pital
$4,886
5,511
300
565
11,262
6,420
505
6,925
$18,187
$4,511
4,262
258
376
9,407
5,450
524
5,974
$15,381
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE,L.P.AND SUBSIDIARIES
FINANCIAL SUMMARY (unaudited)
CREDIT RATIOS
(J.n millions)
Sept;cmber 30,December 31,."....----------------------------....,....------
Total book capital.i.zation :;;12,736
'.rotal bc)ok cap.i.talization,includ.:i.ng sho.r:t-te.r.m debt :;;13,570
2011
$679
'1,520
$5,199
4 ,520
1'.974.),
$10,494
$11,173
%43 ?:
%47 %
6,925
5,811
5,811
Partners'capital
Long--tElrm debt
Lcmg-term debt
Total debt
Short-term debt:
Long-term debt-to-total book capit:alization 46----
Total dc,bt-to-i:otal book capitalization,including short-tc,rm debt 49======
:;;6,64:)----------------------------
2012--------------------------------
$834
PLAINS ALL ,AMERICAN PIPELINE,L.J?AND StiBSIDIARIES
FINANCIAL SUMMARY (unaudited)
COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER LIMITED
PARTNER UNIT (1)
(in mil.lions,except.per unit.data)
1'hree Months
Ended
Ni.ne Mont.hs
Ended
September 30,-------September 30,-----------------------------
2012 20n 2012 20n
NumElrator for Basic and Diluted Net IncomEl per Li.mited Partner
Unit:
$688$774$281Net.income attributable to Plains $165---------------------------------------------
Less:General.part.ner's incentive distr.i.bution (2)(74 (:35 (208)(1:38)------"----------------------------------------
52055422189
I,Elss:Gene.r.al partner 2%ownership (2 j (2 (5 (12 (10------"----------=-------------------------------
Net.income avai.l.able to li.mited partners---------------=-------------------------------
http://www.noodls.com/viewNoodl/16487439/plains-all-american-pipeline-lp/plains-all-a...1111912012
C-133
Plains All American Pipeline LP (via noodls)1Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.Rep...Page 10 of 13
$520
(3
$551$221
(1
$88
Less:Undistributed earnings allocated and distributions to
participating securities (2)
~~~'---'---'---'---~~------------------------------------
Net income available t.o limited partners in acco.rdance with
application of the two-class method for lYILPs
.....:..;'------~~~-------~~~-------------------------------
Denominato.r.for Basic and Diluted Net Income per Limit.ed Part.ner
Uni t:
Basic weight€;d average number of limited partner units outstanding 329 299 322 294
2
296325
3
300
12
331
Effect of dilui:ive securities:Weighted average LT!P units (3)
-----------~........----~.....;:.'---~-_-::..._----------------------------
Diluted weighted average number of limited partner units
outstanding============================---------------
$1.71 $1.77$0.74Basicnetincomeperlimitedpartnerunit$0.27==============:::::::::=====================------------
$1.'70 $1.76$0.74Dilutednetincomeperlill1.ited partner unit $0.27---'---------_..:...-_----......:.....------------------_.-----------------
======----------------------------------
(1)Unit am'!per-unit.amount.sare presented as adjusted for the two-for-one unit split
effected on October 1,2012.
(2)
We calculate net income available to limited partners based on the distributions
pertaining to the current period's net income.After adjusting for the appropriate
period's distributions,the remaining undistributed earnings or excess distributions
over earnings,if any,are allocated to the general partner,limited partners and
participating securities in accordance with the contractual terms of the partnership
agreement and as further prescribed under the two-class method.
(3)
Our LTIP awards that contemplate the issuance of common units are considered dilutive
unless (i)vesting oCcurs only upon the satisfaction of a performance condition and
(ii)that performance condition has yet to be satisfied.LTIP awards that are deemed to
be dilutive are reduced by a hypothetical unit repurchase based on the remaining
unamortized fair value,as prescribed by the treasury stock method in guidance issued
by the E'ASB.
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE,L.P.AND SUBSIDIARIES
FINANCIAL SUMMARY (unaudited)
FINANCIAL DATA RECONCILIATIONS
(in millions)'l'hree 110nths
Ended
September 30,September 30,
-------~----------------------2012 2011 2011
Net income to earnings before interest,taxes,depreciation
and amortization ("EBITDA")and excluding selected items
impacting comparability ("Adjusted EBITDA")reconciliations
(,173 $288 $797 $706--------
74 62 214 190--------
13 6 43 28--------
210 65 356 191--------
$470 $421 $1,410 $1,115
Net Income
EBI'I'DA
Add:Income tax expense
Add:Depreciation and amortization
Add:Interest expense
-~------------~-------------------------------
http://www.noodls.comlviewNood1l16487439/plains-all-american-pipeline-lp/plains-all-a...l1/19/2012
C-134
Plains All American Pipeline LP (via noodls)/Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.Rep...Page 11 of 13
1387SelecteditEJmSimpactingcomparabilityofEBITDA(1)32 (7-----------=-------::.--.::...------=---------~---------------
])..djusted EBITDA ;>502 $414 $1,497 $1,128---:=-------------------------------------------
(1,)Certain of our non-GAAP .financial measures may no·t;.be impacted by each of the selected items
impacting comparability.
Three IVlonths Nine Months
gnded gnded----------------------------------------Septe,nber .30,September 30,--------------------------------2012------------------------------2011 2012 2011
Adj tlsted EBITDA to ImpU.e.d Dj.stri.bl.ltab1.e Cash Flow ("DCE''')
$497 $1,12f)
(214 )(190 )
(123 )(TI
(32 (25
2 721
Interest eXpense (74)(62)--------=-----------------------------------
Adjusted F..:.BI'l'DA $502 ;1 414---:;:.......-------------------------------------------
Maintenarv:e c;,;pital (47)(25)-----_.:...-_--------------------------------
C\lrrent income tax expense (10)(7------------_.:...---------------------------.--------
Equity earn.lngsin unconso.1.idrxted entitiei;1,net of distribuUons-"----"------........;;.-------........-'--........_--_..:...-_-----------------------
Dist:d.but.i..ons ton()flcont.rol.1.ing .i.nterest;~(l)(12) (12)(36------------'------_.:...-_-_........---:_----------------------
Other
Illlpl.i.ed Dcr $360 $nO $1,094 $807.....,..;,......---------------------------------------------------._-
(1,)Includes distribuU.i.on.s that pertain t:o the.cur:l:el1t:quart.er'snet income.and are to be.paid in
the SUbsequent quarter.
Nine Montbs
gnded------
Th.ree Honths
Ended------------------------------
September 30,------------------------------September 30,
2012------------------------------2011 2012
Cash flow from operating activities reconciliation
EBITDA
(32(7Currentincometaxexpense(:1.0 )--.......---_..............__........_.......--_......._......._----------.....-.............---------
Interest expense (74)(62)(214)(190)----------------'--------------------------------
Net change in assets and Uabil.ities,nett)f acquisHions 125 41.8 (366)796---_.........................---......._--------_.................._--..:;;.,,------........._-----------_.-..-----...-.-----
Other i terns t.o reconcile t.o cash flQt<lsfr:olll opera.t:i.n?,a.r;ti v.it.i.es~
82Equityc;ompensation expenSe 22 1{}.....;:-..:..,..---.,.:...------=-----------------------------
Net cash provided by operatin9 acUviU..es $533 $780 $880-----:;.....,.----=--=---........;;.----'----------------------------
'.i6
$1,752
-------------------------------------------
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE,L.P.AND SUBSIDIARIES
FINANCIAL SUMMARY (unaudited)
FINANCIAL DATA RECONCILIATIONS (1)
(in m~llions,except per unit dat;,;)(continued)
'.l.'hree lVlont.hs
gnded----------------------------
Nine Mont.hs
Ended
____________________----------S_e..:..p_t_e_mb__e_r_3_0.:..,__September 30,
201120122011----2012----------------------------
http://www.noodls.comiviewNoodl/16487439/plains-all-american-pipeline-lp/plains-all-a...ll/19/2012C-135
Plains All American Pipeline LP (via noodls)1Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.Rep...Page 12 of 13
Basic Adjusted Net Inoome per Limited Partner Unit
Net income attributable to Plains $165 $281 $774 $688--------------------------------------------------
Selected itf'JIlS impacting comparability of net income attributable
to Plains 157 (7 211 11
---------------------------------------------------
699
531
$531
985
761
(5
$756
274
214
$214
322
(2
243
l'~djusted net income attributable to Plains----------------------------------------------------
Less~General partner's incentive distribution (2)(74 (55 (208) (158)--------------------------------------------------
(5 (5 (16 (10Less:General partner 2%ownership (2)--------------------------------------------------
A.djusted net income available to Limited pa.r:tners---------------------------------------------------------------------
I,ess,:Undistributed ea.r.:nings allocated and distri.butions to
participating securities (2);:,.....--.;:......_...::.-_---------------------------------------------
Adjusted limited partners'net income $241-"---------...::.--------------------------------------.-.------------.---'_._--
294322299329Basicweightedaveragetwmbe.r.:of limited partner units
outstanding--------.:.,----------------------------------------------------
$1.80Basicadjustednetincomepe,r.:limited partner:unit $0.73 .72 $2.35=================================----------------
Diluted Adjusted Net Income per Limited Partner unit
Net income attributable to Plains
Selected items impacting comparability
to Pl,lins
net income attributable .lSI (7 211 11
--------------------------------------------
531
699985
7
(3
274
214243
322
(1
Adjusted net income attributable to plains--:._------------------------------------------
LE,SS:General partner's incentive distribution (2)(74 (55)(208) (158)
-----~-----------_..:..--------------------------
Less:General partner 2%ownership (2)(5 (5)(16 (10
-----~------~~-----------------------------
Adjusted net income available to limited partnE,rs........::...-_--------------=------------------------------
Less:Undistributed earnings allocated and distributions to
participati.ng securi.ties (2)
---"----"-------------------------------------------
Adjusted li.mited partners'net income $242 $21.4 $758 $531=====================================-------------
296325300331DillltedweightedaveragemUl\b(~r of limited partner
outstanding=================================------------
Diluted adj listed net income per limited partner unit $0.73 $0.71 $2.33 $1.79------:;-----_...::.-------:;---------------------------
;;:;::;:;:;;:===========--------------------------------------------------
(1)Unit and per-uni.t amounts are presented as adjusted for the two-for-oneunit split
effected on October 1,2012.
(2)
We calculate adjusted net income available to limited partners based on the
distributions pertaining to the current period's net income.A:l;ter adjusting for the
appropriate period's distributions,the remaining undistributed earnings or excess
distributions over earnings,if any,are allocated to the general partner,limited
partners and participating securities in accordance with the contractual terms of the
partnership agreement and as further prescribed under the two-class method.
Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.
Roy I.Lamoreaux,713-646-4222 -800-564-3036
Director,Investor Relations
or
Al Swanson,800-564-3036
Executive Vice President,era
http://www.noodls.comlviewNoodlll6487439/plains-all-american-pipeline-lp/plains-all-a...11/19/20l2
C-136
Plains All American Pipeline LP (via noodls)/Plains All American Pipeline,L.P.Rep...Page 13 of 13
Smartlinks I Plains AI!American lP I Comp<:iny News I Energy I Ira:h.lstrial <:ind M<:inufacturing I Oil
and Gas I Services I Stocks and Security M<:irkets I Top Business zmd Economy News I Oil and Gas -
Downstream Activities I Process Industry I or Semiannual Reports I Non-Durable Goods I
financial Results I Fimmcial Statement I I Arll"lual I Key Developments I New York
stock Exchange {NYSE}I Borse Frankfurt I em Companies I Deutsche !0orse I Fortune Global 500 I
Large Cap and Index Cfmstituents I les!d!r!g Corrlpani",s
http://www.noodls.comlviewNoodl/16487439/plains-all-american-pipeline-lp/plains-all-a...ll/19/2012
C-137
Cc:
From:
Sent:
To:
Page 1 of4
Kit Fox
Noel Weiss [noelweiss@ca.rr.com]
Tuesday,November 06,201211 :22 AM
connie@rutter.us;det310@juno.com;mrenvirlaw@sbcglobal.net;jody.james@sbcglobal.net;
chateau4us@att.net;Susan Brooks;Brian Campbell;Jim Knight;Jerry Duhovic;Anthony
Misetich;Kit Fox;igornla@cox.net;dwgkaw@hotmail.com;stanley.mosler@cox.net;
burling102@aol.com;marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net;pmwarren@cox.net;roamerbill@yahoo.com;
carriescoville@yahoo.com;john@nrcwater.com;bonbon31@earthlink.net;
cary@carybrazeman.com;fivegrants@msn.com;grgrysmth@aol.com;Janet Gunter
lucchej@slc.ca.gov;michael_davies@feinstein.senate.gov;michael.picker@gov.ca.gov;
sally.magnanidag@doj.ca.gov;brian.hembacher@doj.ca.gov;gandrizzi@ceo.lacounty.gov;
jcynthiaperry@aol.com;guillermovillagran@sbcglobal.net;nikitennant@asm.ca.gov;
dlrivera@prodigy.net
SUbject:Re:Official notice:PLAINS WILL NOT BUILD CRUDE TERMINAL ON PIER 400!!!(paragraph 1)
Attachments:Central San Pedro N.C.-January,2012 Motion To Revoke Rail Sp.pdf
Janet:
This represents a write-off by Plains of $125 Million ....A very significant write-off .....
As I indicated to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council last week,it is imperative that the surrounding
Cities coalesce around the clear need to force responsible action on this matter at all levels of
government..City of Los Angeles (including the Port of Los Angeles)...County of Los Angeles ....
State of California ...US Government (Congress;the EPA;the Dept.of Transportation).....
On the City Level,the following specific acts are needed:
1.The City Attorney of Los Angeles must resign from representing both the Port and the City ...The Port
can get its own counsel.It is a clear and classic conflict of interest for the LA City Attorney to represent
both entities in light of the fact that the Port has permitted the use of its rail-spur to Rancho (Plains)at a
rental so low it probably constitutes an illegal gift of public funds (an indirect unlawful public subsidy to
Rancho's operations -giving the taxpaying citizens a right of action under Code of Civil Procedure
Section 526a to 'restrain and prohibit the unlawful 'expenditure'of public funds in this manner)..and
should there be an accident which causes the City to have to expend countless dollars on emergency
procedures (including fire and police),the City would have a claim against the Port....So in this case,
the City Attorney is representing both debtor (the Port)and creditor (the City)...An ethically impossible
position for the City Attorney to be in ...Plus,both 'clients'(the Port and the City)are denied unbridled,
competent,legal advice...;
2.The Port needs to pull the rail spur permit immediately and not re-issue it until (a)Rancho provides
adequate insurance coverage (thanks again to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for askingRancho to
provide details of its insurance coverage ...Rancho voluntarily promised to do so at the City Council
Meeting on October 16th ...Please Rancho City Council,take all steps needed to 'encourage'Rancho to
abide by this promise (including directing the City Attorney to draft a letter to Rancho confirming the
promise and requesting the information be provided post-haste);(b)a clear,competent,and properly
insured (secured)indemnity to the Port to cover its exposure to the City of Los Angeles in the event an
accident should occur (Rancho should not be able to hide behind the fact that it is 'regulated',particularly
when the regulatory regime is less than adequate (the City of Los Angeles or the County of Los Angeles
can and should adopt a risk management law similar to the one passed by Contra Costa County back in
the late 90's ..That law includes an ombudsman component,along with provisions for competent
'openness and transparency'...Both very,very important to the populations of the surrounding Cities ...
3.The Surrounding Cities (working together)can discuss and hopefully come to agreement on the
following state legislative program to further empower the people and protect them against the (currently)
uninsured consequence of an accident (Which,by the way,creates a 'socialization'of the loss and risk to
the people when under our capitalist system,the losses are to be privatized along with the gains (our
country got into the financial mess it is in because Wall Street was allowed to 'privatize'the gains on the
11/19/2012 C-138
Page 2 of4
backs of the people of Main Street (the bailout represented a classic 'socialization'of the losses»:
a.Adopt an amendment to the 'Public Trust Doctrine'(in this case the Tidelands Law)to require that
conditions protective of the tidelands and the citizens be put into place,including insurance (and perhaps a less
overlapping regulatory regime)...Keep in mind,there is a clear 'opportunity cost'here being incurred by the
people because (i)any damage to property will not be covered by insurance currently in place by homeowners
and businesses,and (ii)therefore,no one is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on property
improvements (including improvements to the Port's commercial enterprises)only to confront the specter of a
uninsured loss ...Therefore,it would be in the broader public interest if as part of state Tidelands legislation,this
issue was confronted squarely ....by asking Rancho the question the Palos Verdes City Council asked:How are
the people going to be protected in the event of an accident?Where is your insurance ...Whether it is the
Coastal Commission,or the State Lands Commission,there needs to be a coherence and completeness of
oversight...
b.Looking at state legislation or action under the State Lands Commission which requires the Port to not
give away valuable land use entitlement rights,like the rail spur,unless the public is adequately protected;
3.The City of Los Angeles can expand the boundaries of the Port to include Rancho's property within the Port's
jurisdiction.This would remove the currently convenient argument that there is nothing the City can do because
the property is 110t owned by the Port ....At a minimum,bringing Rancho's property within the boundaries of the
Port would trigger the need to review and modify (and perhaps create a new)Risk Management Plan (RMP)for
this property..This is precisely what public needs and the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council recognized An
truly independent evaluation of the danger to which the public is exposed (and currently not insured against).
Again,keeping in mind the idea that 'insurance'is a proxy for risk If the risk is as low as Rancho says it is,then
it should be easy for Rancho to procure insurance to cover that risk If not,and Rancho cannot procure
insurance,then from a public policy standpoint,we need a vigorous debate on whether Rancho should be allowed
to 'socialize'the risk of loss in this manner (after all,we have a 'free market'capitalist system,right?That means
privatizing the losses as well as privatizing the gains ...To the extent that there are other public,conflicting public
policy considerations,this is the reason why we have governments...To seriously,thoughtfully,competently,and
fairly discuss the benefits and detriments of a given course of action,and to fairly reconcile the conflicting
economic and political interests in a manner consistent with our core social values and then adopt laws and
policies consistent with those values ....So,we need a Risk Management Plan Putting the facility within the
boundaries of the Port of Los Angeles will accomplish that objective.Also to be noted is the fact that the
revocable permit can be revoked on 30 days notice ...at will...without any reason ....Rancho would therefore
be stuck....It would have to fully cooperate ...and provide the openness and transparency needed ...
including an expert evaluation of the condition of the tanks ...a key factor in evaluating the risks to the public
from the operation of this facility ....So having the surrounding cities come together and collectively insist that
the City of Los Angeles undertake this action has tremendous potential to push the ball forward here....Perhaps
it is time the Port revisited its Master Plan .....
County Action:
4.At the same time,the Cities need to come together and insist that the County take a more aggressive role
here ...This is a proper role of the County..and again,having the County of LA pass a Iqw similar to the
Ordinance passed by Contra Costa County is not an unreasonable request...The failure of the Board of
Supervisors to do their job here is,given the risks involved,a clear breach of their fiduciary duties to the public ...
These County Supervisors are not elected to ignore problems;and continuing to ignore the issue is beyond
reckless ...It is unreasonable and unconscionable....Should there be an accident,and people injured and
property destroyed,and costs incurred,it is not something which a political leader would want on her or his head .
. .Particularly when taking responsible action is both appropriate and a clearly available option and alternative;
Federal Action:
5.The same coalition of cities,while they are putting collective pressure on the City of Los Angeles and the
County of Los Angeles,can put pressure on Congresswoman Janice Hahn (who,it is assumed will be elected
today)to convene a meeting and hearing of her Port Caucus in San Pedro to discuss the Rancho issue and
related Port Security issues ....Her co-chair of the Caucus is Congressman Ted Poe,a Republican from
Houston (where Rancho has its offices...very convenient...very good .....)It is relevant because I am
assuming here that no where in the USA is there such a hazard where 25 million gallons of butane is so
concentrated,so near populated areas ....Out of those hearings can come a clear list of alternatives which need
to be undertaken by the Federal Government...For example,the rail cars are covered by the Department of
11/19/2012 C-139
Page 3 of4
Transportation ..If I owned a truck and drove it across state lines,I would have to maintain insurance ...What's
the deal with the rail cars ..What is the protocol concerning their loading and transport?Do we know?Federal
requirements with respect to adequate insurance requirements can and should be imposed ...Same with Port
operations (another reason to bring Rancho within the Port's jurisdiction).....Assuming we are confronted with
a lack of adequate insurance (which should be in the $1.5 Billion to $3 Billion category),then,like with National
Flood Insurance,National Deposit Insurance,National Crop Insurance (all 'loss socialization policies undertaken
in our 'free market'capitalist system ...needed to shore up the weak spots which exist in any economic system ..
. .just like anti-trust laws which bar monopolies (capitalism's excess because concentrated economic power is as
bad (and contrary to our core 'individual social values')as concentrated political power...)...the Federal
Government can collect a fee from national port operations and create a pool of funds to provide the requisite
insurance coverage ...for the benefit of the nation as a whole (again,like Flood,Deposit,or Crop insurance)....
As part of that insurance coverage,the Federal government could require the kind of strict controls needed (which
would include an indemnity from Rancho)thus offering the community the kind of protections needed .....If
Rancho cannot meet the requirements,it would have to downsize or cease operations ....Again,this is would
be consistent with the Port's policy of removing the kind of risk posed by Rancho's operations (the storage of
huge,concentrated amounts of clearly hazardous liquid gas -butane).
An aggressive push on these five core areas (which are overlapping but not necessarily duplicative)would
work to draw out these issues ....Rancho was quite clear in its presentation to the RPV City Council that it has
insurance and that it would provide that insurance to RPV's City Attorney ....Neither our LA City Council,nor our
LA City Attorney,or our Mayor,nor our City Controller (Who can commission a study of the cost to the City of
having to respond to an accident..LA County can do the same thing ....)has demonstrated anything
approaching the kind of leadership and competence required in this circumstance ...There's been a lot of
pandering ..a lot of pretense ...a lot of deflection .....but nothing in the way of a concrete course of action,
measurable by some clear metrics....So again,RPV City Council,please make sure Rancho follOWS-Up on its
promise (a 'marker'of Rancho's ability to follow-through on its promises).
