The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_CC_SR_2011_12_06_C_Border_Issues_Status_ReportCITY OF MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO:HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM:CAROLYNN PETRU,AICP,DEPUTY CITY MANAGER~ DATE:DECEMBER 6,2011 SUBJECT:BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~ Project Manager:Kit Fox,AICP,Senior Administrative AnalysteJ!; RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the current report on the status of Border Issues. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This month's report includes: •An update on the status of the revised Ponte Vista project at the former Navy housing complex on Western Avenue in Los Angeles (San Pedro); • A brief update on the lawsuit challenging the Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club project in Rolling Hills Estates and Torrance; •An update regarding the proposal for stadium lights at Palos Verdes Peninsula High School in Rolling Hills Estates; •An update on the Rancho LPG butane storage facility in Los Angeles (San Pedro); and, •An update on Marymount College's Conditional Use Permit application for its campus on Palos Verdes Drive North in Los Angeles (San Pedro). BACKGROUND The following is the regular bi-monthly report to the City Council on various "Border Issues". potentially affecting the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.The complete text of the current status report is available for review on the City's website at: http://palosverdes.comlrpvlplanning/border issuesl2011120111206 Borderlssues StatusRpt.cfm C-1 MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Status Report December 6,2011 Page 2 DISCUSSION Current Border Issues Ponte Vista Project at Former Navy Housing Site,Los Angeles (San Pedro) On November 17,2011,the developer's traffic consultant presented preliminary findings from the traffic study for the Ponte Vista project to the Planning and Land Use Committee of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council (NWSPNC).At this time,the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT)has not yet approved the traffic study's assumptions and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)is not expected to be released for public review and comment until the first quarter of 2012.Nevertheless,the preliminary findings of the traffic study have identified significant impacts at four (4) Western Avenue intersections that are located (at least partially) within Rancho Palos Verdes:Peninsula Verde Drive,Avenida Aprenda,Delasonde Drive/Westmont Drive and Trudie Drive/Capitol Drive.In order to mitigate these impacts to less-than-significant levels, it is likely that right-of-way modifications (Le.,restriping,narrowing the median, adding/modifying traffic signals,etc.)will be required,some of which could occur within Rancho Palos Verdes'jurisdiction and would require our concurrence prior to implementation.Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports. Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club Project,Rolling Hills Estates and Torrance As "Late Correspondence"for the October 4,2011,City Council meeting,Staff distributed a copy of the "Notice to Public Agencies"regarding the lawsuit challenging the Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club project (see attachments).Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports. Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Proposal,Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District/Rolling Hills Estates On October 7,2011,the Daily Breeze reported that supporters of the proposed stadium lights at Peninsula High School had filed suit against the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (see attachments).The plaintiffs,Friends of Friday Night Football,are reportedly not directly affiliated with the Peninsula Stadium Lights Steering Committee, which was ordered to cease fund raising activity for the project by the Board of Education this past JUly.Friends of Friday Night Football alleges that the Board of Education violated the Brown Act by not adequately notifying interested parties of the possibility that the Board might act to terminate the project at the July meeting.On November 13,2011,the Daily Breeze (see attachments)reported that the Board would discuss this matter again at a special meeting to be held on November 15,2011. At its meeting on November 15,2011 (see attachments),the Board first rescinded its action of July 14,2011,thereby r~ndering moot the alleged Brown Act violation cited in the C-2 MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Status Report December 6,2011 Page 3 lawsuit.The Board then conducted a public hearing on the merits of allowing fund raising for the stadium lights project to resume and continue.The Board received testimony from more than fifty (50)speakers,the majority of whom were supporters of the stadium lights project.Comments on both sides of the argument largely mirrored those raised during previous meetings with the Board and with the city councils of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates (see attached Daily Breeze article).At the conclusion of public comments,the Board deliberated and again voted unanimously to terminate its approval of the capital campaign for the stadium lights project.In so doing,the Board cited the divisive nature of the project within the surrounding community,and the belief that project proponents and opponents would be unable to achieve a mutually-acceptable solution at this time.However, the Board largely expressed support for the concept of stadium lights at some .point in the future.Stadium lights supporters also suggested the possibility of pursuing the use of temporary,portable stadium lighting. Given the current (and potential future)litigation in this matter,Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports. Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility,Los Angeles (San Pedro) As "Late Correspondence"for the October 4,2011,City Council meeting,Staff distributed a copy of a letter from Rancho LPG to the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council,which included as an attachment a letter from Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich to the attorney representing San Pedro and Peninsula Homeowners United (see attachments).In essence,the letter concluded that the Los Angeles City Attorney's office did not have sufficient evidence or grounds upon which to revoke Rancho LPG's right to use a railroad line in Los Angeles city right-Of-way or to compel the preparation of a new environmental impact report for the Rancho LPG butane storage facility. Related to this issue,the attachments to tonight's report also include the following: •On October 4,2011,"Late Correspondence"for that evening's City Council meeting included an e-mail chain from Jeanne Lacombe. •On October 7,2011,Staff was copied on an e-mail from Janet Gunter to the City and Port of Los Angeles regarding the discussion of the Rancho LPG facility at the Board of Harbor Commissioner's meeting on September 1,2011. •On October 10,2011,the Los Angeles Times published an article regarding the Rancho LPG facility. •On October 13,2011,Janet Gunter forwarded to Staff a copy of the revocable permit granted to rancho LPG by the Port of Los Angeles for the use of a portion of the rail spur line serving the property. •On October 17,2011,Staff received a flyer announcing a community protest to be staged near the Rancho LPG facility on October 29,2011 (the Daily Breeze subsequently reported on this protest on October 30,2011). C-3 MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Status Report December 6,2011 Page 4 •On October 21,2011,Staff received a letter from Rancho LPG,which included a letter from the State Attorney General's office concluding that the State had no grounds to issue an injunction to shut down the facility. •On October 29,2011,the Los Angeles Times reported that Los Angeles City Councilwoman Jan Perry was calling for an investigation ofthe Rancho LPG facility. •On November 14,2011,Jeanne Lacombe forwarded to Staff a copy of a proposed motion by the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council regarding the insurance requirements for Rancho LPG (which was subsequently adopted). •On November 20,2011,Jody James forwarded to Staff a copy ofthe November 15, 2011,motion by the Port Community Advisory Committee (PCAC)demanding that the Port of Los Angeles revoke the permit allowing Rancho LPG to use the rail spur line serving the property. Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports. Marymount College San Pedro Campus Master Plan,Los Angeles (San Pedro) Marymount College submitted its Conditional Use Permit (CUP)application to the City of Los Angeles in late September 2011 (see attachments).The application discusses the following phasing of the project over a 20-year period: Phase I:Construct 123-space surface parking lot along Palos Verdes Drive North; "densify"thirty-four (34)existing housing units to create an additional bedroom;modify community building and laundry facility;construct site water treatment facilities. Phase II:Add an additional bedroom in eighty-two (82)existing units;construct parking for forty-one (41)additional vehicles;convert private driveway (USS Antietam Drive)into a fire lane and pedestrian way. Phase III:Construct 27,000-square-foot student services building with dining hall,forty- four (44)faculty offices,thirty-five (35)administrative offices and nine (9) academic classrooms;construct 2-level parking structure;demolish six (6) existing housing units for construction of a 5,500-square-foot maintenance facility. Phase IV:Construct seventy-six (76)additional bedrooms in existing buildings. Phase V:Construct 16-classroom academic building with studios,laboratories and thirty-two (32)faculty offices;construct one hundred twelve (112)additional parking spaces. On October 27,2011,Marymount College representatives met again with the Land Use and Planning Committee ofthe Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council (NWSPNC)to present the draft traffic impact study for the project (see attachments).With the traffic study assumptions now approved by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), estimates of the trip generation for the San Pedro Campus are as follows: C-4 MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Status Report December 6,2011 Page 5 Average Daily Trips AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips Proposed Proiect 2,750 126 279 ExistinQ Conditions 536 43 48 Net Increase in Trips 2,214 83 231 It should be noted that the numbers of net additional trips are all higher that the preliminary estimates presented by Marymount College in July 2011,particularly those for average daily trips and AM peak-hour trips (342 more trips and 60 more trips,respectively).The draft study includes six (6)study intersections located partially or wholly in Rancho Palos Verdes,but omitted several Western Avenue intersections between Palos Verde Drive North and Trudie Drive/Capitol Drive.As a result of discussion at the meeting on October 27,201~,the College has agreed to include additional analysis at the following intersections in Rancho Palos Verdes: •Western Ave.&Peninsula Verde Dr. •Western Ave.&Green Hills Memorial Park entry •Western Ave.&Avenida Aprenda •Western Ave.&Delasonde Dr./Westmont Dr. •Western Ave.&Toscanini Dr. •Western Ave.&Caddington Dr. Two (2)of these intersections coincide with the entries for the proposed Ponte Vista project (Le.,Green Hills Memorial Park entry and Avenida Aprenda).The College's traffic consultant also agreed to look at extending the "normal"afternoon/evening peak-hour impact analysis to account for the large number of public and private schools within the general vicinity of the Western Avenue corridor.Based upon the current draft study, significant traffic impacts are expected at Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive, which will require the installation of a traffic signal. Marymount College expects to report back to the NWSPNC Planning and Land Use Committee on the status of its application with the City of Los Angeles after the first of the year.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: •NWSPNC Planning &Land Use Committee agenda (dated 11/17/11) •"Notice to Public Agencies"regarding lawsuit challenging the Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club project (dated 9/27/11) C-5 MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Status Report December 6,2011 Page 6 Attachments (cont'dl: •Daily Breeze articles regarding lawsuit against PVPUSD over the Peninsula HS stadium lights proposal (published 10/7/11 &11/13/11) •PVPUSD Board of Education agenda and Staff reports (dated 11/15/11) •Daily Breeze and Peninsula News articles regarding Board of Education action on the stadium lights proposal (published 11/17/11 &11/24/11) •Letter from Rancho LPG to Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council,with attached letter from Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich (dated 9/30/11) •E-mail chain from Jeanne Lacombe regarding Rancho LPG butane storage facility (dated 10/4/11) •E-mail chain from Janet Gunter regarding Rancho LPG butane storage facility (d'ated 10/7/11) •LA Times article regarding Rancho LPG butane storage facility (published 10/10/11 ) •E-mail from Janet Gunter regarding revocable permit for Rancho LPG facility (received 10/13/11) •E-mail and flyer regarding October 29th community protest at Rancho LPG facility (received 10/17/11)and related Daily Breeze article (published 10/30/11) •Letter from Rancho LPG,with attached letter from State Attorney General Kamala Harris (dated 10/18/11) •LA Times article regarding Rancho LPG butane storage facility (published 10/30/11) •E-mail from Jeanne Lacombe regarding proposed NWSPNC motion addressing Rancho LPG insurance requirements (dated 11/14/11) •E-mail from Jody James transmitting PCAC motion regarding revocation of Rancho LPG permit for use of rail spur line (dated 11/20/11) •Marymount College CUP application forms for San Pedro campus (dated 9/22/11) •NWSPNC Planning & Land Use Committee agenda (dated 10/27/11) •Draft Traffic Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus,without appendices (dated 10/25/11) M:\Border Issues\Staff Reports\20111206_Borderlssues_SlaffRpt.doc C-6 NWSPNC Planning &Land Use Committee agenda C-7 Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council Planni.Q.g &Land Use Committee November 17,2011 Room 452,San Pedro City Hall Agenda 1.Call to Order 2.Introductions 3.Traffic Study Presentation Ponte Vista 4.Public Comment 5.Next Meeting December 8,6 p.m. 6.Adjourn Note:Anything on this Agenda Could Result in a Motion To Contact us:www.nwsanpedro.org,board@nwsanpedro.org,or 310-732- 4522 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 and upon request will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs,services,and activities. Sign language interpreters,assisted listening devices,or other auxiliary aids and/or services may be provided upon request.To ensure availability of services please make your request at least 3 business days (72 hours)prior to the meeting by contacting the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment at 213-485-1360. C-8 "Notice to Public Agencies"regarding lawsuit challenging the Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club project C-9 vs. Real Parties in Interest Plaintiff and Petitioner, Defendants and Respondents, RESIDENTS AGAINST CHANDLER RANCH,an unincorporated association, CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES,a municipal corporation;the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES;and DOES 1 through 10,inclusive, Jeffrey Lewis (Bar No.183934) Kelly B.Dunagan (BarNo.210852) 609 Deep Valley Drive,Suite 200 Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274 Tel.(310)265-4490 Fax.(310)872-5389 E-Mail:Jeff@JeffLewisLaw.com Attorneys for plaintiff and petitioner RESIDENTS AGAINST CHANDLER RANCH SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNty OF LOS ANGELES -CENTRAL DISTRICT MICHAEL COPE,an individual; CHANDLER RANCH PROPERTIES, LLC,a Delaware limited liability company;and ROLLING HILLS COUNTRY CLUB,a California corporation, )Case No.:BS 133552 ) )NOTICE TO PUBLIC AGENCIES OF )FILING OF ACTION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) --------------,)) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ 0 13"" >.15j~~-i 14~'"'"~x ~l>.t-0 . l:l c:P=l "15::t:lSc5P;;;~~J'4.g ~:>-16'"0 Cd I='< 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 I~~;';;'!28~:~..::~L=J NOTICE TO PUBLIC AGENCIES OF FILING OF ACTION C-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 it N 0 130- j"'~""'~'~...:I ~14~...,'" ...:I ..~~I>.O' ii;-<Jp=\::l:l§o~15<J:t:l •<J.......<:P-o"'E! <J>-16'"0 ;f 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 I 1 ......:...:.1. 28 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE,that pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6.5,the agencies identified on the service list attached hereto have been identified by respondent as either a responsible public agency or a public agency having a natural resource affected by the subject project. YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that on August 24,2011,Petitioner RESIDENTS AGAINST CHANDLER RANCH filed a petition for writ of mandate against Respondents,City of Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills Estates City Council.The petition alleges that Respondents violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The project site consists of the existing Rolling Hills Country Club,Chandler's Palos Verdes Sand and Gravel facility (Chandler's),and adjacent vacant land.The 228-acre site is irregularly shaped and is located along the east and west sides of Palos Verdes (PV)Drive East between Pacific Coast Highway and Palos Verdes Drive North in the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Torrance,Los Angeles County,California.The Country Club and Chandler's facility are respectively located at 26311 and 27000 Palos Verdes Drive East.The site is located on the Torrance 7.5-Minute United States Geologic Survey (USGS)Topographic Quadrangle and Map Page 793 of the Los Angeles County Thomas Guide. In brief summary,the proposed project consists of redeveloping/reusing the existing Chandler's facility and the adjacent Rolling Hills Country Club with the following: •114 single-family homes (33.77 acres of residential lots),113 of which would be within a new residential community; • A reconfigured/relocated I8-hole golf course (151.86 acres); • A new clubhouse complex (10.16 acres)that includes a 61,411-square feet (ft2) structure;and •3.9 acres set aside as natural open space. -2- NOTICE TO PUBLIC AGENCIES OF FILING OF ACTION C-11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ 0 130\ cJ" <Il ~......'ji ?':l ..2l 14lU.....t'I"")p i-l ....E it;'it;'c8 'l'j <1:l a .p-15't g Q ~.......<P-1j :>16<Il~p- 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 '::}i""i 28 "L':"'::.:::J The Project Site State Clearinghouse Number is 2008011027. DATED:September 27,2011 Attorney for petitioner and plaintiff " RESIDENTS AGAINST CHANDLER RANCH - 3 - NOTICE TO PUBLIC AGENCIES OF FILING OF ACTION C-12 PROOF OF SERVICE Residents Against Chandler Ranch v.City oJRolling Hills Estates Los Angeles Superio:r:Comt Case No.:BS 133552 I,Jefftey Lewis,declare that I am over the age of 1Byears,employed in the County of Los Angeles,and not a party to the within action;my business address is P.O.Box 3201,Palos Verdes Peninsula,CA 90274. On September 27,2011,I served the foregoing:NOTICE TO PUBLIC AGENCIES OF FILING OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action by placing 0 the original[&]a true copy thereof,enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage pre-paid,addressed as follows: See attached service list. D BY PERSONAL SERVICE.I caused said envelope to be hand delivered to the offices of the addressees as referenced above. BY MAIL.I am readily familiar with this law firm's practice for collection and processing of correspotidence for mailing with the U.S.Postal Service.The within correspondence will be deposited with the U.S.Postal Service on the same day shown on this affidavit,in the ordinary comse of business.I am the person who sealed and placed for collection and mailing the within correspondence on this date at Palos Verdes,California,following ordinary business practices. D BY FAX.I faxed such document to the FAX number(s)listed above. D .BY OVERNIGHT COURIER.The within correspondence will be deposited with Norco Delivery Service (formerly Overnite Express)on the same day shown on this affidavit,in the ordinary comse of business.I am the person who sealed and placed for collection and mailing the within correspondence on this date at Palos Verdes,California,following ordinary business practices. cgJ (STATE)I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 27,2011,in Los Angeles County,California. .. -4- NOTICE TO PUBLIC AGENCIES OF FILING OF ACTION C-13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 '<l-..... N 0 13'"<: Po u .'"~<5 .li 14~~~&1~.....~\)'~~ o.l:l "•Po<15.....0 0 ~,.!!,tlp.;"O.<:l:l :>16'"~ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 I:;;I 28.l~I..::"~...:.~,;~... SERVICE LIST Residents Against Chandler fulnch v.City of Rolling Hills Estates Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.:BS 133552 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH &GAME 1416 9TH ST FL 12 SACRAMENTO CA 95814-5515 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL 1001 I STREET PO BOX 2815 SACRAMENTO CA 95812-2815 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT O:F TRANSPORTATION 1120 N ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814-5680 CITY OF LOMITA PO BOX 339 LOMITA CA 90717-0339 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ATTN.KITFGX 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275-5351 CITY OF TORRANCE ATTN.JEFF GIBSON 3031 TORRANCE BLVD TORRAJ:\fCE CA 90503-5015 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 500 W TEMPLE ST LOS ANGELES CA 90012-2713 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT ATTN.CLAUDIA SOIZA 5823 RICKENBACKER RD COMMERCE CA 90040-3027 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY ATIN.RUTH 1.FRAZEN . 1955 WORI<MAN MILL RD WHITTIER CA 90601-1415 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PO BOX 942896 SACRAMENTO CA 94296-0001 DEPARMTENT OF WATER RESOURCES PO BOX 942836 SACRAMENTO CA 94236-0001 - 5 - NOTICE TO PUBLIC AGENCIES OF FILING OF ACTION C-14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ""'"l;i 0 130'> iJ"'3-oJ']~-14~'":l~8'~~"j:Q "ti:l§d':15~~~~ l:J>16'"0 ;f 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27r---.i I ~28JiL:~__.._...I GABRIELINO jTONGVA SAN GABRIEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS PO BOX 693 SAN GABRIEL CA 91778-0693 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PO BOX 54153 . LOS ANGELES CA 90054-0153 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL RM 364 SACRAMENTO CA 95814-4801 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD,REGION 4 320 W 4TH ST STE 200 LOS ANGELES CA 90013-2343 SANTA MONICA BAY RESTORATION COMMISSION 320 W 4TH ST STE 200 LOS ANGELES CA 90013-2343 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 21865 COPLEY DR DIAMOND BAR CA 91765-4178 -6- NOTICE TO PUBLIC AGENCIES OF FILING OF ACTION C-15 Daily Breeze article regarding lawsuit against PVPUSD over the Peninsula HS stadium lights proposal C-16 Group supporting lights for Peninsula high school football files suit By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer Posted:10/06/2011 06:55:53 PM PDT Updated:10/06/2011 06:59:44 PM PDT A group of Palos Verdes Peninsula residents pushing for football stadium lights at a local high school has filed a lawsuit claiming the school board violated state open meeting laws when it voted down the proposal. The Friends of Friday Night Football filed the suit late last month. At issue is a proposal that surfaced in summer 2010 to install permanent stadium lighting at Peninsula High School in Rolling Hills Estates.A group of parents and alumni -separate from the plaintiffs in the lawsuit -formed a committee and raised funds for the project,with the blessing of the board of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District. But the plan generated controversy among neighbors of the high school,some of whom organized in opposition.Then,in a surprise vote last July,the school board voted to shut the project down.Board members said the plan was too divisive. The lawsuit alleges that vote conflicts with the Ralph M.Brown Act,which requires most meetings of legislative bodies to be open and properly noticed to the public.The posted agenda item for the July meeting -stating the board would "give staff direction or take action as deemed appropriate"-was not clear that a vote on the fate of the project was imminent,the lawsuit claims. The district has not been yet been served with the suit,but its claims were outlined in an August letter to district officials.The district denied any Brown Act violations. "Because it's litigation,there's not much we can say,"Superintendent Walker Williams said. "That's our position:We haven't done anything wrong." Dean Wallraff,attorney for Friends of Friday Night Football,said the group is not directly related to the Peninsula Stadium Lights Steering Committee,which raised funds for the project and which has also threatened to sue the district. "My clients are a group of interested citizens, students and students'parents who want to see the lights go forward,"Wallraff said. He said the Brown Act lawsuit was filed as a kind of placeholder while the steering committee held settlement negotiations with the district.If negotiations are successful,the suit will be dropped,he said. Nina MacLeay,chairwoman of the steering committee,said "we're in the very very beginning stages"of negotiations. C-17 ..There.s a dialogue between our attorney and that's a good thing,I think,"MacLeay said. The district's attorney,Terry Tao,said he had been contacted by the steering committee's lawyer with a list of demands.He had not seen the Brown Act suit. "They dictated to us what they demanded,"Tao said."There's no real dialogue." A letter sent to the district from the committee's attorney asks that portable lighting be used for the remainder of the Peninsula High season and until permanent lights are installed.The temporary lighting would be paid for with funds donated to the committee,which would raise additional money to cover the cost of permanent lighting. The letter asks for the district to pay for an environmental review of permanent lights.It also requests that the terms of the settlement be discussed by the board in closed session. melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com Follow Melissa Pamer on Twitter at http://www. twitter.com/mpamer C-18 Brown Act allegation prompts new vote on Peninsula stadium lights By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer Posted:11/12/2011 11 :04:33 PM PST Updated:11/12/2011 11 :08:44 PM PST In response to a lawsuit claiming the Palos Verdes Peninsula school board violated the state's open meeting law when it rejected a proposal for football night lighting at a local high school,the school district has moved to reconsider the issue. A special meeting Tuesday is set to rescind a July board vote that shut down a parent and alumni fund raising initiative in support of stadium lighting at Peninsula High school.The action prompted a lawsuit from a pro-lights group claiming that the public hadn't been properly notified that the board would vote on the project's fate. On Tuesday,the board is also set to re-examine the lights matter,with a staff recommendation that the project again be rejected. In a staff report,the district said it was rescinding the July vote to "save time,energy and money in defense of the district's position regarding this allegation."In the language of a resolution before the board,the district does not admit the alleged lack of compliance with the Ralph M.Brown Act,which requires most meetings of legislative bodies to be open and the public properly notified. "Even though we're convinced we acted properly the first time,we're doing this because we are going to forestall the expense of attorney's fees,"said outgoing board President Dora de la Rosa. At issue is an emotional and divisive debate - one that's taken place in years past as well - over bringing Friday night lights to one of the two comprehensive public high schools on The Hill,which are among the only ones in the region that cannot host night games. In 2010,the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District gave approval to a group of parents and alumni to raise private funds to pay for installation of night lighting at Peninsula High in Rolling Hills Estates.In July,the matter came before the board for an update from city staff. It seemed that the hearing would be somewhat routine -and members of the Peninsula Stadium Lights Steering Committee said they had been led to believe no important action would be taken at the meeting. But before a crowd of neighbors who opposed the lights proposal,the board cited the project's controversial nature and voted to shut it down. At the time,lights supporters said they felt bamboozled.In September,a separate group, calling itself Friends of Friday Night Football, sued the district. C-19 The group said in a letter to the district that the public agenda for the meeting describing the lights hearing was "so vague and general that it fails to provide the requisite notice to the public that the board was considering discontinuing the project."The letter and lawsuit alleged the district had violated the Brown Act. The attorney representing the group,Dean Wallraff,said the Tuesday agenda was a victory for lights supporters. "This is exactly what we wanted.This is what we sought to acl<lieve,"Wallraff said. He said his clients of course still hoped the lights would gain approval,but having a fair and open hearing had been the lawsuit's goal. Chuck Michel,an attorney who owns the firm that employs Wallraff,questioned the timing of the upcoming board action,which comes one week after the district narrowly won voter approval of a $374 annual parcel tax. "The true motive for voting down the lights project to begin with and the real reason it's being agendized now is because of timing having to do with Measure M,"Michel said. The resolution before the board Tuesday calls the lawsuit,which was never properly served to the district but was filed in court,"meritless." "Opponents of the project vociferously and repeatedly,including at all or virtually all board meetings at which the project was discussed for any purpose,expressed their opposition to the project and requested that the board terminate the project. "Thus,interested members of the public were or reasonably should have been aware that at any time direction or action from the board on the project was being considered,the issue of termination of the project would likely be raised and possibly considered by the board,"the resolution states. De la Rosa said she expects both supporters and critics of the lights to speak at the meeting when the lighting proposal comes up for reconsideration. "We have not had any discussion of the merits of the item since the July 14 meeting,so I can't say how the board is going to vote,"she said. Nina MacLeay,chairwoman of the steering committee,said Friday that she had not yet seen the agenda and could not comment.Her committee is not involved in the Brown Act lawsuit,she said. Want to go? What:The Palos Verdes Peninsula school board is expected to revisit its rejection of football night lighting at Peninsula High,and vote on the issue again. When:6:30 p.m.Tuesday Where:Malaga Cove Administration Center,375 Via Almar,Palos Verdes Estates melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com C-20 Follow Melissa Pamer on Twitter at http://www. twitter.com/mpamer Print Powered By FormatO C-21 PVPUSD Board of Education agenda and Staff reports C-22 .J.."'6""~V.L ~ Palos Verdes Peninsula usn Agenda Created:November 14,2011 at 08:10 AM Special Meeting November 15,2011 Tuesday,04:00 PM Malaga Cove Administration Center 375 Via Almar Palos Verdes Estates,CA 90274 A.4:00 pm -Call to Order 1.Public Comment on Closed Session Items The public will be given the opportunity to address the Board on closed session agenda items.'Remarks shall be limited to three minutes per person and a total of fifteen minutes per agenda item. B.Recess to Closed Session 1.Public Employee Appointment;Public Employment (l1 Title:Deputy Superintendent,Business Services 2.Conference with Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation (V) Name of Case:Los Angeles Superior Court Case #BC 431020 3.Conference with Legal Counsel -Anticipated Litigation (l1 Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivisions (b)(l)and (b)(3)(A)of Government Code Section 54956.9:1 case Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b)(l)and (b)(3)(C)of Government Code Section 54956.9:2 cases 4.Conference with Legal Counsel -Anticipated Litigation (l1 Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b)(l)and (b)(3)(B)of Government Code Section 54956.9:1 case,Palos Verdes Peninsula High School classroom and gymnasium construction project 5.Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release (l1 C.Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag D.Reconvene Open Session -Estimated Time 6:30 p.m. E.Approval of Agenda 1.Approval of November 15,2011 Special Meeting Agenda (l1 C-23 F.Public Communications 1.Public Comment on Open Session Agenda Items -The public will be given the opportunity to address the Board during each agenda item.Remarks shall be limited to three minutes per person and a total of fifteen minutes per agenda item. G.Discussion/Action 1.Cure or Correct --Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee Capital Campaign/Project (V) Staff recommends that the Board of Education approve Resolution No.11 -2011/12, rescinding without prejudice the Board's action at its July 14,2011,regular meeting withdrawing support for the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee project and bringing an end to the project. 2.Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee Capital Campaign/Project (V) Staff recommends that the Board of Education terminate approval of,and bring an end to, the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee Capital Ca m pa ig n/Project. 