Which is why I again want to express my appreciation to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council...who,I hope,
will continue to provide a the energy and boost needed to move this discussion forward to the point of concrete
action ....which I suggest take the form of a committed effort to lead a coalition of the surrounding Cities to insist
that Rancho be made to be more accountable as indicated above ..via insurance ..via the passage of a prudent
'risk management'ordinance (akin to the Contra Costa Ordinance)..via more aggressive congressional oversight
of this issue...via more aggressive oversight by the County of Los Angeles (who can also pass a risk
management ordinance....via more aggressive action by the Port (such as cancelling the rail spur permit
(again,something the Port can do under the terms of the permit,and do so 'at will'(without excuse)and without
legal liability...as perthe attached Port Community Advisory Committee Report dated January 10,2012 ...
something all of the surrounding Cities can and should support..so the issue can be meaningfully taken up by
the LA City Council and re-visited by the Board of Harbor Commissioners)..
Noel
(310)822-0239
From:Janet Gunter
Sent:Tuesday,November 06,20129:53 AM
To:connie@rutter.us ;det31O@luno.com ;mrenvirlaw@sbcglobal.net;jody.james@sbcglobal.net;
chateau4us@gtt.net;noelweiss@ca.rr.com ;susan.brooks@rpv.com;brian.campbell@rpv.com ;
·im.kn ;jerry.duhovic@rpv.com ;anthony.misetich@rpv.com ;kitf@rpv.com ;igornla@cox.net ;
dw k m ;stanley.mosler@cox.net ;burlingl02@aol.com;marciesmiHer@sbcglobal.net ;
pmwarren@cox.net;roamerbill@yahoo.com ;carriescoviHe@yahoo.com ;john@nrcwater.com ;
bon .net ;ca ca.brazema ;fivegrants@msn.com ;grgrysmth@aol.com
Cc:slc.ca.ov;michael davies fei enate.ov ;michael.picker@gov.ca.gov ;
sally.magnanidag@doj.ca.gov ;.ov ;gandrizzi@ceo.lacountv.gov ;
jcynthiaperry@aol.com ;laura.richardsonmc mail.house.ov;lawanda.reynolds@mail.house.gov ;
mandm8602@att.net ;dlrivera@prodigy.net ;guiHermoviliagran@sbcglobal.net ;nikitennant@asm.ca.gov
Subject:Official notice:PLAINS WILL NOT BUILD CRUDE TERMINAL ON PIER 400!!!(paragraph 1)
http://www.noodls.comlviewNoodl/16487439/plains-all-american-pipeline-lp/plains-all-american-pipeline-Ip-
reports-third-guarter-201
11/19/2012 C-140
Page 4 of4
This is great news on the issue of the hazardous tanks at Rancho and its future.But,we have seen an effort
lately to include the "Plains"owned Rancho LPG facility within the boundaries of the Port of LA as a means to
gain control over the facility.Call me cynical...but,I believe that this is an effort to find a means for Plains to
recoup some of their investment in Rancho through the buyout of the company "in the name of safety for our
community".All of this could come through the benevolence of public trust money from the port.I would venture
to guess that there has been a substantial amount of money crossing hands during this political election time in
an attempt to realize this goal.While we understand that this opportunity could,in fact,have some effectiveness ..
our homeowners have been skeptical at the very least and have no trust whatsoever in any integrity coming from
the Port of LA.What this boils down to is simply that this Fortune 500 company,Plains All American Pipeline,
made a bad business decision.They gambled on the restoration of a LPG pipeline to their future new crude oil
terminal with the anticipation of a greatly increased profitability in transporting the commodity once again by sea.
don't believe that the public should be interested in paying for that bad decision.I believe that this facility should
be exposed for the real hazard that it represents BEFORE the disaster strikes ...and that the government &its
political leadership should finally step up to remove this known threat immediately at "no further cost"to the long
and wrongly jeopardized public.
Janet G
11/19/2012 C-141
Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council
January 10,2012
Port Community Advisory Committee Report
There was no PCAC meeting in December.The following motion was approved at the November PCAC
meeting:
Motion on Rancho LPG Facility
Whereas,the PCAC has preViously urged the City and the Port to relocate the AmerigaS/Rancho Liquid
Propane Gas (LPG)facility in San Pedro;and
Whereas,the Facility is served by rail tank cars,truck tank cars,and pipeline and stores and distributes
liqUid propane,butane and other commodities;and
Whereas,substantial numbers of people in the Harnor area are concerned about the risk of hazard due to
the facility's aging infrastructure,possibility of earthquake or natural disaster due to its location in an
identified seismically active area and adjacent tsunami zone,and a potential target for terrorism in a port
city acknowledged as a likely target site;and
Whereas,the facility has from time to time changed its business operations,and there is concern by
many people that there has been inadequate environmental and risk analyses of those changes;and
Whereas,over time,the Los Angeles Harbor Department has become increasingly involved in the
operations conducted at the Facility,such as by assisting in the transport of productr jLthrou h th
:.~..Q~a.J}~$.Jjp~-r,JQ.S!yw)}j>APJ?Aj.~j.OO.@ ..wtf..~...l-:.ax»».!;.v/S!....•••••......~...,•..••'.'~'.'.'.'"'.
,,;:!niRcommOOltJespufS({ant to f{evo~permtrN~0.J}~...~.......?ii.i'::/~}reasonable inquiry into the rail movem3r11'fff6W'"tlrifar&e1 su~~::ttie permit;ahd
-;;-/i"Whereas,rail ta~~cars containing unknown products fr9lf:tmfi'er manufacturers and sou~.""..than··\.
the Rancho FaCIlity also traverse and are stored on tt:~j(s owned by thEtP()rtllndthe ..~nd:3r:~~4Y:fJR.$J./•.%.mr.fililil ..::i
Whereas,truck tank vehicles containing unknown p~ucts from sources other than the Rancho FagU!:~::{)::
also travel through our communities,and because t~l.do not originate from Portterrni.IJ.!i'J.!J':Jl~i:J.iJf::::::::::
SUbject to,for example,the Wilmington truck route pl~£.&giW!:@:;::::·:·:···
Whereas,among the data that is available and should be provided to the Port and the community about
the rail tank cars and truck tank vehicles is inform ~$)!'.JP)Wn&AV:Jl!ltity,storage elsewhere in the
Port while awaiting further transport,product ide ifCfifeni;//Frfif-oe'iirtment and Hazmst
notification proCfJdures,etc.;
<?-.w;':{fP.1~/#Ji£#~7-i'::~~YX
NOW THEREFORE,be it resolved that the PCAC rec~mmends that the Board of Harbor Commissioners ..::'
..."'..':-:.'direct the Port of LA to revoke Permit No.10-05 and work with the community and Ji•.P a .i ./
.."..Risk Management Plan for the API Storage Tanks,ASME pressure vessels and rairaai'i(i:IJ~it.'writ',
.,::::;;~_>accordance ~ith~9SfDJj.,;;~.s...well ~s the transport of product to and from the facility by';:::;'::#~::::·:·:··'\r ta?J&.Jj@{JrD';I!,Jj:!~~,and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.that the PCAC recommends that the Board of Harbor Commissioners
direct staff to work with the community and affected tenants and others to perform a riSk analysis of
transport of products to and through the Port and nearny communities by pipeline,by rail tank car and by
truck tank vehicles;and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Board establish a working group of persons to assist in examining
the risks associated with the operation of the facility and transport of products by rail and truck,including
representatives of the Los Angeles Fire Department,United States Geological ServIce,Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA),university research community,local organizations and the PCAC.
Page 1
C-142
Page 1 of 1
Kit Fox
From:Councilwoman Susan Brooks [subrooks08@gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday,November 15,2012 1:09 PM
To:Cat Spydell
Cc:Kit Fox;Carolyn Lehr
Subject:Re:Information regarding butane tanks in San Pedro
On Thu,Nov 8,2012 at 10:09 AM,Cat Spydell <catspydell@gmail.com>wrote:
Dear Councilwoman Brooks,
I have attached the enclosed letter regarding some information about a potential expert to help
in the ongoing research and quest for safety re:the butane tanks in San Pedro.Please don't
hesitate to contact me if you have questions.
Thank you,
Cat Spydell
Than.l'$for your email,Cat.I do remember meeting you at the RHE Traffic Meeting and yes,I
am interested in speaking or meeting with Mr.Ta1'1'.As we compile information,the potential
for further 'leaks'or damaging scenarios prevails.Let'try to set up an appointment in early
DecembeLWeekday mornings are good for me.
Enjoy your Thanksgiving.
Susan
Susan Brooks,Councilwoman
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA
11/19/2012 C-143
Page 1 of2
Kit Fox
From:Cat Spydell [catspydell@gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday,November 15,2012 4:24 PM
To:Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>
Cc:Kit Fox;Carolyn Lehr
Subject:Re:Information regarding butane tanks in San Pedro
Thanks for getting back to me,
I will talk to Jim Tarr and get a couple of potential dates from him and I will get back to you,I
am sure he can arrange a morning the first week of December.Thanks for your time!I appreciate
your caring about this issue.
Cat
On Thu,Nov 15,2012 at 1:09 PM,Councilwoman Susan Brooks <subrooks08@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu,Nov 8,2012 at 10:09 AM,Cat Spydell <catspydell@gmail.com>wrote:
Dear Councilwoman Brooks,
I have attached the enclosed letter regarding some information about a potential expert to
help in the ongoing research and quest for safety re:the butane tanks in San Pedro.Please
don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions.
Thank you,
Cat Spydell
Thanks for your email,Cat.I do remember meeting you at the RHE Traffic Meeting and
yes,I am interested in speaking or meeting with Mr.TaIT.As we compile information,the
potential for further 'leaks'or damaging scenarios prevails.Let'try to set up an appointment
in early December.Weekday mornings are good for me.
Enjoy your Thanksgiving.
Susan
Susan Brooks,Councilwoman
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA
11/19/2012 C-144
Page 2 of2
Cat Spydell's novel The Time Traveler's Apprentice at Hollywood High
is available now on Amazon!'
Find out about Cat's upcoming fantasy novel on Facebook:https://www.facebook.comJpages/The-
Fairies-of-Feyllan/16543 9070245078
11/19/2012 C-145
Page 1 of2
Kit Fox
From:Janet Gunter [arriane5@aol.com]
Sent:Friday,November 16,2012 11 :51 AM
To:Kit Fox
Subject:LA Council Motion on Rancho ....Kit...pls distribute...sorry,didn't know that I should be doing this all
along!
Title
Liquid Bulk Storage (LBS)/Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG)Facilities /Rancho LPG Facility /Insurance
Requirements /Operators Liability Coverage
Date Received I Introduced
11/13/2012
Last Change'Date
11/13/2012
Expiration Date
11/13/2014
Council District
15
Pending in Committee
Trade,Commerce and Tourism Committee
Mover
JOE BUSCAINO
Second
DENNIS ZINE
DateActivity 11/13/2012Motion referred to Trade,Commerce and Tourism Committee.
NOV
132012
MOTION
Residents and neighbors surrounding the Rancho LPG facility located in San Pedro have
expressed various concerns regarding the safety and legaHty of this facility.This particular liquid
bulk tank facility was built in 1973,and is located on private property outside the Port of Los
Angeles.-includes two 12.5 million gallon refrigerated tanks containing butane,a liquefied
petroleum gas which is a by-product of the refining process.Within the past decade,there have
been various city reviews ofthe storage facility,dating back to 2004,and have involved the
Planning Department,City Attorney,Harbor Department,Fire Department,the City
Administrative Office (CAO)as well as the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA).
Aside from the Rancho LPG facility in San Pedro,there are a variety of other liquid bulk
storage facilities both above ard below ground in the Harbor area,which have also raised
concerns among nearby residents.It is imperative that the City ensure that any potential threats
are thoroughly explored and mitigated.
Residents have expressed interest in knowing what existing City,County,State,and or
Federal safety regulations and Jaws are in place to ensure that LPG an:!LBS facilities are being
monitored,what safety standards are in place that must be followed,and if there is any room for
improvement on existing laws and regulations.In particular,they are interested to know if there
are any existing requirements,by City,County,State,or Federal statute,that specify the amount
of liability coverage the owner/operator of a LBSILPG facility must carry to be in compliance with
the law.
I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Attorney be instructed to report on existing City,
County,State,and Federal laws and regulations concerning insurance requirements of LPG and
LBS facilities,and report on the required liability coverage that operators of said facilities rrust
carry to remain in com pliance and stay in operation.
I FURTHER MOVE that the City Attorney report on any suggestions,based on their
findings,of ways to improve City laws on liability coverage requirements for LBS/LPG facilities,
as well as any recommended change to County,State,and Federal laws and regulations that
11/19/2012 C-146
the City would consider lobbying to Ihat respeclive level of governm61t.0,
Presented By ---
-BUSCAINO
COUl1cilrnembei\51strict
Seconded By.\,A I,
NOV 1 32012
11/19/2012
Page 2 of2
C-147
Page 1 of5
Kit Fox
From:Janet Gunter [arriane5@aol.com]
Sent:Tuesday,November 20,2012 9:24 AM
To:Kit Fox
Subject:Fwd:CityWatch 1093 for Tuesday,November 20,2012
Pis distribute to everyone Kit.Thanks!
Paul Rosenberg's article on Rancho made City Watch
-----Original Message-----
From:CityWatch <newsletter@citywatchla.com>
To:arriane5 <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent:Mon,Nov 19,20129:47 pm
Subject:CityWatch 1093 for Tuesday,November 20,2012
our browser.
Here is thelatestCityWatch brief for Tuesday,November 20,
2012
Is this email not displaying
corr
STILL GOLD
California:The Land of Milk and Honey Once More
11/20/2012 C-148
Page 2 of5
Robert Scheer
November 19,2012
THE GOLDEN STATE AS A BELLWETHER -What's the matter with California?It is a question
once asked about Kansas when that state came to be viewed as a harbinger of a more
conservative America.But now the trend is quite opposite,the right wing is in retreat and the
Golden State is the progressive bellwether.How is it that the state that incubated the
presidencies of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan is now so deep blue Democrat that Mitt
Romney hardly bothered to campaign there?Why did voters,including huge majorities in the
state's two wealthiest counties,approve a tax on high-income earners to increase funding for
public education?The answer is that the shifting demographics of California,forerunners of an
inevitable national trend,are producing an American electoral majority that is more culturally
sophisticated,socially tolerant and supportive of a robust public sector than can be
accommopated by the simplistic naysayers who now dominate the Republican Party.Read
More."
David Petraeus:A Phony Hero for a Phony War
Lucian K.Truscott IV
Nov 19,2012
GUEST WORDS -FASTIDIOUSNESS is never a good sign in a general
officer.Though strutting military peacocks go back to Alexander's time,our
first was MacArthur,who seemed at times to care more about how much
gold braid decorated the brim of his cap than he did about how many bodies he left on
beachheads across the Pacific.Next came Westmoreland,with his starched fatigues in Vietnam.
In our time,Gen.David H.Petraeus has set the bar high.Never has so much beribboned finery
decorated a general's uniform since AI Haig passed through the sally ports of West Point on his
way to the White House.Read More ...
City Hall's Values:Screwing the Next
Generations of Angelenos
Jack Humphreville
Nov 19,2012
LA WATCHDOG -"The budget reflects our values."This statement was
made by Council Member Paul Krekorian,the Chair of the City Council's
powerful Budget and Finance Committee,to over 100 budget representatives of the City's
11/20/2012 C-149
Page 3 of5
Neighborhood Councils who gathered at City Hall for the Mayor's Community Budget Day on
Saturday morning.Read More ...
LA's 9th District Race:Lackluster Hodge-Podge
Janet Denise Kelly
Nov 19,2012
URBAN PERSPECTIVE -Now that the Presidential elections are over,the
Los Angeles Council District 9 is back in focus.The 9th's competitive race is
remarkably one of the best lackluster hodge-podge races the 9th is going to
see in some time.The salad bowl mix of progressives,grassroots,conservatives,men,women,
African Americans,Latinos,and Asian are akin to the open monologue of the former Arsenio Hall
Show where you think of things that make you go "hmmm".Read More ...
.fuJrprise Move:Plains Pulls Out of Pier 400,
Energizes Anti-Rancho Activists
Paul Rosenberg
Nov 19,2012
RANDOM LENGTHS -In a surprise announcement folded into their third-
quarter earnings report,Plains All American Pipeline revealed that they have
abandoned their plans for a fuel terminal on Pier 400.The announcement came after years of
planning,a prolonged environmental impact report process and intensive lobbying of local public
opinion.Read More ...
Good Density or Bad Density,That is the
Question
Dick Platkin
Nov 19,2012
WILSHIRE CORRIDOR,HOLLYWOOD UPDATE -The Update of the
Hollywood Community Plan has been challenged by three lawsuits.As this
litigation slowly works its way through the court system,the debate about increasing planned and
11/20/2012 C-150
Page 4 of5
zoned density has not quieted down.Let us therefore revisit that debate as it applies to two Los
Angeles neighborhoods with mass transit,Hollywood and the Wilshire Boulevard Corridor.Read
More ...
Requiem for the Twinkie
Mary Elizabeth Williams
Nov 19,2012
JUST SAYIN'-Here's that abyss of chaos and destruction the Mayans
warned us about,America.In a stunning bombshell,Hostess Brands
announced Friday it was shuttering operations in its 33 plants and liquidating
its wares.Chief executive Gregory Rayburn declared Hostess would be "promptly"laying off its
18,500 employees and "selling its assets to the highest bidders."Read More ...
Justin Bieber and Other Thankgiving Blessings
Will Durst
Nov 19,2012
RAGING MODERATE -Seriously?Both political parties talking pre-emptive
smack barely a week after the election.Partisan politics?Again?So soon?
Not even time to catch our breath?For crum's sakes,give it a rest,you
guys.Besides,shouldn't you be out on recess?After all,it's Thanksgiving.Yes.Already.The
earliest Thanksgiving possible.That's what happens when November first is on a Thursday.
Merchants are dancing the happy dance.Shoppers too.Retail workers,not so much.Black
Friday Creep seems destined to devour Halloween.Read More ...
Plus,these CityWatch stories ...
The Strangest Take on the "Fiscal Cliff'You'll Ever Read
Ken Alpern
11/20/2012 C-151
The Email Security Tricks Petraeus Missed
Ryan Gallagher
Full Time Work Disappearing in California
Michael Bernick
Thanksgiving Pet Alert
Brenda Barnette
Enid,We Have a Problem
John MacMurray
American Socialist Education:Mission Accomplished
Lisa Cerda
Page 5 of5
11/20/2012 C-152
Surprise Move:Plains Pulls Out of Pier 400,Energizes Anti-Rancho Activists
Surprise Move:Plains Pulls Out of Pier 400,
Energizes Anti-Rancho Activists
Paul Rosenberg 20 Nov 2012
Page 1 of4
Font Size 1111.
RANDOM LENGTHS -In a surprise announcement folded into their
·)f third-quarter earnings report,Plains All American Pipeline revealed
that they have abandoned their plans for a fuel terminal on Pier
/,400.
;::;
I The announcement came after years of planning,a prolonged
@ environmental impact report process and intensive lobbying of local
pUblic opinion.
Roy I.Lamoreaux,director of investor relations,cited that the cost of
abandoning the project made up the bulk of "noncash impairment
charges totaling $125 million,"in a conference call discussion of the
report.
Sources said that the Port of Los Angeles was informed just a few days before Plains went public.It's
assumed that Plains scrapped its plans for lack of a partner to replace Valero,who dropped out of their
original agreement,though nothing that specific was mentioned in their public discussion.
The surprise announcement stirred speculation among activists trying to get the Plains-owned Rancho San
Pedro LPG facility closed or relocated,but port officials have previously denied any connection between
the two.Whether or not they know everything Plains has had in mind,several developments since our
most recent report on the subject further erode Plains'legitimacy.
First,a still poorly-understood leak occurred at the Rancho facility on Oct.17.
"We got 37 complaints,including four schools,"said Air Quality Management District spokesman Sam
Atwood.
Complaints came from Torrance to Wilmington,San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes.
"Our inspectors did isolate it to Rancho holdings and issued a public nuisance violation,"he added.
Atwood did not expect further details to be released until after a settlement had been reached with Rancho,
as it usually happens with such violations.The uncertainty shrouding the incident is indicative of the larger
problem Rancho posses,community activists claim.
Second,at an Oct.16 city council meeting,Rancho Palos Verdes decided to become more actively
involved,though stopping short of taking a lead role in legal or regulatory actions.Plains did not acquit
http://citywatchla.com/lead-stories-hidden!4084-surprise-move-plains-pulls-out-of-pier-4...11/20/2012
C-153
Surprise Move:Plains Pulls Out of Pier 400,Energizes Anti-Rancho Activists Page 2 of4
itself well at this meeting,where they repeated their past pattern of presenting confused and misleading
testimony.
Councilwoman Susan Brooks,got a taste of Plains unnecessary obfuscation when she asked if Rancho
had insurance that would cover damage to the community-"Iives,property,homes."
Rancho representative Ron Conrow replied,"it's a cascading,it's kinda pyramid type insurance and it's
multi-tiered."Then he read from a prepared statement that Rancho was insured through Plains with
"insurance that covers its entire asset footprint"-meaning Rancho's own property,not damage to the
community.
A simple "no"would have sufficed.
Third,retired industry consultant Connie Rutter has gotten to the bottom of a key public safety dispute-
the reason for Rancho's unrealistically optimistic claim that a worst-case explosion would only affect a half-
mile radius (0.8 square miles),rather than the 3-mile radius (28 square miles)that Rutter has calculated.
This vast discrepancy turns out to be the product of prolonged and intensive industry opposition to
Environmental Protection Agency rule-making,which ultimately produced an industry-friendly regulatory
standard-the EPA's "offset consequence analysis"-that bears no relationship to the laws of physics.
Fourth,on Aug.29,former EPA Chief Christine Todd Whitman wrote a New York Times op-ed,"The
Chemical Threat to America,"addressing the broader context of regulatory failure that Rutter's research
documents,calling attention to the public safety threats involved.He pointed out that,"Hundreds of
chemical plants and other facilities maintain large stockpiles of dangerous substances and are in or near
major American cities like New York,Los Angeles and Chicago."
Fifth,with months more of inaction,it now seems clear that Rancho's earlier announcement of a safety
drill,originally supposed to take place in April,was nothing more than public relations ruse,intended to
deflect public scrutiny.