3.Run-Off Election of Members to the Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization (V) That the Board cast its vote for one (1)vacancy (At-Large District)on the Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization. H.Adjournment Individuals who require disability-related accommodations or modifications in order to participate in the Board meeting,including auxiliary aids and services,should contact the Superintendent in writing at 375 Via Almar,Palos Verdes Estates,CA 90274. NOTE:Agenda documents that have been distributed to members of the Board of Education less than 72 hours prior to the meeting are available for inspection at the Malaga Cove Administration Center,375 Via Almar,Palos Verdes Estates,during regular business hours,7:30 a.m.to 4:30 p.m.,Monday -Friday. C-24 Palos Verdes Peninsulausn Meeting:Special Meeting:G.Discussion/Action Created:November 14,2011 at 08:08 AM 1.Cure or Correct --Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee Capital Campaign/Project (V) November 15,2011 Status: Quick Summary /Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Board of Education approve Resolution No.11 -2011/12, rescinding without prejudice the Board's action at its July 14,2011,regular meeting withdrawing support for the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee project and bringing an end to the project. Background Information On July 14,2011,in accordance with the District Capital Campaign policy BP/AR 3290.1, and in compliance with the Brown Act,the Board of Education voted to withdraw support for the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee project, bringing an end to the project. The District received correspondence dated August 12,2011,from attorney Dean Wallraff, on behalf of his client,Friends of Friday Night Football (described as "an unincorporated association of residents of the Palos Verdes Peninsula who advocate for Friday night football games at Palos Verdes High School").In this letter Mr.Wallraff alleged that the District's action on JUly 14,2011,violated the agenda requirements of Government Code Section 54954.2 of the Brown Act and he demanded that the Board cure or correct the alleged violation or that legal action might be taken against the District. The District reviewed the agenda item,the Board's July 14,2011,action,and the requirements of the Brown Act,and determined that the agenda and the Board's action were in full compliance with the Brown Act.On September 12,2011,the District sent a written response to Mr.Wallraff explaining that the items was agendized,posted,and acted upon in full compliance with the Brown Act and that the District would take no action in response to his letter. Current Considerations After much consideration,staff has placed this matter back on a Board agenda in order to save time,energy,and money in defense of the District's position regarding this allegation. While the District remains confident that the matter was agendized and action taken in full compliance with the law,Government Code section 54960.1(c)provides a process by which a legislative body such as the Board may cure or correct the challenged action and inform the demanding party in writing of its action to cure or correct and Government Code Section 54960.1(e)provides that if an alleged Brown Act violation has been cured or corrected by subsequent action of the legislative body,any judicial action or litigation filed pursuant to the Government Code Section 54960.1 shall be dismissed with prejudice. Additionally,Government Code Section 54960.1(f)provides that subsequent action taken by a legislative body to cure or correct an action shall not be construed or admissible as C-25 evidence of a violation of the Brown Act.Although the District has not been served with process in any litigation concerning this matter,staff has determined that it is advisable to use this cure or correct process preemptively in order to avoid the unnecessary waste of District time and resources in defending potential litigation on this matter. Financial Considerations By taking this action,the District will save the cost of substantial potential legal fees. Administrators Superintendent of Schools Associated File AttachmentsIIExhibitA -Resolution No.11 -2011/12 (Files) C-26 RESOLUTION NO.11-2011/12 OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT IN RESPONSE TO THE SEPTEMBER 14,2011, DEMAND OF ATTORNEY DEAN WALLRAFF ON BEHALF OF FRIENDS OF FRIDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL FOR CURE OR CORRECTION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54960.1 TO AVOID POTENTIAL LITIGATION RELATING TO THE GOVERNING BOARD'S JULY 14,2011, ACTION TO END THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA IDGH SCHOOL STADIUM LIGHTS STEERING COMMITTEE PROJECT, RESCINDING SAID ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RECONSIDERATION AND/OR FURTHER ACTION UPON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER WHEREAS,by letter dated August 12,2011,attorney Dean Wallraff,on behalf of his client Friends of Friday Night Football,described as "an unincorporated association of residents of the Palos Verdes Peninsula who advocate for Friday night football games at Palos Verdes High School,"demanded that the Governing Board ("Board")of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District ("District")cure or correct alleged violations of the Ralph M.Brown Act (the "Brown Act,"Gov.Code §54950 et seq.). WHEREAS,the District Board's agenda for its regular public meeting of July 14,2011, included the following as an open session discussion/action item: K.l.Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee Project That the Board give staff direction or take action as deemed appropriate and/or necessary regarding the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Project. WHEREAS,pursuant to this properly agendized open session discussion/action item,the Board unanimously (with one Board member absent)approved a motion to withdraw support for the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee Project and bring an end to the proj ect. WHEREAS,Mr.Wallraff specifically alleged in part as follows: The description of Item K.l ...is so vague and general that it fails to provide the requisite notice to the public that the Board was considering discontinuing the Project.Members of the public inquired of your Board staff concerning this item prior to the Meeting and were told that the project's deadlines and upcoming environmental review would be discussed,but not the merits of the 005368.00373/10133834vl 1 C-27 Project.Thus,your staff substantially mislead [sic]the public concerning actions to be taken by the Board at the Meeting.This failure to provide proper notice to the public violates Gov't Code section 54954.2. WHEREAS,Government Code Section 54954.2(a)(1)provides in pertinent part: At least 72 hours before a regular meeting,the legislative body of the local agency,or its designee,shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting,including items to be discussed in closed session.A brief general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words. WHEREAS,the California Attorney General's Office has explained the agenda requirement quoted above as follows: The purpose of the brief general description is to inform interested members of the public about the subject matter under consideration so that they can determine whether to monitor or participate in the meeting of the body.... However,the Legislature in Section 54954.2 placed an important gloss on the requirement to provide a brief general description. That section expressly provides that the brief general description generally need not exceed 20 words in length.Thus,absent special circumstances,the legislative body may use a short description of less than 20 words to provide essential information about the item to members of the public.Where necessary,legislative bodies are free to provide a more detailed description,but as a general rule, they need not feel any obligation to do so .... (The Brown Act Open,Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies,2003, California Attorney General's Office,pp.16-17.) WHEREAS,the agenda item included on the Board's July 14,2011,regular meeting agenda fully complied with the agenda requirements of Government Code Section 54954.2.The agenda item exceeds 20 words in length,and fully apprised the public that the Board would be giving direction or taking action,as deemed appropriate and/or necessary by the Board, regarding the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee project. Any member of the public who was interested in the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee project was fully apprised by this agenda item that the project was going to be discussed,and action was potentially going to be taken regarding the project.In no way did the agenda item indicate that the discussion and/or action would be limited to any particular issues or aspects of the project.Specifically,nothing in the agenda item could be interpreted to indicate that the Board would consider only the project's deadlines and 005368.00373/10133834vl 2 C-28 environmental review nor that the merits of the project would not be discussed.Any member of the public reviewing the agenda was given full notice that if slbe was interested in the subject matter under consideration -the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee project -slbe could monitor or attend the meeting. WHEREAS,the Board's discussion and action on the agenda item in question came squarely within the agenda description.The Board received information in open session from District staff and legal counsel regarding the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee project,including a recommendation to withdraw support from and discontinue the project,heard extensive public comment both in favor of and in opposition to this recommendation,discussed the matter,and ultimately took action,via proper motion,to accept the Superintendent's recommendation to withdraw support for the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee project and bring an end to the project. WHEREAS,the foregoing facts establish that the agenda item did apprise members of the public of the business to be transacted or discussed.Numerous members of the public attended the meeting,with the apparent purpose of their attendance their interest in the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee project.Furthermore, approximately 29 members of the public made public comments on this item,both in favor of and in opposition to the proposed withdrawal of support for and termination of the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee project. WHEREAS,the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee project has been a highly controversial and divisive issue in the District community, with numerous individuals and groups publically expressing their support and/or opposition to the project.Opponents of the project vociferously and repeatedly,including at all or virtually all Board meetings at which the project was discussed for any purpose,expressed their opposition to the project and requested that the Board terminate the project.Thus,interested members of the public were or reasonably should have been aware that at any time direction or action from the Board on the project was being considered,the issue of termination of the project would likely be raised and possibly considered by the Board. WHEREAS,the Board has been presented with no evidence to substantiate the claim that District staff misled members of the public concerning actions to be taken by the Board at the July 14,2011,meeting,and moreover individual members of the District staff do not have the authority or ability to determine the precise nature of the Board's consideration of a properly noticed agenda item,or to direct or limit the discussion or action on any such agenda item.The Board's discussion and action on the agenda item in question was and could only be limited by the parameters of the agenda item itself,and not by any statement by District staff.Pursuant to the Brown Act,the Board must comply with a written and public ally posted agenda,and no member of staff may orally modify or change that agenda. WHEREAS,Government Code section 54960.1(c)provides a process by which a legislative body such as this Board may cure or correct the challenged action and inform the demanding party in writing of its action to cure or correct and Government Code Section 54960.1 (e)provides that if an alleged Brown Act violation has been cured or corrected by 005368.00373/10133834vl 3 C-29 subsequent action of the legislative body,any judicial action or litigation filed pursuant to the Government Code Section 54960.1 shall be dismissed with prejudice; WHEREAS,Government Code Section 54960.l(f)provides that subsequent action taken by a legislative body to cure or correct an action shall not be construed or admissible as evidence of a violation of the Brown Act; WHEREAS,it is the belief and position of this Board that its action taken on July 14, 2011,that is the subject of the demand to cure or correct,was taken in full compliance with the requirements of the Brown Act,which position was communicated to Mr.Wallraff by the Superintendent by letter dated September 12,2011; WHEREAS,although the District has not been served with process in any judicial action or litigation filed pursuant to Government Code Section 54960.1 with respect to the Board's action taken on July 14,2011,the Board nevertheless has determined that cure and correction of the alleged violation should be undertaken at this time to prevent further expenditure of scarce public resources on any such litigation or threatened litigation; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: With respect to the demand for cure or correction as to this Board's July 14,2011,action withdrawing support for and bringing to an end the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee project,and without admitting any lack of compliance with the Brown Act or establishing future precedent,the Board will take the following curative action in order to avoid the time and expense associated with defending Mr.Wallraffs threatened,but meritless,litigation:the Board's action accepting the Superintendent's recommendation to withdraw support for the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee Project and bring an end to the project,is hereby rescinded,without prejudice to reconsideration and/or further action upon the same subject matter. The foregoing resolution was considered,passed,and adopted by this Board at its special meeting of November 1'5,2011. [SIGNATURES TO FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE] 005368.00373/10133834vl 4 C-30 AYES IN FAVOR OF SAID RESOLUTION: NOES AGAINST SAID RESOLUTION: ABSTAINED: Dated:_ Dated:_ By:_ Dora M.de la Rosa President,Governing Board Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District By:_ Malcolm S.Sharp Clerk,Governing Board Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District 005368.00373/10 133834v 1 5 C-31 Palos Verdes Peninsulausn Meeting:Special Meeting:G.Discussion/Action Created:November 14,2011 at 08:12 AM 2.Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee Capital Campaign/Project (V) November 15,2011 Status: Quick Summary I Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Board of Education terminate approval of,and bring an end to, the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee Capital Campaign/Project. Background Information Per Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3290.1,if school sites desire to organize a capital campaign for bUildings and funds,they must inform the Board of Education of their intent and then obtain conceptual approval from the Board. At the July 22,2010,meeting,the Board of Education approved the concept as presented by the Peninsula Stadium Lights Steering Committee,thereby providing the authority for the Committee to begin fundraising for its proposed Palos Verdes Peninsula High School stadium lights project. Current Considerations Staff /legal counsel recommendation is based on the following factors: •The campaign divided the community and took attention away from the ultimate goal of supporting our students in academic performance and success in the future. •From the beginning the Board of Education has been concerned about community support and the availably of parking.It has become apparent that both of these remain significant issues. •Real concerns over lack of parking and traffic congestion would add to the cost for the lights project. •It is estimated that nearly a quarter of a million dollars would be spent on an Environmental Impact Report just to determine feasibility of the Stadium Lights Project.Such an expenditure appears ill-advised given the divisive nature of the project and the uncertainty of whether the lights would ever obtain approval. Financial Considerations The estimated cost for the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School stadium lights project ranges from $750,000 -$900,000.The final cost would not be known until the bid process is complete.Funding for the project would be provided through the fundraising efforts of the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee.The recommended action will terminate approval of,and bring an end to the capital campaign/project,thereby resulting in no further expenses for the proposed project. C-32 Administrators Superintendent of Schools C-33 Daily Breeze and Peninsula News articles regarding Board of Education action on the stadium lights proposal C-34 Palos Verdes school board shuts down movement for football stadium lights By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer Posted:11/16/2011 06:14:37 PM PST Updated:11/16/2011 06:51:17 PM PST. Again voting down a contentious proposal for Friday night football lighting,the Palos Verdes Peninsula school board this week told supporters that their plans had created too much conflict to move forward. The board voted unanimously Tuesday night to shut down a parent and alumni campaign that supported privately funded stadium lighting for Peninsula High School in Rolling Hills Estates. The proposal had been previously rejected in July by a board vote that lights supporters found surprising and unfair.One pro-lights group filed a lawsuit alleging the vote violated the state open meeting law;Tuesday's action was taken as a way to halt that lawsuit without the district acknowledging fault. In a hearing room packed with parents,students and neighbors of the high school,board members offered more detailed comments on the controversial lights plan than they had at the July meeting.Most board members said they supported the concept of lights,but reiterated previous concerns about the contentious nature of the proposal. "It's done nothing but divide this community at this point in time,"board member Barbara Lucky said."I'm really very sad because I'm sure students would have a wonderful time playing under the lights.Until we get this community behind the lights,I truly don't believe we should go forward with it.Going forward with it would continue to be divisive." Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District board members said that if the lights concept -which has been raised and shot down multiple times in the past four decades -were to be successful,it would need to come out of a collaboration of supporters and critics. Board member Anthony Collatos referred to "angst"among his fellow panelists who wanted a compromise. "It's very clear we have a very progressive community in terms of support for the schools, and it's also clear we have a very traditional community when it comes to change,"Collatos said. Comparing the issue to the emotional debate that led to the consolidation of three high schools into one campus some 20 years ago, board member Malcolm Sharp said the two sides were beyond compromise. Indeed,comments from the public showed opponents and supporters of stadium lights still Send.Dowel'S for an)'''occasion. Bouquets "from$19!i ProF:kJ'Vl:~l"8" Qffillr ONLY avallai$at: proflowers.comlhappy or call 1.871,004,1133 Print Powered By C-35 appeared far apart. Pro-lights residents remained angry over a July 14 vote that halted the fundraising efforts of the Peninsula Stadium Lights Steering Committee, which had brought in $250,000 to pay for an environmental analysis of the proposed lighting and any related litigation.At the time,they said they expected a routine update on their fundraising campaign,which had been approved a year before. "We were promised a process that would objectively address the elements of the project in a professional manner.Instead,we were treated with contempt by this board and total disregard for the basic consideration that thousands of supporters deserve,"said Kevin Moen,Peninsula High's head football coach and a star player from the school when it was Rolling Hills High. Dozens of supporters urged the board to delay its action until an environmental report could be completed so that the district's decision is based on "facts."Many supporters wore yellow glow sticks around their necks and repeated the refrain "let there be lights." Critics again voiced their concerns about traffic, parking,noise,glare and trash -and they predicted decreased property values for school neighbors. "It is time to bring this issue to a close and to not try to change the very fabric of our community," one opponent said. Board members defended their previous actions. They said they had followed their unusual 2006 policy outlining how the district -which serves an affluent population -should handle independent fund raising campaigns to pay for facilities improvements. Several board members said difficulty in dealing with the lights proposal showed that the policy should be changec;l,or even suspended. Under California's Ralph M.Brown Act,which requires most meetings of legislative bodies to be open to the public and properly noticed, Tuesday's vote will answer and end litigation filed by a group called Friends of Friday Night Football,which had sued over the July 14 vote. In an email Wednesday,lights steering committee Chairwoman Nina MacLeay said she was eager to soon find a compromise,including the possibility of "the use of portable lights for a specific limited number of nights each year." melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com Follow Melissa Pamer on Twitter at http://www. twitter.com/mpamer C-36 Strain piling on for school district By Mary Scott Peninsula News Friday,November 25,2011 9:59 AM PST One lawsuit is avoided while another,thought to be ended,continues. It's hot and then it's cold.Then it's hot again.No,it's not the weather;it's the Peninsula High School stadium lights project. The lights issue was back in the spotlight mid-November to avoid another costly lawsuit.Instead,the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District's resources will go toward its appeal,which it filed Monday,in the PVPUSD vs.Palos Verdes Homes Association case. In late September,Judge Richard Fruin ruled in favor of the Homes Association,stating the decades-old deed restrictions for the use of two district-owned properties in Palos Verdes Estates remained enforceable. This case lasted for more than a year and half and was supposed to be the school district's "once-and- for-all"answer to the question of whether the restrictions were still valid.This lawsuit created a rift in the community. Meanwhile,another firestorm ignited;a Board of Education decision in July 2010 allowing "limited" fundraising for an environmental impact report for four SO-foot-tall stadium light poles and a new state-of- the-art sound system was so divisive that the board shut down the project a year later. The project divided the community into Friends of Friday Night Football and Peninsula Preservation corners. The pro-lights group cited the enhancement of the high school experience and an exercise in community- bonding.The anti-lights side cited light and noise pollution,the preservation of residents'quality of life and property values,as well as traffic and parking. Listed on the board's July 14 agenda as a "discussion/ action"item,board members heard the recommendation of Superintendent Walker Williams and legal counsel to end the project.After taking testimony from a packed board room,they voted to follow the superintendent's recommendation.This seemingly caught the Stadium Lights Steering Committee off guard. Soon after,the Friends of Friday Night Football,a support group for the project (separate from the steering committee),filed a lawsuit against the board claiming it violated the Ralph M.Brown Act by posting an agenda item that failed to mention the board was considering discontinuing the project. To avoid another costly lawsuit,the board put the stadium lights back on the agenda for another vote during a special meeting on Nov.15. During the Nov.15 meeting,the board rescinded its July 14 action "without prejudice"so it could reconsider the matter at the demand of attorney Dean Wallraff on behalf of the Friends.Once the vote was rescinded more than 50 speakers,for and against,took the podium.Then the board shut down the project again. But the talk in town alluded to the passage of Measure M,not the lawsuit,as the reason the lights issue was back on the agenda. C-37 ..Some people were suspecting that we were waiting for the measure to pass and then we would reverse our vote.No,"said Dora de la Rosa,the current board president."We did what we believed we needed to do the first time and the second time,and Measure M had nothing to do with ...the decision." De la Rosa,whose term on the board will end in December,said the item was put back on the agenda to avoid legal costs and to clear the issue before she leaves the board. "The project for now is dead;it's done.It has been terminated,"de la Rosa said."\[And\]we are not engaged in any negotiations with anyone having to do anything with matter." The Stadium Lights Committee was surprised that the board reintroduced the lights as an agenda item,said Peninsula High football co-coach Kevin Moen.Moen,also a member of the steering committee,said he felt the board never engaged in "meaningful dialog"with the supporters or opponents of the stadium lights. "Although we had a full house of supporters and direct solutions to the stated issues that the board presented as reasons for canceling the project,it was apparent that the board was simply going through a procedural action to cure their exposure to litigation under the Brown Act." The steering ~ommittee,he added,hopes to come to some sort of compromise with the community to give students the "experience of Friday Night Football." One compromise is the use of portable lights to be used at football games. "We will see what happens,"he said. mscott@pvnews.com www.twitter.com/PVNewsEditor C-38 Letter from Rancho LPG to Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council, with attached letter from Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich C-39 DANCHO .I'"".:LPG Holdings LLC September 30,2011 Ms.Linda Alexander President,Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council 1840 South Gaffey Street,Box 212 San Pedro,CA 90731 Dear Ms.Alexander, At your St?keholder Meeting on September 13,2011 a motion was passed in support of the community's request to the City of Los Angeles and Port of Los Angeles requesting a withdrawal of rail permission rights until Rancho LPG Holdings,LLC completes their overdue review process that reflects the current operation and adequately meets the legal requirements of the CEQA law. In response,Rancho would like to advise you that the Los Angeles City Attorney has addressed this issue and other assertions regarding our Gaffey Street Facility.Attached for your review is a letter from City Attorney Carmen Trutanich to the Law Offices of Anthony G.Patchett.The following is a summary of the City Attorney's findings: 1.Contrary to claims,the environmental impacts of the Rancho Facility,pipelines,rail line,and marine terminal were in fact fully assessed in an Environmental Impact Report certified as compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act by the City prior to approval of the Rancho Facility project (for Rancho's processor Petrolane)in 1973.Furthermore,the rail line leading to the Rancho Facility was analyzed and depicted in the site plan in the Petrolane EIR. Therefore,there is no question that the Rancho facility and associated rail line were assessed in the EIR and the public comment and legal challenge period expired 38-years ago.Consequently, there is no provision in CEQA mandating a new EIR for the Rancho Facility. 2.The EPA's Risk Management Task Force Unit in direct response to alleged risks associated with the Facility engaged Michigan Technological University's Department of Chemical Engineering to conduct an assessment of the facility.Their findings clearly showed the Cornerstone Report did not include several of the design safety features and thus dramatically overestimated the consequences and risks associated with the Facility.Moreover,they concluded that a BLEVE of the large low pressure butane storage tanks is not possible. 3.Results of several unannounced regulatory agency inspections revealed the Facility to be in compliance and that no violations were found. 4.The Ultrahazardous Standard for Tort Liability is not applicable to the Rancho Facility as no harm has occurred as a result of its activities.As a result the City Attorney's Office cannot at this time proceed with any legal or enforcement action. 5.Injunctive relief is not available based upon known facts as no enforcement agency has provided any information alleging or suggesting any unlawful or dangerous conduct at the Facility. Moreover,the Michigan Tech Report conflicts with the results of the studies upon which you apparently rely. C-40 Rancho believes these findings validate our contention that the Facility is compliant with governmental regulations and is being operated and maintained in the safest manner possible.Since assuming ownership of the Facility in November 2008,we have made a resolute commitment to inspect,upgrade, and automate the Facility equipment as needed to ensure a more efficient and safe operation.We remain focused on operating the facility in a prudent manner with the safety of our employees and the community ever present in our minds. From the beginning,Rancho has endeavored to meet with the community leaders,regulatory agencies, and elected officials on a regular basis in hopes of keeping the lines of communication open.We have made a concerted effort to be open and transparent concerning our operation of the Facility with the exception of sharing business and safety/security sensitive information.Unfortunately,the Central Neighborhood Council has chosen not to attend these meetings because the general public is not invited.As a private entity we are not regulated by the provisions of the Brown Act.Hopefully,your Board Members will reconsider and decide to attend these meetings.This type of open forum can often facilitate resolutions to the abovementioned unfounded claims and preclude inaccurate information from being disseminated to the public. Sincerely, Western District Manager Plains LPG Services,LP (Rancho Holdings) Shafter,CA Office:661-368-7917 Mobile:661-319-9978 Fax:661-746-4037 Ronald.Conrow@plainsmidstream.com cc: Ms.Diana Nave,President -Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council Ms.June Burlingame Smith,President -Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council Mr.Kit Fox,Associate Planner -City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mr.Ricardo Hong,Area Director -Office of Mayor Antonio R.Villaraigosa Mr.Michael C.Davies,Assistant Field Representative -U.S.Senator Dianne Feinstein Ms.Rebekah Kim,Deputy -Fourth District Supervisor Don Knabe Mr.Jacob Haik,Chief of Staff LAUSD -Office of Dr.Richard Vladovic C-41 City Hall East 200 N.Main Street Room 800 Los Angeles,CA 90012 September 22~2011 Mr.Anthony G.Patchett,Esq. Law Offices of Anthony G.Patchett P.O.Box 5232 Glendale,California 91221-1099 (213)978-8100 Tel (213)978-8312 Fax CTrutanich@lacity.org www.lacity.orglatty Subject:Rancho LPG Facility,2011 North Gaffey Street~San Pedro~California -r~~.atchett: Thank you for your letters expressing various concerns regarding the Rancho.LPG facility located in San Pedro (hereinafter "Rancho Facility").To summarize your primary issues,you have requested that this Office seek an injunction in Superior Court against this privately-owned Facility, as well as raised questions relating to the City's previous environmental review of the Facility and related pipelines.Separately,you sent a letter to the President of the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners,who has forwarded it to this Office for response.Lastly,you recently alleged that there is a conflict of interest in the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney that purportedly would preclude this Office from further reviewing these matters.I respond to all of these issues below, after a brief discussion of the relevant background facts,as I currently understand them. Obviously,City Attorney Carmen Trutanich takes any allegations of potential threats to public safety very seriously.As a former environmental crimes prosecutor,and current City Attorney, who has successfully prosecuted,and continues to prosecute,environmental violations and polluters,City Attorney Trutanich is fully committed to undertake every effort within the power and authority of his Office and the law to investigate,prosecute,abate and remediate any actual or potential threats to the residents of this City.I With that commitment in mind,on Friday,August 26, 2011,the City Attorney personally visited and toured the Rancho Facility over the course of three hours to inspect and review its operations.Drawing upon his decades of environmental and regulatory experience~the City Attorney directly questioned the Facility's operators regarding any potential threats to public safety,including those raised in both your letters and from others in the community. I As you are aware,I have also served as a local,state and federal environmental crimes and workplace safety prosecutor for nearly 25 years,and once served as Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement and General Counsel for the California Environmental Protection Agency ("Cal/EPA"). C-42 I.Overview As you are aware~there is a lengthy regulatory and permitting history at the Rancho Facility~ including its'interactions with the community.I will attempt to summarize my current understanding of the Facility's relevant history. A.City's Past and Current Involvement with the Rancho Facility. The Rancho Facility property was originally acquired in fee simple by Rancho's predecessor, Petrolane~and developed into a liquid bulk tank facility pursuant to an environmental impact report (EIR)certified in 1973 under the California Environmental Quality Act by the City of Los Angeles as lead agency.There were no legal challenges to the EIR at that time and the project was therefore approved. On July 1,1974,the Los Angeles Harbor Department entered into Revocable Permit No.1212 for the construction and operation of a railroad spur track.On May 27~1974,the Los Angeles Harbor Department entered into Permit No.263 with Rancho's predecessor,Petrolane,for subsurface pipelines on Harbor Department property,which was subsequently terminated in October 2010.The Harbor Department had previously terminated the use of Berth 120,closing down the ocean shipping operation. Rancho currently possesses Harbor Department Revocable Permit No.10~05 dated February .23,2011,which authorizes a right of way for a railroad spur --the same one permitted under the 1974 Permit No.1212.The railroad spur is one section of railroad used by the Pacific Harbor Line. The City does not own or lease the property comprising the Rancho Facility. B.Other Federal.State and Local Agencies. The most serious concerns that you and the community members have raised obviously relate to the potential risk of explosion resulting from operations occurring on the premises of the Rancho Facility.For that precise reason,the Rancho Facility is heavily regulated by many local,state and federal regulatory and enforcement agencies,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, CallEPA,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 Angeles Police Department,and the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation Industrial Waste Management Division among others. These agencies have the regulatory authority to issue applicable permits,review,assess and require safety procedures and protocols,as well as the enforcement authority over the operation of such facilities should they fail to comply with any applicable environmental,public safety and other requirements. C.Technical Analysis of Facility Risk. The concerns expressed in Dr,Miller's note (included in your letter)and in the Cornerstone Quantitative Risk Analysis (Attachment A),have been provided to the EPA's Risk Management Plan Enforcement Unit,which is an agency responsible for determining the acceptable level of risk for the Rancho Facility.In direct response to these concerns,the EPA engaged Michigan 2 C-43 Technological University's Department of Chemical Engineering to conduct essentially a peer review of the Cornerstone Risk Analysis and Rancho's assertions (Attachment B)regarding the potential risk that the location poses to the community.The independent expert opinion from Michigan Tech is noteworthy (Attachment C).In sum,the Michigan Tech Report states that the Rancho Facility has design features that significantly reduce the risk the Facility poses to the community.The Report further notes that any analysis that does not recognize and analyze these features "...will not have a meaningful result and will very likely dramatically overestimate the consequence and risk."(Michigan Tech Report,2 emphasis added).Specifically.according to the Michigan Tech Report,these design features at the Rancho Facility include: 1.The butane is stored in refrigerated storage vessels at a temperature of 28°F,below the normal (l atm)boiling point of 31.1°F. 2.A remote impoundment area exists a short distance from the storage vessels to collect and contain any liquid that is discharged during an emergency situation. 3.The storage vessels are insulated,low pressure.vertical storage vessels.(Michigan Tech Report,2). Accordingly,Professor Crowl,the author of the Michigan Tech Report.concludes: "...the design features I ...discussed [those listed above]dramatically reduce the accident consequences and risk.If these features are not included in the QRA,the consequences of an accident and subsequent risk will be substantially overestimated. It is clear to me that the Cornerstone Technologies report did not include these design features in their analysis and as a result they overestimated the consequences of an accident scenario and over-predicted the risk."