Of all these developments,Rutter's research into the origins of the half-mile radius estimate arguably cuts
the deepest,as it shows how special interest political gamesmanship on the macro level of American
politics dovetails with the micro-level gamesmanship that got the deeply-flawed facility built In the first
place,which Los Angeles Times reporter Larry Prior first uncovered back in 1977.
"It really all started with the Bhopal disaster"in 1984,Rutter told Random Lengths.
Congress generally finds it easier to pass new regulatory laws by amending existing laws as they come up
for refunding or re-authorization,and this process figured into this story twice,Rutter explained.First was
the 1986 Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act,via a section called the Emergency Procedures and
Community Right To Know Act.
"The first go-round all they talked about was toxics,"Rutter said."And their whole purpose in doing that-
the community right to know-was to bring pressure on entities to bring the risk down,to reduce the risks."
http://citywatchla.com/lead-stories-hidden/4084-surprise-move-plains-pulls-out-of-pier-4...11/20/2012
C-154
Surprise Move:Plains Pulls Out of Pier 400,Energizes Anti-Rancho Activists Page 3 of4
The second go-round came with with the 1990 re-authorization of the Clean Air Act,when flammables were
covered as well,but it took six long years for the EPA to generate rules enforcing the new law-and three
more years for those rules to become final.
"The first go-round they told them how to calculate their effect.Then they got sued.This was the [initial]
EPA regulations that came out of the Clean Air Act,"Rutter said."They were sued by the API [American
Petroleum Institute],they were also sued by some other entities.All the suits had to do with 'Don't finger
us!Point some place else!'"
"In May of '99,the EPA came out with their final rule,"Rutter continued,"in which they had settled with the
API,and essentially said-this is my description-It doesn't really matter how you calculate.
You can either do the calculation which I did,which gives you three miles,which was in their [EPA's]
guidance,which came out in April of '99-so this is all last-minute stuff-you can either use that guidance,
or you can do air modeling.And if you do air modeling then you-if you've got an impound basin,you can
calculate how much would be released within 10 minutes.'"
In short,the model that Rancho is using is one that the industry as a whole was happy to accept in
dropping its lawsuit.It has nothing to do with the laws of physics-particularly since LPGs vaporize quickly
at normal temperatures,rapidly expanding beyond the bounds of a basin which might make sense for a
stable liquid compound."It's not very realistic,"Rutter said of such scenarios.
For example,in his testimony before the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,another Rancho
representative,Dan Kelly,said,"If you had a release you would have some vaporization and eventually
that vapor cloud when it got to the proper concentration of air and gas and an ignition source would ignite
and it would flash or blast and then you would have a fire that would go back to the impound basin or the
pool [interruption]you would have a pool fire at our facility.And it would [pause]the vapors would no
longer leave the facility they would burn before they left the facility."
"For Dan to imply that the vapors won't leave the site before or after they're ignited is bogus, since,of
course,they will,"Rutter said,when asked to comment."They'll burn there of course,but they'll also burn
off-site."
The EPA standard has another problem,Rutter pointed out,"It's essentially unenforceable.If the EPA is
not going to tell you exactly what model to use or what formula to use,then any number you tell them is
OK."
Things have gotten even worse,Rutter added,given how the threat of a terrorist attack has been used to
try to beat back the public's right to know.At the same time that government has dragged its heels in
protecting communities from that very threat,as Todd Whitman pointed out in her editorial.
This is why Rancho San Pedro is not "merely"a local problem,but a manifestation of failed national
environmental protection law.This is why local activists hoped that our new congressional
representatives-including Maxine Waters,whose district now comes close to the Ranch facility-will treat
this problem with the seriousness it deserves.
http://citywatchla.com/lead-stories-hiddeni4084-surprise-move-plains-pulls-out-of-pier-4...11/20/2012
C-155
Surprise Move:Plains Pulls Out of Pier 400,Energizes Anti-Rancho Activists Page 4 of4
"In the face of Katrina,in the face of San Bruno,in the face of what's happening on the East Coast [after
Hurricane Sandy]...all this stuff everybody has known,"homeowner activist Janet Gunter shakes her head.
"Everybody keeps turning the other way,because it's far more difficult to deal with these realities than it is
to ignore them."
(Paul Rosenberg is Senior Editor at Random Length News and an occasional contributor to CityWatch.)
-cw
CityWatch .
Vol 10 Issue 93
Pub:Nov 20,2012
Tags:
http://citywatchla.com/lead-stories-hidden/4084-surprise-move-plains-pulls-out-of-pier-4...11/20/2012
C-156
LADOT memorandum regarding traffic study for
Marymount College San Pedro Campus
C-157
Fax:2139784656 Oct 9 2012 11:46
J,
j,
P.01
DATE:
,
,ij..~.
;1
~!.
"ii
"..~
,CITY OF LOS'ANG!:f-ES
.'INTER-DEPARTMENTAi::MEMpRANDUM ' ,
,i'
I 1600'Palos Verdes D'r North
DOT CaSe No.HRB 11-008
july 24.2012
TO:
FROM:..
Karen Hoo,City P,la~ner Ii
Department of City Planning , '~
Moh~~~h.n.T~.po~':ll1o~Enginc!e,r
Department of Transpo~tion,"
,'
SUBJECT:..Tra~c ass~,ent for.th~,~rop()~e~MI..ymoiint Col~ege S~n Pedro
.C~mpus prC?Ject at 1600 ~~Io.s .y~rd~Drive NQrth [Departm~nt of
":..._.''':.:,.......,·City.:P.Jat)i1inU':,~ase'·No.E"'t(~2011·.2i8-..:A1;1 .....,.......,.....
• •,p ,
,Tn~Dep'artm~~t of Tran$p~rtatlon'(DOr)h~s com'PI~ted th~trdlC a~essment of the
.Pfoposed·Marymount CQllege san Pedro.Campus P~ojed at 1600 Palos Verdes Olive
.North.TI:1is t~fflc ~sseSsment is bas~.d on 'a traffi~:i~pact assessment prepar~d by',
KOA Corporation.received by DOT on May'18,20.1 with subsequent revisions through
J'uly 2012.After a careful review of the.pertinenfd,a','bOT .Ii~s determined'that the
,traffi.c study ad"equately describes the p~oje¢t':'terate ImpaCts'of the proposed
deve,lopme'nt.'Please n~te that while the project ~ite i~"!Iithin the Jurlsdic,tion of the C,ity'.
,of Los Angele.5,the traffic study also evaluates 'pote 'tial traffit Impacts associated with
~e ps:ojc::.C?t'~t study int~r~ons in the cltles ofRdlli 9 Hlils Estates,'Lomita,anc!."
R/iJJicho Pal9S:Verdes (RPV),'as well as.interse~ons l,mder the jurisdictions of-tHe '
......Galifornia·DepliliiAuint·of'rra'nsportatiollJ {Caltrans):'J,/...'..,....,pro~ect DeScri~on ';"Ji'",,
,The P~ee\~eurrenflv hils ,~6 dwallirig unlls that ,IVa asOff~'hOUSing for
stu~ents lJ1atric~l~tin9 at the MiiJrymount Colle~"Campus.The project proposes
to cot:\sfrucf a'priv8t~,,~nd~i'graa~~te and graduat~campus,which at build MwouIdaCCQmmoda~1,500 students;800 of whom wo~ld 'b~residents'living on~mpus,and
house eight (8)f~culty members (apt;1rtments).'The project proposes.the construction
and/or renovation Of;3'student union/dining'hall,classrooms,stUdios,laboratories,
,faculty/staff offices ,.residence halls,and maintenanc~facility.Con~tructi'on of the
proposed project would be implemented through,fiveiphases (Phases I through V),and
.1s anticipate~to,b~Co~pleted:and ~Cr?upied by th~~I ~r ..2032..A summary descript!on
for'eaCh phase of the pr.oject.ls presented in Atfach'entA..
.Discussion and Findings
The project is expected to cre~te a net increase ~f ~~'16 dai~~ips.a n~t increase of
156 a.m.peak·Mur trips and a net increase of 292 Piim.peak hour trips.The trip
"..~.
"11
j,'
:1
C-158
Fax:2139784656 Oct 9 2012 11:46 P.02
j
:;
I
~
Karen 'Hoc ,2 ~July 24,2012
ff
!I
'gEnte'ration estim~tes are based on rates a.nd forniul4s puolished by the Institlite of
Transportation Engineers (lTE)Trip ~eneratio~,8!h Fdltlon,2008,an~sUlVey data
condi,lcted at the existing Marymount College RPV ampl.!s.The attached table,
At~~llm~nt B,list~the,t~ip g~:merati~f1.re~~lts:, '
DOT has determined that completion of the propose project through Phase I will not
result in 'significant impacts at any of the 17 interse ems studied.However,DOT has
determined that the completion of Phase II through of the proposed project will result
in a significant Impact at six «(3)of 17 sfudy intersect!ns,ofwhi'ch three (3)intersections
are located in the City of Los Angeles,as shown in t e,summary of'iolume-to-capacIty
N/C)ratios and levels of service (LOS)for the stud Intersections (Attachment C).'
The project study report has identified feasible impr ements that would mitigate the
,.trqffic 'impact at all of these intersections to'a,I~ss th:Ii s:ignifica'nt le~eL.'
,1",An?lheim &tre~t,,Gaffey,Street,,F'al~s yerdes 'rive N~~h ~nd Ve~ont Avenue
(Phase IV)
2.Anaheim Street and Figueroa Place (Phase II
'3,'Anaheim'Streehnd'Figueroa Street (Phase C " ,
111 addition,pursuant to the analysis methodology of he cities 'of Rolling Hills Estates,
"LomIta,and Rancho Palos Verdes,as wei'as Caltr s,the'development qf the project
,and cumulative future projects is anticipated to resull in significant il'l')pacts at three (3)
inter~ections locate~within the respective Jurlsdiotio'I s.,The,project stu~y'report has
id~ntlfied feasible physical improvements that would mitigate the traffic impact at these
,locati~ns to.a less than significant level.'
1.'Palos Verdes Drive East an~Palos Verd~s'D 've,North (Phase 11,City of Rolling
Hills Estates),
2.Palos Verdes Driv:e North and Western Aven'e (Phase 1.1,City of Lomita!
Caltrans)
3.Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East Phase II,City of Rancho Palos
Verdes),.',i·,, , ':::::::::n~.of fue tra~c study,DOT L~~nd~thai fue fofl~ng .
project requirements be adopted as conditions of pr0ject appro.va,.Furtherrriore.these'r~uireme!1ts r:nU5~!;)e cqmpl~ted and/or guaraflt~eq[prior to the issuance of any
building permits for the proposed project.. , ' .
A.Application Fee ',.
The applicant must pay an application/ravie Ifee based on tne size and nature of
the project.'The application/traffic study revil'w fee of $10,196.00 was submitted'
fully-on May 18;2012.','..,
,'j
~
~
'II:I!.I,
.Ii
C-159
Fax:2139784656 Oct 9 2012 11:47 P.03
July 24,2012,3
,
"l~
1Ii,
~,i
II
il
Highway Dedication and Physical,Street 'lrd,pr6vements '
In'order to mitigate projected traffic impacts'td a less'than significant level,the
appliGant is required to make the following'im:,iuve,ments:
~.
Karen Hoo
,"
Palos'Verdes Drive North an President A en'ue (Phase III)
Design and install a new traffic'signal.Prior t~commencing the design work,the
applicant shall work with DOT's So~thern Dis ict'Office to seek the final approval
of the traffic signal warrants authorizing the in tallation of the traffic signal.The
developer will be responsible for all costs ass ciated with the design and
construction of the new traffic signal and con'ection to ATSAC and ATCS
Systems.
nahei Steet Gaft1 Stree'Pal'oS Verdes Drive North and Vennont
.'Avenue (Phase IV)
Widen the south side of Anaheim Street west of Vermont Avenue and re-stripe
the eastbound approach to provide a right-tu only lana.the resulting lane
configuration for the eastbound approach sh I be one left-turn lane,one throug~
IiUle,one shared through/right-tum lane and ne right.,.turn only lane.Also,an
advanced lane designation signage for eastb r und Ana~elm Street shall be
designed and Instiilled Per DOT Design Stan erds',"
Anaheim Street and Figueroa Place (Phas II)
Modify the traffic signafto provide a Iieweas ouild left~turn signal phase.In ',
addition,modify the'traffic signal to provide,a rew ~outhbound righHurn signal
phase with (oop detectors on Figueroa,Place'hat will overlap with both the
eas~ound left-t4"1 and throug~sufficien~ly I~9 en,o~gh,'to accommodate the
so~thbound right-tum v~lumes." ,
Anaheim Street arid,Figueroa Street (Ph a IV)
Widen the north side of Anaheim Street e~st,f Figueroa Street to provide a right-
tum-only lane for westbound approach.The 'siilting'la'ne configuration for the
westbound approac~shall be one left-tum I,a I e,two through lanes,and one right.:.
turn-only lana.,'
In addition to the above stated'improvement.I'and In order to mitigate potential
a~ces~arId pirculation ,impa~,t~e ~pp!ic~,nt.ay ~~!eguir~d t~m~k~highway
dedications and improvements.The appliea Tshall consultthe Bureau of
Engineering (BOE)'for any additional hlghw2 dedication or street 'widening
requ,irements.'
C.Project Improvements lmplemen~ti,on,,:,,
All improvements mus,t,be 9uarant~~d befon:,!issu~nce ~f any bUilding permit,
through the BOE's S-Permit process,at th,e r spective development phase the
, 'imp'~c:t is friggeraQ.S,~o,u[p l;tnY..imp~~)Vemen~IJO~fSC9!Ve the requif~d approv~l,,
,be deemed infeasibl~at the time of reCQnCili1on,or is guaranteed/built by
another project prior to time of reconcili~tion,he City may substitute an
, , I
I
!l
i
;1
i:II
,~,:ii'
C-160
Fax:2139784656 Oct 9 2012 11:47 P.04
J~IY 24,20'12
j
"'I~
,"~i
,''"'1
II
aiternative measl!rB of equivalent effeCtivenesf 'and 'cost including both physical''",,
streeVslgnal improvements and incentive-ba~id environmental transpprtation
mitigations.Prior to setting the bond amount,OE shall require that the
developer's engineer or contractor contact"D's B-Permit Coordinatqf at
(213)928-9691.to arrange a pre-design meeting to finalize the proposed design
"needed for the project." ,
Karen 'Hoo
D.Significant Impacts in other Jurisdictions
The follOWing significant impacts were found ,'rsuant to the respective
j,~ri~dic~ion:s at:talysis methodology.Hence,t ese significant impacts and their
ri:?spective improvement me~su're~,arEi prese .."as'information only.:DOT has
no authority to approve or disapprove these :easures.Final approva]tests with
the approp'riate jurisdictional'authorn:y.',
Palos Verdes Dr'East &Palos Verdes D'Ive North (Phase II,City of
ROiling HiI\s Estates), ""'", " ,",.J,: '
Re--strlpe,th~,westbound appr~a~h on Palos erdes Drive North to install a
second left-turn lane.The resulting lane'con uration for the westbound
appr~ach shall be two left-turn lanes,two th~gh lanes "and one shared right-
tum lane.Final review 'and approval by City ,Rollfng Hills Estates shall be
req'Uired'for this i!'Y'prov~ment.,
E.
Palos Verdes Drive North an Western A "nue (Phase II,City of
LomitalQalttans)~, ,
Re-stripe the westbound apprC?8ch on Palos erdes Drive North to install a
second left-tum lan~.The resulting lane con uration for the westbotmd
approach shall be two left-tum'lanes.two t~,gl1 lanes.and one sha'red
through/right-turn lane,.,F!l}al ~E;}view ~~d alP va.'.~y City of lomita a,nd Caltrans
shall be required for this improvement.i
'Miraleiie'rive and Palos Verdes Drive:"t (Phase II,City 6f Ra~cho Palos
Verdes),'~": '
Design arid insta'lI a new traffic signal.'The'f~!fic signal'operatlon WdLild..incliJde
a prot~¥te~left-tum phase in the southb~~,~Firection and a westbpund right-
turn overlap phase concurrent with 1I1e sou I ~ound left-turn phase.~riodo',
commencing the design ~ork,the applican ~all work with the City of Rancho
Palos Verde$to seek the final approv~1 of tpe traffic signal warrants authClri.zlng
tne installation of the traffic signal.The de\1e!'per will,be respons'lble;for all costs
associated with the design and construction the 'new traffic signal.' ,
II '
Construction Impacts i' ,
DOT recommends that a construction work s~e traffic control plan be~sUbmitted
to D(~>T's Southern District Office for review and approval,priorlo the start of anycon~truction work.The plan should show t I ej'l,ocation of any roadway or
sidewalk closures,traffle dstours,haul rouf,hours of operati~n.pr~tective
I I :I II,1
'Ij
'I
,,~
, 'II
I'il
C-161
Fax:2139784656 Oct 9 2012 11:47 P.D5
July 24,201~5KarenHoo
,,
1
,~
'I
i!
:1
!
"devices,wamir.tg slg!:J$and access to abuttiiid'properties.DOT also '
recommends that construction 'relat~d traffiC!''restriC'ted to Qff-peak hours.
Site Access and Internal Circulation
This determination does not include approval,fthe project's ~rivaways,internal
circulation and parking scheme.Adverse tra~c impacts could occur due to
access and circulation issues.The applicant is advised'to consult with DOT for
driveway locations and specifications prior to tile commencement of any
architectural plans,as they may affect buiJdin.design.Final DOT approval shall
be 'obtained prio~to issuan~'of a~y,bUilding Rermlts.This should be
accomplished by sUbmitting detailed Slte/drivr,IWaY plans,at a scale ohit least 1"
lIII 40'.separately'to DOT's WLA;Coastal and'an Pedro Development RevieW
Section at 7166 West Manchester Avenue,L s Angeles 90045 as soon as '
.possible but prior to submittal of bUnd,lng,PI~nf for plan ,~heok to the Department
of Building and Safety.''j
,I • '
If you h~ve any questions,please feel free to 'call H~rL Huang ,of my staff or me at (213)
485-1062.I '
'F.
MB:hmh
Attachments
cc:Alison Becker,Gabriela Medina,Fifteenth Co neil District
Jay Kim,Sean Haeri,Tim Conger,John Varg''se,Crysfa"Killian,DOT
David Weintraub,Marc Woersching,DCP ,
Lawrence G.Cuare~ma,BOE
Jonathan Louie,KOA Corporation
.III,
I'~I'
,.I'
C-162
HRB11-008TA
ATTACHMENT A
Marymount College San Pedro Campus Project
Project Phasing Summary
KOA corporation
.April I 3,20 t:z
Completfon Description Net Trip Generation
Project Year Resident Commuter Faculty/Staff AM Peal<Hour PM Peak Hour
Phase (Antldpated)Students Students Apartments Daily Total In Out Total In Out
I 1017 62.0 0 0 523 41 5 36 47 25 22
II 1019 620 300 0 1,576 87 28 59 155 62 93
m 2022 77S 475 0 2,321 130 43 87 'J.3{]89 141
IV 20Xl BOO 6s{)0 2,760 ISO 55 ·95 278 -102 176
V (Buildout)2{]32 BOO 700 8 2,91.6 156 58 98 292 106 186
."
mx
""~
""<0
-..J
co
"""OJ
<J1en
~~"""-=r-:T~'_""==-"=~";-~====~~.~:;:-_==-="-,;:;:,~uh=-.:::::=--,,..-.z::r.t.....:.•.:::.......=:'......:.:...._...................=......:....~-:.....::......_
oo
.-+
<0
""C)
~
""
~
~
"""co
-c
C)
Ol
C
-
1
6
3
Fax:2139784656 Oct 9 2012 11:48 P.07
Residenao H:J.l1s for Studants '20 Student
'Umltad Cars fer Rwidl;l'l!:S'Trip Redue:tlon (Sf,%)[3]
Unit
'fatal Trlp Generation Proposed Profert UHl5
Housing ~~Iio/[4],8&OU 23
,Net Total Trip Generation 5 ,
,'"Marymcum:College _"'c1.l!$fonduct classvi ~tha San ~*dra campus duri~g "~e l:!.." ,
rll ,The AM lIl1c1 PM peak flour trip ~~are bued on trip grmen.tion .......)'ll con'ducIed at to'~tlS V."..dlllS Drive Nortll residential fadtity "'"March 2'1.
;101 I.The dally,!1lw is b,..ec1 DII dallytoAM"Pl"II'Joti<>farllp~ent uDe1TomthllllT8T !I'Gener:adon boiok an<lll1ultipliecl by the AM jJIWl PM rateS.
!:,,1l8 claJ1y trip I'IWl ..(6.6111 (0.51 +0.6;2»)+(0.31 +0,;5))
[2]Trip grman.aal\~~from IT\!Trip Genemton.8Ill,EdidQll.
[il 'AbOut+i;;91t1>e £20'Sat!Pedro'Cwnpl,l$ruiclenl$_uJd havaa rllbi<;lc C>I')cunpw.bas,on a 1imil:il<llotU!ryS)'lltliln.Th ..~nlnz:S6%ofresldenm
wauid not f1av.a "chid..an campus and thil"!ilore w"tl!d nC>l:generate veh/l;l~mps.
[4]The AM end PM puk "tlllI'mpj lfe balled on l"IW trip ll"nllll'l.tiarl surveY d;:ta.~<>n"litthe Palos Verdet Drive North ~nity tlI'I Mo.rch ;14.)0 II.The
daily l:Tip$W""blIScd an dally to AM+l'M rmtl Ii:It apartment uw fram ITE Trip G"!'eI'lIll
11
book ami muliipli..r by the fllW ~pll.lS PM peak hour trips.
[5~6 daily l;ipj ..(6.651 (051 +U1»)*(43+J,B)]~
I
Land Use,
HRB11-008TA
ATTACHMENT A (continued)
"'Maiymount:CoUese Proje&(San Pedro campus)'
:trip G~eratiOn (P.Il3$~,~)";2,0 I7 .,
C-164
P.08Oct9201211:48,
Jn
:1
!l
'1~.~
1!i.
Unit
~I'roj~r:t
Ct'>llsge 920 Student l39 1132 57 221 5s 166
Intm\I\I Trip Rsdur,;d.:>n [4J 67%'.:ill .123 ~:.W.-37 .:1.!l
SubmclJ 78 S9 19 n 18 54
l\llSidlm~Stl.(Clent Trip RIldllCdon (6.5%AM)[5]-!it -38 ~13 0 0 0
:iotaJ:NI,mooResidentiaJ College 'irips 27 21 6 72 18 54
·Resldenc:e Halls for Students 6~O Student 192 ;ZS 167 217 113 104
'Urnlted Cars,fgr Residents'Trip R!ldul:'tion (5(,%)[6]::l.lli i4 ~~~.59
$l.Ibtotal 84 II 73 95 50 45
IIlt4(flaI "trip ReduCtion fJ7%AM,62%PM)(7)(8]-65 ::S.§l ::ai :ll ::2.a
Total Non-RP'V Campus 'Trips I~3 16'36 19 17
Trips ~oHrQl'll R.PV CamplJI;620 Studllllt '192 2S 161 217 113 104
'Umh:ed Cars for ~ts''trip RedUd:lgn (56%)[6]::l.m .::!1!-94 .:J..n :6l :a!
Total Trip.~~m ~V Cam~84 II '73 95 SO 45
Tot:al irip Generation (Propolled Project Uses)130 35 95 203 87 116
£xirtintUset
Housing Far:l11ty ['1]86 ClU n
Nat Total Trip Generation 91
Fax:2139784656
land Use
·HRB11..Q.08TA
,AlTACHMENT A (cp,n,tinued)
M;l.rymol,lnt College Project (San Pedro Campus)
Trip Generation (phase II)-2019
·[IJ Trip,pnUatlon nrtllJ W'Io based OIl trlp surveys Cl;llldul:ted ltme MarymolllltQ:>lIege ~~gn March 22l11ld 30.2011.
[:l]The AM and PM p...k boLl/'trip ratGi are ~..l CIII 11'11>generation JlIrV"}'C CCl\'Iductl!ld a PaIcs V&rdllJ Drive Narth mldlll/lliW Rcility on M:.rclI ::1;4.
;WI I.The ~lI'J;ata is buad an iItJly to AM"'PM ro;a far lIf"U'tIllent Wle from thi iT&:'p Gen""*IKI1'I baoft.8/ld mUltiplied by the AM p1Wl PM ~.
(1.88 ~trip raw =(05.65/(O~I+O.62J)*(O.31~.J$)J..."~.,.,, "
[3]Trip generation ratu are r",1'1\lTE Trip GenllfWJan.8t11 Edition.
"[4]..~Oil p~of stUdentS wha Will i.lll1vio;;on the san I'IldfO blmpLlS (620 rasI t ~den~20 ~;t1,Idlll7ts).
[Si Morymautlt Colllij!e WQultl ;c:h1l~1,:,lIiaMlng peak pwiod ~...on tile San p~.us pn:marlly for ri;k!Jmt $tI,\<l_lnll'",:"",,!d wbllt be
fewer dana Jche<luled dwing the morning peak pRriDd .....,p.tred ttl the aftBl1l00R ,~trip re~lI 9f &5%(abl>Ul;two-tlird)is _mitd for tltll
AM pea.~hoW'.The ~ning 1'Iip~are:lIOIpll.:ted f!>be generated by fa<;ultr/$taff/'?"~~llitld ""I'M;etllllmlltel'~.
{6]Historlalfy,fewer than half ofthe tesldent stlldllmlil bavn vlllhicla an CU'IIplIL The ~wumes that no more than +i%ofthll.lilIIl !'edro C'arnpu$
.JWdD~r,!"id~(273)WO~j:I be pmnitt;Rd mIDve a Yt!!hlde en ClllI1pWl ba.s:ed on illt,I ~."'"renraining St.%afthll ....,;dllRls (347)wauJd nat
~a vehid\l !'II t:1lll'lPus ...lid th.....fate wtIllld no~pneratlll vehicJ..trips.. ...... . . ...
J1J 'llased ,an in~a1 trip capw~er;npiria/~for th~"P",tn"':at dbrm!oo'Y Conl~ent .!'"dl~~ary~u~~o~"&,,....ciliti ...f;xpanslan 1'raject jra/Fic
Impact:Anal)'3is;R8F Co"""lting.Julr 31.2007.The empirical dati .howed that77%of le vehlctes'dlIrfng the AM pQllk and 62%of the vebldes dUri~the
!'t'1 puk ......tl;iYelinll toIl'r¢l)1 dio;o ~ca,mPW;..,",..•'.., • ,
(6]The ill-OO trip redu<;1ian for "'"I'M W:u :II.s1lImed f;)r dany.",
£'1 'rh.AI1;K)d PM peak hourtripoare Imed an rawtrlp generation surveY da12 cond~U""th..~aicVenltS Drive Notdl Ridlio/00 March 24.201 i.The
daUy trips are based on daily w AM+PM ratio far apartn1e[\t Vie from m;Trip Gen'?tir~book,and multiplied by'lhe raw AM plus PM peak hour tripJ.
[536 ~ally trip;=(&.6S I (0.5 I+0.62»)"'(43+-18)J ,
!I
j
!i'
11
il
:1
C-165
23
130
.73 .
57 '
164
'41
P.09
7S 22S
-47 ::.112,
28 8&
o (l
28 86
141 130
.']tJ ,:Zl
61 57
.:Jli '.:Ji
24 21
141
iI:1
,62
114
300
.186
114
o
H4
;2.71
ill2.
119
278
;2.71
::ill
119
:Z!
,4.5
78
A9
;1.9
-19
10
123
:w9
illZ
92
209
:.Ill
~
::ll
21
$0
31
il!l'
14
::.!.1
3
3/
.ill
)4
2..7
;:.W.
94
-&1
33 ...
240
::W
106
325
.=m
123
-80
43
'113
:2'10
:..lH
106
':In
24'
Oct 9 2012 11:48
,!
il
I
1
ii
"II
Unit
Sl:udent1,250
62.%
Intlt1\5ltylandUse
Coli.
Intllfnw Trip Reduetlon ['i]
Nat Total Trip Generatiott 2.$'87 230
Subtotal
RlII$Jde.m:S1:Qdent,Trip Reducdc!lll (6S"AM)(5]
Total ~dential College Trips
Total Trip Generation PropQsed ~roJect Uses)
Housing Padllt¥~]86 DU
Fax:2139784656
ResIdence ~aJls for Swdill'l'l:s 775
'Umlted Cars for lWIQeTlt!l'irip lW.dudion (56%)[6)
Subtotal
II1tCI'f\Il Trip Reduetlon fl7'%AM,ca%PM)[7)[8]
Total NQn·RPV Campus Tr{plI
Trips lXlIfrom RflII Campus 77$
'Urnite<l e:::-rs for Residents'Trll1 Reduction (S6%)[6]
ToCat Tri(l5 toIi'rom RPV Campus
HRB11-DOal:A
ATfACHMENT A (c~mtinued)
Mafymol.\nt College Project (Sao Pedro Campus)
Torip Generation (phase III)•2022
[I]:rlip lI""lIr.Ition..-IN build on trip s""'ey.s conduet'id at me Mirymount CoII"ll'!'J Ounpus an MlI'l:h 22 and 30,2011:
o 12J Th!AM.l!\d PM peik /1C\1r trip ......are base.d 01\II1p g8lltl'itk>n .u~")'S°can~eted ~~Palas V:erdes Drive North r'esldilRtiaI f.I.cility on ~1l2".
)OJ I.Th!daily rate Ili bued 9I1dailytIJAM+PM I'II:io 101'II(>II'UIIllIlt un fi:om tM~"P Gl!ftet"ltia,:,!laal\~rI lI'Iultl'pl1ed by IfIe AM p&.it PH..-'to
'~.BB d;JJIy trip rata '"(6.65 I (O.sI+O.6~')*(O.!t-tO.!tS)]
:til jrip pnoo:*tl.....raW are from'tTl!.TriP,G""lIr.IIla,,!-8th EdldOl).
[..]Bas8d on pllrl;lll'"afstudenl:S woo WIll be IMngon tile Sw>)'edra Ounpus (775 I'iISI stUrIenlllfl.2S01Xllal swdllfll3).
[S]MOII')'ll1Dtml:c"u"le would sdJedulll morning P4'k ptJI"a"......an the San PecIto prjmu.lly fclr resident stUdents.ThBre would t)'IlIclIly be
feWer clwi9'sPieduled during the ,;,arr:!ing p...1<.p~ad eampared to tile afternOon Pe ,0A'liip rjduWori Of '5"(about two-third)'is 8I!IU1TWf for me
AM'peak hQ\lr.Th ..ren'llIil'li~g ttlps ate expeaed to be generated by Rc:u~Im.rrtlli5iWl'l\r ._caml'llubor _d.-.
[~],HI5tpn'l:alty.Rwvr #Ian ~<:i W.'l'Il.lldllflt stUdenl3 haw II vehlde on ampur.The JtU~,assumes thi.t lIQ,in~tIm144%of the San I'IIdro yunPWl
~d"",,_jd~(3"1)woul~be ~~Q mv'!a """rd.""CllMlpUS baed an,"la~~The ~nln£56%of the re>iderits ("'34)wau!d 1'101:
,mve a vmtde on c;;rnplolS ,,"d m"'''a","Nauld l'Iat genera.te Yehlcle trips."., '0 ,
I7l BQerl ""intlorlw.llrip l!llptufe emp1rlcal raw for die aparanent dormitQry,c:ampon.n;p I!)..MwymQUnt Clolh,p Facilities Exp'-'1!'K>n ~oj~Traffic
Impact AnaI~I5,RllF eo"sultiMJ.July 31.:ulO7.The _I'il'lcal clara sl\o.WIld 'CI1i1t n%of'CI1
1
vellkll;li during"d1ll AM psak and 62%of tile vehIcles duritltme
P.M,P,"I1lI.:""'~'tel1ll!/toIl'rom the RPV'I:a"lP'!S·', , "i ..,,0
o (8]'The Im:ernal trip redl.lcdon far the 1'M wu U5umed fDt'~.I 0 0
~9]The AM and PM peak hour triP!''"'b~ocl an ....w trip geruntiDn au....ey clara O\n~u~aulle f'!llos Verd'!!S'DriVG Non:h FadIlty ~MardI 1...20 II.The
: ' 0 dlu'ly trips :are based 011 dai~to AI'I+PM ratiD fat'~ellt use from ITE Trip Gen,iliatl book and multipttlld try #18 raw AM plU$PM peak liour trips.
,[5,36 daily trlpl'..(6.&5 ,(o..s I+Oo62)}"("3H8)],
,"
C-166
P.10Oct9201211:49
.!
.~
·1;i
,I
~,'I
i
1
.1
Intensity
PropotiJlld Project
College 1,450 Student J1~3 377 287 90 3'!8 1.'17 ;l61
Internal Ttl"Re4ua1on [.of]55%:!.fZl :2D!!.-1.58 -SO ::m ~.:.W.
Subl:<;.Qf I 2.1 16~1:l9 ",,0 I !it.39 117
Re&iden1;StudentTr.lp ReducdOll (IlS"AM)[5J -10 ·110 ..:&4 .~0 (). 0
Total Non-ResldentlaJ Collage Trip.I,II 59 4$.;-;.14 156 19 117
RJesidence:HaUs for Students BOO Student i 2"!8 32 216 ;zso J46 134
'Um~Cars for Residlll1ts'Tlip Rl!ldu~(56%)[t.]::.LU,.£i.i ::.l.2.L illZ ::ll2.ill
Subtotal 169 109 .14 9S 123 64 59
Internal Tlip Rcdl.ledon (77%AM.&2.%PM)[7][8]~.:M ::.U .:l1 ;za .:£l .:M
TotAl NQ(IoRPV Campus Tripa 25 3 22 47 24 13
irfps tDlfrorn Rf'V Campus SOO S~derlt 3~04 248·3l ;Z16 lao 141'.134
'Umitb:!Ol.rs for Ruldents'Tfir Reductil:m (56%)[61 ~:::l1,1 ::.11!.=.!2J.:m -tI1 ::ll
",:"oml Trip.tolhm RPV Campus 109 14 95 113 64 59
TotaI:Tri Gen~(Proposed k"rojed:Uses 3,t96 193 &2'131 32'127 199
EJdstlng lIse,s ,
Housing l"Sdlio/(7J 86 I:>U 13
Net Total irip Generation 176
[I]Trip8"nerootio~J'aI:I\!l are based On trip ....l"Ia)'lcoiiduaed aldie Mf.rYm~ntC~U~l CaJilI?~l:!n ~~Xhnel30,;2.011...'.;..
1:2]ThII AM lilt!I'M peak hour trip n.t9$arII bwd 011 trip pnaration ;u...-.y$·eatlQuc:l:ed mhe Palo&Verdes Drive Nri r~id~/a1;!TJty o~Mardl.'24,
;lOU.The </all)'.r,.te Is b;ued on."1y tJ;>~+PM ratio I~~ant lISe fro!".the ~~p Gen~on .book.and !"ultlp!IGd 0/the ~plu;I'M ra_
LJ.88 dail)'trip ~=(6.651 (05I+O.62})*(O:3 I",!,.35)]..il . . . .
l?]'1)ip pnla'lll:liMl ratU are from I'T'Ii TriP GflI\fll?!Ian,8rb Edld~.,~I .".
(41 llued on p~of""cIants ,!,ho will b61iY!nt on the ~I'lIdro ~p,!"(800 resl nt itudenWl.450 total !i'llldl!ll'l:S).
IS!'MllI")'IllQIlnt c;,D"3io would .ldiedule morning paak perlocI cbi$u on tha san Pedro 'iii primarC)"lbr Rsi<lent.SUIe1ents.'The",wadel typlaDy b"
flOwer dassa sche:duled III/ring thm mOJ'nlng peak p,"od compBraQ 'l<I t/lel\ft:oln"""p .od.A'lIjp reducdoil of 6S%(abOIJt 1:'No-thfnj)i&B5&l!'\1ed 'for 1Ite
.AM.pak hour.The I"WlIainlng Dips ""'""l'!lCtlId to be generated by far:W\'rht:al1fvloitoj ~..~nlt'I\utel'aa.dl!oMS...
[6]'HlScaricali)';r.......than ha.1f of tIlB iW!dont ~dents have uehidio .....eampUB•.Tl)ll .uslim~~nQ'ma....t/r;uI-Hll:althe $:In I'ecro ~PIlS .
.SllId4lm:re:Ii~~=~5:l}would be ~Irnld to haV\l.valVde on campus hued on a I 1)'SUllIl.The remaining $6%ofthe re&idenlll (4-48)would IIOl:
have a vehicle on campus Wlel th.....r......would not generate whlde Vip$-:.'...
Ill'l!ased an intl!orlllllirlp captUre elI1piJ;icall'</illO$ror t!Je 2partlllent dlll'lYlit'ory c:omp?nllllt Ier 'dt~.Marymount CoR.Facili1lll5 Elcpall5ion Project;iralli~.
•impllt:t AnaI)'Sb',R8F Consulting,July 31.'UJffl.Thto ill'l'rpll'lcaJ daD.showed that 77'X.oft vehida dur:ing till'AM p~and 62%.«the vehlcllll!during the
PM paakiip"1l'~~ing:t:oIli'<Jt.!'l the ~.campU5.•!..."...
[8]Tf1e In~trip reduction lbrthe PM WIt aal<Jmed for daIl)'., ....
1.91 Tl:"'AM and PM poak hllur vips arB build D~fi.W vip gen"",tion surye)'daI:t.«>ndUC'l:e
j
at the l'aIos YerdQi Drive North Kll;ljlity QI1 Marcf124.2011.The
daily trip;are bued on daily to AM+PM l1Itio for ipil"l'JJlem;US"frO(l1 rn:Trip Geill'...boaf!.and mult!l>lIed b)'\:he f'Is.W AM plus PM peak.hOur trips.
[536 daily 'CI'l~s ={6.65 I (O.5'''D..62»*(43i-48)]. . •
I~
1
:1
\1~
1
Fax:2139784656
HRB11-00STA
ATIACHME}JT A (contiflued)
Harymotmt College Projeit (San Pedro Camp\llil)
.trip Generation (phaSe IV)~'10;z7'..
C-167
p,11
3.Pro.iert;Traffic
Oct 9 2012 11:49
3,5!0 390 296 94 .360 90 210
.:l.lln ~.158 :Sl!::W..odft ~u 182.138 +I-1&8 42 1;261~6;.J -118 -'90 .,'!8 0 '0 0
1,5 0 64 48 .'6 Ilia 42 12'
3,1?4 248 32 216 2.80 14&134
.1.7?S ill!..:ll!':!2.!:.W:.::!l2..,1i
13~'109 14 95 123 64 $~,11
ill .:Z!::U.~.:HZ ::if ~
1 15 J n 47 ~4 23
~48 ·32 216 280 1'1'134'
.:!l2..:.l1 .:J..U..:lSZ :ll2 ::H
I'r IO~14 910 IU &4 S9
4 I 3 5 3 2
:l .:l .cl ::l =2 .:l411IiI:2 I I
199 ~5 1~4 340 131 2.0'
J;>U
DO
"Ii "Prfiilpa~for .M~ount ~oIlege
Traffic hnpact;ptudy for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
~,..,'.,'july'2012 -Page 20
~
!i
'U
.~.
11...
StLldem:,
Stud911t
Studw.t
8
86
1,500
53%
Fax:2139784S5S ,
,j
:1
,;!
"~
I,,11,....,
il
Table 5 ..;Project Trip Generati~i1 (Build Out)
i
Hcuslng hdlity 00
College
lratl!l"ll*l Trlp Reduet.ian [41
SubtmaJ
R\l$idcnt SWdent Trip Reduetiatl (65%AM)[S]
'Tobl Non-Resiclentlal College trip"
Total trip <i_ration Proposed Proj"..t Uses).
R~HllIs for Stud8l'lt$800
'Uml1;ed Cans for Residen~Trip Reduc:dan (56%)[6]
Sub1:ollll
lotlll'ml T~It.eduction (7'7"AM,~"PM)[7100
Total Non-&l"V CampWil Tripi'
Trips toIft'QIll RPV Campus 800
'I..imlted C3n for Rasld9zm,'Trip R~ucdoo (56%)[61
Total Trips toIfrom RI"V campus
~culty.Apartm_
Int"lNl Trip R,eduetlon (7)'%AM,62,%PM)[71
Total FaCIlity ,ilpllH:ment Trips ,
Net Total Trip GllI1etaCion 2,9';6 156 58 98 292 186
,I •
[i].Trip pI'IeI'tl\'lOn AllIS """IaslId en,trip scl......~.,tho M;,ymcimt COIe&'o'~~on Mtrdl '2:!wid 30,;l.D1 t.,",
~]Tho AM IIIId PM ptSlc hO,ur 1Ifp ~:are b..,.d en trip ~surY.~etoll9l;lel'okol \7orrlU Drive NcI1h 1'tildtsIlia/fiac:lllty an MarcIl :M.
2G1).The daily nate ill blllO!ld on daily'C<l AM"PM r2Da for ~t lJte fI'ollllM.~Tr G~l>aoI(;aod multiplied by1h&AM plus PM rams.
,[3,118 ~iI1 !riP.rate =(6,6$I (0.51 +O,G2)}"'(O.J 1:"035)].".,...
~]Trip lI""""'ti....mu IT.frcln m;Trip G..........cx.n.llth Ed"1I:I<l1l.'"
[4]~on p"I='t;!ae of~,whoWIll ~Q Itvtllg""iIlo.s.n.Pelira Qunpu..(ilO~,~ld1~nu{I.;oo f.(Q/Sllldllllts)..'
[SJ ~c.oJlt:p W<>UkllChedule Il'\Ql'I1lllg f""Jc:poriod c:l:us..en the San P"dro ~rr~primtrllyfor h!!tIdent:studilltl.Tht!I't.would t}'flIaIly be
reWQf'dulu I~c:Iurini the mcmln&,p..k peHed compared to the altelTll?On P4lI'l¥A'll'lp nldualon or 6$%(about two-thlrd)Is mumed forlhe
.AM pal::hour.'rJe,...."..,itlgttlp,t are expected to to.iQIlo~by~~ot;;fI'>J1d sa1~~-t:=-.
{'J ~t1caJly.r_II'Iwl h""of tho.ruldent stuclonts """"•vohJcle DIl ~UL TIle BIlJ~!l!lilac no more thall '""of d14i San Pedro CUnpus
~residonts (351)would be I>ftrM1C11ld to havu vehlcle.on Q"'PUS buorl DIl&'..,..mm.Tho.'~5'"of tho ~(""8)would not
hlvQB,VQIl~on QJ1lPUS,~d thRr"4Zfano ":'!"'k!not zenerate ,,"""ide tril>s., . ,. ., .
[7]l!;Isod en In!l1lmlll tr'I/>et.JlQlr~empIrklN ~~or dHl ~clarmimry IXRt1J'OI1l"IIJ'thathrymcunt (:'01.F.citrtiesl!llpomion Praject,T"c
,1mp;¥:t'An:ilys!s.RllI',Ci:uwJltlnr.july 3)...:1.001.The ertlplI1eal cma Ih<>wad~'~.of,~...during""'~poak.nd'2%of~H«h1cl8lldunnglhe .
PM pellkaN.wvellng 1lCIffran\dta I\PV~'""I .. .
L8J T1ia Illw-'rrlp radu<:tian fartlle PM wa,,,wumo<!for dalIr.'.
IYl TheAM lind PM pak hour cl~.0l'lI wed (lI\~w I'1p pn.....,.;aa .u.-...,r dots cenduc:tlod ~t th':PlIlo.V"rde>Drive North Foclrlty en Mvch ;14,:WI I.The
d;Jfy trips """b..ed on clair to AM+f'M rall<:t for ap~~\/SA from ITE Trl>Gonemia~1 back ...t1 multipr..d by 'die naw AM plus PM p...k hCltlr trips.
f.S3E.·delIy lTlps ..(&.&5 1,(0.5 1+0.6:1»*(43+.411)].i ..' .
,I
~i:
HRB11-008TA
i-,TrACHMENT B
:..'\~..
C-168
HR811"008TA
A'rrACH'ME'NT C
.7.Project Traffic Imp6Ct$and Mj~ation MeCl~ures ,
Table 9'-Determination of Project linpac;ts -E~sting Plus Project
.=:...~.=.==:!::.:.'=-~...
.Existing pi...t'NJe¢llxiItlll,{Phue V-tkll1doutj Chimp I..VIC or
~l.AMP.......Hour I'M P...kHotlr AMP*lkHour PM Pe&it:HaIlT DeIay{.....~,'SicnlfiC<lntStud)'IJIt.....ectI"n.at¥'Metlmc!oloi}'vrc"r VI"'ar .,......"".....AM PM Jmpectl
Dela1 LOS 0.'-1 LOS Delar LOS Del..,.1.OS P......P.....