(Michigan Tech Report.4). It appears that the note from Dr.Miller does not reflect the hereinabove-described low pressure/temperature method in which butane is stored in the subject tanks at the Rancho Facility. Consequently.Dr.Miller states that: "[b]utane must be stored at elevated pressure.The pressure within the tank varies according to temperature.Pressure is needed to maintain the butane in a liquid state.At 68 degrees F,the tank pressure is approximately 16 pounds per square inch (PSF)greater than atmospheric pressure."(Patchett letter dated August 24, 2011.page.2). It is therefore my understanding that.contrary to Dr.Miller's assertions.the Rancho Facility uses refrigerated,low pressure insulated tanks that maintain the butane in a liquid state at 28°F. (Michigan Tech Report,3).Nor does Dr.Miller's note mention the existence of the remote impoundment area or other existing design features that the Michigan Tech Report emphasized are critical to a complete and accurate risk analysis. Michigan Tech's Professor Crowl also discusses Rancho's existing design features, including its use of refrigerated tanks,to conclude that the potential for a disastrous boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE)"is not possible"at that Facility's storage tanks.Specifically, in opining that such an explosion is not physically possible,Professor Crowl states in pertinent part: 3 C-44 "The remote impoundment area also decreases the consequences of an accident and decreases the risk.Any liquid butane that leaks out of the storage vessels or associated piping is drained away from the storage vessels to the impoundment area.This decreases the accident consequences in the following two ways.First, the impoundment area is remote from the storage vessels.Thus,if the impoundment area fills with butane and catches on fire,the storage vessels will not be directly exposed to this fire.This is important since a storage vessel exposed to fire might eventually fail.Second,the impoundment area reduces the surface area of the potential pool decreasing the evaporation rate of the butane. The North Gaffey Street facility storage vessels are also insulated.This is used to reduce -the heat transfer to the butane from the outside of the tanks to reduce the refrigeration load required to keep the butane at 28°F.It also decreases the consequences of an accident by providing addition (sic)fire protection in the event of an external fire.The insulation decreases the heat transfer to the butane liquid from the external flames. The storage vessels are also low pressure storage vessels.This means that a BLEVE -boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion -is not possible.A BLEVE requires a hIgh pressure storage vessel."(Michigan Tech Report 3-4). As you know,the City Attorney's Office does not have the authority nor the resources to directly employ in-house technical personnel having the capability to respond to the direct technical questions raised in your letters..However,during my inspection of the Rancho Facility,I challenged its operators to address each and every question and concern found in your letters based purely upon scientific evidence.(Attachment D).I welcome and would greatly appreciate your thoughts and those of others to their responses. This Office has also reviewed the results of all recent inspections conducted by the above- mentioned government regulatory agencies charged with the oversight of the Rancho Facility. More specifically,I have been advised that on May 12,2011,an environmental strike force conducted an unannounced inspection of the Facility.The task force members included CaI/EPA's 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,and the Los Angeles Industrial Waste Management Division.The surprise inspection included: 1.Review of air permits; 2.Compliance with Department of Toxic Substance Control regulations regarding toxic substances; 3.A physical audit of hazardous waste storage and handling procedures and associated permits; 4.Review of emergency plans;and 5.A physical inspection of the entire facility. It is my understanding that this inspection found no violations at the Rancho Facility. Similarly,I understand that on August 9,2011,the Federal Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),conducted a hazardous materials inspection at the Facility.The 4 C-45 FRA inspected security plans,security training,hazmat training,and other elements of the Facility's operations and also apparently found no violations. The foregoing information is the general,relevant evidentiary backdrop in which you have requested this Office to file an injunction against the Rancho Facility,as well as contend that further environmental review is required by the City of Los Angeles. II.The Ultrahazardous Standard for Tort Liability Does Not Apply Where,as Here,No Harm has Occurred As you recognize in your letter,the Rancho Facility has been in business,in various forms,at its current location on Gaffey Street in San Pedro since the 1970s.Your letter also asserts that its business activities are "ultrahazardous,"as defined in Section 520 of the Restatement Second of Torts,and eontends that such activities can be enjoined on that theory.However,your letter does not provide facts that would support a valid cause of action upon which to seek injunctive relief in the Los Angeles Superior Court.The "ultrahazardous"legal concept is one of tort law.The SKF Farms v.Superior Court case that you have cited defines an "ultrahazardous"activity,but does not obviate proof of the legally-required elements of the underlying tort necessary to obtain legal relief and is therefore,not a legal basis upon which to seek an injunction. As you know,"ultrahazardous"activities can be,and often are,legally permitted and regulated throughout the state.Accordingly,the activity,as shown in the case you cite,is argued to be "ultrahazardous"in a tort action brought after the damage has occurred to determine the appropriate standard of proof (strict liability vs.negligence),not as a basis for halting or enjoining the activity from taking place: "The doctrine of ultrahazardous activity provides that one who undertakes an ultrahazardous activity is liable to every person who is injured as a proximate result of that activity,regardless of the amount of care he uses."(Pierce v.Pacific Gas & Electric Co.(1985)166 Cal.App.3d 68,85 emphasis added). Further,you cite CACI Jury Instruction 460 in support of your position that the Rancho Facility is engaged in ultrahazardous activity and should be enjoined as such,yet that instruction's second element also requires that the plaintiff establish that he/she"...was harmed."(CACI 460). As discussed hereinabove,to date,there has been no demonstration of facts leading to a claim of harm or damage caused as a result of Rancho's activities.Similarly,while there is considerable concern expressed for the possibility of a threat to safety,we have not received any factual information documenting the allegations of unsafe situations necessary to counter the inspection and audit results from any governmental agencies,including those listed hereinabove. Unfortunately,although we recognize the potential threats posed by such operations,and clearly understand and sympathize with the community's sincere and longstanding concerns,without more information and a factual basis,this Office cannot at this time proceed with any legal or enforcement action.Obviously,you may (and are certainly within your rights to)disagree with the current assessment of this Office.As such,if you believe there is any credible evidence of violations at the Facility,you have the right to independently assess and initiate any appropriate civil suit on behalf of your clients. 5 C-46 III.Injunctive Relief is Not Available Based on Known Facts It appears from your correspondence that the community's goal is the cessation of all activities and operations at the Rancho Facility.However,as a general matter,injunctions prohibit specific activities that are found unlawful,but would not necessarily shut down a facility unless the entirety of the operation was found unlawful.Therefore,in addition to analyzing potential liability under the "ultrahazardous activity"standard that you proposed,we have reviewed two other legal theories that could serve as the basis for such an injunction,namely:California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et.seq.,commonly referred to as California's Unfair Competition Law,and a public nuisance theory under California Civil Code Sections 3479 and 3480.This Office has been very successful in obtaining injunctive relief under both theories in situations involving environmental,workplace safety,health care fraud,slumlords,billboards,gang headquarters,red light abatements,narcotics locations and many other public health and safety violations and nuisances. An injunction sought through Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.requires an unlawful or unfair business practice -essentially something "...that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law."(People v.McKale (1975)25 Ca1.3d 626 at 634.)While our Office welcomes new and credible information,we are not aware,at this time,of any conduct on the part of the Rancho Facility that can be considered an unlawful or unfair business practice.As detailed hereinabove,the Facility has been recently inspected by local, state,and federal regulators,who to our knowledge,apparently did not find any violations.I know that you,also as a former and well-respected and experienced environmental prosecutor,understand that this Office has a professional responsibility to uphold the law,and that courts have warned prosecutors that "...the unfair competition law is not a roving warrant for a prosecutor to use injunctions and civil penalties to enforce criminal laws.Its application to conduct which violates the penal law is limited to circumstances where such conduct is also a business practice."(People v.E.W.A.P.Inc.(1980)106 Cal.App.3d 315,320). As such,without an underlying violation of the law that constitutes a business practice,a Section 17200 action seeking a permanent injunction does not appear to be legally cognizable at this time.Your letters do not indicate that you are aware of any such violation upon which such an action can be pursued.Furthermore,assuming that there were such an underlying violation of law and that the violation could be considered a business practice sufficient to warrant the filing of a Section 17200 action,any injunction would likely be fashioned to address the specific violation and award civil penalties -not necessarily authorize the complete closure of the Facility. We have also considered a nuisance theory,but found that the Rancho Facility's predecessor, Petrolane,was unsuccessfully sued on both private and public nuisance theories in a case decided in 1980.(See Don Brown v.Petrolane (1980)102 CaLApp.3d 720).More importantly,as mentioned hereinabove,recent surprise inspections conducted by the agencies charged with regulating this permitted Facility apparently found no violations. My Office relies upon the diligent and competent perfonnance of regulatory and law enforcement agencies in developing the technical information and evidence of violations of law upon which we can act.To date,no enforcement agency has provided any information alleging or suggesting any unlawful or dangerous conduct,nor requested in any manner whatsoever that this Office file any form of law suit or enforcement action,including any such action whose object is the 6 C-47 cessation of all operations at the Facility.Moreover,as discussed above,the Michigan Tech Report conflicts with the results of the studies upon which you apparently rely. In considering a public nuisance theory,we recognize that there are numerous public nuisance cases brought under California Civil Code 3479 and 3480 against activity which "...interfere[s] with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property ...."(California Civil Code section 3479). California courts have found a wide variety of different activities that constitute a nuisance: offensive odors,the sale of narcotics,loud noises,display of offensive materials, and others.At this time,this Office,however,either through your letters or otherwise,possesses no evidence that any previously recognized nuisance activities are occurring at the Facility.Rather,what is clearly at issue here is the potential for a disaster,combined with our residents'sincere concern relating to that possibility.Unfortunately,I am aware of no California court that has held that fear or concern for future harm alone,no matter how sincere and understandable,is sufficient to constitute a public nuisance and thereby support a request for an injunction of that activity. As I have stated hereinabove,the door to my Office is always open to additional evidence that would change the analysis of the situation.At this time,however,we are not aware of any legal basis upon which to bring an action seeking to enjoin any permitted business activities or operations at the Facility. IV.CEQA Comments are Untimely and/or Misinformed Your letters also contend that the City improperly exempted the Rancho Facility from CEQA.Contrary to your claims,the environmental impacts of the Rancho Facility,pipelines,rail line and marine terminal were in fact fully assessed in an Environmental Impact Report certified as compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act by the City prior to approval of the Rancho Facility project (for Rancho's predecessor Petrolane)in 1973.In the very same letter you also referenced and stated that you have reviewed the Petro lane EIR,which clearly covered the Facility: "This project is composed of three elements:first,a marine unloading arm supported on four (4)new piles at the outboard side of existing Berth 120;second,an underground pipe supply line which commences at Berth 120 in Los Angeles Harbor and ends at the terminal facility approximately one mile inland;and third;a storage and distribution terminal facility. The storage and distribution facility is located on the east side of Gaffey Street approximately one and one-third (l 1/3)miles north of the intersection of Gaffey Street and the Harbor Freeway in San Pedro.It occupies a site of approximately 20 acres and is directly opposite a two-tank petroleum storage facility occupied by the Bray Oil Company."(Petrolane EIR,p.1). Furthermore,the rail line leading to the Rancho Facility was analyzed and depict\~d in the site plan in the Petro lane EIR (Petro lane EIR,Figure 2).As such,there is no question that the Rancho Facility and associated rail line were assessed in the EIR.Moreover,the public comment period and legal challenge period for the 1973 Petrolane EIR expired 38 years ago.There is no provision within CEQA that would apply the CEQA standards in 2011 to invalidate an EIR that was certified as compliant with CEQA 38 years earlier.In addition,there is no provision in CEQA mandating a new environmental impact report of the Rancho Facility at this time in the absence of a new 7 C-48 discretionary project proposing a physical change to the Facility and the environment.This Office is not aware of any new such discretionary project at or concerning the Facility. In addition,following the City's 1973 EIR assessment of the Rancho Facility's environmental impacts,the Harbor Department entered into various permits covering Berth 120 and associated pipelines that were previously assessed in the BIR,as described in the EIR excerpt above.The Harbor Commission Board Order 4579 from a 1976 board action referenced in your letter was an amendment to Permit No.263,which governed the pipelines from Petrolane to Berth 120 and was previously assessed in the EIR.This action was found exempt and,as explained above in regard to the EIR itself,the comment and legal challenge period has long since expired.In any event,a challenge at this time is moot in that Permit No.263 was terminated by the Harbor Department in October 2010. Lastly,you have stated in letters to this Office and to Harbor Commission President Miscikowsl),i that the closure of Berth 120 and the pipelines leading to the Rancho Facility caused an increase in truck and rail traffic that should have caused the City to conduct an environmental review.The Harbor Department informs me that the pipelines have not been used since 2004. Consequently,the termination of inactive pipelines in 2010 would have no effect on the environment as it could not have increased rail or truck traffic.More importantly,the termination of both the Berth 120 Permit and the pipelines Permit were within each Permit's terms,did not alter the Permit premises and therefore,did not constitute a new discretionary project subject to CEQA. Furthermore,you request that the Port suspend Rancho's existing use of a rail spur under its existing permit based upon your opinion that CEQA was not followed in the closing of Berth 120 (which caused the pipelines to the Rancho Facility to become inactive).This Office does not agree with your assertion,as the Port's permit for the rail spur is an existing use of a previously assessed rail line and exempt pursuant to Article III,Class 1 (3)of the Los Angeles City CEQA guidelines. We also note that the time period to contest the action under CEQA has expired. Moreover,California Code of Regulations Section 15321 that you cite in support of your contention that CEQA was not adhered to in relation to the closure of Berth 120,is actually a Categorical Exemption from CEQ A that would exempt both the Port of Los Angeles and the City from having to take the action that you have requested.However,Section 15321 does not apply here,as it relates to regulatory agencies and not an entity such as the Port. V.There is No Conflict of Interest Finally,you allege that this Office has a conflict of interest and therefore,request that the matter be reviewed by the Los Angles County District Attorney's Office.Nowhere,however,do you identify the specific nature of the alleged conflict -making an informed response to your allegation impossible at this time.This Office is aware of no actual or perceived conflict.To the extent that you wish for the District Attorney's Office to investigate the Rancho Facility,we certainly have no objection and openly welcome review by any and all local,state and federal agencies.We do understand,however,that you have already contacted the District Attorney's Office and that it responded to you on or about October 28,2010,informing you that it was reviewing the matter.I have not been advised of the current status of any such investigation being conducted by the District Attorney's Office. I again state and affirm that this Office has been,and always will be,willing to review any and all evidence relating to this Facility or any other potential threat to public safety or the environment. 8 C-49 However,this Office,as a public law office governed by prosecutorial rules of ethics,as well as the guardian of the public trust and treasury,does not,at this time,possess any facts or evidence upon which it can justify the expenditure of the significant amount of public resources necessary to commence and maintain a credible lawsuit or any other enforcement action against the Rancho Facility.The receipt of any relevant and credible evidence could obviously change that current posture. I look forward to receiving and reviewing any additional information and materials on this matter,including additional complaint or inspection reports,as well as meeting with residents and other members of the community to fully discuss their concerns and any proposed solutions.Thank you again for your continued attention,commitment and service to the community,and for providing this Office with this very important information. Sincerely, CARMEN A.TRUTANICH City Attorney ~ WILLIAM W.CARTER Chief Deputy City Attorney Attachments cc:Honorable Harbor Commissioners Geraldine Knatz,Ph.D,Executive Director Brian 1.Cummings,Fire Chief,Los Angeles Fire Department Thomas Russell,General Counsel,Harbor Department Janet Jackson,Fire General Counsel Reed Sato,Chief Counsel,California Dept.of Toxic Substances Control Brian Hembacher,Deputy Attorney General,California Dept.of Justice 9 C-50 E-mail chain from Jeanne Lacombe regarding Rancho LPG butane storage facility C-51 \ '" Kit Fox From:Lacombe [chateau4us@att.net] Sent:Tuesday,October 04,2011 2:42 PM To:kitf@rpv.com Subject:Fw:Rancho LPG tanks permits Attachments:Trutanich letter to Patchett.doc.pdf Hi Mr.Fox, ("'. Page 1 of2 I noticed that in the borders report the Rancho LPG tanks are included.Attached is a letter from City Attorney Carmen Trutanich basically stating the city attorney's office investigated this facility and they found this facility to compliant with all regulations and found a differing point of view on the possibility of a massive explosion.I must point out that there is no mention of terrorist threat and the protections (if any) the public has against a terrorist attack on this facility. Also,there wfls a Daily Breeze article about two weeks ago regarding an active FBI investigation into Los Angeles County Builiding and Safety for fraud,corruption and mismanagement.I contacted the long Beach Office of the FBI and I spoke with an agent who took my information that I had regarding the Rancho tanks and how they were built in 1973 without a permit and how we had reason to believe Rancho did more work recently that also was not permitted.The agent said they would investigate that facility regarding permits as well as forwarding the information to the homeland security unit. Now,regarding the Marymount expansion plans for PVDr North.Is there any way that I can get the intersection near us along Western also included in the traffic study?Our neighborhood is already impacted by heavy traffic along Western.We have Dodson Middle School that impacts our neighborhood and we expect Ponte Vista will just push our neighborhood into total gridlock. Please include along Western Avenue the streets of Avenida Aprenda,Delasonde/Westmont and Toscanini.I also suggest just south of us to include Caddington too.During "rush hour"I found people cut through the Terraces shopping center. Thanks Jeanne Lacombe -----Original Message ----- From:Davies,Michael (Feinstein) To:Lacombe Sent:Tuesday,October 04,201112:52 PM SUbject:RE:Rancho LPG tanks permits Michael Davies Office of U.S.Senator Dianne Feinstein 310-914-7300 .__.•....__..._...._w ....__.__ From:Lacombe [mailto:chateau4us@att.net] sent:IIIIonday,October 03,201110:10 AM To:Davies,Michael (Feinstein) Subject:Re:Rancho LPG tanks permits Dear Mr.Davies, 10/24/2011 C-52 Page 2 of2 Since I believe we are on borrowed time to resolve the hazard of these LPG tanks in San Pedro,I hope you can give me an update on the status of any progress into this matter. I believe there is enough documentation and lack of proper documentation to enact eminent domain for public safety.There are two major threats to this facility.One is human error like the one outside Sacramento last month and terrorist threat. I would be willing to meet with the Senator at her convenience to discuss this issue. Jeanne Lacombe -----Original Message ----- From:Davies,Michael (Feinstein) To:Lacombe Sent:Thursday,March 24,201111 :27 AM Subject:RE:Rancho LPG tanks permits Hi Jeanne, Thank you for the information. Best, Mike From:Lacombe [mailto:chateau4us@att.net] sent:Wednesday,March 23,2011 2:11 PM To:Nazarians,Rafi (Boxer);Davies,Michael (Feinstein) Subject:Rancho LPG tanks permits Regarding Rancho LPG Holdings tanks at 2110 N.Gaffey,San Pedro,CA 90731. Greetings, I had to insert the .jpg scans of the permits into a Word document file for email purposes.Please let me know if you cannot read them and I will mail hard copies. The blueprints at were submitted are unavailable to me because it requires the owner authority and signatures and stamps of the original engineer and architect from 1978. Thank you for your assistance. Jeanne Lacombe 10/24/2011 C-53 E-mail chain from Janet Gunter regarding Rancho LPG butane storage facility C-54 Page 1 of3 Kit Fox --------_._--------------------- From:Janet Gunter [arriane5@aol.com] Sent:Friday,October 07,2011 1:05 PM To:TRussell@portla.org;William.Carter@lacity.org Cc:kevin.schmidt@ltg.ca.gov;kathryn.colson@slc.ca.gov;MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; JHouterman@portla.org;DMathewson@portla.org;sally.magnanidag@doj.ca.gov; michaeLdavies@feinstein.senate.gov;rafLnazarians@boxer.senate.gov;rkim@lacbos.org; jnmarquez@prodigy.net;igornla@cox.net;det310@juno.com;dwgkaw@hotmail.com; jody.james@sbcglobal.net;amardesich@earthlink.net;kitf@rpv.com;Ricardo.Hong@lacity.org; dan .weikel@latimes.com;carl.southwell@gmail.com;nikLtennant@asm.ca.gov; sandra.sanchez@asm.ca.gov;norman.fassler-katz@sen.ca.gov Subject:Re:Purblic Records Act Request for Commission approval on Rancho Rail Permit I am most grateful for the referral by City Attorney Russell to the Port of Los Angeles website for viewing of the video of the September 1,2011 Commission hearing.I would encourage everyone on this cc list to view it.It was extremely fortuitous that our homeowners and the LA Unified School District Representative randomly chose this particular day to show up to speak in pUblic comment (the very beginning)to request that the Port revoke their Rail Permit to Rancho LPG in the interest of pUblic safety.It was also extremely fortunate that one of our members,Jesse Marquez,remained to speak to the issue of Agenda Item #3 having had no prior information or clear understanding of what the item entailed. What this hearing clearly shows is that the existing revocable permitting process is highly deficient and riddled with unsafe,reckless practices.The hearing acknowledges the Port's lack of discretion in permitting that allows a blanket approach to all permittee regardless of theIr varying degree of hazard.The process has been allowed to ignore environmental impacts and risks with no assessment whatsoever to protect the public or honor any fiduciary responsibility.In the case of Rancho LPG,there was a derailment of a LPG tank car on the port's property on May 30th,2005.Luck held,and there was no rupture or ignition of that tank.Meanwhile,the Port has no record of that accident.A LPG rail car fire in Lincoln,CA last month demanded the evacuation of people for over 1 mile while the fire department fought for days to cool the tank while it burned to prevent explosion.The cost was extraordinary for that one single event which was a long way from a worst case scenario.The "restoration bond"on this LPG facility permit is "deleted".The rent paid to the port for the use of the rail amounts to something like $40/day.Their insurance on the rail is said to be between $300,000 and $1 million annually.I had a liability policy for my antique store for over $1 million!!The State and City agencies receiving this email should immediately intervene and revoke this permit.It seems a prudent step to take action on this LPG permit and install a system that does not expose us all to the enormous physical and fiscal disaster opportunities that this existing process continues to allow.It is in the best interest of the City of LA,County of LA and State of California to demand an independent comprehensive risk analysis in full cooperation of the USGS on the risks associated with this facility.The port denied the renewal of a wharf to this facility based on their elevated risk exposure,yet continues to allow the hazardous commodity to run through the port by virtue of its rail transport. Where is the sanity in this?We urge your responsible action. www.portoflosangeles.org go to "commission"and then to "videos"Sept.1,2011 Thank you. Janet Gunter -----Original Message----- From:Russell,Thomas <TRussell@portla.org> To:'arriane5@aol.com'<arriane5@aol.com>;'William.Carter@lacity.org'<William.Carter@lacity.org> Cc:'kevin.schmidt@ltg.ca.gov'<kevin.schmidt@ltg.ca.gov>;'kathryn.colson@slc.ca.gov' <kathryn.colson@slc.ca.gov>;'MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net'<MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net>;Houterman,Justin <JHouterman@portla.org>;Mathewson,David <DMathewson@portla.org> Sent:Thu,Oct 6,2011 7:26 pm Subject:Re:Purblic Records Act Request for Commission approval on Rancho Rail Permit Revocable permits were discussed under Item 3 at the September 1st board meeting. From:Janet Gunter [mailto:arriane5@aol.com] Sent:Thursday,October 06,2011 07:20 PM 10/12/2011 C-55 Page 2 of3 To:Russell,Thomas;William.Carter@lacity.org <William.Carter@lacity.org> Cc:kevin.schmidt@ltg.ca.gov <kevin.schmidt@ltg.ca.gov>;kathryn.colson@slc.ca.gov <kathryn.colson@slc.ca.gov>;MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net <MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net>;Houterman,Justin; Mathewson,David Subject:Re:Purblic Records Act Request for Commission approval on Rancho Rail Permit Thanks Tom- Yes.I would love to see the video!I still find it extremely difficult to understand how something like this could just continue to roll over year after year after year on a month to month status for literally decades without anyon.e reviewing the issue more intently.Would like to see the discussion on the matter.I would have never thought this kind of situation possible in a public trust situation.But,then I suppose I have have already had a lot of surprises about that with the port and City.Can you please give me the date of the meeting so that I can find the video on your website?Thanks again. Janet -----Original Message----- From:Russell,Thomas <TRussell@portla.org> To:'arriane5@aol.com'<arriane5@aol.com>;'William.Carter@lacity.org'<William.Carter@lacity.org> Cc:'kevin.schrhidt@ltg.ca.gov'<kevin.schmidt@ltg.ca.gov>;'kathryn.colson@slc.ca.gov' <kathryn.colson@slc.ca.gov>;'MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net'<MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net>;Houterman,Justin <JHouterman@portla.org>;Mathewson,David <DMathewson@portla.org> Sent:Thu,Oct 6,20112:55 pm Subject:Re:Purblic Records Act Request for Commission approval on Rancho Rail Permit Janet,revocable permits have been used throughout the Port for many years.The Executive Director is authorized to issue them.Their usage was discussed at a recent board meeting.The videotape of that meeting on the Port's website should answer your questions on the subject. Tom From:Janet Gunter [mailto:arriane5@aol.com] Sent:Thursday,October 06,2011 06:44 PM To:Russell,Thomas;William.Carter@lacity.org <William.Carter@lacity.org> Cc:kevin.schmidt@ltg.ca.gov <kevin.schrnidt@ltg.ca.gov>;kathryn.colson@slc.ca.gov <kathryn.colson@slc.ca.gov>;MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net <MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net>;Houterman,Justin; Mathewson,David Subject:Re:Purblic Records Act Request for Commission approval on Rancho Rail Permit Tom- Thank you for responding to this particular request so quickly.So,does this mean that the permit and the conditions of it do not have to be noticed or ever reviewed by the Harbor Commission?Sorry,please explain.Do the details of such permits escape scrutiny based on the fact that they are revocable?How many other revocable permits are there in the port?It seems an odd and improper practice when you have continued to renew a permit like this hazardous use for over 30 years that it would not at some time instigate additional oversight and approval. Thanks again, Janet -----Original Message---- From:Russell,Thomas <TRussell@portla.org> To:'arriane5@aol.com'<arriane5@aol.com>;'William.Carter@lacity.org'<William.Carter@lacity.org> Cc:'kevin.schmidt@ltg.ca.gov'<kevin.schrnidt@ltg.ca.gov>;'kathryn.colson@slc.ca.gov' <kathryn.colson@slc.ca.gov>;'MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net'<MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net>;Houterman,Justin <JHouterman@portla.org>;Mathewson,David <DMathewson@portla.org> Sent:Thu,Oct 6,2011 2:31 pm Subject:Re:Purblic Records Act Request for Commission approval on Rancho Rail Permit Janet,this is a revocable permit that was approved by the Executive Director.I previously sent you a Pdf of it but if you would like another copy please let me know. 10/12/2011 C-56 Page 3 of3 Tom From:Janet Gunter [mailto:arriane5@aol.com] Sent:Thursday,October 06,2011 06:20 PM To:Russell,Thomas;william.carter@lacity.org <william.carter@lacity.org> Cc:kevin.schmidt@ltg.ca.gov <kevin.schmidt@ltg.ca.gov>;kathryn.colson@slc.ca.gov <kathryn .colson@slc.ca.gov>;MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net <MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net> Subject:Purblic Records Act Request for Commission approval on Rancho Rail Permit Hello Tom- I have been told that the February 2011 rail permit for Rancho was never approved by the Harbor Commissioners.That would explain the lack of the final page of the document with pertinent information.Please confirm this as fact,or provide the proper finalized legal copy of the permit complete with signatures,date of Commission Hearing and agenda of that meeting.Also,please include the minutes of that meeting. Thank you, Janet Gunter .. 