{.....)(.acs)t··",)(sea)Hour Hour
I W....m Ave"PotlRe Caost Hwy lJ:JoAbpl••CM"UI'I 0 0.91~_O.Bl'+0 0.920 _0..000 0..008 No
I,Narmandle A'It:a.1'.<111.eo.st Hwy Los"'.p••CM"1.610 Z 0.JiJ1 a 0.680 B M71 a o.ooa MOO No
3 v ....,".tlw.a.f'a<lf'lt Ca..tHwy lJ:J.Anpl••eM.<.lUllI D ().123 C il.811 0 0.114 C ().00ll MOl «0
'I W ••tem Av.AAlIaheItn 5t Los ...IIl·...CMA I>~l A.0A54 A.IU42 A lIA6S A MOl 0.00'No
5 Pol".Verdes Dr Ii &P.I ..Vet<l..Or !'l Rclllne ffiI1s eotow ICU 0.13"1 C 0.101 C 0.71'1 C '0.119 C 0.0'11>o.m•We.tem An a.""os Vet<l••0./11 tcmll1l ICU'0JI11 0 0.872 0 OJI~'0 0JI92 D 0.fl3.1.0.020 No
1 PresldelltA"e ..Paros Vet<l••Dr N [oj (l>J LDlMpJos HCl'l -32.0 D ~O c >100 ~>100 !IIII -.
CM...OAf I o.u..D.536 0:437 0.895 0.013 NfA
I GoIf.r StIVerm".t Jwa 1\Amllelm SlIN.f'oIos V.t<l ..Or LOI""'.CMA 0.1~<:o.n9 C 0.1'17,C 0.18J C 0.007 0.010 If",.,A311~roa Fl "Aml1eh>St Loth1&eJos O1A O08Z3 D o.ll9lI D QAl3'+0 o.fi'l 'P o.DlI Q,QJI
10 Al"et...5t&Anohefm 5t LOIMP,,",CMA 0.19~<:t.m 0.79&C Mill 0.00l G.OIl .
11 Polol Verd...Or E"HI.-.loste Or [to]...ntha I'll...v.t<l••HeM 1(,,1 _>Ul0 >[GO _>1110 ..
17:w.....'"Ave &Trll<ll.OrlC.p11»1 Dr I\IIInch..l'lll...V-et<le.ICU 0.&31 0 iJ.T.l0 C 0.1135 0 lLT.!'C'OM lI.1ll!9 No
13 Mfnlest.Dr"VI.CaliRI"/w.PI Ranch..l'lIbt V..t<le~HCt1 ISA C.I80S C 19.&C 2ll.B C D":l..3 Nt>
14 W.'l1!m Av.&Cre.twaod5t 'Rioncho 1'lI1...V.r-.le.lCU 0.615 So &.698 II o,m . B 0.112-C o.oa3 0.01"No
IS t1lra1••tn 0.-10.l.tSI r.l Riontha ParOl V.nIu HCM 16;1.c:F3.4 S 1&.6 :C I~,'B DA 0.2-No
16 Western Av.a l,tSt Los ......I••CMA D.BBI D II;BS[0 a.BlZ I)0.B58 0 1I.DlJ1 &.007 No
=""IT"I'IiI~W-e~""t'RlI .,_Rancb~.r."-~Gl;/=IdM2.?.,'-~..JI.053 .5=•....,-·-1>10 ---=
N_,
0\..\.Crldcd M.y............lr~.M.1llcHi(VIC).Ia!-I"",need""C'f"IIkI UtlH....'"Hllhod ('Rq.HCM·Ali1lwor CIpott1 M••uI1MOJilad (OeIq)
[aJ.!top «latta/lid Into"cidon.,'
lbl Accordns 10 "'"\.I>DOTTrelik SWdf I'aJc:lo..~d l'r":eduru,lfthn 1...1oIHmc.b e.".1'In tho ',wJd>J"oI.«.''10 l>nsd ...1M """motod del.y.th.n Ihe t1tero!l:tion ""'old 1>6 ...bolld forth.pOlel\lilliulallldon "'..new ,,""e <I"",.
'llns,..""me '!lJ1oIW.rroM ""r>1S"'~t.ndutllldfor1Ns."enorlo.n.1Io'lIIr&J<"",...!hot 11K Pl'Ojeclld 1nill<;-.oIum ,rent i ",,1lIc '!lII"..
'TI
0)
X
I'.)
~
c..:>
<D
""co
-l'>
0'>
<TI
0'>
C>
n
~
to
I'.)
<::>
~
I'.)
~
~
-l'>
<D
:c
I'.)
-'KOA COR·PORAnONr~'P.liIJ'I~Ii.t'"G ..a·~amWlNG .
Prflpared kJr Marymount College
Traffle Impact Study for Marymount CoUege San Pedro Campus
July 20 [2 -Page '12
C
-
1
6
9
HRB11"008TA,
ATTACHMENT C (continued)
7.»roje~rraffic ,Impacts Qn<!~!~r~ti~,!,Me~ures,
Table 10'"Determiinition of Project Impacts-Future (2032)With Proj~t
~
~
(J:)
""o
~
""
C.:l
(J:)
-.,J
co
..",
en
01
en
.."
'"X
""~
SIa"ltlcam
Impm1
CMA I 0.713
leo I 1.1-45
~'I-TIl8:l
HCM I'>100
CMI'I o.5U
ICO I 0.831
CMA I 9.'''5
CM1\I 0.835
C.........ln VJe.e.
Anal,.....I-:=::-.,...,.,...--r......__----,----,-+=:-::--"-'::::::::....:,.=:::::::~!....;_,_____l Dlllo.)'(.....)
Methodol...,
Del.."
(.....)
LDlIlI1&
c:Jty
Los~
L<>IAr1p1u
lGsAnseIn
Los"'''&'OIo'
loI .........
RoIli1g HIlI!Eotms
8 IGolm-SlNvmoncAve&AmhetoSIiN.PafClO .....I'duDr I LcsAr1&e1..I"CMI'I I <1.'2'
,lWestern /wtJ"Pal'"V."'e.Dr N
, IFll~r...PI "I\mhllm St I Los Ar1&11u I CMA '1 1»11
Sllud)'Int....."ctlans
J IWe....qAW::&....IDc Cor.Sr.H'I!)'
~IW..wn}>,VII '"Anaholm S"t
5 IPal...VenI..Cd,"hloo V.rde.Dr N
"1 II'h~d.ntA""&Palos V.rd..Dr N [&1 [b]
3 IVr...,n<Avo l<P&dfk COOIt H••,
'2 INGnmndlelwa '"Paolft(.Coasc HW]I
II Ihlo.V.rda.Dr E&Mini•••"DHaI 'I ....ncho NelS Y•...r....I HCM'1 >100'
l3 IMUllelta Dr.\VI.CoIIn~AYi raj I I\anChoNas YlnI'"r-HCM I ":ll.2
12 Iw••W'oAY"I<T1Od1..DrlCllpl(lCl!Or .I IIalIchO'PafoaYer4es I ICQ 1 0.972.
18 IFiEuer""Scll:Analwllm St I Los AJ1sIoles I CMA I,lI.97'
CM'"•0icI,~Ma......nt .....1"..Me1ho<r (VIq.1CU .1"""nl..Ion C_lllI Udllad",,'Morh.1 (VIC),HCM -Hlimay C'P"dr.yi"bn"'Melbod lQollFl
III $,,,!,••nno/locI hle..~cdcn..
I&l ....""'dl!lrt.rh.L6.00T 1_SNdT .I'oIllfo.ond """Irtho ....1of ...-.taor.E...f In the 'w1It1Pr.(m'..,.nm,&..ocI.n the .stlnmod dJIoy.thon ""'-~.n I!tolld bo ..ailalodfur 1M ......ntblln._d"".10 new ltalllell'pl.
ibut,.IrJil'i••lln~w"'I'I"..mlt"l......Q'ldu<lOdfDl IhlJ rIo.'Om.no4'.".h"",.lIm the pl'CIjeclld uafl1e~w......t ..1I'>mtq~.
~='o='->-_.='"'H 1\an~[:J,!PalClS~...r~leU _,,,",=•••~~~
15 <he ...Varer...HCM CO
Ii loI o'\npl..CMA (")
11 ....ncho Palas Yenlu ICU .-+
01o
-c
C.:l
-K01\.CORPbRATION~"'l'IJSNJ<ilNJK.A'Uf,GJ~~mPlIO,.
Prepared for Mt\rymourltCollege
Tra.ffic Impact Study fo~Marymount.College San Pedro Ca.mpus
July 2012.-Page 43
C
-
1
7
0
HRB11-008TA
'ATTACHMENT C (continued)
-7.Proje.ct TrcitPc II!JjxJcts and Mitigation Me.asures.
Table I I -Mitigation LOS Summar:r -Existing Plus Project
N""QUI,..QlII:!i N.lItMl:ItJs.IIIy.Huhd('NC)QJ.lln.n.alanO~tapII.lJ'WbMfOCI:ReM..HfI)I'IIJ'c:.,.t:y.m.1I rtlli.aP~
[.]S..,.wnnI........1IIn._
[IIIAet"".iltVDat T.tII'Ic~I"u:amlhca.......lldi,"'HI"""J..t ..rf..*,•.".11 "'I'"~......dw.IIIftlItd ..........IIII1"""'c'"....bl:I'MhdltI .......,'*"'*",dII4a fl.....IrdkJ.1pL DlIfr...(....''lW1rme ..lIpI...II~......t.ttHIJt_tla.lh.....Jb.lbwct l\v;
lII-....I••~.tk"""""U'h"'t..'.IDh;:.......,.
••lItInIClndldolll edrdn,plut 'RlJKt CMn....1n 'Wc.Dt _v..PI"rr.t...ChI:ft...111 'IJC DrjPll...Y-8uN..tl l,I'llu.V.lulld..tl"Hlt]pll...-"'..AHl'.....HIM-PM.P..kJfGur AfllPukHuur PMp..rc:HDUr "...,j....)II.......AM p.c AMr PM Paa;,KaUt ""'!MCC)_.........,.$tIIdr frbr,JwlStn.-Cltr 1l.'1u>oIolo,r YO.....--."'...T''''''AN PM !mputl TO~'"._ar AN rJ<.....p..U
Dal"T LOS -,LOS Dol...Ul"J>.,LOS'J'ut Po"Dolor LOt DaI...LClS ••k lit...-.
(todJ j·aol loaol tiKI)Itout Haut l'-.)(00..)HGOr .......
5 P_Vn4u~E&f"aIoIY'ra.DrN .P.ohqHlb EJJI_10:0 ..".C IUOI C UH C ..,..C .....llII2J 03U Co """c:....1'D."'"Ilo-
1 _""~'d..V.......llrN['l00 l.alhvd..HC:fO IU'i>2~1 'C '11»~.1..-.
0lA .......1 .....IIJIJ1'Ml7 .,,5 o.lIlIJ -G3l!A o.t~f A 4.1ll:·tJDS .NIA
9 A,faUK""ADffMIm',lolahut'.CMI\f.Im 0 ..,iG "u,.D Dol".0 ....,@3f .....c:QI'D ..B4.-M<S ""1._t,~_S\l.,......s Cl'I'\1l1'l6 C ..,,,,,71t C lin.0JlIlI "on .m c ..,.1 -....n ·UN 1<.
tJ INa.lV....uQ-E&MnI....Dtla)fauhoNos.VVdt:l >Ia1'lCU T6.J -.....,..->,••...G.G .-D ~...D .-1<•
Table 12 -Mitigation LO~Summary -FUture (2032)"With Project -,
....,
Q)
X
N
-'
c:.;)
co
--.J
00
""'"<»
0"1
<»
co
N
CJ
-'
N
-'
-'
0"1=
No
No
No
N'''"NO
¥"'*'!'rmpuX:r
-UK
...nl&
....13
:iOii
oOJm
41#
".Gi~
...."
CbM.In YJC IlIr
1·;:-:-~~::~.~~j'1.:~:t!7:~I V"C-Cl)'
Cl'II'.I va
~'.....1
-alA I lLt'?'I
HQ'tIJCU
ll'.:'::"";;;;.'.:~-·--I ;,;;,~-;-_._-I w.::'----I ;;,;;;;;-j"---I __,.~ICl.,
""-"lIla_....._..
~dloP.iDlVtrlSel
&tflI,Ihw.-Dl:tJons.
Sb"Iornor.tIH.....Andttl'nStR'f.P*'uY4r'dnO,.
,IA...~PI ..luldttfmh
.oIAlllarw.St&"'ul\dnlt
II IP~ClIV.tri'~DrElcHr.aI'''IIDt
lillll;
Oit\.QI*"flooImMtAIlatj.RtI.odtweJ;«1J...llr:tldlMQpHl:fltll&lllIl......,<WCJ:}tOf~HlibrvQ:._I'I....III'1.......p~
1Jl1Sup _udil:.,..,WNCIIoa,
l'fIKxGl"#.lllml1.v.Da:rr-'lcS~...Ickt_~IN......"III.lrlll...........lorl....."'MchP4'DlIKI."'Ku.............,...II1IIWII.~t?IIl......r.adk.......bI~./tIt"I"...JQfII"'...............FllrdI::I,.l1ktLo.ttdt:;IJ,ptl_n.~'WUc....l:I..terllll,...,",...~:lhMYI&iltll
dK,nI.fl.-fnlk'MIItN.."""n.....lnb:.I"",.•
AIi-rJ<
",k .......
~~~~.,~.-~=..- .--=0 .-..r~_fwd,-=11......-
S !.llOIVIt...OrE&NIUV D'....leu Il.BJ 0 t:lJl.C GJlT D.D.11lO C Q,1,1'i C .QJJ3J ....oflot 0
WCbrn.,.....,....o.'I.DlN leu lJ15 I.fit .rJl1 I.U'1.01'1 .atm'~14'0
,r,eddlUa(ItIl"'asVcrdaID"Ht'flhJ HeM;>1110 .....11:...IM.~IM .r+
•Cl'I'\'Utl'
:0
""'"
-~K()A CORPORATION
r.'fCel4l'illlliil.&~~<ili1'lfERiNG-
Prepllreafor MarymountCollege
.Traffic Jmpact SWdy for Mllrymount College .San Pedro Cmnpus
July 10 12 -Page 47
C
-
1
7
1
P.15Fax:2139784656 Oct 9 2012 11:50
l
jIia~HR,B11-008TA .,
ATTACMMENT C (continued)~,.8:P~Oject Phasing
:Table 15 -Summary of Significant Trafflc Imr(\"h ....I,I ~III and IV)
Na
No Ng No
No No Na·
No No No
.No No No
~Na
No No No
No
No'
•Na~NoI,I.
CitySceJ'lllria
i Vl!I'1tlOI1tAv,,&
.PiIl:illc,e-tHwy
..W-.Ave&'
AnabelmSt
s ,Palos Verdes Dr E""
p",,",v....Qlls Dr N.,
,~llg pills l'raj-=
I'ut.vI'1l with Projoc:ll,'RoIlf1>g Hills &!'aw
.No
No
Vc,;Y~5 y,=;>
Yr":,Y"r.Y€-s
No,
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No Na No No
NlJ No No NoINoNoNaNo
"No No No No
No No No No
No No 'No No
No 'N..Ng Na
No No No No
II ~...Vlll'd...D.1!&',~plUlif'roJect
,Mlralfiia Dr F'mwe with Prajlll:t Rancho Palo.V.N"
B Gaffey So'V~Ava a Il>QItin&phls Praj1ll:t
,AmhRim SIiN.Palos "...des Dr .fuaJre W!dl Proj4c;t.1.cI.s AIlp
13 Mlral_Or/l;Eldsdng()/ll5ProJ~
VIa ~A....futu",with Projoct Il.an<flo Pal""Vel'lflls
1 i'n>l:lllont A....a E.loting phis Pro/&<C
PaJos Verdes Dr N f\IIur,will>l'raject 1.cI.s ~
Ii WIlStIlm Avd EXlsIlng pIu$ProJ-
er-od St Fuwl'e Wllh ~R:Intha l'Idas Verd..
IS MlI'aI_Dr&llx:istlnIptusProjoct
IstSt [a]FUWI'e WIIh Prolact IIancho !'ab.Vtl'de.i
1:1.We!.teI1l AI/I\$I:Existinz pl""Projol:t
TrudIII Dr/Clpilx:ll Or l'uaJre WIIh Pro)llet IWldla Pldos V,1'IfIIs
16 Wesmm Av."~plUJ Project
rst 5t Future WIIh Project Loa Angelu
10 ,..~5t /I;fxIsdng plwi Prol~
AnIOO!m St fW.Irll wllb /'roj&I:los ApgeI..
,.,~PI $I:'&1sIi"ll'plus Prajad:
Anahe1m St FutuI'1l witIIl'n:>ject los AhpItt
.6 WIl5tzm AY1I &
,Pal~V~PrN
,17-PaIce ViII'di:l DrU,Exl.i1It'IIplllP ProJel;t No No No Na
Crest ReI Future wlIh I'."jr:Cf Ib.ncha I'Idas Ven:lu I No Na No No
..~of a tnIlIc Sl&MIIB warTW\illd b¥od on lip!wunnt lIlII!y>b P'"LADOTIE af Polk:iu "I\CI Prac:oduru Tr.aIIic:Si,plaI Guldolin....
An analysis of traffic condltion$with the proposed proje phases and with implementation of the
.,rec~mmend.ed miti~pon measures identified in SectloJ::l 7 f this repor1;was also conducted.The
l'it~r~~etion levels of service workJ;heets are provided In ppendix N.The traffic impact summary
,t,ables provided In Appendix M show the analysis results W.lth the mitigation measures.The project
traffic impacts at the study intersections are expected to be ~ss than S.lgTlificant with implementation ~f
'tIie·recommended mitigation measUres.. , ,.'~, ,
I
":'.."
.Prepared for Maryrnourrt College
Traffil;;Impa~Study fot Marymount College San '~edr9 Campulil
I,J\lly~(}12-F';;lge50
1
"'~
.'~.:~
C-172
Comments on MND for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
C-173
CITYOF
17 October 2012
VIA ELECTRONIC &U.S.MAIL
Marc Woersching
City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning
200 N.Spring St..7'h FI.
Los Angeles.CA 90012
SUBJECT:Comments Regarding the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (Case
No.ENV-2011-2478-MND)for the Marymount College San Pedro Campus
Project [Republished Notice of September 27,2012]
Dear Mr.Woersching:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is in receipt of the republished notice of 27 September 2012
for the above-mentioned Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).We also thank you for faxing
us a copy of the 24 July 2012 correspondence from the Los Angeles Department of
Transportation (LADOT)that is referenced as Mitigation Measure XVI-10 in the MND (p.5).
Based upon this additional information.we now offer revised comments 1 on the MND.
As a bit of background,in May 2010 the City of Rancho Palos Verdes certified an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR)for the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project for the College's
main campus in Rancho Palos Verdes.The analysis of traffic and circulation impacts in the EIR
included the assessment of trips between the main campus and the College's existing
residential community on Palos Verdes Drive North in San Pedro,in much the same way that
the traffic impact analysis for the proposed MND for the Marymount College San Pedro Campus
Project now does.
The EIR identified three (3)study intersections in Rancho Palos Verdes where the project
resulted in or contributed to significant impacts:Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive;
Western Avenue and Trudie Drive/Capitol Drive;and Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos
Verdes Drive South.The enclosed excerpt from the EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP)describes the mitigation measures required to reduce these impacts to less-
than-significant levels (Le.,Mitigation Measures TR-2.TR-3 and TR·8,respectively).
In reviewing and comparing the EIR and the MND,the City has identified the following
inconsistencies and issues that we believe should be addressed:
1.Both the EIR MMRP (Mitigation Measure TR-2)and the LADOT memorandum (Section
OJ p-4)note that the signalization of the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and
1 These comments are intended to replace our previous comments dated 17 September 2012,
which were submitted in response to the original publication of this MND on 30 August 2012.
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391 /(310)544-5205/FAX (310)544-5291
WWW.PALOSVEROES.COMjRPV
PRIN 11:0 ON RECYCU,;)PAPER C-174
Marc Woersching
17 October 2012
Page 2
Miraleste Drive would be required reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure TR-2 specifies that this is to occur by the completion of Phase II of
the expansion of the main campus in Rancho Palos Verdes,which is currently
conditioned to occur by June 2015.However,we note that the LADOT memorandum
indicates that signalization of this intersection is not necessary until the completion of
Phase II of the San Pedro Campus project,which is currently proposed to occur by
2019.While the City of Rancho Palos Vercles understands that the City of Los Angeles
has no jurisdiction over this intersection,we believe that implementation of the traffic
signal in the MND should assume the more conservative timing of Mitigation Measure
TR-2 so as to avoid imposing conflicting or contradictory conditions upon the College.
2.The EIR MMRP (Mitigation Measure TR-3)identifies the need to restripe the eastbound
approach to the intersection of Western Avenue and Trudie Drive/Capitol Drive to
address the impacts of the expansion project on the main campus in Rancho Palos
Verdes.By comparison,the summary of the impacts assoQiated with the San Pedro
Campus project that is attached to the LADOT memorandum (Attachment C,Table 15)
does not identify any significant traffic impacts at this intersection ..The City of Rancho
Palos Verdes respectfully suggests that the traffic impacts of the proposed project upon
this intersection should be re-assessed to ensure that the trip generation assumptions,
significance thresholds and other factors employed in the EIR and the proposed MND
are consistent with one another.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes would be happy to
provide the City of Los Angeles with electronic copies with the EIR traffic study and
technical appendices to assist in this analysis.
3.The EIR MMRP (Mitigation Measure TR-8)identifies the need for the College to make a
"fair share"contribution to the reconfiguration of the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive
East and Palos Verdes Drive South to address the cumulative impacts of the expansion
project on the main campus in Rancho Palos Verdes.However,the traffic impact
analysis of the San Pedro Campus project did not study this intersection at all.As we
mentioned in our previous comments on this MND,the San Pedro Campus is but one of
five (5)geographically dispersed facilities that make up this institution (see enclosed
"Marymount College Campus Locator Map"from the College's website).While the traffic
impact analysis in the MND focuses on the relationship between the San Pedro Campus
and the main campus in Rancho Palos Verdes,it does little to acknowledge or address
the relationship of these two (2)sites with the College's other facilities in the San Pedro
area.For example,the MND does not appear to acknowledge or address the likelihood
that trips between the San Pedro and main campuses would also include stops at the
Waterfront Campus and arts center in downtown San Pedro and/or the Pacific View
West residential community on West 24th Street.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is
concerned that the proposed improvements to the San Pedro Campus could result in
additional trips between the main campus in Rancho Palos Verdes and the Waterfront
and Pacific View West facilities in San Pedro that would have impacts upon the
intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South that have not
been adequately addressed in the MND.As such,we respectfully request that the
impacts upon this intersection be analyzed in the MND as well.
4.As a part of the review of this proposal by the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood
Council (NWSPNC),the College agreed to perform analysis of eight (8)additional study
intersections along Western Avenue and Gaffey Street.A copy of this December 2011
C-175
Marc Woersching
17 October 2012
Page 3
supplemental analysis (without appendices)is enclosed for your reference.This
analysis concluded that the proposed project would have no significant impacts upon
any of these additional intersections.We were surprised to see that none of this
supplemental analysis is referenced in the LADOT memorandum.We also note that the
trip generation assumptions used in the final traffic impact analysis approved by LADOT
are more conservative than those applied to the supplemental analysis.Specifically:
•The supplemental analysis assumed a 75-percent resident student trip reduction
during the AM peak hour,while the final analysis approved by LADOT assumed
only a 65-percent reduction;and,
•The supplemental analysis assumed that only fifty percent (50%)of the 800-
student resident population would make weekday trips to/from the main campus,
while the final analysis approved by LADOT assumed 1aO-percent participation
in these daily weekday trips.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is now concerned that the supplemental analysis
presented to the NWSPNC did not accurately reflect the impacts of the proposed project
upon these additional study intersections,particularly those intersections along Western
Avenue that are partia.lly or Wholly within our jurisdiction.Therefore,we respectfully
request that the eight (8)intersections analyzed in the December 2011 supplemental
analysis are included in the final traffic impact analysis reviewed by LADOT,and that the
more conservative trip generation assumptions used in the final analysis be applied to
these additional intersections.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the proposed MND for this important project.If
you have any questions or need additional information,please feel free to contact me at
(310)544-5226 or via e-mail atkitf@rpv.com.Sp'KItFO~
Senior Administrative Analyst
enclosures
cc:Mayor Misetich and Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
Carolynn Petru,Deputy City Manager
Joel Rojas,Community Development Director
Ara Mihranian,Deputy Community Development Director
Nicole Jules,Senior Engineer
M:\Border Issues\Marymounl College San Pedro Campus\20121017 _Woersching_RevisedMNDCommenls.doc
C-176
submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director Grading Permit
and City Engineer.The Revised Lighting Plan shall include:
•Low-level bollards,not to exceed 42-inches in height,in place of the
currently proposed pole-mounted lighting along the lower terrace of the
eastem parking lot.
•Light standards adjacent to the privacy wall for the properties on San
Ramon Drive shall not exceed the height of the privacy wall.
•Pole-mounted lighting shall not exceed 10-feet in height,except along the
easterly boundary of the eastem parking lot,as noted above.
•The selected fixtures shall include reflectors,refractors,lenses,or
louvers.
•The selected shielding accessories shall be the sharp cut-off type.
•Lighting fixtures with cut-off shields to prevent light spill and glare into
adiacent areas.
Development
Director and
City Engineer
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Environmental Impact Report
of Revised
Lighting Plan
AES-8
AES-9
Ninety (90)days after the installation of lighting for each phase of the Project,
the lighting equipment shall be tested and adjusted to ensure that the proper
levels of light and glare have been achieved,to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director and City Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of any Building Permit,the Applicant shall demonstrate to
the satisfaction and approval of the Community Development Director and the
Building Official that the Athletic Facility (south facing fac;:ade)use minimally
reflective glass,based on manufacturers'guidelines.All other materials used
on the exterior of buildings and structures shall be selected with attention to
minimizing reflective glare.The use of glass with over 25 percent reflectivity
shall be prohibited on the exterior of all buildinas on the Proiect site.
Sixty (60)Days
After the
Installation of
Lighting For
Each Phase
Prior to Any
Building Permit
Community
Development
Director and
City Engineer
Community
Development
Director and
Building Official
Receipt of
Field Test
Results
Approval of
Building Plans
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Construction Traffic
TR-1 Prior to issuance of any Demolition or Grading Permit,the Community Prior to Any Community Approval of
Development Director shall review and approve the Construction Management Demolition or Development Construction
Plan,which shall specify the following,at a minimum:Grading Permit Director Management
•Demolition debris hauling and materials delivery shall be scheduled,as Plan
indicated below,to avoid the peak hour traffic period and minimize
Final •May 18,2010 6-4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
C
-
1
7
7
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Environmental Impact Report
Existin
TR-2
TR-3
TR-4
obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site.If necessary,a
flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing
roadways:
Weekdays:Hauling and deliveries shall be scheduled between 9:00
AM and 4:00 PM,with consideration given to reduce deliveries
during the 11 :30 AM to 1:30 PM lunch period.
Saturdays:Hauling and deliveries,if any,shall not occur during the
peak hour period of 11 :30 AM to 1:30 PM.
There shall be no idling or staging of equipment or accumulation of vehicles on
Rancho Palos Verdes City streets.Staging of trucks for the hauling of all
demolition debris shall be limited to the Colleae campus.
Plus Proiect Conditions
Prior to issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase "buildings
(Le.,Library,Maintenance,or Athletic Facility),the Applicant shall implement
the following improvement and may be eligible in the future for partial
reimbursement from future projects that result in impacts on this intersection:
•Palos Verdes Drive EasUMiraleste Drive -Signalize the intersection.The
intersection traffic signal shall be designed to include a westbound right-
tum overlap,which would preclude u-turn movement from southbound to
northbound Palos Verdes Drive East.
Prior to issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase "buildings
(Le.,Library,Maintenance,or Athletic Facility),the Applicant shall implement
the following improvement,at the City's direction,and may be eligible for
reimbursement from future projects that result in impacts on this intersection:
•Western Avenue (SR-213)fTrudie Drive-Capitol Drive -Re-stripe the
eastbound Trudie Drive approach from one shared left-turn/through lane
and one de-facto right-turn lane to consist of one left-turn lane and one
shared throughlright-turn lane.The Project Applicant shall coordinate
with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,City of Los Angeles,and Caltrans
reaardina implementation of this mitiaation.
The traffic impacts and corresponding mitigation measures assume the
Marymount College student enrollment at a maximum of 793 weekday students
(based on the formula allowing 750 full-time students,20 part-time students,
and a marainal difference of 3.0 percenO,and 150 weekend students.
Prior to Any
Certificate of
Occupancy
Prior to Any
Certificate of
Occupancy
Prior to Any
Certificate of
Occupancy
Community
Development
Director and
City Engineer
Community
Development
Director and
City Engineer
Community
Development
Director
Verification of
Signalization
Verification of
Modifications
Verification of
Student
Enrollment
Final •May 18,2010 6-5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
C
-
1
7
8
Parkin
TR-5
Additionally,it is assumed,Marymount College student enrollment as a
maximum of 250 weekday students enrolled in the SA Program and a
maximum of 793 weekday students minus current SA Program weekday
students enrolled in the AA Program.Therefore,prior to issuance of any
Certificate of Occupancy,student enrollment shall be limited to a maximum of
793 weekday students and 150 weekend students,including full-and part-time
students,and maximum of 250 weekday students enrolled in the SA Program
and a maximum of 793 weekday students minus current SA Program weekday
students enrolled in the AA Program.The College shall submit to the City an
Enrollment Report for each Term within an academic year for all Traditional
and Non-Traditional Degree Programs and Summer Educational Programs no
later than 30-days after a term has commenced.
Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy,the Applicant shall institute,
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Public
Works Director,parking management strategies to reduce weekday College-
related parking demand by the following values:
•11 percent or greater for student enrollment between 744 and 793;
• 6 percent or greater for student enrollment between 694 and 743;
• 0 percent or greater for student enrollment of 693 or less.
Potential parking management strategies may include,but are not limited to,
the following:
•Provision of "carpool only"parking spaces;
•Implementation of parking pricing for campus parking permits;
•Utilization of remote parking;
•Provision of increased shuttle services;
•Offering financial incentives;and
•Implementation of restrictions on parking allowed by residents of the Palos
Verdes North Facilitv.
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Environmental Impact Report
No Later Than Community Approval of
30 Days From Development Annual Student
Commencement Director Enrollment
ofTerm Report
-
Prior to Any Community Approval of
Certificate of Development Parking
Occupancy Director and Management
Public Works Strategies
Director
TR-6 A Parking Management Strategy Program shall l>e prepared and submitted by
the Applicant for review and approval by the Community Development Director,
by July 1sl of every year.Said Program shall:
•Document the Drior-vear's achieved DarkinCl demand reductions;
Prior to Any
Certificate of
Occupancy
Community
Development
Director and
Public Works
Approval of
Parking
Management
Strategies
Final.May 18,2010 6-6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
C
-
1
7
9
•Identify strategies for use in the upcoming academic school year;and
•Be modified on an as needed basis,as deemed necessary by the
Community Develooment Director.
TR-7 I The parking impacts and corresponding mitigation measures assume the
Marymount College student enrollment as a maximum of 793 weekday
students (based on the formula allowing 750 full-time students,20 part-time
students,and a marginal difference of 3.0 percent)and 150 weekend students.
Additionally,it is assumed,Marymount College student enrollment as a
maximum of 250 weekday students enrolled in the BA Program and a
maximum of 793 weekday students minus current BA Program weekday
students enrolled in the AA Program.Therefore,prior to issuance of any
Certificate of Occupancy,student enrollment shall be limited to a maximum of
793 weekday students and 150 weekend students,including full-and part-time
students,and maximum of 250 weekday students enrolled in the BA Program
and a maximum of 793 weekday students minus current BA Program weekday
students enrolled in the AA Proaram.
Cumulative (Forecast Year 2012\Conditions
TR-8 I Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy,the Applicant shall make a
proportionate share contribution to implement the following,in addition to
improvements specified in Mitigation Measures TR-2 and TR-3:
•Palos Verdes Drive EasUPalos Verdes Drive South -Modify the
intersection to provide a two-stage gap acceptance design for southbound
left-turning vehicles.A raised median refuge area shall be constructed for
vehicles to turn left from Palos Verdes Drive East to cross westbound
Palos Verdes Drive South while waiting for a gap in eastbound traffic to
complete the turn to eastbound Palos Verdes Drive South.Additionally,
the existing raised median shall be narrowed to provide an acceleration
lane along Palos Verdes Drive South to accommodate vehicles
accelerating to join eastbound Palos Verdes Drive South traffic flow.
Modifications to the Palos Verdes Drive EasUPalos Verdes Drive South
intersection shall be designed taking into account truck turning radius
requirements and shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Since the Palos Verdes Drive EasUPalos Verdes Drive South intersection
is imoacted bv the proposed Proiect for "Cumulative with proposed
Final •May 18,2010
Prior to Any
Certificate of
Occupancy
Prior to Any
Certificate of
Occupancy
6-7
Community
Development
Director and
City Engineer
Community
Development
Director and
City Engineer
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Environmental Impact Report
Annual Student
Enrollment
Report
Verification of
Proportionate
Share
Contribution
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
C
-
1
8
0
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project
Environmental Impact Report
Approval of
Project Plans
Community
Development
Director.
Prior to Any
Grading Plan
TR-9 I Prior to issuance of any Grading Plan,the Project Plans shall be revised to
include wrought iron fencing along Palos Verdes Drive East at approximately
6.0 feet in height and 80 percent open to light and air,temporary retractable
netting along the northern,southern and western sides of the athletic field at
approximately 30.0 feet in height,and chain link fencing at 20.0 feet in height
around the perimeter of the western tennis courts and 10.0 feet in height
around the perimeter of the eastern tennis courts so that errant balls are
sufficiently contained,to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.The retractable net shall only be extended during activities involving
field balls at the Athletic Field,subject to the limitations set forth in Mitigation
Measure AES-5.The Applicant shall be responsible for retracting the net.The
use of a landscape screen around and adjacent to the wrought iron fence along
the perimeter of the Athletic Field shall be limited to a maximum height of 42
inches.
AIR QUALITY
Short·Term (Construction)Air Emissions
AQ-1 I Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit,the Director of Public Works and the
Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan,Building Plans,and
specifications stipulate that,in compliance with South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 403,excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be
controlled by regular watering or other dust preventive measures,as specified
in the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rules and Regulations.
In addition,South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 requires
implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from
creating a nuisance off-site.Implementation of the following measures would
reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors:
•All active portions of the construction site shall be watered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust;
•On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph);
•All on-site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered
periodically or chemically stabilized;
•All material excavated or oraded shall be sufficientlv watered to prevent
Prior to Any
Grading Permit
Director of
Public Works
and Building
Official
Approval of
Grading Plan,
Building Plans,
and
Specifications
Final.May 18,2010 6-8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
C
-
1
8
1
MI.O$-ESTJllI!S
IIOI.UHG
IlIW
ESTJllI!S
-MI.O$-
MAIN CAMPUS
30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
Rancho Palos Verdes
C
-
1
8
2
To:
From:
Date:
KOA CORPORATION
PLANNING &ENGINEERING
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Mr.Jim Krause
Non-Profit Ventures
4007 Coogan Circle
Culver City,CA 90232-3704
Mr.Jonathan Louie
December 14,20 I I
1100 Corporate Center Dr.,Suite 201
Monterey Park,CA 91754
t:323-260-4703 f:323-260-4705
www.koacorporation.com
Subject:.Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
[KOA Job Number JB II 045]
INTRODUCTION
KOA Corporation prepared a Traffic Impact Study dated October 25 th ,20 II for the proposed Marymount
College San Pedro Campus Project located at 1600 Palos Verdes Drive North in the City of Los Angeles.That
traffic study analyzed project traffic impacts at 17 study intersections.The San Pedro Northwest Neighborhood
Council (hereinafter referred to as 'Neighborhood Council')has reviewed the traffic study for this project and has
requested a supplemental analysis be prepared that evaluates traffic impacts at additional study intersections
located to the south of the project site.In particular,the Neighborhood Council noted that eight additional
signalized intersections located along Western Avenue and Gaffey Street should be analyzed for the weekday mid-
afternoon and p.m.peak periods.KOA has prepared this technical memorandum summarizing 'the results and
findings of the traffic impacts associated with the project at the eight additional intersections.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Marymount College is proposing to construct a sustainable private expanded undergraduate/graduate campus at
the San Pedro Campus site.The proposed campus would accommodate 1,500 students,800 of whom would be
residents living on campus including eight (8)faculty apartments.The project site currently has 86 dwelling units
that serve as off-campus housing for students matriculating at the Marymount College Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV)
campus.
The San Pedro Campus will be a multi-phased project with a build out conditioned upon updated traffic studies to
coincide with major phases of the build out.For the purpose of analyzing traffic impacts for this project,a 20-year
build out horizon (Year 2031)is assumed.
SUPPLEMENTAL STUDY INTERSECTIONS
The intersections included as part of this supplemental analysis are:
I.Green Hills Drive and Western Avenue
2.Avenida Aprenda and Western Avenue
LOS ANGELES ONTARIO ORANGE SAN DIEGO SOUTH BAY
C-183
KOA CORPORATION
<:j PLANNING &ENGINEERING
3.Westmont Drive/Delasonde Drive and Western Avenue
4.Toscanini Drive and Western Avenue
5.Caddington Drive and Western Avenue
6.Westmont Drive and Gaffey Street
7.Capitol Drive and Gaffey Street
8.Channel Street and Gaffey Street
The study intersections located on Western Avenue (#I through #5)are located in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.Intersections #6 through #8 are located in the City of Los Angeles.
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The traffic impact analysis at the eight intersections was conducted for the follOWing scenarios:
•Existing 20 I I
•Existing Plus Project
•Future 203 I Without Project
•Future 203 I With Project
The analysis methodology that was used in the original project traffic study was also used to analyze the eight
study intersections.The Critical Movement Analysis (CMA)methodology was used to analyze intersections
located in the City of Los Angeles.The intersections located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes were analyzed
using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)methodology.
According to LADOT,the three study intersections located within the City of Los Angeles are currently
operating with ATSAC/ATCS.As such,a 0.10 reduction in volume-to-capacity ratio was assumed at these
locations per LADOT traffic study policies and procedures.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
KOA conducted traffic counts at the study intersections on Tuesday,November 15th,20 II.The traffic counts
were collected from 2:00 p.m.to 4:00 p.m.(mid-afternoon peak period)and from 4:00 p.m.to 6:00 p.m.The
intersection traffic count sheets are included in Attachment A.The counts were utilized to determine existing
mid-afternoon and p.m.peak-hour traffic conditions.The existing intersection turn volumes are shown in Figure
I for the mid-afternoon .peak hour and in Figure 2 for the p.m.peak hour.
In addition,KOA conducted fieldwork at each of the study intersections to identify their roadway characteristics
including traffic control,approach lane configuration,parking restrictions and bus stop locations.The existing
intersection lane configurations are shown in Attachment B.
The existing level of service conditions were calculated based on the traffic count levels and intersection
geometrics and signal phasing characteristics.The level of service calculation worksheets are in Attachment E.As
shown in Table I,the study intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better during both the mid-
afternoon and p.m.peak hours,except for the intersection of Western Avenue and Caddington Drive which is
currently operating at LOS E during the p.m.peak hour.
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14,20 II
Page 2
C-184
KOA CORPORATION
PLANNING &ENGINEERING
Table I -Existing Intersection Level of Service
Existing (20 II)
Midday
Afternoon PM Peak Hour
Study Intersections City Peak Hour
VIC LOS VIC LOS
1 Western Ave &Green Hills Dr Rancho Palos Verdes 0.602 B 0.667 B
2 Western Ave &Avenida Aprenda Rancho Palos Verdes 0.617 B 0.711 C
3 Western Ave &Delasonde DrlWestmont Dr Rancho Palos Verdes 0.828 D 0.843 D
4 Western Ave &T oscanini Dr Rancho Palos Verdes 0.686 B 0.757 C
5 Western Ave &Caddington Dr Rancho Palos Verdes 0.777 C 0.907 E
6 Gaffey St &Westmont Dr Los Angeles 0.486 A 0.703 C
7 Gaffey St &Capitol Dr Los Angeles 0.529 A 0.678 B
8 Gaffey St &Channel St Los Angeles 0.509 A 0.661 B
PROJECT TRAFFIC
Project Trip Generation
The project's trip generation for the p.m.peak hour is discussed in detail in the October 25 th,20 II traffic study
that was prepared for this project.Similar to the p.m.peak hour,the project trip generation for the mid-
afternoon peak hour was also based on empirical trip rates derived from surveys conducted at the Marymount
College RPV Campus and at the existing Palos Verdes Drive North residential facility site (proposed San Pedro
Campus site),as well as trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation,8th Edition
book.In addition,trip generation reductions were applied to take into account trip discounts due to students
living on campus and other trip reducing measures that will be implemented by the project.Table 2 shows the trip
generation rates that were utilized,and the trip generation for the project.The empirical trip rates and trip
generation discounts are discussed in the footnotes at the bottom of Table 2.
As shown in Table 2,the project upon build out is estimated to generate about 244 mid-afternoon peak hour
trips (I 18 inbound trips and 126 outbound trips)and 279 p.m.peak hour trips (99 inbound trips and 180
outbound trips).The project site currently generates about 41 trips (21 inbound trips and 20 outbound trips)
during the mid-afternoon peak hour and 48 trips (25 inbound trips and 23 outbound trips)during the p.m.peak
hour.The project would generate an increase of 203 net trips (97 inbound trips and 106 outbound trips)during
the mid-afternoon peak hour,and 231 net trips (74 inbound trips and 157 outbound trips)during the p.m.peak-
hour.
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14,20 II
Page 3
C-185
~t.2.
-0
4+fO
8~r rs7
1306
7
-88
99+f81
18~r G85
886
+
1043
8j 1
741
2j 1t 35
~~8
8
2~
39~r
857
556
10j 1t7
1EJ UE.
6 -8
2"8Ql.f121
26~r ~7
487
6
•
Verdes orNpa\~os~:,:;,;__--
Green
HiJlsD:;-:r-"-~
Delasonde Dr---tiL-
Toscanini Dr
~5
3 -40
39++268
3~r G50
1189
1314
12j 1~9
1.1U ~
5 -0
66+f49
11~r ra
1214
7--4 -7
66+f53
7~r rs8
1223
LEGEND
•Project Location
ex Study Intersections
X)OO.Intersection Turn Volume
Not to Scale
KOA CORPORATION
~PLANNING &ENGINEERING
Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Supplemental Traffic Study Figure 1
Existing (2011)Mid-Afternoon Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
C-186
1710
~l~
0-
11+CO
~lra
1224
7
+
2'421
53~1
996
734
12~1~9
~~
13-6
296++222
39~1ra9
469
996
2~1~08
~UQ5
260-8 -178
lii4++1'20
30~1~16
1111
6
•
Verdes Or Npa\~os:;,::,:,;:,;__--
Green
HiIlso'-:r-"--
Delasonde Dr---tiL-
Toscanini Dr
2
1613
3~1
1548
15j 1to
1£.j ~
5 -3
94)f4i
14~1G
1138
1372
3~1t 96
•
~L.!§.5
35-3 -69
491 GSo
4~1G74
1005
~
10-4
671 f48
6~1ra8
1162
LEGEND
•Project Location
ex Study Intersections
XXX+Intersection Turn Volume
Nollo Scale
KOA CORPORATION
~PLANNING &ENGINEERING
Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Supplemental Traffic Study Figure 2
Existing (2011)PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
C-187
KOA CORPORATION
~PLANNING &ENGINEERING
Table 2 -Project Trip Generation
Land Use Intensity Unit Mid-Afternoon Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
.In
Out Total In Out
';:.,..".A#::ltw.{d:r#Af~"""rNffi;*;..::.:-::=./:-:X:-:::::1ltfi%r&:.iP:&,~;:;:..'/<0'%J:'.wkQ::teMffi=£#.Jfffff.@#.f%JK
College [I]Student 0.22 47%53%0.24 25%75%
Off-Campus Housing [2]-Student 0.29 51%49%0.35 52%48%
Apartment [3]-DU 0.62 65%35%0.62 65%35%_.$E"M~liifP5Yl ~-=-'fqMjt:-:-+,j%f.mrfift.iiftAkv.fd}t@H';j::t.:f.;;)::W¥t%W&;:/..~,.../{-u],~::-'.1m,z.:.;«.1 :::;.IT':::i:L ..f{h.~~z~~zu%7/Z'}@","".SA ".K/peg.:::::::-:;;::,.::,%",%:-'"::::jZ:'''::·,%.<·"·.~'"":-{-f.i:.·i:i{-.·,,.lli,:=;.",,·;{@.::;<.,;.:-:
Proposed Project
College 1,500 Student 330 155 175 360 90 270
Internal Trip Reduction [4]53%.::ll2 :.Sl .:'n.-192 .::1e.-144
Subtotal 154 72 82 168 42 126
Resident Student Trip Reduction (75%AM)[5]0 0 0 0 0 0
Tdtal Non-Residential College Trips 154 72 82 168 42 126
Residence Halls for Students 800 Student 232 118 114 280 146 134
'Limited Cars for Residents'Trip Reduction (56%)[6]:l1Q ~:.M :liZ ~:IS.