10/12/2011 C-57 LA Times article regarding Rancho LPG butane storage facility C-58 ~"6'".1.VL..J latimes.com/news/local/la-me-adv-Ipg-storage-2011101 0,0,5641848.story latimes.com San Pedro residents revive debate about gas storage tanks'safety Studies by a consultant and USC graduate student come to more worrying conclusions than a company-funded report about the potential for devastation in an emergency at a San Pedro butane facility. By Dan Weikel,Los Angeles Times 7:34 PM PDT,October 9,2011 advertisement Energized in part by last year's natural gas pipeline explosion in the Bay Area that killed eight people and leveled a swath of homes,residents ofL.A.'s tight-knit port community have revived a long-simmering controversy over the safety of one of the largest and oldest above-ground fuel storage facilities of its kind in the U.S. Melissa Palma never thought much about the huge gas storage tanks perched on a hillside near the San Pedro home she and her husband settled into 18 years ago. Only recently she learned that the domed,40-year-old, circular,steel structures contain up to 25 million gallons of highly flammable butane -what some neighbors and public officials say are the makings of a potential catastrophe. "I was very,very shocked,"Palma said."It's so bizarre that I never knew about this." The emotional debate involves wildly different scenarios of the devastation that could be caused by a fire,explosion or terrorist attack at the 20-acre facility -and something more. Revelations of outdated construction standards and lax government oversight in the San Bruno pipeline tragedy and other recent disasters have shaken residents'faith in official assurances that the tanks have been inspected,tested and are safe. "We live with the misconception that government and private companies are looking out for public safety.Look at San Bruno,the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and what Hurricane Katrina did to the levees in New Orleans,"said Janet Schaaf-Gunter of San Pedro and Peninsula Homeowners United."These tanks need to be moved immediately." State,federal and Los Angeles Fire Department records show the site meets all regulatory requirements, and its firefighting system was recently inspected and recertified.The facility's owner,Rancho LPG Holdings,a unit of Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline,says the 80-foot-tall tanks are well- maintained and equipped with an array of safety measures, including monitors,sprinkler systems, C-59 automatic shut-off valves,and dikes to contain a gas spill. Although hundreds of people have been killed by conflagrations at large liquefied-petroleum-storage facilities in other countries,officials stress there have been no catastrophic failures at similar propane and butane storage sites in the United States. Still,residents,school officials and city officials in nearby Rancho Palos Verdes have pressed local and . state agencies -unsuccessfully thus far -to seek a court-supervised assessment of the installation's safety and the losses that could occur under various disaster scenarios. They note that homes,built before the tanks,are located about 1,000 feet from the site.Also nearby are an office park,a Home Depot,a Target,a complex of playing fields,and several schools. "I am concerned,"said Doreen J.Steinbach,principal of Taper Avenue Elementary School,which overlooks the Rancho site and has about 700 students."My priority is safety first for the students here.I don't like that the tanks are there,but it's not my job to take a political stance." The worst risks include fires that heat the storage tanks until they fail and explode,leaking gas that catches fire in the dike system or escaping gas that vaporizes into a giant cloud that can explode. Community activists have gathered a trove of historical and regulatory documents showing,among other things,that the city permitted the original owner to build the tanks under industrial zoning dating to World War II.Other city records and geological maps show the tanks are very close to the active Palos Verdes fault,in an area known for methane gas and unstable ground. Critics cite a 1,242-page federal report issued more than 30 years ago questioning the safety of gas storage sites like the one in San Pedro.It cast doubt on the adequacy of local building codes for such projects and recommended all new facilities be built underground away from populated areas. About the same time,the California Public Utilities Commission questioned the earthquake safety of the site.But a recent company-funded study states that the facility meets state seismic codes and was built to withstand a massive earthquake.The report says a slope failure behind the tanks would not damage the facility and the chance of soil liquefaction due to an earthquake is "nil"because of dense sand deposits and a low water table at the site. Much of the controversy now revolves around recent, dramatically different predictions of the damage that a fire or explosion at the facility could cause. A consulting firm hired by a San Pedro neighborhood association concluded last year that significant damage would extend as far as 6.8 miles from the site in the most catastrophic blast.That would cover most of San Pedro and part of downtown Long Beach. In addition,Carl Southwell,a USC doctoral candidate,completed a study in March,contending that a successful terrorist attack could produce a fireball 1,085 yards across that would kill 2,500 people,injure 12,500,and devastate the Port of Los Angeles.His worst-case scenario,showing a damage radius of almost 3 miles,assumed an attack with rocket-propelled grenades - a model based on a 1999 plot by a militia group that targeted a similar storage facility in Elk Grove,Calif.The suspects in that case were convicted. The owner of the San Pedro tanks disputes the reports by the residents'consultant and Southwell.Its analysis,by Quest Consultants Inc.,concluded that the worst case would damage an area no more than C-60 ..l."'5'"'.J VL.J half a mile in all directions.That would encompass some homes and busy shopping areas,but company officials say the distance over which damage would occur is significantly overstated. Rancho's analysis is supported by an independent review commissioned by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,which faulted the residents'study for using "technically invalid"scenarios and failing to consider the facility's safety features that would prevent the worst type of explosion. "What's been lost in all this is that we have had regular meetings with the community and told them about the risk assessments,"said Roy Lamoreaux,a spokesman for Rancho LPG."We want to be a strong business and social partner in the community.Weare doing everything in our power to reduce the off-site consequences of the facility." Bob Bea,a professor emeritus at UC Berkeley and an expert in risk analysis,said a high-quality,peer- reviewed risk analysis should be done -the type of analysis used for facilities such as nuclear power plants. Philip Myers of Pleasant Hill,Calif.,an engineering consultant with expertise in petroleum storage facilities,agreed,saying that all scenarios should be considered,including highly improbable events, such as an airplane crash into a tank.In general,he said that standards have become more stringent since the San Pedro tanks were built and that older facilities should be monitored closely. So far,the state attorney general and Los Angeles City Atty.Carmen Trutanich have declined the residents'requests to seek a court hearing to determine if the tanks are hazardous enough to require removal. Trutanich said the tanks have not caused any harm -an important legal requirement -and they have a clean regulatory history.He also cited design features that reduce the risk and the EPA's study that supports the company's risk assessment.The state attorney general's position was similar. The residents'attorney,Anthony Patchett,took issue with those views,insisting that the risk of a serious calamity is real and that neighbors already have suffered losses in property values because of the storage tanks. "All it would take,"he said,"is a leak unattended for 15 minutes and a slight Santa Ana wind and 750 people could die." dan.weikel@latimes.com Copyright ©2011,Los Angeles Times C-61 E-mail from Janet Gunter regarding revocable permit for Rancho LPG facility C-62 Page 1 ofl Kit Fox From:Janet Gunter [arriane5@aol.com] Sent:Thursday,October 13,201112:21 PM To:kitf@rpv.com Subject:Re:Kit Fox has forwarded a page to you from Planetizen Attachments:Rancho_RP_1 0-05.pdf Thank you,Kit.I appreciate it.I believe that State Lands is now involved in looking at the "strangeness" of the Port's rail permit.Don't know if you have seen iLbut,it is very bizarre.I have attached it for your review.In effect,the "roll over"revocable permitting process has allowed the circumvention of any review by the Harbor Commission for many years.What it really appears to be is a "long term unauthorized lease"for a use on Public trust property that has escaped any risk analysis whatsoever.Please carefully read through the permit regarding "indemnification"...again without any assessment of what that liability of damage might be.....and the complete "deletion"of any restoration bond.Also,of interest is the entire paragraph dedicated to the prohibition of use of the rail for any transport or handling of a "hazardous commodity".LPG has been deemed a commodity of "particular hazard"by the US Coast Guard.It just keeps getting 'more bizarre by the minute. Please make sure that your Mayor and Council representatives are on top of the latest.Thanks for your efforts. Best,Janet G -----Original Message----- From:kitf <kitf@rpv.com> To:arriane5 <arriane5@aol.com> Sent:Thu,Oct 13,201111:13 am SUbject:Kit Fox has forwarded a page to you from Planetizen 1.~1 Planetizen Kit Fox thought you would like to see this page from the Planetizen website. Message from Sender: -'-"'"-"--,------------------------------- Hi Janet.The recent LA Times article made it into today's issue of Planetizen Newswire.I will be providing a copy of your recent e-mail to the City Council. The next Border Issues Status Report is scheduled for the December 6th City Council meeting. Butane Storage Tanks Raise Concern Even though the butane storage tank meets all state and federal regUlatory requirements,residents do not feel safe with a 40-year-old tank that contains up to 25 million gallons of highly flammable butane.Residents fear a potential catastrophe. Brought to you by www.planetizen.com 10/21/2011 C-63 CI1YOF LOS ANGELES HARBOR DEPARTMENT Port of Los Angeles REVOCABLE PERMIT No.10-05 The General Managl3r of the Harpor Department (hereinafter called "Executive Director")of the City of Los Angeles (hereinafter called "City")HERIPBYGRANTS PERMISSION TO RANCHO LPG HOLDINGS,LLC,a DelaWare limited partnership,60781h Avenue S.W.,Suite 1400,Calgary,All;>erta,Canl:ida T2P OA7 (hereihafter called "Tenant")ta occupy and use certain lands,waters andlor facililies within the Harbor Qi$trict owned or under the contral of City acting through its Board of Harbor Commissioners (hereinafter called "Board"),subject to the following terms and conditions: 1.Premises.The premises SUbject to this Agreement.(hereinafter called "premises")is design",ted as parcel No.1 and is delineated and more ",ccurate.lydescribed on the preliminary Harbor Engineering Qrawing No.5--4327. A final drBvJing shall be substituted far Harbor Engineering Drawing No.5--4327 When prepared by the Chief Harbor Engineer,Engineering DivisJon,of the Harbor oepartment.andshall be marked Exhibit "A-l,"A copy of said drawing.is attached henitaas Exhibit "A."ay mulualagreement of Executive Director and Tenant,land and water not exceeding ten percent (1 0%)of the area granted or 20.000 square feet,whichever is greater,may be permanently added to or deleted fromthe premises granted herein without further approval oltheBoardsubje,ct to the followingcandHioh$;(1)$0.long BS~· 'SUCh change in area is not temporary Within the mearrlngof Tariff Item 1035:(or its successor),the compensation set forth in Section 4 shall be increased or decreas.ed pro rata to reflect any such addition or deletion;(2)if the change involves the addition or deletion ofar:1y improvement,the adlustrnei1lto the compensation shall also take into account this change in the same manner in whrch the compensa(jbriwas originalJycalculated;.(3')if permanent changes in area are made on more than one occasion,thecumulaUve net change in area may not exceed ten percent (10%)OJ 20,000 square feet,whichever is greater,of the originallY d",si9mated areoa,and (4)the chang.e in area shalf not result in the annual compensalio'n changing by more than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000),The Executive Director is ·aUlhorized toexecuteamendment(s)to this Permit to effect the foregoing .adjustments to area and compensation without h.lrther action of the Board. 2.Purpose.The premises shea II be used for the purpose of operaticm and maintenanGe of existing industrr;:ll rail spur tracks and not for any other purpose without thepriqrwritten cOrlsent of Executive Director. 3.Effective and Termination Dates.This Revocable Permit shall be month-to-month,commencing upon the date 0'(execution by Executive D'irectorand shall thereafter be revocable.at any time by Tenant or by Executive Director, upon the giVing of at least thirty (30)days'written notice to the .other party stating the date upen which this Permit shall terminate.The right of Executive Director to revoke this Permit is and shall remain unconditional.Neither City,nor any board,officer or employee thereof,shalf be liable in any manner to Tenant because of sucb revocation. 4.Compe'nsation. (a)Amount.Each month.in adValice,Tenant shall pay to Hoard the sum of One Thousa.nd One Hundred Eighty-seven Dollars ($1,187.00)as rental for the use oUhe premises.Use of the premises for purposes not expressly permitted herein,whether approved in writing by E;xecutive Director or not,may result in additional charges,inCluding charg.es required by Port of Los Angeles Tari.ff No.4,as amended or superseded.Tenant agrees to pay such additional chclrges,Executive Director may Ghclnge theamovnt of rental required herein upon giving at least thirty (30)days'written notice to Tenant. (b)Delinquency Charge.Rental payments whiCh h.ave not been paid within ten (10)days of the due date ("grace period")shall be subject to a service charge of one-thirtieth (1/30)of two percent (2%)of the invoice amount remaining unpaid each day.The service charge shall accrue from the first day after the original due date and shaH be imposed even if all or a portion of any sum on deposit as a guarantee against delinquent rent is applied to the amount due.For the administr.ative convenienCe of both City and Tenant,City will nat apply Tenant's deposit,which is described belOW,to unpaid rent until Tenant's occupancy is terminated or a notice to terminate the occupancy has been provided. The City has the ·unqualified right,upon thirty (30)days'prior notice to Tenant,to change the level of the delinquency service charge provided the rate shall not exceed the maximum per.mitted by law. (c)Deposits.Prior to the issuance of this Permit.Tenant shall deposit with the Harbor Department the sum of Two Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00)as a guarantee to cover delinquent rent and its other obligations under this Permit.If the rent is thereafter changed,Tenant shall modify its deposit as necessary to assure that Tenant at all times has on deposit a s\Jm equal to two months of the current rental payments.If all or any part of said deposit is.used to pay any rent due and unpaid or to meet other Tenant obligations,including. but not limited to,maintenance expenses,Tenant shall then immediately reimburse said deposit so that at all times during the life of this Permit said deposit shall be maintained.Failure to maintain the full amount of said deposit shall subject this Permit to forfeiture.In the sole discretion of the Executive Director,Tenant may post other forms of security but only if in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.If for any reason City has not initially required a deposit from Tenant,City may at any time and for any reason require a deposit in an amount the Executive :,,:'i.lilaL~,,_J.L,..._'Jt~.....TI_...},..."L·".,J".··C-64 Page 2 Revocable Permit No.10-05 Director determines necessary to secure performance of the Permit.Tenant agrees to post such deposit with City within ten (10)days of written request from City and agrees that its failure to do so constitutes a material breach of this Permit.No interest is payable by City on deposits if the deposits are subsequently refunded. (d)No Right of Set-Off.Notwithstanding any other provision of this Permit,Tenant's obligation to pay all rent payable hereunder shall be absolute and unconditional and shall not be affected by any circumstance, including,without limitation,any set-off,counterclaim,recoupment,defense or other right which Tenant may have against City. (e)Deposits for Disputed Payments.Tenant recognizes that disputes may arise over monies due the City in accordance with this Permit.Tenant and City shall make a good faith effort to resolve any disputes as expeditiously as possible.Tenant agrees,upon receiving a billing from City which it disputes,to deposit with the City the disputed amount in the form of cash.certificate of deposit in the City's name or other security acceptable to ,City within thirty (30)days of the date of billing.City shall hold the deposit pending the resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is resolved in the City's favor,City shall retain the money and all interest earned on it.If the dispute is resolved in favor of Tenant,said deposit shall be returned to Tenant with all accumulated interest.Tenant understands that its failure to provide a deposit acceptable to City within thirty (30)days shall be considered a material default of this Permit and City shall be entitled to cancel this Permit upon seven (7)days' written notice.If Tenant is required under this Revocable Permit to pay City any sums in accordance with City's tariff.Tenant's failure to provide a deposit shall require Tenant to make all payments in accordance with Item 265 of the Tariff and Tenant shall be removed from the Credit List authorized by Item 260 of the Tariff or as amended or superseded.If the billing for anyone disputed amount exceeds One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000).Tenant shall be required to deposit One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000)with City;if City prevails in the dispute and the amount due City exceeds One Hundr~d Thousand Dollars ($100.000),Tenant shall pay the difference due within fifteen (15)days with interest at the rate set forth in Section 4(b)from the date of City's initial billing to Tenant. (I)Records and Accounts.All books.accounts and other records showing the affairs of Tenant with respect to its business transacted at,upon or over the premises shall be maintained locally,and shall be subject to examination,audit and transcription by Executive Director or any person designated by her;and in the event it becomes necessary to make such examination,audit or transcription at any place other than within fifty (50)miles of the premises,then all costs and expenses necessary,or incident to such examination,audit or transcription shall be paid by Tenant.These records shall be retained during the term of this Permit so that the records for the four (4)most recent years are available.After this Permit terminates.Tenant shall maintain the records for the four (4)most recent years for at least two (2)years.Upon request in writing by Executive Director or his or her designated representative,Tenant shall furnish a statement of the exact location of all records and the name and telephone number of the custodian of these records.The statement shall be submitted within fifteen (15)days of the request and shall contain such detail and cover such period of time as may be specified in any such request.From time to time Executive Director or designee shall audit Tenants'records and accounts. Information to be provided by Tenant will include,but not be limited to,general ledgers,charts of accounts, .subledgers inclUding cash receipts journals,cash disbursement journals,and all original receipts and documents which support the information provided to City. (g)Prom9tion of Los Angeles Harbor Facilities.Tenant shall in good faith and with all reasonable diligence use its best efforts by suitable advertising and other means to promote the use of the premises granted by this Permit. (h)Supervisiof1 of Business Practices.The nature and manner of conducting any and all business activities on the premises shall be subject to reasonable regulation by Board.In the event such business is not conducted in a reasonable manner as determined by Board,it may direct that corrective action be taken by Tenant or its sublessees to remedy such practices and upon failure to comply therewith within thirty (30)days of Tenant receiving such written notice,Board may declare this Permit terminated. Pursuant to the provisions of the Los Angeles City Charter and of the tide and submerged land grant, Tenant and its sublessees shall use the premises in such a manner so that there shall be no discrimination made, authorized or permitted in the rates,tolls,or charges or in the facilities provided for any use or service in connection therewith. Tenant shall also conduct its business and cause the businesses of its sublessees upon the premises (if any have been expressly authorized by City in writing)to be conducted in a first-class manner.Tenant shall furnish and maintain a standard of service at least equal to that of the belter class of similar businesses providing similar services and facilities in the City of Los Angeles and adjacent communities during the entire term of this Permit. Board reserves the right to have access to and inspect the schedule of rates and prices for services and facilities performed or provided upon the premises.In the event that after Tenant has been advised and given a C-65 Page 3 Revocable Permit No.10-05 reasonable opportunity to confer with Board and to justify any rate or price challenged by it as unreasonable or noncompensatory,and Board has determined such rate or price to be unreasonable or inappropriate for the services rendered or the facilities provided,such rates or prices shall be modified by Tenant as directed by Board. 5.Restoration Bond.Tenarit shall provide a cash deposit,certificate of deposit in the name of the City. surety bond,irrevocable letter of cnildit or other form qf securityln the name of the City and acceptable to the Executive Director and City Attorney in the amount of .'($)payable to the City of Los Angeles,to guarante.e,upo ~r.m.inatio.n,revoc.atlon or.fOrl.e.'iture of .....pe.rm...it,the restor.a.t.iO..1'1.Of.premis.es a.1'1.'d the removal of works.,structure ,·,iot~improvements by Tenant as te 'b this Permit Said deposit,or other form of security bond,shall be .'cceptable,to and subject to thlil a ,'.".the City Attorney,No inter:i'.'payable by Cily on depo..sits I.f tPt.'.~d...~•.•".i are suo bSeqUe.ntly reo funded;.If E:....~iyl).re.ct.o.r.b.'ecorn.es.awa.re Of.fa".lead him or her to believe t~~ncial condition of Tenant has.s~..,...ti,\~angec!such that Tenanl ma t 'C IE!to meet its restoration ~ltxl,Executive Director maY increas.,.....•..storation bonc:!or deposit r ,i .nt,and where no r:sto~ation bo)a'or d~posit is initially required,~xecutiA.·"ri.'..6.'r may req..uire ~\Jch a bond~O.""".'....,',If any property of any kind IS on the premIses at the request or with the ~Isslon of Tenant,Its officers.'.....,employees.sUblessees. licensees or invitees,Including vessels,machinery or equipment,and such propert~.'....any channel or water area (hereafter ·sunken property")and Tenant fallS to remove such property within ten (10');Yc{ys of a request by City to do so, Executive Director may require a restoration depositor bond in the amount of the re.<lSonable cost of removal ,as determined by Harbor Engineer,If Executive .Directorin his Or her sole discretion determines sunken property is a safety hazard and So notifies Tenant.failure to remove the property may result in termination of this Permit upon three (3)days'notice. 6.Ri'ghts-of-Wav.This Permit shalla!all time.s be subject to SUch rights-of-way over the land embraced therein for such sewers,pipelines,conduits,and for such telephone,telegraph"Hght,heat or power lines as may from time to time be determined by Board;and shall also be subjeclto rights"of-way(or streets and other highways and for railroads and other means of transportation as shall have beeM dUly established,or as shall be reserved herein;and shaUalso be subject to rights-of-way as Board requires to drill and explore riew or maintain existing oil,gas or mineral wells.l'his Permit shall at all times be subject to alf prior exceptions,reservations,grahts,easements.leases or licenses of any kind whatsoever as the same appear of record in the Office of the Recorder of Los AngelesCounly,California,or in the official records of City or any of its various departments. 7.Premises Satisfactory to Tef1.anVRequired Modifications.Tenant has inspected the premises and agrees that they are suitable for the uses permitted herein.No officer or employee of City has made any representation orwarranly with respect to the premises,except as described in writing and attached hereto as an addendum,and in entering into this RevocClble Permit,Tenant agrees it relies only all the provisions oJ the Permit.Any modification,improvement,or addition tt;>the premises and any equipment installation or removj;ll required by the Fire Department,Department of Building and Safety,South Coast Air Quality Management District,Regional Water Quality Control Board;U.S.Coast <3uard, Environmental Protection Agency,or any other agency in connection with Tenant's operations,shall be constructed, installed,or removed at Tenant's sole exp,ense.Tenant sh:all obtain a Harbor Engineer's <3eneral Permit before making any modifications to the premises. 8.Use of Premises.Tenant agrees not to use the premises in any manner,even if the use is for the purposes enumerated herein,that will cause cancellation of any insurance p.olicy covering any such premises or adjacent premises provided Tenant rnay in City's discretion remain if it pays the increase in City's.insurance costs caused by its operations.No offensive or refuse maller,or any substance constituting any unnecessary,unreasonable or unlawful fire hazard,or material detrimental to the public health,shall ever be permitted by Tenant to be or remain,and Tenant shall prevent any such material or matter from being or accumulating upOn said premises.Tenant further agrees not tt;>keep on the premises or permit to be kept,use.d,or Sold thereon,anything prohibited by any policy of fire insurance Covering the premises or any structure erected thereon. 9.Repair and Maintenance,The repair and maintenance obligations of the parties are as follows (if Tenant's premises do not include wharves,maintenance provisions related to wharves shall not apply): (a)Maintenance Performed by City at City's Expense (Except as Noted).Except as provided in subsections 9(c),9(d),9(g)and 9(h),City will maintain at its expense the roofs and exteriors of all bUildings owned by City and the structural integrity of wharf structures (if any)and buildings owned by City.The "wharf structure"(if any)for purposes of this subsection means the beams,girders,subsurface support slabs,bulkheads and prestressed concrete or wood piling,joists,pile caps and timber decking (except as noted below),and any and·all mooring dolphins.The wharf structure does not include the paving,the surface condition of timber decking or the fendering system.City wit!maintain and repair at its expense all fire protection sprinkler systems,fire hydrant systems,standpipe systems,fire alarm systems,and other fire protective or extingUishing systems or appliances (portable fire extinguishers and hoses excluded)which have been or may be installed in buildings or structures City owns on the premises City shall also perlormat its expense all electrical substation and switchgear preventive maintenance. C-66 t"K,:"31:'',**,8 Page 4 Revocable Permit No.1 0-05 (b)Maintenance Performed by City at Tenant's Expense.SUbject to the provisions of subsections 9(c),9.(a),9(g)and 9(h),City shall maintain and repair at Tenant's expense the Wharf fender system for wharves owned by City,(in accordance with City's wharf damage procedlJres,a copy of Which wjl1pe provided to Tenant upon its rEl'qlJest),refrigerated receptacle outlets,baCJkflow devioesand potable water systems <.lnd heating <.lnd air qondftioning systems,so long as City forcoes are available.If,however,Tenant faUs to pay City in aGcordance with City's wharfdamiilg.e procedure (which contains depreciation criteria favorable to Tenant),then Qily reserves the right 10 Golleot the a.ctuaJ costar repair based onactu<.ll depreciatlo.n factors as establist)ed by City in court. (c).Maintenance Performed.by Tenant at Its IExpens.e.Tenant shall be responsible for p.e:rtorming and paying far all maIntenance andrepairs not expressly covered .above.Tenant shall be responsible at ils expense for insp'ectlngand assuring that all necessary portable fire 'e~inguishers ate present oothe premises and .maintained joan operable GOllditlon.NotWIthstanding subsectlons.(i:i}:and (b)above,allinodiflcafionsor repairs to the/;)le~tri991,plyi'h:blhgorrnechanic:?U $¥s\ems res\.!ltifl~l fri:lrri "oallouts"(Tenant-reqlJ.ested'repairs requested on W~e~~Pcts.hQli~aY,sQroth!3'rtl1~tl7:45.-4:1;5 MOhday-F.rjd/;jY 9r;s(l<;jh 'Gtlier times all ~IW adpPts as Itsmalntenance force WQrk haui's)are at Tena:nt's expense.Teilant sllaUalslil'be re:S:p0f!sih"le atit$expeh$e fOr inspepting the Premfseslitod,f{eeping lhe premise5,[ihqluding,but hot limited to,thesurfilcepf timber decking,all paving., lanclscapihg,irl'iga(iPn $ystems,fencil19.sigQag.e.a(idstripili\g (if90Y)anG!relampro9Jand/;jIl'works;structures aoc! imprl\l,\lementsth,e~o(,whether a part of the premises or pJa®d by Tehant,in aSii!ff:1,¢!l;i;l\\n,sanitary and sightly. GQnditiQt'),All maintenance performed by TenMt shall assure'the premiseS ate 1'I1l;jihtiliheq in .i;l first-clasS operating 0i),ndition and JncO'r\forman.ce wtthall applicable federal.state,regional,munlqip;;i'and otner laws and regulations.The apPearance,119fety and oper~tional capC\bililyof ttie premise'S spall be maintained 10 the satisF(j.ctibn pf .lhe'E;'xec.utliJe o,jrec!or.Tenant shall make a/l efforts neeessaryto immediate.ly discover and guard against any defecls inal!sqrfacesof limber decking,paying,.buildings,slructqres and improvements,On the premIses without request from City.Tenant shallal.s()COmpletely maintain at its expense :all bUildings,structures, improvements,timberdecking surfaces and paying it erects,owns,or installs.All modiflCp!ions and:repairs which Tenant m'akes to City.ownedor Tenant,owned buildings,strlJctures,improvements,timber .decking and paving require·p Harbor Department Engine~ring permit.Sample permits are available upon request from the Harbor Engineer.TEm'ant agrees to strictly comply wilhall the terms and conditions of the Harbor Engineer'S permit. Tenant shall maintain in its oftTces at the premises at all times th'e Harbor Engineer's permit allowing the work p.erformed and proof that the work has been performed in accordance with aU terms and conditions of the permit. ModIfications and rep.alrs shall be made in a first'classmanner using materials of a kihd aM quality comparable to the items being replaced (in-kind:replacement shall be utilized if material still manufactured}.Tenant is obligated at itsexpehse to take both such preventive and remedial mainten'anGeactions as are .necessary to assure that premises are at all times safe and suitable for use 'regardless of whether Tenant is itself actively using an ·of the premises.TenantSl1all provide'notice to the Director olPort Construction and Maintenance and Harbor Engineer flve($)work days before any paving work is performed;proliided,hOwever"Tenant shall immediately repair any condititm creating a risk of harm to any user of the premis.es.All materials used and quality of workmanship shall be satisfactory to the Harbor Engineer. (d)Tenant's Responsibility for Damage.Notwithstanding the foregoing,if damage to the wharf stru.cture or any other building,structure,improvement or surface area is caus.ed by the act,s or failure to act of Ti:!nant,its officers.agents.employees or its invitees.(incllJding,bul nol limited to,customers of Tenant and contrlilctors retained by Tenant to perform work on the premises --hereafter collectively "invitees"),Tenant.shall be responsible for all costs,direct or indirect,associated wilh repairing the damage and the City shall have the option of reqUiring Tenant to make the repairs or itself making the reppirs.If City makes the repairs,Tenant agrees to reimburse City for theCity's cost of repair.All damage shall be presumed to be the responsibilityofTenant and Tenant agrees to be responsible fO'r such damage unless Tenant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of City that someone other than its officers,agents,employees,or invitee,S calJsedthe damage.Tenant agrees to reimburse City for the cost of repair to City's wharf for any damage to the wharf resulting from a collision between a vessel and the Wharf While dOGking or undocking uhless Tenant demonstrateS that such damage Was caused by the sole active negligence of City or demonstrates that such damage was caused by an invitee of some other Tenant to which the premises are also assigned.The sufficiency of proof presented by Tenanlto City shall be determined by City in its sole judgment.Tenant's obligations as ayessel owner or operator pursupnt to City's Tariff Item 305 (or its successor)or pursuant to any pilotage contract Tenant may have with City are flot altered by the provisions of this subsection. (e)City's Option 10 Perform Work at Tenant's Expense.If Tenant fails to repair,maintain and keep the premises and improvements as above required,Executive Dire.ctor may give thirty (30)days'written notice to Tenant to correct such defaUlt,except that no r\'otice shall be required Where',in the opinion of Executive Director, the failure creates a hazard to persons or property.If Tenant fails to cure suCh defaull within the time specified in such notice,or If Executive Director determines that a hazard to persons or property exists due to such failure. Executive Diredor may,but is not reqUired to.enter upon the premises and cause such repair or maintenance to be made.and Ihe CO$ts thereof,inclUdinglabcir,materials,equipment and overhead cost,to be charged against Tenant Such charge$shall be due and payable with the next rent payment During all such limes,the duty shall be on Tenant to assure the premises are safe and Tenant shall erect barricades and warning signs to assure :r.t.n '...its....::..5 !C:..:::",·t·,.,t ),JJJ r·r.·.:.·.·.·..zm C-67 Page 5 Revocable Permit No.10-05 workers and the public are protected from any unsafe condition.None of City's remedies described above shall preclude City from terminating this Permit if City is not satisfied with Tenant's compliance with the maintenance provisions of this Permit. (f)Inspection of Premises and Tenant Repairs.Tenant shall be responsible for inspecting the premises (including all surfaces of timber decking,paving,structures,buildings and improvements)and at all times maintaining the premises in a safe condition.Executive Director and/or his or her representatives shall have the right to enter upon the premises and improvements constructed by Tenant at all reasonable times for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms and conditions of this Permit or for any other purpose incidental to the rights of City.This right of inspection imposes no obligation upon City to make inspections nor liability for failure to make such inspections.By reserving the right of inspection,City assumes no responsibility or liability for loss or damages to the property otTenant or property under the control of Tenant,whether caused by fire,water or other causes.City assumes no responsibility for any shortages of cargo handled by Tenant.If City requests drawings anQ/or specifications showing the location and nature of repairs to be made or previously made by Tenant (including by its invitees),Tenant agrees to provide to City the material requested in writing within ten (10)days of request by City. (g)City's Access to Maintain and Repair Premises.If City deems it necessary to maintain or repair the premises,Tenant shall cooperate fully with City to assure that the work can be performed timely and during City's normal working hours.If City is required to perform any work outside its normal working hours,even work which would otherwise be at City's expense,the entire cost of such work shall be at Tenant's expense. (h)Maintenance/Repair Obligations'Dependent on Indemnityllnsurance Provisions.City's agreement to perform certain repairs and to pay for certain repairs is expressly conditioned on the indemnity and insurance provisions of this Permit remaining in force and effect.If Tenant fails to comply with the indemnity and insurance provisions or if these provisions are ever deemed not applicable,then Tenant shall be obligated to perform and pay for all maintenance and repairs to the premises without exception at its own expense.Tenant shall perform such maintenance and repairs only after it has secured the Harbor Engineer's General Permit.Such work shall be deemed completed only when all terms of the permit have been satisfied.If City inspects any work performed by Tenant and finds it unsatisfactory.Tenant shall be obligated to correct the work to City's satisfaction at Tenant's expense. (i)Definition of City's Actual Costs.Whenever this Section requires Tenant to reimburse City for the City's cost of maintenance.the City's cost of maintenance is agreed to include all direct and indirect costs which City incurs whether with its own forces or with any independent contractor.These costs include salary and all other costs City incurs from its employees ("salary burden"),all material and equipment costs and general overhead costs. (j)Exhibit Listing More Common Maintenance Items.Attached as Exhibit "8"is a detailed description of items which is intended to describe the more common maintenance work which may be necessary at the premises.Not all items listed will be present at ali premises within the Port.Costs and responsibilities shall be apportioned as set forth in this Exhibit except as may otherwise be required by the provisions above. 10.Defaults.Upon 'the neglect,failure or refusal of Tenant to comply with any of the terms or conditions of this Permit within the time stated in the written demand of Executive Director.the Executive Director may declare this Permit forfeited.and may forthwith enter upon said premises,using all reasonable force so to do,and exclude Tenant from further use of said premises and all improvements thereon.Upon such forfeiture,Tenant shall immediately surrender all rights in and to the premises and all improvements.Upon any such forfeiture,any and all buildings,structures and improvements of any character whatsoever,erected,installed or made by Tenant under,through.or because of,or pursuant to the terms of this Permit,or any prior permit.shall immediately ipso facto either become the property of City free and clear of any claim of any kind or nature of Tenant or its successors in interest without compensation to Tenant or become removable by Executive Director at the sole expense of Tenant.at the option of Executive DirectoL In the event this Permit is forfeited as set forth above,Executive Director may enforce all of City's rights and remedies under this Permit.In addition to any other remedy available to City,City shall be,entitJed to recover from Tenant rent as it becomes due pursuant to the terms of this Permit and,in addition thereto.the damage that City may recover includes the worth at the time of the award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term of this Permit exceeds the amount of such rental loss for the same period that Tenant proves could have been reasonably avoided.Any default in Tenant's obligations to make payments to City under the terms of any berth assignment,lease.permit or other agreement,when such default involves the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00)or more,shall constitute a material default on the part of Tenant with respect to this Permit.At any time Tenant has defaulted on payments due under other agreements with City,City may give Tenant a default notice and this Permit may be forfeited if the default in rental payments of such other agreements,including,but not limited to, berth assignments,leases and permits,IS not cured within the lime stated in said notice. 11.Effect of Nonuse.Tenant shall commence using the premises for the purposes permitted herein within thirty (30)days from the effective date hereof.If Tenant shall fail thereafter to use the premises or any substantial portion C-68 Page 6 Revocable Permit No.10-05 thereof for a period of thirty (30)consecutive days,this Permit shall cease and terminate and be forfeited unless Tenant, prior to the expiration of any such period of thirty (30)consecutive days,notifies Executive Director in writing that such nonuse is temporary and obtains the written consent of Executive Director to such nonuse. 12.Restoration and Hazardous Materials Management.Upon the termination of this Permit other than by forfeiture,Tenant shall quit and surrender possession of the premises to City and shall,without cost to City,remove any and all works,structures and other improvements located thereon,except works,structures or other improvements owned by City,and restore the premises to the same or as good condition,ordinary wear and tear excepted.as the same were in at the time of the first occupancy thereof by Tenant or its assignors,if any,under this or any prior permit or lease."Ordinary wear and tear"does not permit Tenant to damage paving or 10 contaminate the premises with any material handled at the premises.Executive Director may,at his or her option,accept all or a portion of the works,structures,or other improvements on behalf of City in lieu of all or a portion of the removal or restoration required herein.Tenant shall leave the premises free from contamination of hazardous substance or hazardous waste including hazardous liquid bulk products and petroleum products (hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as "hazardous materials")as defined below.Tenant shall leave the surface of the ground in a level,graded condition with no excavations,holes,hollows,hills or humps. 13.Hazardous Materials.Tenant may not handle,use,store,transport,transfer,receive or dispose of,or allow to remain on the premises (hereinafter collectively referred to as "handle")any substance 'classified as a hazardous material under any federal,state,local law or ordinance (hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to in,this Permit as "'aw")in such quantities as would require the reporting of such activity to any person or agency having jurisdiction thereof without first receiving written permission of City.If Tenant has handled material on the premises classified by law as hazardous [Tenant's attention is partiCUlarly called to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1967 ("RCRA"),42 U.S.C.Sec.6901 et seq.;the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"),as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"),42 U.S.C.Sec.9601, et seq.;the Clean Water Act,33 U.S.C.Sec.1251 et seq.;the Clean Air Act.42 U.S.C.Sec.7901 et seq.;California Health &Safety Code Sec.25300 et seq.and Sec,25100 et seq.;California Water Code Sec.13000 et seq.;Califomia Administrative Code,Title 22,Division 4,Chapter 30,Article 4;Title 49 CFR 172.101;Title 40 CFR Part 302 and any amendments to these provisions or successor provisions]and such material has contaminated or threatens to contaminate the premises or adjacent premises (inclUding structures,harbor waters,soil or groundwater),Tenant,to the extent obligated by law and to the extent necessary to satisfy City,shall at its own expense perform soil and groundwater tests to determine the extent of such contamination,and shall immediately remediate from the premises any such material.If in the determination of the Executive Director such hazardous material cannot be remediated on site to the satisfaction of City, Tenant shall remove and properly dispose of all contaminated SOil,material or groundwater and replace such soil or material with clean soil or material suitable to City, If during Tenant's occupancy hazardous materials are discovered on the premises or such materials have migrated to or threaten to contaminate adjacent premises (including structures,harbor waters,soil or groundwater), Tenant shall immediately notify the City,and Tenant,at its sole expense,shall perform such soil and groundwater testing as required by law and as City deems necessary and take immediate steps to remediate the premises to the satisfaction of City, If Tenant disposes of any soil.material or groundwater contaminated with hazardous material,Tenant shall provide City copies of all records,inclUding a copy of each uniform hazardous waste manifest indicating the quantity and type of material being disposed of,the method of transportation of the material to the disposal site and the location of the disposal site.The name of the City of Los Angeles shall not appear on any manifest document as a generator of such material. Any tests required of Tenant by this Section shall be performed by a State of California Department of Health Services certified testing laboratory satisfactory to City.By signing this Permit,Tenant hereby irrevocably directs any such laboratory to provide City,upon written request from City.copies of a/l of its reports,test results,and data gathered. As used in this Permit,the term "Tenant"includes agents,employees,contractors.subcontractors,and/or invitees of the Tenant. 14.Rent..Q_uring Restoration.Tenant understands and agrees it is responsible for complete restoration of the premises,including the clean up of any hazardous material contamination on or arising from the premises before the expiration or earlier termination of this Permit.If,for any reason,such restoration is not completed before such expiration, then Tenant is obligated to pay City compensation during such restoration as determined by the then fair market value of the land and the Harbor Department's then established rate of return;however,the new rent shall not be less than provided in Section 4.Tenant also agrees to provide City a surety bond to assure removal of hazardous material from the premises if at any time City demands such bond,Tenant's breach of any of the provisions of this Section shall entitle City to forfeit this Permit. 15,Site Restoration Plan.Upon request of Executive Director,Tenant shall provide City a site characterization study and site restoration plan in a form acceptable to City and at Tenant's expense as directed by City, C-69 Page 7 Revocable Permit No.10-05 The study and plan shall demonstrate to City's satisfaction that the premises have not been contaminated or that,if contamination exists,TenMt will remove it to the satisfaction of City. 16.Tanks.Within thirty (30)days from the commencement ofthe term of this Permit,Tenant,at its expense, shall submit to City an inventory of aIr storage tanks IO£a{ed on the premises indicating the number of tankS,type (atmospheric,etc,),contents.capacity,past historical use,]ocatiol1and the ,date each tank was last tested for structural integrity ano le<!ks.Tenant shall aLso,at its soleexpElnse,when reqUired by law or when deemed necessary by the Executivf.l Diteotor or his or her oesigl'iEle,test all s~orage tanks I()catea o,n thEl premises for structural integrity and leaks. Upon written req!.Jest,TE!r)antshall m,ak,e availaple 'to Ci~the res~Jts of all such tests.Testing requirea herein ,shall be .to the satisfa·cliOOQf City and in confprmance wit.h appl[caqIe (ederal.l;ta~e or local laws.ruleS,regulations or ordina,nces as these provisions presently exist,or as they maybe amended or enMted.If during Tenant's;occupanl::Y pf the premises a tank or the pipeline.s.servicing a tank con1'alnillg hazardous material are discovered ~o b.eleakihg,Ten:ant:shaflimmediately notify the GitYand take all steps necel;sary to repair the tank and/or pip~lines ana (3le'an~p th~'contamin<ilted 'area to th<= satisfaction ~!City and inaccbrdar:rae With ,allapplicabl~1'8\1\1. 17..Use for Tideland Purpo.ses ...This Permit is subjeet to the limitations,conditions,restrictions .and reservations of the Tidelands Act.Slats.19,2:9;Ch.651,as amended and/or reenacted.and the Charter of City relating to suCh lands,inducting partiCUlarly Article VI.Tenant agrees to use the premises onlY in sUch manner as Will be consistent therewith. t8...Federal Maritirne:Corl1mission.Tenant Shall not US,e the premises or furnish any facilities or services thereon for.pr inconneciionWj~h a GommQn carrier by water as thaI term is defineq in the Shippiflg Act of 1916 and 1984,as Clmefided,unless andunHI this Permit has b(:len submitted'lathe F!ilderal Maritime'CommiS$ion and hCls become eIfecHveor determined nollo be.subject to said Acts. 19.Improvements.Tenant shall not construct on or i3Jler the premises,incl\lding a,change in the grade. without first suomilting to Haroor El1gineer .a ;cPmplete set oJ dra,wing::>,plans and speqifications oOhe propos.ed construction or alteration and obtaining his approY.al in a written Harbor Engineer's General Permit.Harbor Engineer shallbave the right to rejector order changes in said drawings,pla,ns and specifica,tiom;l.Tenant,,a,t its own expense,,shall obtain all permits necessary for such construction.All 'construction by Tena,nt pursuanl to this Permit shall beat Tenant's sole expense. Tenant shall keep the premises Jreea,nd clear of liens for lahor and materials and shall hold City harmless from any responsibility in respect thereto.. 20.Oonstruction.Tenant Shalf give written notice to Harbor Engine.er,in advance.of the date it will commence any .constructton.lmmediately upon the completJon of the construCtion.Tenant shall notify Harbor Engine.er of the date of such compJetionand shall,.within thirty (30Y days after such completion.file with Harbor Engineer,in a form acceptable to Harbor Engineer,a Set of "as buHt"plans for such construction. 21.Indemnity As partial Gotlsideration for city;s grant of the premises to Tenant,Tenant agrees to at all times relieve,indemnify,protect and save harmless City and any and a"of its bOards,officers,agents and employees from any and Clll claims and demqnds,actions,proceedingS,.Josses,liens,Costs and juogments of any kine!and na,ture whatsoever,i.ncluding expenses incurr.ed in defending a,tJainstlegaIClctions,for death pf or injurY to perl;ons or damage to property including property owned by or uflder the care and custody of City.and for civil fines and Pena'lties,that may arise from or be ca,used directly or indirectly by: (a)Anydflngerous,hazardous,unsafe or defective condition of,in or on the premises,of any nature whatsoever,which may exi.st oy reason of any act,omission.neglect,or any use or occupation of the premises by Tenant,its officers.agents,employees,sublessees,licensees or inVitees; (b)Any operation conducted upon or any use or occupation of the premises by Tenant,its officers, agents,employees,sublessees,licensees or invite.es under or pursuant to the provisions of this Permit or otherwise; (c)Any act,omiSSion or negligence of Tenant.its officers,agents,employees,sublessees, licensees or invitees,regardless of whether any act,omission or negligence of City,its officers.agents or employees contributed thereto; (d)Any failure.of Ten(ilnt,its officers,agents or employees to comply with any of the terms or conditions of this Permit or any applicable federal,state.regional,or municipal law,ordinance,rule or regulation;or (e)The conditions,operations,uses.occupations,acts,omissions or negligence referred to in subdivisions (a), (b),(c)and (d)above,existing or conducted upon or arising from the uSe or occupation by Tenant or its invitees of any other premises within the Harbor District,as defined in the Charter of City. C-70 Page 8 Revocable Permit No.10-05 Tenant also agrees to indemnitY City and pay for all damage or loss suffered by City and the Harbor Department,including, but not limited to,damage to or loss of property,to the extent not insured by City,and loss of City revenue from any source, caused by or arising out of the conditions,operations,uses,occupations,acts,omissions or negligence referred to in subdivisions (a),(b),(c),(d)and (e)above.The term "persons'as used herein shall include,but not be limited to,officers and employees of Tenant.Tenant acknowledges that the City has set the compensation payable under this Permit in consideration of the indemnity and insurance obligations which Tenant assumes by this Permit. Tenant shall also indemnify,defend and hold City harmless from any and all claims,judgments, damages,penalties,fines,costs,liabilities or losses (including,without limitation,diminution of value of the premises, damages for loss or restriction on use of rentable or useable space or of any amenity of the premises,damages arising from any adverse impact on marketing of space,and sums paid in seltlement of claims,attorneys'fees,consultant fees and expert fees)which arise during or after the Permit term as a result of contamination of the premises by hazardous materials for which Tenant is otherwise responsible for under the terms of this Permit.This indemnification of City by Tenant includes, without limitation,costs incurred in connection with any investigation of site conditions or any Clean-up,remedial,removal or restoration work required by any federal,state or local governmental agency because of hazardous material present in the soil or groundwater on or under the premises.The foregoing indemnity shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Permit. 22.Insurance.Tenant shall procure and maintain at its expense and keep in force at all times during the term of this Permit broad form comprehensive general liability and property damage insurance including automobile and contractual liability assumed coverages written by an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of California rated VII,A-or better in Best's Insurance Guide (or an alternate guide acceptable to City if a Best's Rating is not available) with Tenant's normal limits of liability but not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000)combined single limit for injury, death or property damage arising out of each accident or occurrence unless Executive Director allows or requires a different limit of liability.If the submitted policy contains an aggregate limit,this limit must be satisfactory to Executive Director or his or her designee.Said limits shall be without deduction,provided that Executive Director or his or her designee may permit a deductible amount in those cases where,in his or her judgment,such a deductible is justified.The insurance provided shall contain a severability of interest clause assuring that damage to City property or injury to City personnel are covered by the insurance.In all cases,regardless of any deductible,said insurance shall contain a defense of suits provision which assures the carrier will defend the City if any suit arises related to Tenant's occupation of the premises or such suit is within the scope of Tenant's indemnity allegation as set forth in Section 21.If Tenant operates watercraft or incurs other marine liability exposures or operates vehicles as part of its business in the Port,liability coverage for such watercraft or vehicles must be provided as above.The submitted policy shall contain endorsements sUbstanlially as follows: (a)"Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached,or any endorsement or certificate now or hereafter attached hereto,it j~agreed that the City of Los Angeles,its Board of Harbor Commissioners,their officers,agents and employees,are additional insureds hereunder,and that coverage is provided for all operations,uses,occupations,acts and activities of the insured under its revocable permit issued by the City,and under any amendments,modifications,exlensions or renewals thereof regardless of whether such operations,uses,occupations,acts and activities occur on the premises or elsewhere within the Harbor District,and regardless of whether liability is attributable to the named insured or a combination of the named insured and the additional insured.It is understood that the additional insured will not be responsible for the payment of premium under the policy; (b)"The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be cancelled or reduced in coverage until after the Executive Director and the City Attorney of City have each been given thirty (30)days'prior written notice by certified mail addressed to P.O.Box 151,San Pedro,California 90733-0151; (c)"The coverage provided by the policy to which this endorsement is attached is primary coverage and any other insurance carried by City is excess of this insurance and shall not contribute with it; (d)"If one of the named insureds incurs liability to any other of the named insureds,this policy shall provide protection for each named insured against whom claim is or may be made,including claims by other named insureds,in the same manner as if separate policies had been issued to each named insured.Nothing contained herein shall operate to increase the company's limit of liability;and (e)"Notice of occurrences or claims under the policy shall be made 10 [This information is to be supplied by the Tenant's insurance carrier when submitting the Endorsement to the Harbor Department.The information to be supplied is the name,address and phone number of the person representing the carrier to be notified at the time of any accident.]" The Executive Director and City Attorney shall have the discretion to modify the insurance requirements as they deem appropriate if the circumstances warrant a modification. C-71 Page 9 Revocable Permit No.10-05 23.Fire Legal Liability Insurance.Tenant shall also secure and maintain,either by an endorsement thereto or by a separate policy,fire legal liability insurance covering legal liability of Tenant for damage or destruction to the works, structures and improvements owned by City.This policy shall be in an amount sufficient to cover the replacement value of the City structure occupied by Tenant but need not exceed the value of the deductible in the City's fire insurance policy provided.that upon thirty (30)days'prior written notice to Tenant,said minimum limits of liability shall be subject to adjustment by Executive Director to conform with the deductible amount of the fire insurance policy maintained by Board. Currently this deductible is Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000).So long as City's insurance policy permits City to waive any cause of action it and the City's insurance carrier would otherwise have for a fire caused by Tenant,City agrees to such waiver provided Tenant provides the insurance required by this Section.City should not be named as an additional insured in Tenant's fire legal policy. 24.Duplicate Insurance Policies.Tenant shall furnish two (2)signed copies of each policy or certificate required herein for approval by the Risk Manager of City. 25.'Modifications to Insurance.Executive Director,based upon advice of independent insurance consultants of City,may increase or decrease the amounts and types of insurance coverage required herein by this Permit by giving sixty (60)days'written notice to Tenant. 26.Assignments/Subleases.No assignment.sublease,transfer.gift,hypothecation or grant of contrOl,or other encumbrance of this Permit,or any interest therein or any right or privilege thereunder,whether voluntary or by operation of law,shall be valid for any purpose.For purposes of this subsection,the term "by operation of law"includes: (a)The placement of all or substantially all of Tenant's assets in the hands of a receiver or trustee; (b)An assignment by Tenant for the benefit of creditors. 27.Transfer of Stock.If Tenant is a corporation and more than ten percent (10%)of the outstanding shares of capital stock of Tenant is traded during any calendar year after filing its application for this Permit.Tenant shall notify Executive Director in writing within ten (10)days after the transfer date:provided,however,that this provision shall have no application in the event the stock of Tenant is listed on either the American Stock Exchange,the New York Stock Exchange, or the NYSE Arca Options.If more than twenty-five percent (25%)of the Tenant's stock is transferred,regardless of whether Tenant is a publicly or privately held entity,such transfer shall be deemed an assignment within the meaning of the preceding paragraph.Any such transfer shall void this Permit.Such a transfer is agreed to be a breach of this Permit which shall entitle City to evict Tenant on at least seven (7)days'notice. 28.Signs.Tenant shall not erect or display.or permit to be erected or displayed,on the premises any signs or advertising matter of any kind without first obtaining the written consent of Executive Director.Tenant shall post,erect and maintain on the premises such signs as Executive Director may direct. 29.Termination fOLMis[!;)presentations This Permit is granted pursuant to an application filed by Tenant with Board.If the application or any of the attachments thereto contain any misstatement of fact which,in the judgment of Executive Director.affected his or her decision to grant said Permit,Executive Director may terminate this Permit. Termination pursuant to this Section shall not be termination by forfeiture. 30.Laws and Directives.Tenant shall comply with all applicable laws,ordinances and regulations.In addition,Tenant shall comply immediately with any and all directives issued by Executive Director or his or her authorized representative under authority of any such law,ordinance or regulation.This Permit shall be construed in accordance with California law. 31.POSSeSSOry Interest.THIS PERMIT MAY CREATE A POSSESSORY INTEREST BY TENANT WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT TO PROPERTY TAXATION.TENANT SHALL PAY ALL SUCH TAXES SO ASSESSED.AND ALL OTHER ASSESSMENTS OF WHATEVER CHARACTER LEVIED UPON ANY INTEREST CREATED BY THIS PERMIT. TENANT SHALL ALSO PAY ALL LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES REQUIRED FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS OPERATIONS. 32..vtillty Charges.Unless otherwise provided for herein,Tenant shall pay all charges for services furnished to the premises or used in connection with its occupancy.including,but not limited to,heal,gas,power,telephone,water, light and janitorial services,and pay all deposits,connection fees,charges and meter rentals required by the supplier of any such service,including City. 33.Termination by Court.If any court having jurisdiction in the matter renders a final decision which prevents the performance by City of any of its obligations under this Permit,then either party hereto may terminate this Permit by written notice,and all rights and obligations hereunder (With the exception of any undischarged rights and obligations)shall thereupon terminate. C-72 Page 10 Revocable Permit NO.1 0-05 34.Conflict of Interest.It is understood and agreed that the parties to this Permit have read and are aware of the provisions of Section 1090 et seq.and Section 87100 et seq.of the Government Code relating to conflict of interest of public officers and employees,as well as the Conflict of Interest Code of the Harbor Department.All parties hereto agree that they are unaware of any financial or economic interest of any public officer or employee of City relating to this Permit. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Permit,it is further understood and agreed that if such a financial interest does exist at the inception of this Permit,City may immediately terminate this Permit by giving written notice thereof.Termination pursuant to this Section shall not be termination by forfeiture. 35.Service of Notice.In all cases where written notice including the service of legal pleadings is to be given under this Permit,service shall be deemed sufficient if said notice is deposited in the United States mail,postage prepaid or delivered to the Permit premises.When so given,such notice shall be effective from the date of mailing.Unless changed by notice in writing from the respective parties,notice to City shall be addressed to Executive Director,Los Angeles Harbor Department.P.O.Box 151,San Pedro,California 90733-0151,and notice to Tenant shall be addressed to it at the address stated in the preamble or al such address designated by Tenant in writing.Nothing herein contained shall preclude or render inoperative service of such notice in the manner provided by law.All notice periods under this Permit refer to calendar days unless otherwise specifically stated . ._36.No Waivers.No waiver by either party at any time of any terms or conditions of this Permit shall be a waiver at any subsequent time of the same or any other term or condition.The acceptance of late rent by Board shall not be deemed a waiver of any other breach by Tenant of any term or condition of this Permit other than the failure of Tenant to timely make the particular rent payment so accepted. 37.Immediate Access to R~pair/Maintain premises.Tenant is aware that the City Department of Water & Power or Harbor Department maintenalJce personnel may need to service or repair facilities on the premises.If such repair is necessary,Tenant agrees to relocate,at its expense,all of its cargo equipment or personal property to provide Department of Water &Power or Harbor Department personnel adequate'access.Tenant agrees to complete such relocation within six (6)hours of receiving notice from City.Tenant agrees neither Department of Water &Power nor City shall be responsible for any loss Tenant may suffer as a result of such maintenance or repair. 38.Time of the Essence.Time is of the essence in this Permit. 39.Nondiscrimination and Affirmative Action Provisions.Tenant agrees not to discriminate in its employment practices against any employee or applicant for employment because of employee's or applicant's race,religion,ancestry, national origin,sex,sexual orientation,age,disability,marital status,domestic partner status or medical condition.All subcontracts awarded under or pursuant to this Permit shall contain this provision. The applicable provisions of Section 10.8 et seq.of the Los Angeles Administrative Code are set forth in the attached Exhibit "C"and are incorporated herein by this reference. 40.Minority,Women and Other Busine_s~Enterprise (MBENVBE/OBE)Outreach Program.It is the policy of the City to provide minority business enterprises (MBEs),women's business enterprises (WBEs),and all other business enterprises (OBEs)an equal opportunity to participate in the performance of all City contracts in all areas where such contracts afford such participation opportunities.The Tenant or Consultant shall assistlhe City in implementing this policy and shall use its best efforts .to afford the opportunity for MBEs,WBEs.and OBEs to achieve participation in subcontracts where such participation opportunities present themselves and attempt to ensure that all available business enterprises. incfuding MBEs,WBEs,and OBEs,have an equal opportunity to compete for and participate in any such participation opportunity which might be presented under this Permit. 41.Wilmington Truck Route.It is recognized by both parties that Tenant does not directly control the trucks serving the terminal.However,Tenant will make its best effort to notify truck drivers,truck brokers and trucking companies. that trucks serving the terminal must confine their route to the designated Wilmington Truck Route of Alameda Street and Harry Bridges Boulevard;Figueroa Street from Harry Bridges Boulevard to "C"Street;and Anaheim Street east of Alameda Street.A copy of the Wilmington Truck Route is allached hereto and marked Exhibit "D,"which may be modified from time to time al the sole discretion of the Executive Director with written notice to Tenant. 42.Paragraph Headings.Paragraph headings used in the Permit are merely descriptive and not intended to alter the terms and conditions of the paragraphs. 43.Prior Permits.This Revocable Permit shall supersede Revocable Permit No.1212.From and after the effective date of this Revocable Permit.said permit shall have no further force or effect except to the extent either party has accrued any rights or obligations under said permit. 44.Busines:;.Tax Registration Certificate.The City of Los Angeles Office.of Finance requires the implementation and enforcement of Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 21.09 et seq.This section provides that every person,other than a municipal employee,who engages in business within the City of Los Angeles,is required to obtain the C-73 Page 11 Revocable Permit No.10-05 necessary Business Tax Registration Certificate and pay business taxes.The City Controller has.determined that this Code Section applies to consulting firms that are doing work for the Los Angeles Harbor Department. 45.Additions.There is attached to this Permit an addendum,consisting of numbered Sections 47-52, inclusive,the provisions of Which are made a part of this Permit as though set forth herein in full. 46. it is so marked. Deletions.Section five (5)is deleted and is not to be considered as constituting a part ·of this Permit,and CITY OF LOS ANGELES, HARBOR DEPARTMENT. (SEAL)APPROVED: BOARD OF HARBOR COMMiSSiONERS Secretary The.undersigned Tenant hereby accepts the foregoing Permit and agrees to abide and be bound by and to observe ea.ch and every of the terms and conditions thereof,inclUding those set forth in the addendum,if any,and excluding those marked as deleted. DATED:~__~~__ RANCHO LPG HOLDINGS,LLC (SEAL) Type/Print Name aod Title ·Q-.-0 ~Attest.Arr"Sutlioil'~ Assistant Secretary Type/Print Name and Tille APPROVED AS TO FORM ~/)//...<--.{"I'/ifi.'J!-,20 /./ CARMEN A.TRUTANiCH,City jtf~rney HMM:aw 6/17110 lmSi .mmc ........3 i ./...L. C-74 ADDENDUM TO REVOCABLE PERMIT NO.10-05 47.Service Contractor Worker Retention Policy and Living Wage Policy Requirements.The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles adopted Resolution No.5771 on January 3,1999,agreeing to adopt the provisions of Los Angeles City Ordinance No.171004 relating to Service Contractor Worker Retention (SCWR),Section 10.36 et seq.of the Los Angeles Administrative Code,as the policy of the Harbor Department.Further,Charter Section 378 requires compliance with the City's Living Wage requirements as set forth by ordinance,Section 10.37 et seq.of the Los Angeles Administrative Code.Tenant shall comply with the policy wherever applicab~e.Violation of this provision,where applicable,shall entitle the City to terminate this Permit and otherwise pursue legal remedies that may be available. 48.Wage and Earnings Assignment Orders/Notices of Assignments.The Tenant is obligated to fully comply with all applicable state and federal employment reporting requirements for the Tenant and/or its employees. The Tenant shall certify that the principal owner(s)are in compliance with any Wage and Earnings Assignment Orders and Notices of Assignments applicable to them personally.The Tenant will fully comply with all lawfUlly served Wage and Earnings Assignment Orders and Notices of Assignments in accordance with California Family Code §§5230 et seq.The Tenant will maintain such compliance throughout the term of this Permit. 49.Equal Benefits Policy.The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles adopted Resolution No.6328 on January 12,2005,agreeing to adopt the provisions of Los Angeles City Ordinance No.172,908,as amended,relating to Equal Benefits,Section 10.8.2.1 et seq.of the Los Angeles Administrative Code,as a policy of the Harbor Department.Tenant shall comply with the policy wherever applicable. Violation of the policy shall entitle the City to terminate any agreement with Tenant and pursue any and all other legal remedies that may be available.See Exhibit "E." 50.State Tidelands Grants.This Permit is entered into in furtherance of and as a benefit to the State Tidelands Grant and the trust created thereby.Therefore,this Permit is at all times subject to the limitations,conditions,restrictions and reservations contained in and prescribed by the Act of the Legislature 'of the State of California entitled "An Act Granting to the City of Los Angeles the Tidelands and SUbmerged Lands of the State Within the Boundaries of Said City,"approved June 3,1929,(Stats. 1929,Ch.651),as amended,and prOVisions of Article VI of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles relating to such lands.Tenant agrees that any interpretation of this Permit and the terms contained herein must be consistent with such limitations,conditions, restrictions and reservations. C-75 51.Workers'Compensation.Tenant shall secure the payment of compensation to employees injured while performing work or labor necessary for and incidental to performance under this Permit in accordance with Section 3700 of the Labor Code of the State of California.Tenant shall file with the City one of the following: 1)a certificate of consent to self-insure issued by the Director of Industrial Relations, State of California;2)a certificate of Workers'Compensation insurance issued by an admitted carrier;or 3)an exact copy or duplicate thereof of the policy certified by the Director or the insurer.Such documents shall be filed prior to delivery of premises. Where Tenant has employees who are covered by the United States Longshore and Harbor Workers'Compensation Act,Tenant shall furnish proof of such coverage to the City.It is suggested that Tenant consult its insurance agent to determine whether its proposed construction methods will render its employees subject to coverage under the Act.Ali Workers'Compensation insurance submitted to City shall include an endorsement providing that any carrier paying benefits agrees to waive any right of subrogation it may have against the City. 52.Railroad Protective Liability Insurance The Contractor shall also prOVide a policy of Railroad Protective Liability Insurance in which Pacific Harbor Line (PHL)acting for itself and its railroad users are named insureds and the City of Los Angles,its boards,officers,agents and employees are included as additional insureds with Contractor.The minimum limits of Railroad Protective Liability Insurance shall be the limits normally carried by the Contractor but not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000)combined single limit for property damage and bodily injury including death.If the submitted policies contain aggregate limits the Contractor shall provide evidence of insurance protection for such limits so that the required coverage is not diminished in the event that the aggregate limits become exhausted.Said limit shall be without deduction,provided that the Executive Director or designee may permit a deductible amount when it is justified by the financial capacity of Contractor.Any deductible amount permitted by the Executive Director shall be paid solely by Contractor. Contractor's comprehensive general liability coverage shall also have the railroad exclusion deleted. C-76 Ii~ 'c(..,..,...m...... :I:.,>< w ~~l:i~Cl.~::Q . i ~~ "'""-........~a~'"""'2Q::.~~Cl i.~, ,r .!i .~ ~ ·1.....Q\ ~.~ ..~~ !it .....l(II:) '.~l>~ '.'.1:)(10 CJO;) ~Cl#~~ ~ L.QT 5 L.ot 7 ~:..k ~~. ~ i: .............-....~ i.O T /2 .~Sr. -~ 't--. Q4 Q4 "1- ICi .t-\ .,~ ~ 'Z. 3192 \~.\~.~"~\......~.-t-.,~.:\~~\ .\\ \\ VI ~\J:Ji4.4f'\ ;\-.,. ~~ll.\~....~...~. V)tk:. W ~~13J NO, M~PS.saO ~44."MES '",.!f4 {nCi. Oi N'""~'t .. I-.... 1 I '".Las ~NGE<.EScalJlfff FLoJ)fJ caN TROL PflOIlfRT'I .::·"l NIL (Ii la''''''''''''''drab>RI'N -6' •aR.S,oI<016f}4.-411.".~.'I'".''lo .,'• GAFF£Y TRACT .'. :... " .;\$a ~,to ~. ...:~. ~ ~~ ;'~ ,(S "",, .J ~ i ':Ii ~~.... () .~ ~ <,.. I C- 7 7 MARINE TERMINAL MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS FOR ALL LEASE AGREEMENTS I.Structural Maintenance &Repair Performed by City at City's Expense'Within Lease Area 1.Roofs 2.Exteriors of structures,including exterior painting 3.Wharf structure (as defined) 4.Wharf bulkheads 5.Rock slopes 6.Maintenance dredging 7.Replacement of deteriorated electrical conduit and pipeline system 8.High and low voltage systems,including sWitchgear and crane power trench 9.Fire protection sprinkler systems,fire hydrant systems,standpipe systems,fire alarm systems II.Maintenance &Repair Performed by City at Tenant's Expense Within Lease Area 1.Fender system repair (wharf damage procedure) 2.Refrigerated receptacle outlet (reefer)maintenance 3.Backflow devices and potable water systems 4.HVAC servicing and repair Ill.Operational Maintenance &Repair to be Performed by the Tenant.Port Will Perform if Forces Available by Accommodation Work Order Within Leased Area at Tenant's Expense.Tenant,However,Remains Responsible for Sufficiency of All Work. This portion of the Exhibit describes the maintenance and repair of items commonly found on terminal premises granted to Tenants.Not all items listed below may be present on all terminal premises.This list is only illustrative of the items which Tenant must maintain. 