Subtotal 102 52 50 123 64 59
Internal Trip Reduction (64%Mid-afternoon,62%PM)[7][8].:2S.:ll :.ll =li ~.:l6
Total Non·RPV Campus Trips 37 19 18 47 24 23
Trips to/from RPV Campus [9]400 Student 116 59 57 140 73 67
'Limited Cars for Residents'Trip Reduction (56%)[6].:2S.:ll :.ll ~:il .ill
Total Trips to/from RPV Campus 51 26 25 62 32 30
Faculty Apartments 8 DU 5 3 2 5 3 2
Internal Trip Reduction (64%Mid-afternoon,62%PM)[7]:3.~:l :3.~:l
Total Faculty Apartment Trips 2 I I 2 I I
Total Trip Generation (Proposed Project Uses)244 118 126 279 99 180
Existing Uses
Housing Facility [10]86 DU 41 21 20 48 25 23
Net Total Trip Generation 203 97 106 231 74 157
[I]Trip generation rates are based on trip surveys conducted at the Marymount College RPV Campus on March 22 and 30,201 I.
[2]The mid-afternoon and PM peak hour trip rates are based on trip generation surveys conducted at the Palos Verdes Drive North residential
facility on November 15 and March 24,20 I I,respectively.
[3]Trip generation rates are from ITE Trip Generation,8th Edition.
[4]Based on percentage of students who will be liVing on the San Pedro Campus (800 resident students/l ,500 total students).
[5]Marymount College would schedule the morning peak period classes on the San Pedro Campus exclusively for resident SJ:udents.A trip
reduction of 75%is assumed for the AM peak hour as commuter students are not expected to generate vehicle trips during this period.
Resident student trip reduction is not assumed for the mid-afternoon and PM peak hour periods.
[6]About 44%of the 800 San Pedro Campus residents would have a vehicle on campus based on a limited lottery system.The remaining 56%of
residents would not have a vehicle on campus and therefore would not generate vehicle trips.
[7]Based on internal trip capture empirical rates for the apartment dormitory component per the Marymount College Facilities Expansion
Project Traffic Impact Analysis,RBF Consulting,July 31,2007.The empirical data showed that 64%of the vehicles during the mid-afternoon
peak and 62%of the vehicles during the PM peak are traveling to/from the RPV campus.
[8]The internal trip reduction for the PM was assumed for daily.
[9]Based on information prOVided by Marymount College representative,about 400 of the 800 residents would take classes at the Marymount
College RPV Campus on a typical weekday.
[10]The mid-afternoon and PM peak hour trips are based on raw trip generation survey data conducted at the Palos Verdes Drive North Facility
on November 15 and March 24,20 I I,respectively.
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14,20 II
Page 6
C-188
KOA CORPORATION
"i PLANNING &ENGINEERING
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution is the process of assigning the directions from which traffic will access a project site.Trip
distribution is dependent upon the land use characteristics of the project and the general locations of other land
uses to which project trips would originate or terminate.The project trip distribution was developed based on
our knowledge of development trends in the area,local and sub-regional traffic routes,regional traffic flows,and
license plate survey data.In addition,the project trip distribution was based on existing student and faculty/staff
zip code information that was provided by Marymount College.Two trip distribution patterns were determined.
The first distribution is for trips generated by the project but excludes those trips generated by resident students
going tolfrom the RPV Campus.The second distribution is for trips generated by the resident students traveling
to/from the RPV Campus.The trip distribution assumptions that were used in the October 25 th ,20 I I traffic study
was also used for the analysis of the eight study intersections.
The project trips were assigned based on the trip distributions that were determined for the project.Attachment
C illustrates the net project trips for the weekday mid-afternoon and p.m.peak hours.
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The estimated net project trips shown in Attachment C were superimposed onto the existing traffic volumes to
estimate the existing plus project traffic volumes.Figures 3 and 4 show the existing plus project traffic volumes
for the mid-afternoon and p.m.peak hours,respectively.The existing plus project level of service analysis results
are summarized in Table 3.As shown in this table,the eight study intersections are projected to continue to
operate at the same level of services during the mid-afternoon and p.m.peak hour periods as compared to the
existing conditions.All of the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the
mid-afternoon and p.m.peak hours,except for the intersection of Western Avenue and Caddington Drive which
is projected to operate at LOS E during the p.m.peak hour.The level of service calculation worksheets are in
Attachment E.
Table 3 -Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service
Existing Plus Project
Midday
Afternoon PM Peak Hour
Study Intersections City Peak Hour
VIC LOS VIC LOS
1 Western Ave &Green Hills Dr Rancho Palos Verdes 0.606 B 0.673 B
2 Western Ave &Avenida Aprenda Rancho Palos Verdes 0.622 B 0.718 C
3 Western Ave &Delasonde DrlWestmont Dr Rancho Palos Verdes 0.833 D 0.848 D
4 Western Ave &Toscanini Dr Rancho Palos Verdes 0.691 B 0.763 C
5 Western Ave &Caddington Dr Rancho Palos Verdes 0.781 C 0.914 E
6 Gaffey St &Westmont Dr Los Angeles 0.488 A 0.705 C
7 Gaffey St &Capitol Dr Los Angeles 0.530 A 0.680 B
8 Gaffey St &Channel St Los Angeles 0.511 A 0.662 B
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14,20 II
Page 7
C-189
~U-
0--0
4+ro
8~r rs7
1321
7
745
2~1t35
~~8
8 -88
991 f81
18~r G8S
890
1047
8j 1
+
232+
39~r
861
1.!ZJ
560
10j 1t 7
1~~
17-6 -8
280++121
26~r ~7
491
6
•
Verdes orNpaloS
Green
Hills D;;:r:-----~
Oelasonde,,-,-O_r---.a::
Toscanini Dr
55)
1~r
1391
LEGEND
1329
12~1~9
1E..J ~
2-5 -0
86+f49
11~r rs
1229
~uz.
7-4
661 G3
7~r rs8
1238
~
24-3
39++268
3~r G50
1204
•Project Location
ex Study Intersections
XXX+Intersection Turn Volume
Nolto Scale
KOA CORPORATION
~PLANNING &ENGINEERING
Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Supplemental Traffic Study Figure 3
Existing Plus Project Mid-Afternoon Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
C-190
1731
~l~
~L!-
0----+
111 +0
~rro
1239
7
+
2421-
53~r
998
1002
2~1~08
~UQ.5
260----+8 -178
184'++120
30~r ~16
1113
740
12~1~9
~~
13----+6
296++222
39~r re9
471
6
•
d sorNpaloSVere
Green
HiJlsO:;-r-----
Oelasonde Dr---4IIL
Toscanini Dr
2
LEGEND
56+
2~r
1215
1569
15j 1to
1£3 ~
3----+5 -3
941 f47
14~r G
1153
1634
3~1
~~
10----+4
671 f48
6~r re8
1177
1393
3~1t96
•
~~5
35----+3
49l-+280
4~r G74
1020
•Project Location
ex Study Intersections
X50G Intersection Turn Volume
Not to Scale
KOA CORPORATION
~PLANNING &ENGINEERING
Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Supplemental Traffic Study Figure 4
Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
C-191
KOA CORPORATION
~PLANNING &~NGINWllNG
FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Ambient Growth
For the analysis of background traffic for year 2031,a traffic growth factor of 7.I%for the 20-year period was
utilized to provide for increases in traffic from the existing traffic volumes.This growth rate is based on the 2010
Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP)traffic growth projections for the study area and
was also used for the October 25 th,20 I1 traffic study.
Area/Related Projects Growth
Based on discussions with staff from the cities of Los Angeles,Rancho Palos Verdes,Rolling Hills Estates and
Lomita,77 area/related projects were identified for this analysis.These area/related projects were considered to
potentially con~ribute measurable traffic volumes to the study intersections during the future analysis periods.A
description of the related projects and the trip generation of each are summarized in Attachment D.
It should be noted that the trip generation for the p.m.peak hour were obtained from LADOT and other traffic
studies as well as based on trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation 8th Edition book.The trip generation
for the mid-afternoon peak hour was not available from LADOT and other traffic studies.Also.the ITE Trip
Generation book generally does not have trip rates for the mid-afternoon peak hour.Thus.the p.m.peak hour trip
generation was assumed for the mid-afternoon peak hour,except for school projects in which the trip rate for
the p.m.peak hour of generator from ITE Trip Generation was used.Attachment D illustrates the related project
trip assignments at the study intersections during the mid-afternoon and p.m.peak hours.
Future Without Project Conditions
The future without project traffic volumes were determined by applying an overall ambient growth factor of 7.1 %
to the existing peak hour volumes and adding the area/related project traffic.The future without project traffic
volumes are shown in Figures 5 and 6 for the mid-afternoon and p.m.peak hour periods,respectively.The future
without project level of service analysis was conducted for the study intersections using the traffic volumes shown
in Figures 5 and 6.The results are summarized in Table 4 and the level of service calculation worksheets are
contained in Attachment E.
As shown in Table 4,the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the mid-
afternoon and p.m.peak hours with the exception of the intersections of Western Avenue/Delasonde
DrivelWestmont Drive and Western Avenue/Caddington Drive,which are projected to operate at LOS E or F
during both study periods.
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14,20 II
Page 10
C-192
1854
7j 1t 18
~~
0--0
121 f7
9~1~5
1701
7
+
1295
13~1
991
3j 1t67
~~O
225-8 -94
1"06+rB7
19~1G99
1202
791
11j 1t 8
1.£J ~
18-6
3~030
33~1ra3
703
6
d SorNpaloSVere
Green
Hills O::::r-----
Delasonde Dr--_.L
Toscanini Dr
~~
4 -7
71+f57
7~1ra2
1529
LEGEND
1613
15~1t 2
1~~
2-5 -0
1""0'91 f52
13~1rs
1509
0-2
59+03
1~1~4
1769
1309
3:J 1~07 •
~UQ.9
26-3 -43
42++288
3~1G61
1492
•Project Location
ex Study Intersections
XXX+Intersection Turn Volume
Not to Scale
KOA CORPORATION Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Supplemental Traffic Study Figure 5
PLANNING &ENGINEERING Future Without Project Mid-Afternoon Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
C-193
~~
0--0
2ii+rT
1~r G4
1600
7
+
1524
20~1
2'68+
59~r
1231
~
279-8
198"+f129
32~r !s39
1405
959
13~1~1
1~~
14-6
34'6++238
48~r rs6
637
6
d Sor~paloSVer e
Green
Hills D::-r-"'--~
Delasonde Dr---4IL-
Toscanini Dr
Avenida
Aprenda
1679
4~1~63
~tE7
3 -74
521 +301
4~r G86
1282
2 -0
60+f13
2~r rz4
1566
1857
17~1t3
UQ.
5 -3
1"1'8"1 f5ci
17l r G
1419
LEGEND
~UQ.
11-4 -20
72+f51
6~r ~3
1451
•Project Location
ex Study Intersections
XXX+Intersection Turn Volume
Not to Scale
KOA CORPORATION
4 PLANNING &ENGINEERING
Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Supplemental Traffic Study Figure 6
Future Without Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
C-194
KOA CORPORATION
~PLANNING &ENGINEERING
Table 4 -Future Without Project Intersection Level of Service
Midday
Analysis Afternoon PM Peak Hour
Study Intersections City Peak HourMethodology
VIC LOS VIC LOS
I Western Ave &Green Hills Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.807 D 0.865 D
2 Western Ave &Avenida Aprenda Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.781 C 0.841 D
3 Western Ave &Delasonde DrlWestmont Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.982 E 0.994 E
4 Western Ave &Toscanini Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.797 C 0.869 D
5 Western Ave &Caddington Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.922 E 1.055 F
6 Gaffey St &Westmont Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.650 B 0.873 D
7 Gaffey St &Capitol Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.676 B 0.829 D
8 Gaffey St &Channel St Los Angeles CMA 0.642 B 0.793 C
Note:
ICU -Intersection Capacity Utilization Method,CMA -Critical Movement Analysis Method
FUTURE WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The estimated project trips were superimposed onto the future without project traffic forecasts to estimate the
future with project traffic volumes.Figures 7 and 8 show the future with project traffic volumes for the mid-
afternoon and p.m.peak hours,respectively.The future with project level of service analysis results are
summarized in Table 5.The level of service calculation worksheets are contained in Attachment E.
Table 5 -Future With Project Intersection Level of Service
Midday
Analysis Afternoon PM Peak Hour
Study Intersections City
Methodology Peak Hour
VIC LOS VIC LOS
I Western Ave &Green Hills Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.812 D 0.871 D
2 Western Ave &Avenida Aprenda Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.786 C 0.847 D
3 Western Ave &Delasonde DrlWestmont Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.987 E 0.998 E
4 Western Ave &Toscanini Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.802 D 0.875 D
5 Western Ave &Caddington Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.927 E 1.062 F
6 Gaffey St &Westmont Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.651 B 0.875 D
7 Gaffey St &Capitol Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.678 B 0.831 D
8 Gaffey St &Channel St Los Angeles CMA 0.644 B 0.793 C
Note:
ICU -Intersection Capacity Utilization Method,CMA -Critical Movement Analysis Method
As shown in Table 5,the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both study
periods with the exception of the intersections of Western Avenue/Delasonde Drive/Westmont Drive and
Western Avenue/Caddington Drive,which are projected to operate at LOS E or F during both study periods.
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14,20 II
Page 13
C-195
1869
7j 1t18
~~
0--0
12+f7
9l r ~5
1716
7
+
1299
13~1
257+
43~r
1132
19J
995
3~1t67
~
225-8
1"ii"61 f87
19~r G99
1206
1E..J
18-6
329+f130
33~r ra3
707
6
d SorNpaloSVere
Green
Hills D:;-r-"-~
Delasonde Dr---ilL:--
Toscanini Dr
1629
15~1t 2
1~~
2-5 -0
1"09+f52
13~r rs
1524
LEGEND
~~
7-4 -7
71+f57
7~r rs2
1544
0-2 -0
59+f13
1~r ~4
1783
13243:J1 ~07 •
~UQ.9
26-3 -43
421 +288
3l r G61
1507
•Project Location
ex Study Intersections
XXX)Intersection Turn Volume
Not to Scale
em KOA CORPORATION Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Supplemental Traffic Study Figure 7
r~PLANNING &ENGINEERING Future With Project Mid-Afternoon Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
C-196
£j ~
0--0
20+f7
1~1~4
1614
7
lllJ
+
1530
20j 1
268+
59~1
1233
965
13~1~1
1.2!J ~
6 -23
3'46'++238
48~1rs6
639
~
279-8
1""98"""+(129
32~1~39
1407
6
d SorNpaloSVere
Green
Hills O:::r:------
Delasonde~D",-r_A=:
Toscanini Dr
t.1I.7
3 -74
52""1 f301
4~1~86
1296
LEGEND
1878
17j 1t3
19j UQ.
3-5 -3
1"1""8'+f5ci
17~1~
1434
0-2 -0
60+f13
2~1~4
1581
~UQ.
11-4 -20
721 f51
6~1~3
1465
•Project Location
ex Study Intersections
XXX+Intersection Turn Volume
Not to Scale
KOA CORPORATION
~PLANNING &ENGINEERING
Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Supplemental Traffic Study Figure 8
Future With Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
C-197
PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT
City of Los An~eles Si~nificant Impact Criteria
LADOT has established specific thresholds for project traffic-related increases in the volume-to-capacity ratio
011C)of a study intersection.The following increases in the peak-hour VIC ratio are considered "significant"
impacts:
,andp~ggp~g p (J
Level of Service Final V/C*Project Related VIC Increase
C <0.700 -0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.040
D <0.800-0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.020
E and F 0.90 I or more Equal to or greater than 0.0 I0
*Final VIC is the VIC ratio at an interseaion,considerin im acts rom the rO'ea,ambient rowth and related ro'ects rowth
without proposed traffic impaa mitigations.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
The County of Los Angeles thresholds of significance criteria was used to determine the project related traffic
impact for the signalized study intersections in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.The following increases in peak-
hour VIC ratios are considered "significant"impacts:
Level of Service Pre-Project VIC Project Related VIC Increase
C <0.700 -0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.040
D <0.800-0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.020
E and F 0.90 I or more Equal to or greater than 0.0 I0
Based on the results of the analysis and the established significant threshold criteria,the proposed project would
not create a significant traffic impact at any of the eight study intersections under the 'Existing Plus Project'and
'Future With Project'scenarios,as summarized in Tables 6 and 7.
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14,20 I1
Page 16
C-198
"~2~&S~~~2RATION
Table 6 -Intersection Level of Service Summary -Existing Plus Project
Existing (20 II)E){isting Plus Project
Midday Midday Change in VIC
Afternoon PM Peak Hour Afternoon PM Peak Hour
Study Intersections City
Analysis
Peak Hour Peak Hour
Significant
Methodology Impact?
Mid-
VIC PMVICLOSLOSVICLOSVICLOSAfternoon
Peak Hour
Peak Hour
I Western Ave &Green Hills Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.602 B 0.667 B 0.606 B 0.673 B 0.004 0.006 No
2 Western Ave &Avenida Aprenda Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.617 B 0.711 C 0.622 B 0.718 C 0.005 0.007 No
3 Western Ave &Delasonde DrlWestmont Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.828 D 0.843 D 0.833 D 0.848 D 0.005 0.005 No
4 Western Ave &Toscanini Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.686 B 0.757 C 0.691 B 0.763 C 0.005 0.006 No
5 Western Ave &Caddington Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.777 C 0.907 E 0.781 C 0.914 E 0.004 0.007 No
6 Gaffey St &Westmont Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.486 A 0.703 C 0.488 A 0.705 C 0.002 0.002 No
7 Gaffey St &Capitol Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.529 A 0.678 B 0.530 A 0.680 B 0.001 0.002 No
8 Gaffey St &Channel St Los Angeles CMA 0.509 A 0.661 B 0.511 A 0.662 B 0.002 0.001 No
Note,
ICU -Intersection Capacity Utilization Method;CMA -Critical Movement Analysis Method
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14,201 1
Page 17
C
-
1
9
9
KOA CORPORATION
PLANNING &ENGINEERING
Table 7 -Intersection Level of Service Summary -Future With Project
Future Without Project .Future With Project
Midday Midday Change in VIC
Analysis Afternoon PM Peak Hour Afternoon PM Peak Hour Significant
Study Intersections City
Methodology Peak Hour Peak Hour Impact?
MDAft PM
VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS Peak Peak
Hour Hour
I Western Ave &Green Hills Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.807 D 0.865 D 0.812 D 0.871 D 0.005 0.006 No
2 Western Ave &Avenida Aprenda Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.781 C 0.841 D 0.786 C 0.847 D 0.005 0.006 No
3 Western Ave &Delasonde DrlWestmont Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.982 E 0.994 E 0.987 E 0.998 E 0.005 0.004 No
4 Western Ave &Toscanini Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.797 C 0.869 D 0.802 D 0.875 D 0.005 0.006 No
5 Western Ave &Caddington Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.922 E 1.055 F 0.927 E 1.062 F 0.005 0.007 No
6 Gaffey 5t &Westmont Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.650 B 0.873 D 0.651 B 0.875 D 0.001 0.002 No
7 Gaffey St &Capitol Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.676 B 0.829 D 0.678 B 0.831 D 0.002 0.002 No
8 Gaffey St &Channel St Los Angeles CMA 0.642 B 0.793 C 0.644 B 0.793 C 0.002 0.000 No
Note:
ICU •Intersection Capacity Utilization Method,CMA -Critical Movement Analysis Method
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14,2011
Page 18
C
-
2
0
0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
•For existing conditions,all of the study intersections are operating at LOS D or better during both the
weekday mid-afternoon and p.m.peak hour periods with the exception of the intersection of Western
Avenue and Caddington DriYe which is operating at LOS E during the p.m.peak hour.
•The proposed project is estimated to generate about 203 net trips (97 inbound trips and 106 outbound
trips)during the mid-afternoon peak hour and 231 net trips (74 inbound trips and 157 outbound trips)
during the p.m.peak-hour.
•For the Existing Plus Project conditions,all of the study intersections are also projected to operate at
LOS D or better during both the weekday mid-afternoon and p.m.peak hour periods with the exception
of the intersection of Western Avenue and Caddington Drive which is operating at LOS E during the p.m.
peak hour.
•For the future (2031)conditions without and with development of the project,all of the study
intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the mid-afternoon and p.m.peak
hours with the exception of the intersections of Western Avenue/Delasonde Drive/Westmont Drive and
Western Avenue/Caddington Drive,which are projected to operate at LOS E or F during both study
periods.
•The proposed project would not result in a significant traffic impact at any of the eight study intersections.
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
December 14,20 II
Page 19
C-201
~:
Public hearing notice for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
C-202
CITY OF Los ANGELES
CALIFORNIA
.RECEIVED
NOV 16 20'2.
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT .
To Owners:0 Within a 100-Foot Radius
~Within a 500-Foot Rapius
o Abutting a Proposed Dewlopment Site
And Occupants:0 Within a 100-Foot Radius
~Within a 500-Foot Radius
And:~Others
This notice is sent to you because you own property or are currently an occupant residing near the site for
which an application,as described below,has been filed with the Department of City Planning.All interested
persons are invited to attend joint public hearing for two cases requestrFlg approvals for the expansion of
Marymount College at which you may listen,ask questions,or present testimony regarding the project.