1.All landscaping,inclUding irrigation systems 2.Daily janitorial service'" 3.Relamping of terminal wharf and back land light standards" 4.Interior painting 5.Elevator and escalator maintenance"' 6.Clarifier maintenance &servicing'" 7.All toxic waste removal'" 8.Storm drain inlet maintenance and cleaning 9.Cleaning clogged drains,including toileUurinal stoppages 10.Pneumatic tube system maintenance" 11.Emergency generator unit maintenance" 12.Mooring capstans 13.Mechanical ramps and loading dock boards 14.Passenger gantries",baggage systems",conveyor systems" 15.Replacement of all light bulbs 16 Traffic and backland area striping (requires permit &approval by Harbor Engineer) 17.Weigh scales" 18.Wheel stop maintenance 19.Fence arld gate maintenance 20,Rolling and sliding door maintenance 21.Window,door glass replacement 22.Carpet,tile,and vinyl floor replacements 23.All mechanical,electrical,hydraulic and air equipmerlt and devices used by Tenant to maintain Tenant·owned machinery and equipmerlt 24.Gate house equipment,including gate arms and mechanical/electrical equipment therein 25.Recharging and servicirlg of fire extinguishers 26.Surface paving,wharf and back land (as defined in Permit) 27.All underground and above ground tanks,pipelines and appurtenances unless the Permit specifically otherwise provides To be maintained at Tenant's expense,if damaged by Tenant To be maintained to Port's standards and subject to periodic audits and inspection by the Port of Los Angeles At no time does Port provide or perform IV.City May,But is Not Obligated to,Maintain or Repair Items Tenant Fails to Maintain or Repair at Tenant's.E"'x"'p"'eC'-n""s"'e _ EXHIBIT B C-78 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM PROVISIONS 5.ec.10.8.4 Affirmative Action Program Provisions. Every non~construcHon cOntract with or on behalf of the City of Los Angeles for which the consideration is $100,000 or more and every construction contract with or on behalf of the City of Los Angeles for which "the consideration is $5,000 or more shall contain the following provisions Which shall be designated as the AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM provisions of such contract A.During the performance of Cjty contract;the cohtractor certifies and represents that the contractor and each subcontractor hereunderwHI adhere toanaffirmatlveactioh program to en!3iure that in ltsemployment practices,persons are employed and employees are treated equally and without regard to or hecause of race.religion, ancestry,ntiltlonal origin,SeX,sexual qrientation,age,disCllbiHty,marital status, domestic part.nerstatus,or medical condition. 1.This provisi'on appfj.es to work or services performed or materials manufactured orasse,rnibled i:o the United States. 2.Nothing in this section shall require aT prohIbit the estabHshment of neW classifications of employees In any given craft,work or service category. 3.The contractor shall post a copy of Paragraph A hereof in conspicuous places at its plCilceof business available to employees and applicants for employment. B.The contractor will,in all solicitations or advertls.ements for employees placed by;or on behalf of the contractor,state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment withOuJ regard to th~ir raCe.religion,ancestry, national origin,sex,sexual orientation,ag.e,disability,marital status,domestic partner status,Of medical condition. G.As part of the City's supplier registration process,and/or at the request of the awarding authority or the Office of Contract Compliance,the contractor shall certify on an electronic or hard copy form to be supplied,that the contractor has not discriminated in the performance of City contracts against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis or because of race,religion,ancestry, national origin,sex,sexual orientation,age,disability,marItal status,domestic partner status,or medical condition. D.The contractor shall permit access to and may be required to provide certified copies of all of its records pertaining to employment and to its employment practices by the awarding authority or the Office of Contract Compliance,for the purpose of investigatIon to ascertain compliance with the Affirmative Action Program provisions of City contracts,and on their or either of their request to prOVIde evidence that It has or will comply therewith. EXHIBIT C C-79 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM PROVISIONS E.The failure of any contractor to comply with the Affirmative Action Program provisions of City contracts may be deemed to be a material breach of contract. Such failure shall only be established upon a finding to that effect by the awarding authority,on the basis of its own investigation or that of the Board of Public Works, Office of Contract Compliance.No such finding shall be made except upon a full and fair hearing after notice and an opportunity to be heard has been given to the contractor. F.Upon a finding dUly made that the contractor has breached the Affirmative Action Program provisions of a City contract,the contract may be forthwith cancelled, te~minated or suspended,in whole or in part,by the awarding authority,and all monies due or to become due hereunder may be forwarded to and retained by the City of Los Angeles.In addition thereto,such breach may be the basis for a determination by the awarding authority or the Board of Public Works that the said contractor is an irresponsible bidder or proposer pursuant to the provisions of Section 371 of the Los Angeles City Charter.In the event of such determination, such contractor shall be disqualified from being awarded a contract with the City of Los Angeles for a period of two years,or until he or she shall establish and carry out a program in conformance with the provisions hereof. G.In the event of a finding by the Fair Employment and Housing Commission of the State of Califomia,or the Board of Public Works of the City of Los Angeles.or any court of competent jurisdiction,that the contractor has been guilty of a willful violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,or the Affirmative Action Program provisions of a City contract,there may be deducted from the amount payable to the contractor by the City of Los Angeles under the contract,a penalty of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00)for each person for each calendar day on which such person was discriminated against in violation of the provisions of a City contract. H.Notwithstanding any other provisions of a City contract,the City of Los Angeles shall have any and all other remedies at law or in equity for any breach hereof. I.The Public Works Board of Commissioners shall promulgate rules and regulations through the Office of Contract Compliance and provide to the awarding authorities electronic and hard copy forms for the implementation of the Affirmative Action Program provisions of City contracts,and rules and regulations and forms shall,so far as practicable,be similar to those adopted in applicable Federal Executive Orders.No other rules,regulations or forms may be used by an awarding authority of the City to accomplish this contract compl.iance program. J.Nothing contained in City contracts shall be construed in any manner so as to require or permit any act which is prohibited by law. K.The Contractor shall submit an Affirmative Action Plan which shall meet the requirements of this chapter at the time it submits its bid or proposal or at the time it 2 C-80 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM PROVISIONS registers to do business with the City.The plan shall be sUbject to approval by the Office of Contract Compliance prior to award of the contraot.The awarding authority may also reqUire contractors ahd suppliers to take part in a pre- re.gistration,pre-bid,pre-proposal,or pre-award conference in order to develop, improve or implement a qualifying Affirmative Action Plan.Affirmative Action Programs developed pursuant to this section shall be effective for a period of twelve months from the date of approval by the Office of Contract Compliance.In case of prior submission of a plan,the contractor may submit documentation that it has an Affirmative Action Plan approved by the Offiee of Contract Compliance within the previous twelve months,.If the approval fs .30 dayser less,frome5(piration,the contractor must submit a new Plan to the Office of Contract Compliance and th:at Plan must be approved before the contract is awarded. 1.Every contract of $5.,000 or mQFe which may provide construction,demolition, renovation,conservation or major maintenance of any kind shall in ad(:Htion comply with the requirements of Section 10.13 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code. 2.A contractor may establish and adopt as its own Affirmative Action Plan,by affixing his or her signature thereto,an Affirmative Action Plan prepared and furnished by the Office of Contract Compliance,or it may prepare and submit its own Plan for approval. L.The Office of Contract Compliance shall annually supply the awarding authorities of the City with a list of contractors and suppliers who have developed Affirmative Action Programs.For each contractor and supplier the Office of Cohtract Compliance shall state the date the approval expires.The Office of Contract Compliance shall not withdraw its approval for any Affirmative Action Plan or change the Affirmative Action Plan after the date of contract award for the entire contract term without the mutual agreement of the awarding authority and the contractor. M.The Affirmative Action Plan required to be submilte.d hereunder and the pre- registration,pre-bid,pre-proposal or pre-award conference which may be required by the Board of Public Works,Office of Contract Compliance or the awarding authority shall,without limitation as to the subject or nature of employment activity, be concerned with such employment practices as: 1.Apprenticeship where approved programs are functioning,and other on-the- job training for non-apprenticeable occupations; 2.Classroom preparation for the Job when not apprenticeable; 3.Pre-apprenticeship education and preparation; 3 C-81 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM PROVISIONS 4.Upgrading training and opportunities; 5.Encouraging the use of contractors,subcontractors and suppliers of all racial and ethnic groups,provided,however,that any contract sUbject to this ordinance shall require the contractor,subcontractor or supplier to provide not less than the prevailing wage,working conditions and practices generally observed in private industries in the contractor's,subcontractor's or supplier's geographical area for such work; 6.The entry of qualified women,minority and all other journeymen into the industry;and 7.The provision of needed supplies or job conditions to permit persons with disabilities to be employed,and minimize the impact of any disability. N.Any adjustments which may be made in the contractor's or supplier's workforce to achieve the requirements of the City's Affirmative Action Contract Compliance Program in purchasing and construction shall be accomplished by either an increase in the size of the workforce or replacement of those employees who leave the workforce by reason of resignation,retirement or death and not by termination, layoff,demotion or change in grade. O.Affirmative Action Agreements resulting from the proposed Affirmative Action Plan or the pre-registration,pre-bid,pre-proposal or pre-award conferences shall not be confidential and may be publicized by the contractor at his or her discretion. Approved Affirmative Action Agreements become the property of the City and may be used at the discretion of the City in its Contract Compliance Affirmative Action Program. P.This ordinance shall not confer upon the City of Los Angeles or any Agency,Board or Commission thereof any power not otherwise provided by law to determine the legality of any existing collective bargaining agreement and shall have application only to discriminatory employment practices by contractors or suppliers engaged in the performance of City contracts. Q.All contractors sUbject to the provisions of this section shall include a like provision in all subcontracts awarded for work to be performed under the contract with the City and shall impose the same obligations,including but not limited to filing and reporting obligations,on the subcontractors as are applicable to the contractor. Failure of the contractor to comply with this requirement or to obtain the compliance of its subcontractors with all such obligations shall subject the contractor to the imposition of any and all sanctions allowed by law,including but not limited to termination of the contractor's contract with the City. 4 C-82 (d)Other Options for Compliance. Provided that the Contractor does not discriminate in the provision of Benefits,a Contractor may also comply with the Equal Benefits Ordinance in the following ways: (1)A Contractor may provide an employee with the Cash Equivalent only if the OM determines that either: a.The Contractor has made a reasonable,yet unsuccessful effort to provide Equal Benefits;or b.Under the circumstances,it would be unreasonable to require the Contractor to provide Benefits to the Domestic Partner (or spouse,if applicable). (2)Allow each employee to designate a legally domiciled member of the employee's household as being eligible for spousal equivalent Benefits. (3)Provide Benefits neither to employees'spouses nor to employees' Domestic Partners. (e)Applicability. (1)Unless otherwise exempt,a Contractor is subject to and shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Equal Benefits Ordinance. (2)The requirements of the Equal Benefits Ordinance shall apply to a Contractor's operations as follows: a.A Contractor's operations located within the City limits,regardless of whether there are employees at those locations performing work on the Contract. b.A Contractor's operations on real property located outside of the City limits if the property is owned by the City or the City has a right to occupy the property,and if the Contractor's presence at or on that property is connected to a Contract with the City. c.The Contractor's employees located elsewhere in the United States but outside of the City limits if those employees are performing work on the City Contract. (3)The requirements of the Equal Benefits Ordinance do not apply to collective bargaining agreements ("CBA")in effect prior to January 1,2000.The Contractor must agree to propose to its union that the requirements of the Equal Benefits Ordinance be incorporated into its CBA upon amendment,extension,or other modification of a CBA occurring after January 1,2000. 2 C-83 (f)Mandatory Contract Provisions Pertaining to Equal Benefits. Unless otherwise exempted,every Contract shall contain language tbat obligates the Contractor to comply with the applicable provisions of the Equal Benefits Ordinance.The language shall include provisions for the following: (1)During the performance of the Contract,the Contractor certifies and represents that the Contractor will comply with the Equal Benefits Ordinance. (2)The failure of the Contractor to comply with the Equal Benefits Ordinance will be deemed to be a material breach of the Contract by the Awarding Authority. (3)If the Contraotor fails to comply with the Equal Benefits Ordinanoe the Awarding Authority may cancel,terminate or suspend the Contract,in whole or in part,and all monies due or to become due under the Contract may be retained by the City.The City may also pursue any and all other remedies at law or in equity for any breach. (4)Failure to comply with the Equal Benefits Ordinance may be used as evidence against the Contractor in actions taken pursuant to the provisions of Los Angeles Administrative Code Section 10.40,et seq.,Contractor Responsibility Ordinance. (5)If the DM determines that a Contractor has set up or used its Contracting entity for the purpose ofevading the intentofthe Equal Benefits Ordinance,the Awarding Authority may terminate the Contract on behalf of the City.Violation of this provision may be used as evidence against the Contractor in actions taken pursuant to the provisions of Los Angeles Administrative Code Section 10.40,et seq.,Contractor Responsibility Ordinance. 3 C-84 E-mail and flyer regarding October 29th community protest at Rancho LPG facility and related Daily Breeze article C-85 Page 1 of 1 Kit Fox From:Jody James [jody.james@sbcglobal.net] Sent:Monday,October 17,201110:37 PM To:kitf@rpv.com Subject:Fw:INVITATION TO ALL COUNCIL CANDIDATES ...STAND UP AGAINST HAZARDS!! Attachments:rally_flyer-1.jpg Greetings,Kit,I have forwarded this info to all those listed as running for the RPV City Council.Thank you so very much for your attention to this issue.Good luck to all of us.Jody -----Forwarded Message ---- From:Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com> To:jody.james@sbcglobal.net Sent:Mon,October 17,2011 5:01:23 PM Subject:INVITATION TO ALL COUNCIL CANDIDATES ...STAND UP AGAINST HAZARDS!!.. SHOW UP AND LET CONSTITUENTS KNOW YOUR POSITION ON HAZARDOUS LPG TANKS. BRING FRIENDS AND SUPPORTERS!! 10/21/2011 C-86 STAND UP TO MOVE THEM OUT!! SA TURDA Y,OCTOBER 29TH 11::00 AM A CALL TO COMMUNITY LEADERS AND NEIGHBORS!, SHOW fA THAT WEARE NOTWllLING VICTIMS OF lJQUID ENERGY GAS·RISKS FORM A LINE OF UNTIY ALONG THE NORlHWEST SAN PEDRO GREEN STRIP Rancho ...LPG 2110 No"Gaffey st-San Pedro (at Westmont st.) Blitane storage tanks operated by Plains LPG on North Gaffey Street In San pedro are close to homes and businesses.The Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council commiSsioned a report to study the chances of an a~cldent and the Impact one might have.(Scott Varley Staff Photographer) C-87 Protesters target San Pedro gas facility By Josh Grossberg Staff Writer Posted:10/29/2011 09:59:41 PM PDT Updated:10/30/2011 02:51:26 PM PDT Congresswoman Laura Richardson addresses a group of people protesting the continued operation of storage tanks that they say can cause great damage to the community. rrhll,.1<Rpnnptt) About 45 San Pedro residents - a good many of them running for office -renewed their call Saturday for the city to relocate two gas storage tanks that they say could erupt and destroy a huge swath of the Harbor Area. The Rancho LPG tanks that can store up to 25.3 million gallons of butane and propane at 2110 N. Gaffey St.have long been the target of nearby residents who say the facility poses an extreme danger for miles around. Chuck Hart of San Pedro Homeowners United said an explosion at the tanks could kill thousands of people and destroy property in a six-mile radius. "It's unstable,"he said."It shouldn't be this close to residential neighborhoods. That six-mile figure is disputed by others,who say damage would be kept close to the site. Hart noted that the area is not only prone to earthquakes and landslides,but there is also a threat of tsunamis and even terrorism at the site. "The problem is imminent,"he said The demonstration in the shadow of the tanks came a day after Los Angeles Councilwoman Jan Perry said she wanted to review the safety of the f acility that has been a thorn in the side of nearby residents since it was erected in 1973. Established by Petrolane,the facility was later operated under the Amerigas name and now is owned by Plains LPG with a long-term lease for the land. The facility features two aO-foot-tall tanks that are about 1,000 feet from homes.A Home Depot store is across the street. Though the operator,Rancho LPG Holdings - a unit of Plains -has done a risk analysis,Perry said that in the wake of a deadly explosion last year in San Bruno,an independent review of the facility was necessary. Print Power~d By C-88 She wants the council's Public Safety committee to look into the issue. Critics of the project on Saturday said an original environmental impact report was inadequate and needed to be redone. "I'm going to be requesting a copy of the EIR," Rep.Laura Richardson,D-Carson,told the crowd. "If it doesn't exist,there will be a problem.I expect to get answers to questions,and I will report back to you." The event was also an opportunity for candidates in next week's special election to fill the 15th District seat on the Los Angeles City Council. Speaking against the tanks were Rebecca Chambliss,Robert Farrell,Pat McOsker,Gordon Teuber,Jayme Wilson and Emery Soos. Contestants in the Nov.8 Rancho Palos Verdes council race also spoke. josh.grossberg@dailybreeze.com C-89 Letter from Rancho LPG,with attached letter from State Attorney General Kamala Harris C-90 Mr.Kit Fox Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391 October 18,2011 Dear Mr.Fox, As a follow-up to my correspondence dated September 30,2011 ..I have attached a letter from the California State Attorney General's office concerning the Rancho Facility located at 2110 North Gaffey Street in San Pedro,CA.Based upon a thorough review of the documentation and facts,the State Attorney General's office clearly supports the findings of the Los Angeles City Attorney office. In summary,quite simply no evidence exists to date which would demonstrate the Rancho Facility is in violation of any law nor does it support Mr.Anthony Patchett's allegation the FClCility is a public nuisance.The Facility has a number of industry approved safety devices to protect against any cataclysmic event as portrayed by Mr.Patchett.Furthermore,there exists no proo/that any "ultrahazardous "activity is taking place at the Facility,thus invalidating Mr.Patchett's long-standing assertion that Rancho is an "ultrahazardous facility".It is important to note thus far in 2011 the Rancho Facility has undergone numerous regulatory agency inspections with no violations received.The Facility remains compliant with air,hazardous materials,fire,and health requirements mandated by local,state, and federal governments. Rancho believes the conclusions by the State Attorney General's office further reinforce our contention that the Facility is compliant with governmental regulations and is being operated and maintained in the safest manner possible.Since assuming ownership of the Facility in November 2008,we have made a steadfast commitment to inspect,upgrade,and automate the Facility equipment as needed to ensure a more efficient and safe operation.We remain focused on operating the facility in a prudent manner with the safety of our employees and the community ever present in our minds. Sincerely, Western District Manager Plains LPG Services,LP (Rancho Holdings) Shafter,CA Office:661-368-7917 Mobile:661-319-9978 Fax:661-746-4037 Ronald.Conrow@plainsmidstream.com C-91 cc: Ms.Diana Nave,President -Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council Mr.John Greenwood,Chairman Planning &Land Use Committee -NW San Pedro Neighborhood Council Ms.Linda Alexander,President -Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council Mr.Scott Gray,Secretary -Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council Mr.Bruce Horton,Secretary -Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council Mr.Kit Fox,Associate Planner -City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mr.Ricardo Hong,Area Director -Office of Mayor Antonio R.Villaraigosa Mr.Michael C.Davies,Assistant Field Representative -U.S.Senator Dianne Feinstein Ms.Rebekah Kim,Deputy -Fourth District Supervisor Don Knabe Mr.Jacob Haik,Chief of Staff LAUSD -Office of Dr.Richard Vladovic C-92 I I I \'KAMALA D.HARRIS Attorney General RECEIVED OCT 21 2011, COMMUN"dl~ DEPAR~STICE ,Anthony G.Patchett ' Law Office$of Anthony G.Patchett, P.O.Box 5232 ' Glendale,CA 91221-1099 October 4,2011 300 SOUTIi SPRING STREET,SUITE 1702 LOS ANGELES,CA 90013 ,Public:(213)897-2000 Telephone:(213)897-2638 , .Facsimile:(213)897-2802 E-Mail:Brian.Hembacher@doj.ca.gov , ,', RE:Letters Concerning Butane Storage Tanks in San Pedro Dear Mr.Patchett: Thank you for your letters of October 14,2010 ,and April 3,2011,wherein you asked our ,office to investigate whether the storage by Rancho Holdings L.L.P of liquid butane in very large storage tanks located at 2011 North Gaffey Street in San Pedro~California,should be enjoined as, a public nuisance or as an ultra'hazardous activity.We have looked intQ your request. Our investigation included a review of the consultant reports tp.at you supplied to us,"In My Backyard"(Ma.rch 7,2011)"anq "Quantitative Risk Analysis of Amerigas Butane Storage Facility"(September 2010)(Risk Rep'ort)by Cornerstone Teehnologies,Inc.We have , ,reviewed response's to the September 2010 Risk Report by'Quest Consultants,hired 'by the facility'operator~and the letter from Professor Daniel Crowl ofMic~gan Tech to Mary W~sling of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),dated April 11,2011. Additionally,we have interviewed local and state fire,hazardous substances and health and safety regulators who'have recently inspected the premises at 2011 North Gaffey Stre~t.Our understanding is that no violations were found during a May 12,2011 multi-agency inspection of the facility,and thatthe facility hasalsc been determined to be in compliance with air emission requirements.Wehaye 8J.so been iUformed that the facility was inspected by the United States Department of Transportation on August 9,20n,and again,no violation oflaw or regulations .governing the handling of hazardous materials was found.Finally,we received a ~opy of the response from the City Attorney of Los Angeles addressed to you and dated September 22,.2011, which responded to your concerns about public nuisance,ultra hazardous activity,and CEQA violations,determining that there was insufficient evidence to take action at this time. Based on this'review,we have determined that the evidence to date would not support a public nuisance claim'by the Attorney Genera:J.'s Office,nor have we found evidence that any other law is'currently being violated.We agree with the conclusions in the September 22 letter from the Los Angeles City Attorney's office that there appear to be a number of safety measures C-93 October 4,2011 Page 2 .. .at the facility to protect against a cataclysmic event of the type described in your letters and your consultant's reports,that the existence of an ultra hazardous activity is only relevant to the burden of proof where a harm has occurred,and that no specific hann has been identified relating to the butarie storage tanks.The facility appears to have passed all inSpections and is complying with air,hazardous materials,fire .and health "and safety requirements promulgated by local,state and federal governments. While we are sympath~tic to your concerns and those.ofthe community given the close proximity of th~se large butane storage tanks,there is no evidence to support an enforcement action at this time.We remain willing to take another look at this matter if evidence of non- compliance or hann is later discovered. Siilcerely,. BRIAN W.HEMBACHER Supervising Deputy Attorney General For "~LAD.HARRIS Attorney Gene!al cc William W.Carter,Chief Deputy City Attorney.Los Angeles Vincent Sato,Deputy City Attorney,"Los Angeles Reed Sato,Chief Counsel,California"Dep~rtment of Toxic Substances Control C-94 LA Times article regarding Rancho LPG butane storage facility C-95 ~"5""J.VJ." latimes.comlnews/locallla-me-Ipg-tanks-20 111 027 ,0,5371512.story latimes.com L ..A ..councilwoman seeks review of San Pedro propane,butane tanks Los Angeles Councilwoman Jan Perry says an independent review is needed to address harbor-area residents'concerns about giant propane and butane storage tanks near playing fields and homes in San Pedro. By Dan Weikel,Los Angeles Times October 29,1011 advertisement The 40-year-old facility,which can store about 25 million gallons of liquefied petroleum gas,is one of the largest and oldest facilities of its type in the United States.Its two 80-foot-tall tanks are along North Gaffey Street about 1,000 feet from homes.Playing fields and shopping centers are even closer. Los Angeles City Councilwoman Jan Perry,noting last year's natural gas pipeline explosion that killed eight people in San Bruno,wants to review the safety of a giant propane and butane storage facility in San Pedro that has been controversial for decades. Though the owner,Rancho LPG Holdings,has done a risk analysis,Perry says an independent review is necessary and wants the council's public safety committee to address concerns raised by residents groups in the harbor area. The review,which Perry proposed at Tuesday's City Council meeting,would require the Fire Department,the Emergency Management Department,the building department,and the city attorney's office to prepare reports on the storage facility.The matter was referred to the public safety committee for consideration. Although the San Pedro neighborhood is not in Perry's district,she is running for mayor next year.The area has had no council representative since Janice Hahn was elected to Congress.A special election to fill the seat is scheduled for Nov.8. "Perry's call for an independent analysis is an extremely critical factor in our effort to achieve a comprehensive study of the facility,"said Janet Schaaf-Gunter of San Pedro and Peninsula Homeowners United. Community activists have gathered a trove of historical and regulatory documents showing,among other things,that the city permitted the original owner to build the tanks under an industrial zoning dating to C-96 World War II. Other city records and geological maps show the tanks are very close to the active Palos Verdes fault,in an area known for methane gas and unstable ground. Much of the controversy has revolved around dramatically different predictions of the damage that a fITe or explosion at the facility could cause.The company's worst-case scenario states that the impact would extend no more than a few tenths of a mile,while other assessments say the damage radius could extend up to 6.8 miles. dan.weikel@latimes.com Copyright ©2011,Los Angeles Times C-97 E-mail from Jeanne Lacombe regarding proposed NWSPNC motion addressing Rancho LPG insurance requirements C-98 Page 1 of4 .Kit Fox From:Lacombe [chateau4us@att.net] Sent:Monday,November 14,2011 11 :23 AM To:kitf@rpv.com Subject:Rancho LPG tank Insurance Hi Kit, Attached is the agenda for NWSNC and one item is a motion to request verfication of insurance documents from Rancho.Can the city staff prepare a similar motion from RPV city council to Carmen Trutanich City Attorney and the Mayors office? Below is a message from Jody James of the San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United: Hi Cynthia.My (high maintenance-but love them anyway)company just left to travel home. I have a letter from the City Attomey's office (dated May 20,20I 0)that responded to the Rancho/or City insurance question from our SPPHC Pres.Andy Mardesich.The answer was that they"...found no responsive documents." This partly answers the first portion of the proposed motion.We should ask if any protocols exist to protect the citizens of the city from harm to persons and properties should an accident occur at the facility and on the rail. We don't think there is any protection for residents from the City or Rancho --Rancho is "self-insured"and would just go into bankruptcy in the face of catastrophic damage and death.Home insurance policies have been looked at. We're not covered!Is it fair or reasonable for victims to have to cover themselves from an accident involving this obviously hazardous facility? Here is my proposed motion.Please get back to me on this!I'll get it printed and in your hands if it looks okay.Jody WHEREAS,stakeholders in the NWSPNC area have voiced concern to the City of Los Angeles for our safety from the operation of Rancho Holdings,LPG Ltd.,a 25 million gallon Butane and Propane storage and transport facility located at 2110 North Gaffey St.,San Pedro and WHEREAS,the City has a stake,both ethical and fmancial,in ensuring that potential threats to life,health,loss of business,private and public property and infrastructure posed to the entire City of Los Angeles from an explosion, fue or contamination stemming from the Rancho LPG facility and WHEREAS,in spite of the USGS information and the recorded Los Angeles City Planning Department documents identifYing the citing of these tanks on a seismically vulnerable "Rupture Zone"of the Palos Verdes Fault,neither the City nor the Harbor Department has mandated that the owner procures insurance appropriate to the risk of harm to its'citizens and is therefore itself liable and complicit,and WHEREAS,Victims of the 911 attack were compensated $2.4 Billion in direct liability;this being a very conservative sum to cover our loss and damage if only the minimal explosion radius provided by the EPA of 0.5 miles were considered.The impact zone from the Cornerstone report,a 6.8 mile radius,is further supported by the 6 mile radius of destruction from a Nevada LEPC review of a facility with 0.2%of the volume of LPG held at Rancho.The potential for devastation would be of even greater concern of liability as both the Port of LA and Port of Long Beach and surrounding cities would be involved. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLYED that the NWSPNC request that the Los Angeles City Attorney and the L. A.City Council investigate and report back to the NWSPNC in 30 days whether this facility,through various owners,has been given any exemption from liability in the past,also,advise us on the nature of and amount of insurance required to adequately protect the citizens of the City from harm or damage emanating from Rancho LPG. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Attorney or LA City Council report back within 30 days on whether a special permit to operate the facility should be required which carries with it a requirement that the operator provide adequate insurance to the City and nearby property owners indemnifying them from the costs stemming from a fire, explosion or contamination at this facility,railcars or trucks carrying their product.Ifthe risks from Rancho are as low as claimed then insurance coverage procured by Rancho should be,by all accounts,affordable.We look to the leadership of LA City Council for resolve in this public safety matter. Thank you for your help in Eastview matters.Let me know if there is something I can do. Jeanne Lacombe '. -----Original Message ---- 11/14/2011 C-99 E-mail from Jody James transmitting PCAC motion regarding revocation of Rancho LPG permit for use of rail spur line C-100 From: Sent: To: Page 1 of3 Kit Fox ,------,-----,---_._----- Jody James [jody.james@sbcglobal.net] Sunday,November 20,2011 7:01 PM senator.lieu@senate.ca.gov;kitf@rpv.com;senator.Blakeslee@senate.ca.gov; sheronbellio@clearchannel.com;stefanb39@aol.com;steVYJoy@feinstein.senate.gov; trevor.anderson@calema.ca.gov Subject:Fw:The Rancho Motion as approved by PCAC on 11-15-11 Attachments:FINAL PCAC RANCHO MOTION APPROVED 11-15-11 Final.docx Subject:Fw:The Rancho Motion as approved by PCAC on 11-15-11 Greetings,I wanted to make you are aware of the November 15th Port Community Advisory ~ommittee (PCAC)motion regarding the Ultra Hazardous Rancho LPG storage and transport tank activity in San Pedro.This public motion will go before the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners and soon before the LA City Council. Our Harbor area communities as well as surrounding cities are continuing to plead for your offices to take steps to protect the public.Our San Pedro and Peninsula Homeowners Untied (SPPHU)has collected a trove of documentation on this 25 million gallon Butane and Propane facility located 1,000 feet to 0.5 miles from PRE-EXISTING schooois and hundreds of homes and businesses.The motion refers to the "seismically active area"but this same area has been identified in LA City Planning documents as a "RUPTURE ZONE"of the USGS identified Palos Verdes Fault.The huge above-ground tanks are also an attractive terrorist target and in a tsunami zone. Please renew your efforts to investigate this enormous "planning blunder"and act to protect our people.These tanks should NOT be in a densly populated area and also pose a huge hazard to the adjoining Port of LA and Port of Long Beach. Sincerely,Jody James,sec.SPPHU -----Forwarded Message ---- From:"Babcock-Doherty,Debra"<DBabcock-Doherty@portla.org> Subject:The Rancho Motion as approved by PCAC on 11-15-11 This is the motion approved by the PCAC on 11-15-11 regarding the 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 Harbor 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 acUacent 11/21/2011 C-101 Page 2 of3 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 product by rail through the Port across Port rail lines,including a portion of the rail line spur accommodating the rail transportation of the commodities pursuant to Revocable Permit No.1 0- 05 dated February 2011,which appears to allow reasonable inquiry into the rail movements on the parcel subject to the permit;and Whereas,rail tank cars containing unknown products from other manufacturers and sources other than the Rancho Facility also traverse and are stored on tracks owned by the Port and the railroads;and Whereas,truck tank vehicles containing unknown products from sources other than the Rancho Facility also travel through our communities,and because they do not originate from Port terminals,are not subject to,for example,the Wilmington truck route plan;and 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 information such as routing, quantity,storage elsewhere in the Port while awaiting further transport,product identification criteria,Fire Department and Hazmat notification procedures,etc.; NOW THEREFORE,be it resolved that the PCAC recommends that the Board of Harbor Commissioners direct the Port of LA to revoke Permit No.10-05 and work with the community and Rancho to perform a Risk Management Plan for the API Storage Tanks,ASME pressure " vessels and rail cars at the facility in accordance with 40CFR68 as well as the transport of product to and from the facility by pipeline,by rail tank car and by truck tank vehicles;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 nearby 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. Deb Babcock-Doherty,PCAC Executive Assistant Port of Los Angeles Community Advisory Committee (PCAC) 425 S.Palos Verdes Street P.O.Box 151 San Pedro,CA 90731-0151 11/21/2011 C-102 Page 3 of3 Phone:(310)732-3499 Fax:(310)831-4896 E-mail:dbabcock-doherty@portla.org Even after all this time the sun never says to the earth,"you owe me." Look what happens with a love like that.It lights the whole sky. HafIZ (A Persian Poet,14th Century) -------------------------------Confidentiality Notice------------------------------------------- This electronic message transmission contains information from the Port of Los Angeles,which may be confidential.If )(OU are not the intended recipient,be aware that any disclosure,copying,distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately bye-mail and delete the original message and any attachment without reading or saving in any manner. 