Marymount College
James Krause
AA-2011-2479-PMLA &
CPC 2011-2480-CU
ENV-2011-2478-MND
N/A
N/A
15
Wilmington-Harbor City
N/A
Northwest San Pedro
Low Residential
RD6-1XL
CEQA No.:
Incidental Cases:
Related Cases:
Council No.:
Plan Area:
Specific Plan:
Certified NC:
GPLU:
Zone:
Applicant:
Representative:
Case Nos:
Marc Woersching -for CPC-2011
(213)978-1470 -2480-CU
Advisory Agency and Hearing Officer
Wednesday,December 12,2012
9:30AM.
Los Angeles City Hall
200 North Spring Street,Room 1020
Los Angeles,CA 900 12
Staff Contact:Dwayne Wyatt -for AA-2011-2479
Phone No.:(213)473-9919 -PMLA
Hearing By:
Date:
Time:
Place:
PROJECT
LOCATION:
1600 W.Palos Verdes Drive North
PROPOSED
PROJECT:
A five phase,master planned,college campus with an ultimate seating capacity of 520
students,residential units for 800 persons,a student services building with a dining hall,50
faculty and administrative offices,nine classrooms and 342 parking spaces.
REQUESTED
ACTION:
Approval of a Parcel Map to merge a strip of land along the south side of Palos Verdes Drive
North into the main portion of the project site and a Commission Conditional Use Permit for
an educational institution pursuant to Sec.17.50 and Sec.12.24U.6 of the Zone Code.
The purpose of the hearing is to obtain testimony from affected and/or interested persons regarding this
project.The environmental document will be among the matters considered at the hearing.The decision
maker will consider all the testimony presented at the hearing,written communication received prior to or at the
hearing,and the merits of the project as it relates to existing land use and environmental.
C-203
Page 2
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES:If you challenge a City action in court,you may be limited
to raising only.those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in
written correspondence on these matters delivered to the Department before the action on this matter will
become a part of the administrative record.Note:This may not be the last hearing on this matter;
ADVICE TO PUBLIC:The exact time this report will be considered during the meeting is uncertain since there
may be several other items on the agenda.Written communications may be mailed to the Los Angeles City
Planning Department,Division of Land Section,200 N.Spring Street,Room 720,Los Angeles,CA 90012
(attention:Dwayne Wyatt,Marc Woersching).
REVIEW OF FILES:Parcel Map AA-2011-2479-PMLA and CPC 2011-2480-CU,including the application and
the environmental assessment,are available for public inspection at this location between the hours of 8:00
a.m.to 4:30 p.m.,Monday through Friday.Please call Dwayne Wyatt at (213)473-9919 or Marc Woersching at
(213)978-1470 a day or two in advance to assure that the files will be available.The files are not available for
review the day o'fthe hearing..
ACCOMMODATIONS:As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act,the City of Los
Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability.The hearing "facility and its parking are wheelchair
accessible.Sign language interpreters,assistive listening devices,or other auxiliary aids and/or services may
be·provided upon request.Como entidad cubierta bajo el Titulo /I del Acto de los Americanos can
Desabilidades,la Ciudad de Los'Angeles no discrimina.La facilidad donde la junta se lIevara a cabo y su
estacionamiento son accesibles para sillas de ruedas.Traductores de Lengua de Muestra,.dispositivos de
aida,u ctras ayudas auxiliaries se pueden hacer disponibles si usted las pide en avance.
Other services,such as translation between English and other languages,may also be provided upon request.
Otras servicios,como traducci6n de Ingles a otros idiomas,tambien pueden hacerse disponibles si usted los
pide en avance.
To ensure availability or services,please make your request no later than three working days (72 hours)prior
to the hearing by calling the staff person referenced in this notice.Para asegurar la disponibilidad de estos
servicios,par favor haga su petici6n al minima de tres dias (72 horas)antes de la reuni6n,lIamando a la
persona del personal mencionada en este aviso.
*Puede obtener informaci6n en Espaiiol acerca de esta junta lIamando al (213)473-9984*
C-204
\
\.
..<;l,
\'.
\,
\
LEGAl.:SEE APPLICAnON.
08-1XL
'"
"'."
-.....\
\IOI~03·'XL
\
\
\
O$-1XL
C.D.15
C.T 2951.01
P.A.WILMINGTON·HARBOR CiTY
Ji
GC MAPPING SERVICE,INC.
3055 WESTVALLEV BOULEVARD
ALHAMBRA CA 91803
(526)441,1080 FAX (525)441-8850
gcmapping@radiusmaps.com
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP
11.04 NET AC.
CASE NO.
DATE;10·25·2012
SCALE;l'=100'
USES FIELD
D.M.030 B 193
T.8.PAGE:793 GRID'J-8.J.
C-205
Response to comments for LACSD Clearwater Program EIR
C-206
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1955 Workman Mill Road,Whittier,CA 90601-1400
Mailing Address:P.O.Box 4998,Whittier,CA 90607-4998
Telephone:(562)699-7411,FAX:(562)699-5422
www.lacsd.org
Mr.Kit Fox
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho PaJos Verdes,CA 90275
Dear Mr.Fox:
GRACE ROBINSON CHAN
Chief Engineer and General Manager
November 1,2012
'iJ'
Responses to Agency Comments on the Clearwater Program
Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIRIEIS)
The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts)and the U.S.Army
Corps of Engineers are preparing the final EIR/EIS for the Clearwater Program.Your agency provided
comments on the draft EIR/EIS during the public review period.Section 15088(b)of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines requires lead agencies to ''provide written proposed response to a
public agency on comments by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental
impact report."In accordance with this requirement,please fmd enclosed the responses to your agency's
comments.
The Board of Directors of Sanitation District No.2 is scheduled to consider certification of the
Clearwater Program EIR at 1:30 p.m.on November 28,2012,at the following address:
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
BoardRoom
1955 Workman Mill Road
Whittier,CA 90601
If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (562)908-4288,
extension 2711.
Very truly yours,
Grace Robinson Chan
~~w-
Supervising Engineer
Facilities Planning Department
SWH:ddg
Enclosure
Document Number:2392053
.~
Recycled Paper ~~
C-207
Commenter A 10:City of Rancho Palos Verdes -Kit Fox,Senior
Administrative Analyst
CommenterA10CITVOF~Of1:IJ.os VERDES
CITY MANAGER'S OFRCE
AQV/INISTRATIO'l
9 April 2012
Steven W.Highter
Supervising EngIneer,Planning Section
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
1955 Workman Mill Rd.
Whittier,CA 90601
Dr.Aaron O.Allen
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.Los Angeles District
Regulalory Division.Ventura Field Office
2151 Alessandro Dr.,Ste.110
Ventura,CA 93001
A10-2
SUBJ ECT:Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact StatementlEnvlron·
mental Impact Report (DEIS/EJR)for the Clearwater Program
Dear Mr.Hlghter and Dr.Allen:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes apprecIates the opportunity to comment upon the
Draft Environmental Impact StatementlEnvironmentallmpact Report (DEIS/EIR)for the
above-mentioned project The City respectfully offers the following comments on the
content end analysis ofthe DEISfEIRfor the proposed project
1.A small portion of the proposed tunnel alignment for Altemative 4 would appear
to traverse the pUblic right-of-way of Westem Avenue within the JUrisdiction of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes (i.e..roughly between Crestwood Street and
Summerland Street).As such,Table 1-3 in Section 1.6 "Relationship to Existing A10·1
Plans"should lnolude a reference to the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan,
which may be reviewed on the City's website at the following link:
http://www.pefosverdes.comlrpv/p/annlng/GeneralPlan_EfRlindex.cfm
The City has the following concerns regarding the construction of the proposed
tunnel exit shaft at Royal Palms C?unty Beach for A1temative 4:
2.
a.The proposed shaft site is located quite close to a recent landslide at
White Point in San Pedro (i.e .•the City of Los Angeles).In additIon,the
31l94G 'iAwTHCIlItE Btlio I RANcHo A<4.os VEr'.oes,CA llO?76'53~'I (310)5<14-52051 FAX 131Gl 54~'5291
WWW.MlOSlll!RrI(s.c<lHIllPV
~'I~D 0'1 REcYclEO ~q
C-208
Steven W.Highter and Dr.Aaron O.Allen
9 April 2012
Page 2
b.
solis of the Palos Verdes Peninsula may be generally characterized as
being susceptible to large-scale land movement,such as the on·going
Portuguese Bend Landslide and the failure of a portion of the golf course
at the Trump National Golf Club in 1999.Chapter 8 "Geology,Soils and
MInerai Resources"should address not only the suitability and stability of
the proposed shaft site at Royal Palms,but also the potential for the
excavation of this shaft site to de-stabilize the White Point Landslide
and/or other nearby coastal bluffs.
As a result of the White Point Landslide,West Paseo del Mar is currently
closed to traffic Just east of the proposed shaft site.W~h this closure,
east-west neighborhood traffic in the South Shores area.o(San Pedro has
been diverted inland to West 25th Street,which is a major arterial that
PIPvides access to the southerly portion of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.Has the analysis in Chapter 18 "Transportation and Traffic
(Terrestrial)"taken into account the Impacts of diverted truck trips and
other construction-related traffic on West 25th Street as a result of the
closure of West Paseo del Mar?
A10·2
cont.
A1D·3
3.The City has the following concerns regarding the proposed tunneling activities
related to Alternative 4:
a.The proposed tunnel alignment would follow Western Avenue from Trudie
Drive/Capitol Drive to the proposed exit shaft site at Royal Palms County
Beach.Although most of this segment of the proposed tunnel would be
located in San Pedro,a small portion would fall within the City of Rancho A10-4
Palos Verdes.In recent years,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has
experienced failures of storm drains under Western Avenue,most
dramatically in the case of a sinkhole that occurred near Delasonde
DrlveJWestmont Drive in 2005.Does Chapter 8 "Geology,Solis and
Mineral Resources·address the potential impact of tunneling activities
upon storm drains and similar,underground pUblic infrastructure within the
alignment ofthe proposed tunnel?
b.We note that Chapter 10 "Hazards and Hazardous Materials'discusses
the close proximity of the tunneling activities for Alternative 4 to
contaminated solis at the Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP)on North
Gaffey Street in San Pedro.The analysis of "risk of upset"from tunneling
activities under Alternative 4 appears to be limited to the exposure of
hazardous materials In the soil related to the operation ofthe tunnel boring A1D-5
machine.However,the City respectfully suggests that the DEISIEIR
should also analyze the "risk of upset"that tunneling activities might pose
upon nearby Industrial facilities,particularly the Rancho LPG butane
storage facility.at North Gaffey Street and Westmont Drive.
C-209
Steven W.Highter and Dr.Aaron O.Allen
9 April 2012
Page 3
c.
4.
Chapter 14 "Noise and Vibration (Terrestrial)"states that there are current·
Iy no Federal regulations or State environmental guidelines regarding
vibration from tunneling operations.The analysis in the DEIS/EIR·Is
based upon studies conducted for the construction of the Red Line
subway in the City of Los Angeles.and concludes that there will be no
significant ground borne vibration impacts in areas where the depth of the
tunnel base is more than one hundred ten feet (110')below the ground
surface.Within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,most ot the properties
abutting the Westem Avenue right-ot-way in the vicinity of the proposed
tunnel alignment are zoned and developed for non-residential use.
However,there is a motel (America's Best Value Inn)located at 29601
Westem Avenue.a 70-unlt residential condominilJm (Eastview
Townhouse)located at 29641 Western Avenue and a:ffa-bed residential
care faoillty for the elderly (Palos Verdes Villa)located at 29661 Western
Avenue.What is the depth of the proposed tunnel base in the vicinity of
these properties (relative to ground surface).and how significant Is the
impact of ground borne vibration expected to be upon them?
Among the major goals of the Clearwater Program are the achievement of
system redundancy and the ability to Inspect (and possibly repair)the existing B-
and 12-foot-diameter tunnels connecting the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
(JWPCP)to the existing ocean outfalls.As you are aware.these existing tunnels
traverse the Eastview area of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.Do the
Sanitation Districts have any sense yet of what will be involved in the future
inspection and possible repair of these existing tunnels?Should the City expect
that the staging of these future activities might occur in our Eastview Park,which
Is looeted on land leased from the Sanitation Districts?Can the expected
impacts of these future activities somehow be Included in the current DEIS/EIR?
A10-6
A1Q-7
Agaln.thank you for the opportunity to provide oomments on this Important project.If
you have any questions or need additional information.please feel free to contact me at
(310)544-5226 or via e-mail atkitf@rpv.com.St;
!;...Z-
Senior Administrative Analyst
co:Mayor Anthony Misetich and City Council
Carolyn Lehr.City Manager
Carolynn Petru.Deputy City Manager
M:1Border Issues\LACSO CleaJwater ProgramI20120409.E1s.erRCommenI5.llOC
C-210
Response to CommentA10-1
The comment requests that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan be added to Table 1-3 ofthe
fmal EIRIEIS.Table 1-3 is revised in the fmal EIRIEIS to include the following rows at the end ofthe
table,as requested:
City ofRancho Palos Verdes General PlanlEnvironmental Impact Report,1975
The Infrastructure chapter of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (City of Rancho
Palos Verdes 2012)provides policies related to public infrastructure.The Disposal/Recoverv
Systems addresses sanitation.while the Transportation Systems discusses the vehicular
networks.The general plan is currently being updated.
In addition,Section 25.1.1 is revised in the final EIRIEIS to include the city's general plan by adding the
following references:
Ci of Rancho Palos Verdes.1975.Ci of Rancho Palos Verdes heral
PlanlEnvironmental ImPact Report.Adopted June 26.As amen'de .through September 13,
1988.
City ofRancho Palos Verdes.2012.General Plan Update.Available:<
ht1p://palosverdes.com!l;pv/planninglcontent/General Plan Update.cfm>.Accessed:July 13,
2012.
No other revisions to the draft EIRIEIS are required in response to this comment.
Response to Comment A10-2
The comment expresses concerns regarding the proximity ofthe Royal Palms shaft site to the recent
White Point landslide and the nature ofthe Palos Verdes Peninsula soils,which the comment
characterizes as susceptible to large-scale land movement.The comment requests that Chapter 8 of the
draft EIRIEIS discuss the suitability and stability of the Royal Palms shaft site and the potential for the
project to de-stabilize the White Point landslide and/or other coastal bluffs.
The draft EIRIEIS discussed the potential for landslides at the Royal Palms shaft site (part of
Alternative 4 [the recommended alternative]),in Section 8.4.6.2,Impact GEC-l,Shaft Site -Royal
Palms.The draft EIRIEIS stated that the shaft would be constructed in Altimira Shale,which could
contain weak layers,and that excavation could result in ground failure in the vicinity ofthe shaft.The
draft EIRIEIS recognized this .as a significant impact.Mitigation was included to reduce this impact to
less than significant.Specifically,Mitigation Measure (MM)GEO-l and MM GEO-6arequire
geotechnical investigation and site-specific recommendations for stabilization of slopes and shaft
instability.The mitigation measures require that all recommendations be incorporated into the final
design.In addition,MM GEO-6b requires construction monitoring at the shafts and along the onshore
tunnel.
In addition,Appendix 8-A ofthe draft EIRIEIS included a letter report prepared by Fugro West that
addressed the potential for Alternative 4 (the recommended alternative)to affect slope stability in the
Royal Palms area.This report was prepared in response to the recent landslide activity on Paseo Del Mar
near White Point State Beach.In summary,the report stated that the Monterey Formation throughout the
peninsula can be folded and variable over.short distances.Weak bentonitic layers contained within the
formation have resulted in some of the landslides when the bedding plane is out of slope (i.e.,slopes
C-211
downhill towards the ocean).In the vicinity ofRoyal Palms Beach,the bedding planes are sloped in a
favorable inclination,which was confirmed during the excavation of the Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County's (Sanitation Districts')8-and 12-foot tunnels in 1938 and 1957,respectively.The
report concluded that impacts on the stability ofthe existing slopes in the vicinity of the Alternative 4
alignment resulting from tunnel construction would be unlikely.Furthermore,the reinforced concrete
tunnel may improve slope stability.The study recommended that (1)additional geotechnical
investigation be conducted during final design and (2)the slopes be instrumented and monitored in
advance of,and during,construction activities as a precautionary measure.Implementation of
MM:GEO-2,MM:GEO-6a,and MM:GEO-6b would fulfill these recommendations.
No revisions to the draft EIRJEIS are required in response to this comment.
Response to Comment A10·3
The comment asks whether the Chapter 18 traffic analysis took into account the impacts of additional
traffic on 25th Street as a result of the recent closure of West Paseo Del Mar.
Since collection ofthe 2010 baseline traffic data in support of the traffic analysis presented in Chapter 18
of the draft EIRIEIS,Paseo Del Mar has been closed for an indeterminate period due to a landslide east of
the Royal Palms shaft site.This closure of the roadway link between Western Avenue and Weymouth '
Avenue to motorized traffic has resulted in localized traffic patterns that differ from those that prevailed
when the baseline traffic counts were collected.Therefore,to determine whether there would be
differences in the impacts reported in the draft EIRJEIS ifPaseo Del Mar were not re-opep.ed by the time
construction began for Alternative 4 (the recommended alternative),a new study was conducted.In
May 2012,new baseline traffic counts were collected at five study intersections along key access routes
to and from the Royal Palms shaft site:Gaffey Street and Interstate 110 ramps,Gaffey Street and
9th Street,Western Avenue and Paseo Del Mar,Western Avenue and 9th Street,and Western Avenue and
25 th Street.(Note that the Western Avenue and 25th Street intersection was not previously analyzed in the
draft EIRJEIS.)An analysis ofthe new data determined that the proposed project-related
construction-period traffic under Alternative 4 (the recommended alternative)would not result in
significant traffic impacts,even if West Paseo Del Mar were to remain closed.These fmdings are
consistent with the original findings presented in the draft EIRJEIS.
The new 2012 study is referenced in Section 18.4.6.2 and included as Appendix 18-D in the,final
EIRIEIS.No other revisions to the draft EIR/EIS are required in response to this comment.
Response to Comment A10-4
The comment expresses concerns about the potential for tunneling to affect storm drains and other
infrastructure in Rancho Palos Verdes,and asks whether the draft EIRJEIS addressed this issue.
The draft EIRJEIS discussed the potential for ground failure to affect people,structures,or property in
Section 8.4.6.2.Impact GEO-6 addressed unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructure,
and found that there was a potential for settlement during tunneling,and that this impact would be
significant.Therefore,mitigation was included in the draft EIRIEIS to reduce this impact to less than
significant.MM:GEO-6a requires geological investigations to characterize the subsurface conditions and
anticipated ground behavior,and that recommendations identified in the investigation be incorporated
into the final design,along with contingency measures if excessive settlement were to occur.
MM:GEO-6b requires a detailed plan for construction monitoring to minimize potential ground surface
settlement along the onshore tunnel.
C-212
In comparison to the January 2005 sinkhole in Western Avenue just north of Westmont Avenue,the
proposed tunnel would be constructed with different material at much greater depths.For Alternative 4
(the recommended alternative)the proposed reinforced concrete tunnel would be constructed through a
rock-like material along Western Avenue at depths ranging from 350 to 450 feet below ground surface.
Conversely,the January 2005 sink hole resulted from the storm-related failure of an old corrugated metal
storm drain constructed through much looser material at a depth of only 25 feet.Therefore,the
circumstances are significantly different.
No revisions to the draft EIRIEIS are required in response to this comment.
Response to Comment A1 0-5
The comment suggests that the risk of upset on nearby industrial facilities be analyzed for tunneling
activities,particularly the Rancho Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)facility at North Gaffey Street and
Westmont Drive ...
Alternative 4 (the recommended alternative),would traverse under Gaffey Street between Anaheim Street
and Capitol Drive.The two large Rancho LPG butane storage tanks are approximately 600 feet east of
the recommended tunnel alignment (Alternative 4).At this location,the tunnel invert would be
approximately 100 feet below the ground surface.Section 14.4.1.4 ofthe draft EIRIEIS specifically
analyzed potential groundborne vibrations associated with tunnel construction and concluded that
vibrations would not be perceivable beyond a distance of 110 feet through the soil.Furthermore,
implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM)NOI-2a (rail maintenance plan)and MM NOI-2b (vibration
control plan)would reduce vibration impacts to less than significant.Therefore,given the tunnel location
and depth,construction and operation ofthe tunnel would not have an impact on the Rancho LPG facility,
and an upset at the Rancho LPG facility would not have an impact on the tunnel.
No revisions to the draft EIRIEIS are required in response to this comment.
Response to CommentA10-S
The comment requests information on the depth ofthe proposed tunnel base relative to the ground surface
and the potential for groundborne vibration impacts for three residential properties along Western
Avenue.
The tunnel depth would be approximately 400 feet below the ground surface in the vicinity of the
identified properties.Therefore,the impact of groundborne vibrations from the tunneling operation
would be less than significant,as described in Section 14.4.6.2 ofthe draft EIR/EIS.
No revisions to the draft EIRIEIS are required in response to this comment.
Response to CommentA10-7
The comment asks what activities would be involved in the future inspection and possible repair ofthe
existing tunnels,would the staging of these future activities occur ill Eastview Park,and could the impacts
of these future activities be included in the draft EIR/EIS.
The Sanitation Districts have attempted various methods of determining the condition of the existing
tunnels (e.g.,remote operated vehicle inspection)and wm.continue to explore additional options.
Unfortunately,the information obtained thus far has been insufficient to make a determination.Because
both tunnels flow full every day,it appears that the only means of conclusively assessing their condition
C-213
would be to dewater each and perform a physical inspection as described in the draft Master Facilities
Plan and draft EIRJEIS.Implementation ofAlternative 4 (the recommended alternative)would allow for
such an inspection.The existing shaft at Eastview Park would be included in the overall tunnel
inspection.Depending on the location and extent of any necessary tunneVshaft repairs,a portion ofthe
park may be temporarily used to stage the repair activities.Due to the unknown condition of the tunnels
and,consequently,the highly speculative nature of the repair work,it was determined that the potential
repair project is beyond the scope ofthe draft EIRJEIS for the Clearwater Program.However,if it were
determined that repairs are required,the associated work would be subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act,and appropriate documentation would be prepared at that time.Moreover,if
staging activities at Eastview Park were necessary,the Sanitation Districts would coordinate closely with
the city of Rancho Palos Verdes to ensure that any potential impacts would be minimized to the extent
feasible.
No revisions to the draft EIRJEIS are required in response to this comment.
,,..
C-214