11/21/2011 C-103 Marymount College CUP application forms for San Pedro campus C-104 MASTER LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION LOS ANGELES CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENV No.:ENV-2011-2478-EAF Existing Zone:RD6-1XL District Map:030B193 APC:Community Plan:Wilmington-Harbor City Council District:15 Census Tract:2951 APN:7442001-912 Staff Approval:Date: Case Number:CPC 2011-2480-CU Parcel Map:AA-2011-2479-PMLA Environmental Initial Study:ENV-2011-2478-EAF Application Type:Conditional Use Permit,Preliminary Parcel Map,CUP conditioned Variance (zone change,variance,conditional use,tract/parcel map,specific plan exception,etc.) ZIMAS Designation:The parcel is designated by ZIMAS as 1544 W.Palos Verdes Drive North,L.A. APN:7442001 912,Block"None,Lot:PT H,Arb:26 This CUP application from Marymount College (Marymount)for a campus master plan is part of a City of Los Angeles sponsored and directed federal base reuse project on the 59-acre former Palos Verdes Navy housing site on Palos Verdes Drive North between Western Avenue and Gaffey Street,San Pedro.This project emanates from a city council approved plan for an educational park in San Pedro.Rolling Hills Preparatory School occupies a site immediately east of the Marymount College site and has an approved CUP and master plan for its campus that supports pre-K through grade 12 programs.Marymount is applying for a conditional use permit in order to provide the undergraduate and graduate degree programs envisioned by the City's plan for an educational park. Marymount took title to the site on April 29, 2004 (Document Number 041066627),and has used the site for student and faculty housing since 1999. 1.Project Location and Size Street Address of Project:1600 Palos Verdes Drive North,San Pedro,CA 90732 Legal Description:Deed and Metes and Bounds Description Attached Lot:PTH Block:None Tract:3192 Lot Area:11.66 acres plus 1.47 acres ofland to be vacated by the City of Los Angeles and merged with the Marymount property. Acreage:When the land transfers are complete,Marymount will own approximately 13.13 acres ofland. Approximately 1.47 acres of surplus land owned by the City of Los Angeles will be vacated and transferred to Marymount through a quitclaim deed.The property to be vacated is adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive North and abuts the Marymount property to the south.Marymount is applying to convert the metes and bounds transfer from the U.S.Department of Education into a parcel map via a concurrent merger and re-subdivision as part of the conditional use permit application. 2.Project Description Marymount is proposing a five-phase,master planned,college campus that will ultimately have classroom seating for 520 students and residential accommodations for 800 persons.Marymount plans to construct a sustainable campus under the principles of the LEED protocol of the U.S.Green Building Council.In addition to highly sustainable buildings,Marymount is exploring the feasibility of an on-site biologically based wastewater treatment facility so all storm water and irrigation runoff can be retained and treated on site and reused for irrigation,water features,toilet flushing and ground water infiltration. 2.1 CPC Master Land Use Application -CUP C-105 The project is within a hillside area and will require more than 1,000cubic yards of export,therefore soils report will need to be submitted to LADBS and a Haul Route Approval will need to be obtained from the Board of Building and Safety Commissioners." Phase I: Phase I construction will include:construction of 123 parking spaces along Palos Verdes Drive North, densification of 34 existing housing units to create an additional bedroom and modifications to the community building and laundry facility.Site water treatment. Phase II: Phase II construction continues the housing improvements by adding an additional bedroom in 82 existing units as well as construction of parking for 41 additional vehicles.Conversion of a private driveway (USS Antietam) to a fire lane and pedestrian way. Phase III: Construct a 27,000 SF student services building with dining hall,44 faculty and 35 administrative offices and nine academic classrooms.The building will provide parking per the City's parking code requirement in a two- level structure below and to the rear of the facility.Remove 6 housing units for the construction of a 5,500 square foot Maintenance Facility.Add 66 parking stalls to exceed the required parking of221 stalls. Phase IV: Construct 76 additional bedrooms in the existing buildings. Phase V: Construct an 16-classroom academic building with studios,laboratories and 32 faculty offices.This building will self-park by providing parking spaces four to six feet below grade per city code.Add 112 parking stalls. Present Use:The current 11.66 acre Marymount campus consists of 86-units of former U.S.Navy housing (four of which are a student community building),landscaped yards,and roadways.A laundry facility,small student meeting rooms,outdoor basketball and volleyball courts,a covered picnic/recreation area,play fields,and a vending machine area round out the existing facilities and their uses. Proposed Use:The built-out college campus will include educational facilities and associated residential facilities that can accommodate up to 800 students in residence and 75 full-and part-time faculty. Student body at build-out,800 resident and 700 commuter students Residence halls for 800 students Faculty apartments for 8 families Classrooms -25 instructional areas Faculty offices -44 Teaching staff -55 part-time and 20 full-time professors Other employees -35 Dining facility/student center with a capacity for 300 diners,14,400 SF Student services building 27,000 SF w/dining and student center Maintenance shops,offices and yard Parking for 417 vehicles,required 347 2.1 CPC Master Land Use Application -CUP C-106 Plan Check No.:Date Filed:September 22,2011 Check all that apply: New Construction X Change of Use X Alterations X Demolition X Commercial Industrial Residential Institutional X Additions to the Bldg:Rear X Front Height X Side Yard X 3.Actions Requested Describe the requested entitlement that either authorizes the use or grants a variance: Conditional Use Permit Parcel Map including a Merger &Re-subdivision Side and Read-Yard Variance Height Restriction Variance Code Section:. Revocable B Permit Sec.12.24U 24(b)p.401 Sec.12.24F Sec.12.09.1 B 2(c)Sec.12.30F The application seeks a Conditional Use Permit (Section 12.24,)and Zoning Administrator's Adjustment (Section 12.28)as follows: Section 12.24 U 24(b)of the Municipal Code,a Conditional Use Permit for a college campus in the RD6 Zone Section 12.24 F of the Code -modification of the height regulations to permit campus buildings with a variable range of 3 and 4 stories,with heights from 36 feet to 75 feet (including elevator towers)for required classroom buildings and residence halls,and 75 feet for the administration building tower feature -all in lieu of the maximum 2 stories or 30 feet required by Section 12.21.1 of the Municipal Code for residential construction in the RD6 Zone. Section 12.24 F -modification of the yard regulations to permit a 5-foot side yard and a 5-foot rear yard setback in lieu of the minimums required by Section 12.09.1 B 2(c)of the Municipal Code.The side-yard modification is sought to satisfy a non-compliant existing condition on the site.The rear-yard modification is requested to optimize a building space on a lot line where construction on the adjacent federal fuel depot and open space is highly unlikely. List related or pending case numbers relating to this site: AA-2011-2479-PMLA A Parcel Map is being processed concurrent with the CUP application. The Parcel map is sought exclusively to merge the "to be vacated"City of Los Angeles parcel immediately adjacent to the site bordering on Palos Verdes Drive North.The City offered this land as part of the original San Pedro Reuse Project Recommendation approved by the L.A.City Council. 4.Signatures of adjoining or neighboring property owners in support of the request;not required but helpful, especially for proj ects in single-family residential areas. Name (print)Signature Address Key #on Map See attached lists of supporting homeowners,Neighborhood Councils and City Counsel District 15. 2.1 CPC Master Land Use Application -CUP C-107 Owner!Applicant Information Applicant's Name: Property Owner: Contact Person for project info: Architect: Mr.James Reeves VP Finance and Administration Marymount College 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Marymount College James Krause Non-Profit Ventures Planning Consultant 4007 Coogan Circle Culver City,CA 90232-3704 Peter Phinney,AlA Bryant Palmer Soto,Inc. Principal Design Architect 260 1 Airport Drive,Suite 310 Torrance CA 90505 Tel:310 377-5501 Fax:310 265-0642 e-mail:JReeves@marymountpv.edu Tel:310 839-5455 Fax:310 362-0474 e-mail:jkrause@nonprofitventures.org Tel:310 326-9111 Fax:310 325-0271 e-mail:pphinney@bpsonline.info 2.1 CPC Master Land Use Application -CUP C-108 2.1 CPC Master Land Use Application -CUP C-109 Additional InformationlFindings: In order for the City to render a determination on your application,additional information may be required. Consult the appropriate "Special Instructions"handout.Provide on an attached sheet,this additional information using the handout as a guide. Note:All applicants are eligible to request a one time,one-year only freeze on fees charged by various City departments in connection with your project.It is advisable to make this request when this application is deemed complete or upon payment of Building and Safety plan check fees.Please ask staff for details and an application. Base Fee Receipt No. Reviewed and Accepted by Deemed Complete by Date Date Question 15: Is the proposed.project proper in relation to adjacent uses or the development of the community? The appropriateness and approval of the City's plan for Marymount's participation in the development of an educational park was initially determined in 2002.The campus is well suited for the proposed site as it is accessed by Palos Verdes Drive North,a major six-lane arterial roadway.Campus housing is separated from existing residential neighborhoods to the north by over 200 feet and is self-contained as an educational institution in its own park setting. On Marymount's east border is Rolling Hills Preparatory School,an abutting neighbor that serves Pre-K through Grade 12 students.Together,the two institutions will provide the pre-school through graduate education components of the educational park plan as developed by the City of Los Angeles,San Pedro Area Reuse Committee (SPARC),and approved by the Los Angeles Planning Commission and City Council. The entire southern boundary of the campus faces 400 acres of a federal fuel storage depot,essentially unimproved open space.On Marymount's western border is a regional maintenance facility for the Los Angeles City Department of Recreation and Parks. Why does applicant believe the project location will be desirable to the public convenience and welfare? The campus is easily accessible from the 110 Harbor Freeway to the east.This is the most likely and most convenient access route for commuter students arriving from the northwest,north and east and southeast.Gaffey Street and Western Avenue are the logical routes from the south.To the north,Vermont and Normandy intersect Gaffey.From the east and west the site is accessed by Palos Verdes Drive North,which is particularly convenient to the Harbor Freeway and the Vincent Thomas Bridge. Describe how the proposed project will not be detrimental to the character of development in the immediate neighborhood and will be in harmony with the various objectives of the General Plan. By actions of the Planning Commission and the City Council in 2002,the City of Los Angeles determined that the creation of an educational park on Palos Verdes Drive North would be the best use of this land former Navy land and that because there are no abutting residential uses educational campuses would not be detrimental to the nearest neighborhoods.The college campus will create many benefits to the area by re-developing a property consisting of formerly abandoned Navy housing. The proposed campus will be in harmony with the objectives of the City's General Plan.Plan objectives include the creation of balanced communities with appropriately sited residential,commercial,and educational resources 2.1 CPC Master Land Use Application -CUP C-110 that will support additional jobs within the community.Within one-quarter mile of the campus,all of the property south,west and east consists of institutional,industrial or open space.The proposed campus buildings will have street elevations of two stories to be compatible with the one and two story homes in the residential neighborhood to the north. The Harbor City,Northwest San Pedro and Central San Pedro Neighborhood Councils are on record as being in support of the proposed educational park.The NW San Pedro and Harbor City Neighborhood Councils officially supported the Rolling Hills Prep Conditional Use Permit application and the NW San Pedro Neighborhood Council has issued a Commendation of the project pending final review and approval of the application. Marymount has occupied the property for 13-years.Recent meetings with residential neighbors have confirmed that Marymount's campus has not resulted in any significant impacts to these neighbors.The proposed development of the property is public knowledge and was described to the San Pedro community more than ten years ago.The Northwest San Pedro,Central San Pedro and Harbor City Neighborhood Councils have reviewed and favorably commented on the proposed project.Two public meetings were convened in late May of 20 11 for all adjacent neighbors.No significant objections or complaints were made at that time. Questions that Apply to School Applications: Describe the type of School: Marymount is a private,co-educational,residential college.The college currently offers a curriculum leading to AA and BA degrees.The College has applied to the governing accreditation organizations and expects to offer masters degrees within two years. Marymount matriculates a wide range of students.In addition to the regular curriculum and honors programs,the College accepts students with distinctive learning differences. Marymount offers a range of remedial and supportive assistance to students that address particular learning styles (visual,auditory,kinesthetic)and the different types of intelligences (emotional,intellectual,social).Part of Marymount's transition to a four-year institution is in support of students who have a continuing need for a supportive academic environment that is generally unavailable at other four-year colleges. What is the maximum number of students to be enrolled at each grade and age level? The following is an approximation of a balanced enrollment of 1,500 students at the San Pedro campus. Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior 600 300 300 300 18 years of age 19 years of age 20 years of age 21 years of age What are the hours of operation? The campus will operate on a seven-day per week,year-round basis.Normal hours of classroom operation are 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM. There will be 800 full-time students living on the campus at full build out. Marymount is and will continue to be a "community institution"whose facilities are available to local organizations for meetings and special events.This includes after-school programs,community meetings,and weekend events for community organizations,children and youth. 2.1 CPC Master Land Use Application -CUP C-111 What are the number of classrooms and teachers? The total number of classrooms,laboratories,art studios and seminar rooms at build-out will be 25. This configuration ultimately supports a teaching staff of 55 part-time and 20 full-time professors. What is the number of administrative staff? The campus will employ up to 35 employees. Will there be buses and where will they be stored? Marymount operates a shuttle service between its campuses and residential facilities.Three of these vehicles will be stored in the campus maintenance yard,three will be parked in bus only zones and the remaining fleet vehicles will be stored at the main campus in Rancho Palos Verdes. Where will cars load and unload students?How many cars? Unlike K-12 schools,there is no programmed,AM-PM loading/unloading of automobiles on the campus. Regularly scheduled shuttles will load and unload students at an on-campus transportation center,well within the campus property.The two entrances to the campus allow for queuing of up to 15 vehicles.If a major event generates a larger inflow of autos,the entrance gates can be opened to allow an unimpeded flow of vehicles into the parking lots. Describe the size and location of signs. Marymount has designed two lighted monument signs at the entrance on Palos Verdes Drive North.The sign will be 20 feet long by 3 feet high,constructed of concrete with pin mounted,channel lit lettering,mounted on a berm of earth and fully landscaped.Approximately 70 feet from Palos Verdes Drive North on a large retaining wall,a sign of incised concrete lettering 3 feet high by 30 feet long is also planned. Does anyone live on the premises;if so,where? There are currently 82 townhouses on the property that are used as student residences.These units currently house approximately 420 students and staff. Are there to be special events on the campus?How often are these proposed? The campus is designed to accommodate the typical events associated with a college,including community-related events on weekends and evenings.Meetings and events are expected to occur every day of the week beginning as early as 8:00 AM and ending by 11 :00 PM.There are no residential neighbors within 200-feet of the nearest campus building. Is there a main place of assembly and if so,how many fIxed seats? There is no facility with fixed seating proposed for the campus.The only large assembly space envisioned in this application is a dining hall/student union.The proposed maximum seating for the dining facility is 300.Smaller outdoor venues are being designed into the campus for special events (meetings,dinners,conference space)that will seat from 25 to 100. Is there to be night lighting and/or a public address system? Pathway lighting and security lighting are required by code.Night lighting for basketball and volleyball courts already exists.These facilities are in the interior of the campus and are not visible from the street.Lighting will be focused toward the interior of the campus.Street lighting will be designed to meet City of Los Angeles codes.The only public address system in use or anticipated is for the interior quadrangle area and is not audible from Palos Verdes Drive North. What is the number of on-site parking spaces? Parking will be phased according to City of Los Angeles requirements.At build out,the site will be required to have 347 parking stalls.The actual number of stalls is programmed for 417. 2.1 CPC Master Land Use Application -CUP C-112 Please be sure your plot plan shows all buildings and other structures,including walls,fences,landscaping and play areas.Indicate whether an improvement is existing or proposed as well as its size and proximity to respective property lines. Are there any building/structures to be demolished/remodeled? As currently conceived the campus build out requires the removal of existing structures in Phase III. 2.1 CPC Master Land Use Application -CUP C-113 FINDINGS: 1.General Plan Land Use Designation.The subject property is located within the Wilmington- Harbor City Community Plan,with was adopted by the City council on July 14,1999 (Case No CPC 97 -0050 CPU).The Plan map designates the subject property for Low Density Residential,with corresponding zones of R1,RD6 and RU.The subject property is zoned RD- 6-1XL and is consistent with the Low Density Residential Land Use designation. 2.General Plan Text.The Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan text included the following relevant land use goal,objective and policy: a.Goal 6:Public Schools that provide a quality education for all of the City's children, including those with special needs,and adequate school facilities to serve every neighborhood in the City. b ..Objective 6-1:To site schools in locations complimentary to existing land uses, recreational opportunities and community identity. c.Policy 6-1.1:Encourage compatibility in school locations,site layouts and architectural design with adjacent land uses and community character and,as appropriate,use schools to create a logical transition and buffer between differing uses. 3.The Transportation Element of the General Plan will be affected by the recommended action,however,any necessary dedication and/or improvement of Palos Verdes Drive North to General Plan designated Major Highway Class II Highway standards will assure compliance with this Element of the General Plan and with the City's street improvement standards pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.05. 4.The Sewerage Facilities Element of the General Plan will be affected by the recommended action.However,requirements for construction of sewer facilities to serve the subject project and complete the City sewer system for the health and safety of City inhabitants will assure compliance with the goals of this General Plan Element. Street Lights.Any City required installation or upgrading of streetlights necessary to complete the City's street improvement system will increase night safety along the streets that adjoin the subject property. Conditional Use Findings.Pursuant to Section 12.24.E of the Municipal Code: a.The proposed location will be desirable to the public convenience or welfare. The Marymount College campus will occupy 13.13 acres of a 59-acre former federal government housing subdivision that is bordered on the north by Palos Verdes Drive North,on the east by Rolling Hills Preparatory School and a federal butterfly reserve, on the south by a 400-acre federal fuel depot and on the west by a City of Los Angeles Recreation and Parks district office.The federal government has no plans at this time to further develop any of its abutting property.The proposed uses support a San 2.1 CPC Master Land Use Application -CUP C-114 Pedro Area Reuse committee (SPARC)concept to create a pre-school through college educational park on the reuse site.This plan was supported by and recommended to the City Council by the Los Angeles City Planning Department on February 18,1999 and the Planning and Land Use Management Committee on March 3,1999.The plan was adopted by the City Council on April 16,1999. b.The proposed location is proper in relation to adjacent uses or the development ofthe community. Private schools and colleges are permitted in the RD6 zone under a conditional use permit. The master plan will revitalize an ll-acre parcel that was abandoned by the U.S.Navy .in 1994.As such,the proposed college campus will enhance the development of the community by fulfilling an element of the planned educational park for the area recommended by the San Pedro Area Reuse Committee and approved by the City Council in 1999 Private college education use in this location will not affect any adjacent uses.The college will be separated from existing residential neighborhoods to the north by over 200 feet of public right-of-way.Another educational institution,Rolling Hills Preparatory School,is an abutting neighbor to the east.Other adjacent uses to the east and south are designated as Open Space and developed with Little League and senior league diamonds,a police firing range and a Navy Fuel Depot.The campus and its operations will not affect any of these uses. The proposed use complements the residential community to the north while reusing the former government housing.The proposed building and improvements would increase the building area on the property,however,the new buildings would be sited so as to have minimal or no impacts on the residential community.All vehicle parking will be provided on site,thereby creating no off-campus vehicle parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood or on Palos Verdes Drive North.No major athletic facilities are contemplated for the site.Proposed buildings on much of the site will not be visible from the single-family neighborhood to the north across Palos Verdes Drive North.The campus design takes advantage of the topography by eliminating the presence of almost all buildings not immediately adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive North.In addition,surrounding properties totaling approximately 400 acres,consist of open space and a protected nature preserve retained by the federal government. c.The proposed location will not be materially detrimental to the character of development in the immediate neighborhood. 2.1 CPC Master Land Use Application -CUP C-115 The proposed conditions of approval and the environmental conditions that come from the Mitigated Negative Declaration insure that there will be no adverse environmental impacts on the surrounding community. The location is accessible from the south and north by Western Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway,which intersects with Western Avenue and Gaffey/Vermont Avenue. From the east and west the site is accessed by Palos Verdes Drive North.The campus buildings visible from the street will appear to be two stories,residential in scale,concentrating the larger massing at the rear of the site and below grade to maintain a compatible height and scale.The proposed project will enhance the existing landscaping along Palos Verdes Drive North. The proposed project will provide for circulation on the project site to avoid any queuing problems on Palos Verdes Drive North.Ample parking will be provided at each phase of the project. d.The proposed location will be in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan. The proposed conditions of approval will protect the best interest of the surrounding property and neighborhood and lessen or prevent any detrimental effect on the area, and mitigate any potential adverse environmental impact of the campus while also allowing the college to expand its facilities,thereby securing appropriate development in complete harmony with the objectives of the General Plan and the City's established policy of allowing colleges within residentially zoned areas. The existing Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan designates the college property as Low density Residential and is zoned RD6-1XL.Pursuant to Section 2.1 CPC Master Land Use Application -CUP C-116 12.24.U,a college is permitted in a residential zone with approval of a conditional use permit by the City Planning Commission. As stated above,the proposed project is consistent with Plan Objective 6-1 to site educational facilities in locations complimentary to existing surrounding land uses with buffering,convenient to the Community and with access to recreational opportunities.The proposed project is also in keeping with Policy 6-1.1,which is to encourage compatibility between school locations,site layouts,architectural designs, and local community character. The proposed conditions and project design will ensure that traffic and parking requirements eliminate any off-campus vehicle parking. .The proposed conditions will also ensure that the physical design of the buildings would be built in a manner that is residential in character as viewed from the adjacent public streets by employing an architectural esthetic that is common to residential uses by locating larger structures to the rear of the campus away from any surrounding single-family dwellings.The use of architectural elements such as towers,courtyards,covered walkways;the articulation of massing and wall planes, and the use of exterior materials such as stucco and wood will be in harmony with the character of the neighborhood.Furthermore,the conditions ensure that the campus will include landscaping in all available open areas to reduce visibility of the facilities from adjacent residences. These same height and side-yard variances were previously granted to Rolling Hills Preparatory School whose architecture and tower elements were seen as being central to the concept of an educational park and a compatible element of the General Plan. a.The granting ofthe variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the same zone or vicinity in which the property is located. Granting the height and yard variance will not be detrimental or injurious because the increased density is not being located within an area that is visible to surrounding properties or that will be out of character with surrounding properties,The area zoned RD6-1XL is part of a larger federal property that was studied and approved for reuse and transfer back to the community.Other uses for this location include a proposed transitional housing complex that will be operated by Volunteers of America,and an approved pre-K through Grade 12 campus for Rolling Hills Preparatory School.Further,the mixed-use approach to providing housing on 2.1 CPC Master Land Use Application -CUP C-117 campus,will reduce traffic trips to and from the main Marymount Campus,while creating a new community institution for the San Pedro and Lomita Communities. b.The granting ofthe variance will not adversely affect any element ofthe General Plan 6.The approval of the requested Conditional Use and Zone Variance has been made contingent upon compliance with the conditions of approval imposed herein.Such limitations are necessary to protect the best interests of and to assure a development more compatible with surrounding properties,to secure an appropriate development in harmony with the General Plan and to prevent or mitigate the potential adverse environmental effect of the subject recommended action. 7.Environmental.For the reasons set forth in Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ENV 2011-2478-EAF,the project will not have a significant effect on the environment 8.Fish and Game.The subject project,which is located in Los Angeles County,will NOT have an impact on fish or wildlife resources or habitat upon which fish and wildlife depend,as defined by California Fish and Game Code Section 711.2.The project qualifies for the de minimus Exemption from Fish and Game Fees (AB3158). 2.1 CPC Master Land Use Application -CUP C-118 CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM EAF Case No.:Env-2011-2478-EAF ZA Case No.:CPC Case No.:CPC-2011·2480-CU Council District No.:15 Community Plan Area:Wilmington -Harbor City Parcel Map Case No:AA-2011·2479·PMLA PROJECT ADDRESS:...;1.;;.;600;,;;".;,.;pa;;;:lo..:,.sV.:..:e;;.:rd;;;:es:..;:D:.:.;.ri\l:..;.ll.:..:.No:.:;rt::;.h _ Major Cross Streets:Western Avenue and Gaffey Slreet Name of Applicant:Marymount College James Reeves·Vice President for Finance and Administration Address:1600 Palos Verdes Drive North,San Pedro,CA 90732 Telephone No.:310839-5455 Fax No.:13103620474 Ewmail:.lli!'ause@nonprofilvenlures.org OWNER APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE (Other than Owner) Name:James Reeves Name:James Krause---=..;=---=.:-_-----------(Contact Person) Address:30800 Palos verdes Dlive EaSl,Rancho Palos Verdes.CA 90275 Address:4007 Coogan Circle,Culver City,CA 902342 I Telephone No:1310377 5501 Telephone No:..:;.3..:..10:...8:..:3:..;.9..:5...;.45.:..;5:...-_ Signature:Signature:_ (Applicant's Representative) The following Exhibits are required (3 copies of each exhibit and 3 Environmental AS$essment Forms for projects in Coastal &S.M.Mtn.Zones):All Exhibits should reflect the entire project,not just the area in need of zone change,variance,or other entitlement. NOTE:The exhibits are IN ADDITION TO those required for any case for which the Environmental Assessment Form is being filed. A.2 Vicinitv Maps:(aW'x 11 tI)showing nearby street system,public facilities and other significant physical features (similar to road maps,Thomas Brothers Maps,etc.)with project area highlighted. B.2 Radius/Land Use Maps:(1 t1 =100')showing land use and zoning to 500 feet (100 feet of additional land use beyond the radius for alcoholic beverage cases);100'radius line (excluding streets)okay for Coastal building permits 300'for site plan review applications. C.2 Plot Plans:showing the location and layout of proposed development inclUding dimensions;include topographic lines where grade is over 10%;tentative tract or parcel maps where division of land is involved to satisfy this requirement,and the location and diameter of all trees eXisting on the project site. D.Application:a duplicate copy of application for zone change,(including Exhibit tiC"justification)batch screening form,periodic comprehensive general plan review and zone change map,variance,conditional use, subdivider's statement,etc. E.Pictures:two or more pictures of the project site showing walls,trees and eXisting structures. F.Notice of Intent Fee:an UNDATED check in the amount of $75 made out to the Los Angeles County Clerk for the purpose of filing a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration as required by §15072 of the State CEQA Guidelines. G.Hillside Grading Areas/Haul Route Approval:Projects within a Hillside Grading Area involving import/export of 1,000 cubic yards or more shall submit a soils and/or geotechnical report reviewed &approved by LADBS (reports needed to be determined by LADBS)to include measures to mitigate impacts related to grading and obtain a Haul Route Approval from the Board of Building &Safety Commissioners (refer to http://www.lacity.org/LADBS/forms/forms.htm). APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY:_ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPROVED BY:~_ RECEIPT NO.: DATE:_ DATE:_ C-119 page 2 of 5 I.Project Description: Briefly describe the project and permits necessary (Le.,Tentative Tract,Conditional Use,Zone Change,etc.) including an identification of phases and plans for future expansion: The project is a 5 phase,CUP and Parcel Map application to construct a 1,500 student college with 800 resident students. P1 :Add 34 bedrooms.parking 101 and site waler treatment,P2:addition of one bedroom in each of 82 existing townhouse unils,P3:Conslruct27.000 SF of Administration and Dining wi parking and 3.900 SF maintenance bkig.P4:Add 76 bedrooms to existing buildings,P5:Construcl 22.000 SF Classroom wi parking Will the project require certification,authorization,clearance or issuance of a permit by any federal,state, county,or environmental control agency,such as Environmental Protection Agency,Air Quality Management District,Water Resources Board,Environmental Affairs,etc.?If so,please specify: The Applicant seeks a mitigated negative declaration from the City Department of Environmental Affairs II.Existing Conditions: A.Project Si~e Area ..:1.::::;3.:.:.13:::..:::ac::.re:::.:s::..-~----------------------Net and 13.13acrea Gross Acres _ B.Existing Zoning .:,.:R;:.:D6::...,.1:.:;X:.:..L ---_ C.Existing Use of land -=C=ol::::leg~e~re=si:::de:.:ne:..:h.::al:::;ls~:__,:"__:_::_::____::,:,"""",::__-_::__=_--------------_ Existing General Plan Designation ..:W.:.::II::m:.::.:ln~gt::.o..:·H.::a:..::rb:::or:..:C:.:.:lt:!..y ;::Co::.m:.::.m:.::u::..:.ni::::IY...:.P..:16::.:,"_ D.Requested General Plan Designation -:-__'"""':":""-: E.Number 6 type townhouse units and age ±23 of structures to be removed as a result of the project.If residential dwellings (apts.,single-family,condos)are being removed indicate the number of units:0 and average rent:.:.;N::;:on;.:e::.....:.T.:.::he::::se.:::...::::un~i1::.,sa:::,r::.,e.:::co:.:::lla:3lg~a.:.::ho::::u:::::sl:..:!ngL-_ Is there any similar housing at this price range available in the area?If yes,Where? NfA F.Number 23 Trunk Diameter 6-9 Inch and type ..:.w::...:e.:;;sle.:;;rn;,;,.S;;;.:y~ca:.;;;m,;;:,o::...:re _ of existing trees. G.Number 0 Trunk Diameter and type _ of trees being removed (identify on plot plan.) H.Slope:State percent of property which is: 10%less than 10%slope 90%10-15%slope over 15%slope If slopes over 10%exist,a topographio map will be required.Over 50 acres,1"=200'scale is okay. I.Check the applicable boxes and indicate the condition on the Plot Plan.There are 0 natural or man-made drainage channels,0 rights of way and/or 0 hazardous pipelines crossing or immediately adjacent to the property,or 0 none of the above. J.Grading:(specify the total amount of dirt being moved) _________0-500 cubic yards. 16,000 CY cui and 7.000 fill if over 500 cubic yards.indicate amount of cubic yards. K.ImporUExport:Indicate the amount of dirt being imported or exported 9.000 CYexporl C-120 page 3 of 5 If the project involves more than one phase or substantial expansion or changes of existing uses,please document each portion separately,with the total or project details written below.Describe entire project,not just area in need of zone change,variance,or other entitlement. III.Residential project (if not residential,do.not answer) A.Number of Dwelling Units- Single Family Apartment or Condominium _ B.Number of Dwelling Units with: One bedroom Two bedrooms _ Three bedrooms Four or more bedrooms _ C.Total number of parking spaces provided _ D.List recreational facilities of project --::--_ E.Approximate price range of units $to $_ F.Number of stories ,height feet. G.Type of appliances and heating (gas,electric,gas/electric,solar)_ Gas heated swimming pool?_ H.Describe night lighting of the project _ (include plfln for shielding light from adjacent uses,if available) I.Percent of total project proposed for:Building _ Paving _ Landscaping _ J.Total Number of square feet of floor area _~_ IV.Commercial,Industrial or Other Project (if project is only residential do not answer this section). Describe entire project,not Just area in need of zone change,variance,or other entitlement. A.Type of use ..;;.co;;.;;lIe;;;.;;g:.;;.e.;;.;ca;,;.;,m;.:;;.pu;;.;;s _ B.Total number of square feet of floor area 143.134 SF C.Number of units if hotellmotel __...::.o _ D.Number of stories 4 height 92 feet. E.Total number of parking spaces provided:_-:..:41:..:...7 _ F.Hours of operation S.co,w·lI<lOPU Days of operation __--=.:36::=5 _ G.If fixed seats or beds involved,number 800 beds H.Describe night lighting of the project ...:::;st::.::re::::.:etc=a:=nd:..t:p.:::at~h1::l219:.:.:hti::..:Jngi2..:a~s-,=,pe:::.:.r.:::.cit:L.Y;;,;;co;.;;:;de=___ (Include plan for shielding light from adjacent uses,if available) I.Number of employees per shift'--__2_o _ J.Number of students/patients/patrons _l.:..,.,500_._lbu_I\d.ou_1 _ K.Describe security provisions for project Marymount College emploY6 its own secuirty force L.Percent of total project proposed for:Building 23%3.01 ae Paving 36.2%4.75 ao Landscaping 41%5.37 ae Historic/Architecturally Significant Project Does the project involve any structures.buildings,street lighting systems,spaces.sites or components thereof which may be designated or eligible for designation in any of the following:(please check) o National Register of Historic Places _ o California Register of Historic Resources _---~----------------o City of Los Angeles Cultural Historic Monument._ o Within a City of Los Angeles Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ)-'-- C-121 page 4 of 5 V.Hazardous Materials and Substance Discharge Does the project involve the use of any hazardous materials or have hazardous substance discharge?If so,please specify...;.N;.;::O _ A.Regulatory Identification Number (if known)_ B.Licensing Agency _ C.Quantity of daily discharge _ VI.Stationary Noise Clearance:A clearance may be necessary certifying the project's equipment (e.g., air conditioning)complies with City Noise Regulations. Some projects may require a Noise Study.The EIR staff will inform those affected by this requirement. VII.Selected Information: A.Circulation:Identify by name all major and secondary highways and freeways within 1,000 feet of the proposed project;give the approximate distance(s): Western Avenue,a state highway is 948 feet frm the campus boundary B.Air:All projects that are required to obtain AQMD permits (see AQMD Rules and Regulations)are required to submit written clearance from the AQMD indicating no significant impact will be created by the proposed project.* VIII.Mitigating Measures: Feasible alternatives or mitigation measures which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the development may have on the environment.Traffic Is the only environmental issue that generates any signillcant adverse impacts.These impacts wlll be mitigated to less than significant levels by Oeparment of Transportation mitigation measures, The project Is within a hillside area and will require more than 1,OOOcubic yards of export,therefore soils report will need to be submitted to LADaS and a Haul Route Approval will need to be obtained from the Board of Building and Safely Commissioners." *Contact the South Coast Air Quality Management District at (909)396-2000 for further information. C-122 page 50f 5 APPLICANT/CONSULTANT'S AFFIDAVIT OWNER MUST SIGN AND BE NOTARIZED; IF THERE IS AN AGENT,THE AGENT MUST ALSO SIGN AND BE NOTARIZED I.:Jmo.,'&Mt'li2 Im~(/,~II...I.JAn/J -$f. Owner (Owner in~*""d'-_...I..._-(C~o~niiUitaii?'~-------- (Please Print)(PI being dUly swor I state that the statements and information contained in this Environmental Assessment Form are in ail respects t e and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ~",**."'.""UUU**·,**·"**·*,*···",,*,,*"·"*·""Space Below This Line for Notary's Use"·,..·....**··..'*****···..•••....••••..·u......**••••••• ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...p,f...-.j'.!p,~~~!.!..J.~rqJf.l,..J~-#I-'J.!...-=--personally appeared I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph Is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~ CP-1204(Rev.02/03/09) (Seal) ~A ........4 o.B.~A~GUCH('A f ~COMM,'1820458 ;:t J:'!NOTARV PUBLIC·CALIFORNIA IiJLOSANGELESCOUNTYtNyCOIMl.Expires Oct.~8.~012 '4 0'Q;pys Q V Y J;t 4QSV V .,. P:\WORDPROC\CPFORMS\CP1000\1204.2-03-09.wpd C-123 NWSPNC Planning &Land Use Committee agenda C-124 Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council Planning and Land Use Committee Agenda Thursday,October 27,2011,6:30 p.m. San Pedro City Hall,Room 452 Agenda 1.Call to Order 2.Introductions 3.Harbor Highlands Park discussion of how to proceed with planning 4.Review of Marymount College Traffic Plan 5.Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items 6.Adjourn -Next Meetings,6:30 pm November 17,2011 6:30 pm December 8,2011 Note:Anything on this Agenda Could Result in a Motion To Contact us:www.nwsanpedro.org,board@nwsanpedro.org,or 310-732-4522 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 and upon request will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs,services,and activities.Sign language interpreters,assisted listening devices,or other auxiliary aids and/or services may be provided upon request.To ensure availability of services please make your request at least 3 business days (72 hours)prior to the meeting by contacting the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment at 213-485-1360. C-125 THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE MARYMOUNT COLLEGE SAN PEDRO CAMPUS Six months ago,Marymount College began a series of presentations and meetings to show the community the College's initial master plan for the San Pedro Campus on Palos Verdes Drive North.Presentations were made to the Northwest and Central San Pedro Neighborhood Councils as well as the Harbor City Neighborhood Council. College representatives personally canvassed the Harbor Pines neighborhood and the Vista Verde Mobile Home Park.Two public meetings were hosted at Rolling Hills Prep for abutting residential neighbors. The College offered to use the Traffic Study and public input to adjust the ultimate scope of the project.Having now reduced the project scope,the Los Angeles Department of Transportation has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the College outlining the required mitigation measures to reduce peak hour traffic flows to and from the campus.17 intersections were studied. The Conditional Use Permit application for the Marymount College Master Plan has been submitted to the City and is now available for public review. The application is listed with the City Planning Department as CASE #:CPC-20 11-2480-CU and can be viewed at any time via the City's website: c.'.j..t.·•.~.'.pbtnJlinq@qadt:y ort1!casetrack1llg The College........o,.Il!'.'..0.0 •..••••••••oil!'l<•.....oo . will soon return to the Neighborhood Councils for final reviews of the project plan. C-126 et1t;.wf Y ----~CUP-7 Listed below is a summary of the original master plan and the revised plan that has been submitted to the City of Los Angeles as a Conditional Use Pennit. 20-years 48.577 SF 27,000 SF 300 Diners,270 class seats None -expansion of existing AMENDED PLAN 16 class rooms,9,600 SF 520 Eliminated 44 at 15,400 SF 4,077 SF 417/347 ORIGINAL PLAN 50-years 133,491 SF 27,000 SF 300 Diners,270 class seats Four @ 191,500 SF Plan Duration New Buildings: Student Services Center Dining,Admin.,Classrooms New Residence Halls housing Classroom Building 62 class rooms,53,360 SF Seating Capacity 1,240 Student Union 20,000 SF Faculty Offices 55 at 31,000 SF Maintenance Shop and Yard 9,000 SF Parking Capacity/Requirement 772/852 FACILITY Student body at build-out Faculty apartments 847 residents 753 commuters 8 families 800 residents 700 commuters 8 families C-127 Draft Traffic Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus,without appendices C-128 Draft Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus Los Angeles,CA October 25,20 II Prepared For: .Marymount College 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-6299 Phone:(310)377-550 I Prepared by: KOACORsPORATlllN !'tkNI'HNG.$,.EN0lMEW1NNO II00 Corporate Center Drive,Suite 20 1 Monterey Park,California 91754 Phone:(323)260-4703 jBII045 C-129 Table of Contents I.INTRODUCTION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••~••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••I 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1.3 PROJECT ACCESS 3 1.4 PROJECT STUDY AREA 3 1.5 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 5 1.6 AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL (ATSAC)AND ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM (ATCS)9 2.EXISTING (20 II )•.•.•.••..••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..••••.•..••••.••••.••••••••••.•.•.••.••••••••••••••.•...•...••••••••10 2.1 ExISl'lNG ROADWAY SYSTEM 10 2.2 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE 13 2.3 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERViCE 15 3.PROJECT TRAFFIC •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••18 3.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 18 3.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 20 3.3 PROJECT TRIP AsSIGNMENT 23 4.EXISTING PLUS PROJECT••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•..•.•.••.•.•...•••••••••••••••••.•.••..•.•.••••••••••••.••.•..•••••26 4.1 PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENT 26 4.2 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERViCE 26 5.FUTURE (2031)WITHOUT PROJECT 30 5,I AMBIENT GROWTH 30 5.2 RELATED PROJECTS 30 5.3 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 30 6.FUTURE (2031)WITH PROJECT 35 6.1 PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS 35 6.2 FUTURE WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 35 7.PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 39 7.1 DETERMINATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS 39 7.2 PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS -ExiSTING PLUS PROJECT 40 7.3 PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS -FUTURE (2031)WITH PROJECT 40 7.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 43 8.CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN CONFORMANCE 47 9.SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 48 .HQACQR:PORATlON NANNING.(l;.~NWNfEl!!I>W Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 I I -Page i C-130 List of Figures FIGURE I -STUDY AREA 2 FIGURE 2 -CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 4 FIGURE 3-STUDY INTERSECTION LOCATIONS 6 FIGURE 4 -INTERSECTION GEOMETRY 12 FIGURE 5 -AREA TRANSIT LINES 14 FIGURE 6 -EXISTING (20 II)AM PEAK HOUR TURN VOLUMES 16 FIGURE 7 -EXISTING (20 I I)PM PEAK HOUR TURN VOLUMES 17 FIGURE 8 -PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION -TO/FROM PROPOSED CAMPUS 21 FIGURE 9 -PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION BETW PROPOSED SAN PEDRO CAMPUS AND RPV CAMPUS 22 FIGURE 10-NET PROJECT ONLY AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 24 FIGURE II -NET PROJECT ONLY PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 25 FIGURE 12 -EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TURN VOLUMES 27 FIGURE 13,-EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TURN VOLUMES 28 FIGURE 14 -LOCATION OF RELATED PROJECTS 31 FIGURE 15 -FUTURE (2031)WITHOUT PROJECT -AM PEAK HOUR TURN VOLUMES 32 FIGURE 16 -FUTURE (2031)WITHOUT PROJECT -PM PEAK HOUR TURN VOLUMES 33 FIGURE 17 -FUTURE (2031)WITH PROJECT -AM PEAK HOUR TURN VOLUMES 36 FIGURE 18 -FUTURE (2031)WITH PROJECT -PM PEAK HOUR TURN VOLUMES 37 FIGURE 19 -INTERSECTION GEOMETRY -WITH MITIGATION 46 List of Tables TABLE I -LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS TABLE 2 -DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA ROADWAYS TABLE 3 -SUMMARY OF AREA TRANSIT LINES TABLE 4 -INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE -EXISTING (20 I I) TABLE 5 -PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TABLE 6-INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE -EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TABLE 7 -INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE -FUTURE (2031)WITHOUT PROJECT TABLE 8 -INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE -FUTURE (2031)WITH PROJECT TABLE 9 -DETERMINATION OF PROJECT IMPACTS -EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TABLE 10 -DETERMINATION OF PROJECT IMPACTS -FUTURE (2031)WITH PROJECT TABLE II -MITIGATION LOS SUMMARY -EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TABLE 12 -MITIGATION LOS SUMMARY -FUTURE (2031)WITH PROJECT Appendices 9 10 13 15 19 26 34 35 41 42 45 45 APPENDIX A- APPENDIXB- APPENDIXC- APPENDIXD- APPENDIX E- APPENDIX F- APPENDIXG- APPENDIXH- APPENDIX 1- APPENDIXj - APPENDIX K- APPENDIX L- APPENDIXM- MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES TRAFFIC COUNT DATA RELATED PROJECTS DESCRIPTION,TRIP GENERATION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS FOR CITY OF LOS ANGELES INTERSECTIONS INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS FOR EXISTING 2011 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT (20 I I) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS FOR EXISTING PLUS PROJECT WITH MITIGATION INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS WITHOUT PROJECT (2031) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS WITH PROJECT (2031) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS WITH PROJECT PLUS MITIGATION (2031) SYNCHRO ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page ii C-131 I.Introduction This report documents the traffic study prepared for the proposed Marymount College San Pedro Campus (hereinafter referred to as the "Project")located within the Wilmington -Harbor City community in the City of Los Angeles.KOA Corporation was retained to study the potential traffic impacts of the proposed Project. The following sections examine the impacts of the project on weekday AM and PM peak-hour operations at key area intersections.The scope and methodologies used for this traffic study were developed in consultation with the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT).The project study area,as defined through consultation with LADOT staff,encompasses 17 roadway intersections.Key tasks undertaken for this traffic analysis include:I)definition of study approach,2) determination of existing traffic conditions,3)trip generation forecasts of the planned project land use, 4)assignment of project-generated trips to the study area roadway system and,S)evaluation of the impact of project traffic at the study intersections.This report follows guidelines within the LADOT document entitled Traffic Study Policies and Procedures,August 20 I I. 1.1 Project Location The proposed project site is located on the south side of Palos Verdes Drive North between Western Avenue and Gaffey Street.The site address is 1600 Palos Verdes Drive North,City of Los Angeles. Figure I illustrates the site location in relation to the surrounding street system.As shown,regional access to the site is provided via the Interstate 110 Freeway. 1.2 Project Description Marymount College is preparing to further fulfill the terms of its land grant from the Department of Education and U.S.Navy by building out the higher education component of the City of Los Angeles' plan to create an educational park on former Navy housing land.The College is proposing to expand the campus by constructing a sustainable private undergraduate/graduate campus at the San Pedro Campus site. 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 campus occupies approximately 13.13 acres of land (11.66 acres plus 1.47 acres of land to be vacated by the City of Los Angeles and merged with the Marymount property).The proposed campus would accommodate 1,500 students,800 of whom would be residents living on campus including eight (8)faculty apartments.The expansion proposes the construction and/or renovation of a student union/dining hall,classrooms, studios,laboratories,faculty/staff offices,residence halls,and maintenance facility. ;RQACQItPORATlON NANNING.t.fNWNf~!I;Ntt Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page I C-132 •Project Location ""---- LEGEND Pacific Coast Hwy Summerland Av 1st St 6th St 9th St 19th St 25th St Anaheim St +Not to Scale KOA CORPORATION Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study Figure 1 Study Area C-133 I.Introduction The project will implement the following measures in order to reduce campus vehicle trips: o Provide on-campus housing for 800 students. o Implement "Limited Cars for Residents"Policy -Limits 44%of the student residents to have a car on campus based on a limited lottery system. o Schedule morning peak period classes on the San Pedro Campus exclusively for on-campus resident students. o Restrict the number of resident students from driving to the RPV Campus during the morning peak period. o Enhance shuttle service by increasing bus frequency during peak periods of usage.(Note:A campus shuttle service currently operates between the RPV Campus,the Palos Verdes Drive North Residential Facility (San Pedro Campus),Pacific View West Residential Community in San Pe~ro and Downtown San Pedro.) o Implement parking permit/decal system to restrict parking by students. o Implement carpool system. 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.It should be noted that the implementation of project phases will be subject to funding availability and the demand for campus expansion. Thus,the analysis of project phase components was not conducted within this traffic study. 1.3 Project Access Vehicular project access would be provided from the existing south leg of the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive North and President Avenue.Secondary access would be prOVided from a new driveway on Palos Verdes Drive North located approximately 750 feet west of President Avenue.The secondary access would be restricted to right-turn in and right-turn out movements only.The conceptual site plan is illustrated in Figure 2. 1.4 Project Study Area The project study area,as defined through consultation with the LADOT staff,includes the following 17 study intersections located within the cities of Los Angeles,Rancho Palos Verdes,Rolling Hills Estates, and Lomita: Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 I I -Page 3 C-134 -c: ::Jo ~ Cll ~ >. "'C 05 o IE~1-, I II> ::J C. E Cll () e ~ 0.. c: Cll CI) Q) ~ '"5 () z8~0 \).~&=.tG03U.:,,·~, .<ill ~.....\'.~z~O.•.•.•.·~.•..''."";' '" C-135 I.Introduction Jurisdiction Traffic Study Intersections City/Agency Control I Western Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway Los Angeles/Caltrans Signalized 2 Normandie Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway Los Angeles/Caltrans Signalized 3 Vermont Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway Los Angeles/Caltrans Signalized 4 Western Avenue and Anaheim Street Los Angeles/Caltrans Signalized 5 Palos Verdes Drive E and Palos Verdes Drive N Rolling Hills Estate Signalized 6 Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive N LomitalCaltrans Signalized 7 President Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive N Los Angeles Stop-Controlled 8 Gaffey StreetlVermont Avenue and Anaheim Street/No Palos Verdes Drive Los Angeles Signalized 9 Figueroa Place and Anaheim Street Los Angeles Signalized 10 Figueroa Street and Anaheim Street Los Angeles Signalized II Palos Verdes Drive E and Miraleste Drive Rancho Palos Verdes Stop-Controlled 12 Western Avenue and Trudie Drive/Capitol Drive Rancho Palos VerdeslCaltrans Signalized 13 Miraleste Drive and Via Colinita Avenue Rancho Palos Verdes Stop-Controlled 14 Western Avenue and Crestwood Street Rancho Palos Verdes/Caltrans Signalized 15 Miraleste Drive and Ist Street Rancho Palos Verdes Stop-Controlled 16 Western Avenue and Ist Street Los AngeleslCaltrans Signalized 17 Palos Verdes Drive E and Crest Road Rancho Palos Verdes Signalized Figure 3 illustrates the locations of the study intersections and the project site within the study area. 1.5 Analysis Methodology The proposed project site is located within the City of Los Angeles.KOA coordinated with LADOT at the start of this study to achieve consensus on assumptions such as study intersection locations,project trip generation,trip distribution,trip assignment,and ambient traffic growth.A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)that documents the traffic study assumptions was prepared for and reviewed by LADOT staff.A copy of the City-approved MOU is prOVided in Appendix A of this traffic report.The following text describes the study methodology used in this report. Study Scenarios Weekday AM and PM peak-hour traffic operations were evaluated at the study intersections for each of the following traffic scenarios: •Existing 20 II •Existing Plus Project •Future 2031 Without Project •Future 2031 With Project Existinz (20 I I) KOA conducted fieldwork within the project study area to identify roadway characteristics including traffic control,approach lane configuration,parking restrictions and bus stop locations of each study intersection.In addition,new traffic counts were conducted at the 17 study intersections on Tuesday, March 22 and Wednesday,May 4,20 II during the AM and PM peak periods.The traffic counts reflect current traffic conditions in the study area and were used for the traffic impact analysis.The traffic count data are included in Appendix C. Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 5 C-136 + 1st St 6th St 9th St 25th St 19th St Summerland Av Pacific Coast Hwy LEGEND •Project Location eX Study Intersection Not 10 Scale KOA CORPORATION Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study ~F-<:.,l.\r",~!···jlt···;G f~.£="·~G;Nr£f~:r"·;G Figure 3 Study Intersection Locations C-137 I.Introduction Existing level of service conditions at the study intersections are discussed within Section 2 of this report. Project Trip Generation and Distribution The project trip generation was 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 (proposed San Pedro Campus site),as well as trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation,8th Edition book. The project trip distribution was determined based on the land use characteristics of the project,the local roadway network,and the general locations of other land uses to which project trips would likely originate or terminate.In addition,the trip distribution was also based on zip code data for both students and faculty/staff of the Marymount College RPV Campus. The methodology utilized for project trip generation and distribution is discussed further within Section 3 of this report. Existing Plus Project Based on the traffic generated by the proposed project,the Existing Plus Project conditions were analyzed.The study intersection level of service for the Existing Plus Project conditions is discussed in Section 4 of this report. Future Without Project In order to acknowledge regional traffic growth that would affect operations at the study locations during the anticipated project completion year of 2031,an ambient/background traffic growth rate was applied to the existing traffic counts.An ambient growth rate of 7.1 %(20-year growth),which is based on the traffic growth projection from the 20 I0 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP)document,was utilized to create year-2031 base traffic volumes. In addition,traffic growth from area/related projects (approved and pending developments)was also included as part of the future 2031 analysis.KOA researched information from the City of Los Angeles pertaining to approved projects and projects pending approval in the study area.In addition,projects nearby located within the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes,Rolling Hills Estates and Lomita were also researched and included in the analysis.Daily and peak hour trips that would be generated from each of the related projects were determined.The trip rates used to determine the related projects trip generation are generally based on the ITE Trip Generation,8th Edition book. The level of service at the study intersections for the Future Without Project conditions is discussed in Section 5 of this report. Future With Project Conditions Based on the future ambient growth,traffic from area related projects (approved and pending)and traffic generated from the proposed project,the Future With Project conditions were determined and analyzed.The level of service for Future With Project conditions at the study intersections is discussed in Section 6 of this report. Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25.20 II -Page 7 C-138 I.Introduction Level of Service Analysis and Impacts KOA quantitatively assessed weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic impacts at the 17 study intersections.As defined in the LADOT Traffic Study Policies and Procedures (August 20 I0),if a proposed project results in a significant traffic impact at an intersection,that intersection must be mitigated to a level of insignificance,where feasible.The LADOT traffic study gUidelines state that only signalized intersections should be included for traffic impact analysis.Non-signalized intersections should be evaluated to determine the need for the installation of a traffic signal or other traffic signal device. One stop-controlled intersection located at President Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North within the City of Los Angeles is included in this traffic analysis in order to evaluate potential impacts associated with site access.Project traffic impacts are discussed in Section 7 of this report. Level of Service Methodology For analys.is of Level of Service (LOS)at signalized intersections,LADOT has designated the Critical Movement Analysis (CMA)methodology as the desired tool.The cities of Rancho Palos Verdes,Rolling Hills Estates and Lomita utilize the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)methodology to analyze the level of service at signalized intersections.The concept of roadway level of service under the CMA and ICU methodologies is calculated as the volume of vehicles that pass through the facility divided by the capacity of that facility.A facility is "at capacity"(v/c of 1.00 or greater)when extreme congestion occurs.This volume/capacity ratio value is based upon volumes by lane,signal phasing,and approach lane configuration.A description of the CMA and ICU methodologies is found in AppendiX B. For analysis of stop-controlled intersections,the analysis methodology is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)2000 published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB).The HCM 2000 expresses levels of service in terms of average delay (seconds per vehicle). Level of service values range from LOS A to LOS F.LOS A indicates excellent operating conditions with little delay to motorists,whereas LOS F represents congested conditions with excessive vehicle delay.LOS E is typically defined as the operating "capacity"of a roadway.Table I defines the level of service criteria. .KOACQrtPORATlON NANNlN91i·*NmNll~MN% Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 8 C-139 I.Introduction Table I -Level of Service Definitions Signalized Intersection Stop-Controlled Intersection Average Stop LOS Interpretation Volume to Capacity Ratio Delay (Delay Per Vehicle (CMAand ICU (SecJVeh» Methodologies) (HCM Methodology) Excellent operation.All approaches to the intersection appear A quite open,turning movements are easily made.and nearly all 0.000 -0.600 <10 Seconds drivers find freedom of operation. Very good operation.Many drivers begin to feel somewha B restricted within platoons of vehicles.This represents stable 0.60 I -0.700 >10 and <15 Seconds flow.An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form. Good operation.Occasionally backups may develop behind >15 and <25 SecondsC0.701 -0.800 turning vehicles.Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. D Fair operation.There are no long-standing traffic queues.This 0.801 -0.900 >25 and <35 Seconds level is typically associated with design practice for peak periods. E Poor operation.Some long standing vehicular queues develop on 0.90 I -1.000 >35 and <50 Seconds critical approaches. Forced f1ow.Represents jammed conditions.Backups from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or F prevent movements of vehicles out of the intersection approach Over 1.000 >50 Seconds lanes;therefore.volumes carried are not predictable.Potential for stop and ~o type traffic flow. Source:Hi~way Capacity Manual,Special Report 209.Transportation Research Board.Washington D.C..2000 and Interim Materials on HighWll;Y Capac!t;y,NCHRP Circular 212,1982 1.6 Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC)and Adaptive Traffic Control System (A TCS) ATSAC is a computer-based traffic signal control system that detects the passage of vehicles,vehicle speed and the level of congestion on a second-by-second (real-time)basis,and adjusts the traffic signal timings to determine if better traffic flow can be achieved in order to minimize overall vehicle delay. The ATCS is a traffic signal control software program that enhances the ATSAC system by providing traffic adaptive signal control based on real-time traffic conditions.The ATCS optimizes traffic flow by automatically adjusting traffic signal timing including cycle length,phase split and offset. For capacity analysis,LADOT guidelines suggest a 0.07 reduction in volume-to-capacity ratio with the implementation of ATSAC and a 0.03 reduction in volume-to-capacity ratio with the implementation of ATCS.This reduction represents field measured benefits in flow and capacity increase by operation of this program. According to LADOT,the eight signalized study intersections 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. .ROACQRPORAnoN NAHf'4INO t.l:NURl:H!l~N% Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 9 C-140 2.Existing (20 I I) This section documents the existing conditions in the study area.The discussion presented here is limited to specific roadways in the project's vicinity. 2.1 Existing Roadway System A description of the roadways that form the study intersections are summarized in Table 2.Figure 4 depicts the lane configurations and traffic control at the study intersections. Table 2 -Description of Study Area Roadways Posted I #Lanes I I Parking Restrictions I Roadway Speed NBl SBl Median Type North Sidel South Side 1West General Land Use Umit EB WB EastSide Side Pacific Coast I-tighway (Major Highway Class II within City of Los Angeles) NS 6:00AM-9:30AM, West of Western Ave 40 3 3 Striped NSAT 3:00PM -7:00PM,Ihr Commercial 9:30AM -3:00PM(M-F) NS 6:00AM-9:30AM, Between Western Ave and Normandie Ave 40 3 3 Striped NSAT 3:00PM -7:00PM,Ihr Commercial 9:30AM -3:00PM(M-F) NS 6:00AM-9:30AM, Between Normandie Ave and Vermont Ave 40 3 3 Striped NSAT 3:00PM -7:00PM,Ihr Commercial 9:30AM -3:00PM(M-F) NS 6:00AM-9:30AM, East of Vermont Ave 40 3 3 Striped NSAT 3:00PM -7:00PM,Ihr Commercial 9:30AM -3:00PM(M-F) Anaheim Street (Major Highway Class II) Between Western Ave and Vermont Ave /Gaffey 3S 2 2 Striped PP,RC&PP,RC& Commercial/Residential St 2 hr 8:00AM -6:00PM 2 hr 8:00AM -6:00PM Between Vermont Ave /Gaffey St and Figueroa PI 35 2 2 Striped NSAT NSAT Commercial/Residential East of Figueroa PI 35 2 2 Striped NSAT PP/NSAT Commercial/Residential Palos Verdes Drive North (Major Highway Class II within City of Los Angeles) West of Palos Verdes Dr East NP 8:00AM -6:00PM 45 2 2 Raised NPAT (Fril Residential 2 hr 9:00 AM -8:00PM, Between Palos Verdes Dr East and Western Ave 4S 2/3 2/3 Raised NP 8:00AM -6:00PM PP Commercial/Residential (Fril Between Western Ave and Vermont Ave /Gaffey 4S 3 3 Raised NSAT NSAT,PP Commercial/Residential St Trudie Drive (Local Street) West of Western Ave I 35 I I I I I Striped I PP I PP I Commercial/Residential Capitol Drive (Secondary) East of Western Ave I 3S I 2 I 2 I Striped I PP I PP I Commercial/Residential Crestwood Street (Local Street) West of Western Ave I 15 &25 I I I I I Striped I PP T PP I CommerciallResidential I st Street (CollectorlSecondary) West of Western Ave I 30 I I I I I Striped I PP T NSAT I Residential East of Western Ave I 30 I I I I I Striped I PP I PP I Medical/Residential NP -No Parking NS -No Stopping NPAT -No Parking Any Time NSAT -No Stopping Any Time RC -Red Curb PP -Parking Permitted ·K01\CQRPORATlQN NANN!N(,~$.fNWNH!tiNt! Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25.20 II -Page 10 C-141 2.Existing (20 II) Table 2 -Description of Study Area Roadways -Continued Posted #Lanes Parking Restrictions I Roadway Speed NB/SBI Median Type North Side/South Side /West General Land Use Limit EB WB East Side Side Palos Verdes Drive East (Arterial) West of Crest Rd 35 1/2 2 Striped NSAT,PP NSAT,PP College/Residential East of Crest Rd 35 1/2 2 Striped NSAT NSAT College/Residential North of Miraleste Dr 35 I 1 Striped NSAT NSAT Residential South of Miraleste Dr 35 I I Striped NSAT NSAT Residential North of Palos Verdes Dr North 35 1 I Striped NSAT NSAT Residential South of Palos Verdes Dr South 35 1 I Striped NSAT NSAT Residential Crest Road (Arterial) North of Palos Verdes Dr East I 45 I 2 I 2 I Striped I PP I PP I Residential Miraleste Drive (Arterial) Between Palos Verdes Dr East and 1st St I 25 I I I 1 I Striped J NSAT,PP I NSAT,PP J Residential South of 1st St I I I I 1 I Striped I NSAT,PP I NSAT,PP I Residential Westem Avenue (Major Highway Class II within City of Los Angeles) North of Pacific Coast Hwy 35 2 2 Striped PP RC/PP Commercial/Residential Between Pacific Coast Hwy and Anaheim St 35 2 2 Raised/Striped PP,NP 6:00AM -8:00 PP,NP 6:00AM -8:00 Commercial AM (Fri)AM IFrll Between Anaheim St and Palos Verdes Dr N 40 2 2 Raised PP,NP 6:00AM -8:00 PP,NP 6:00AM -8:00 Commercial/Residential AMIFri)AMIFrll Between Palos Verdes Dr Nand Capitol 1Trudie PP,NP 7:00AM -PP,NP 7:00AM - 40 2 2 Raised 9:00AM &3:00PM -9:00AM &3:00PM -Commercial/Residential Dr 7:00PM 7:00PM PP,NP 7:00AM -PP,NP 7:00AM - Between Capitol 1Trudie Dr and Crestwood St 40 2 2 Raised 9:00AM &3:00PM -9:00AM &3:00PM -Commercial 7:00PM 7:00PM PP,NP 7:00AM -Park/Commercial/ Between Crestwood St and 1st St 40 2 2 Raised PP NS 4:00PM -6:00PM 9:00AM &3:00PM - Residential 7:00PM South of 1st St 40 2 2 Raised NSAT None Commerclal/Residential Normandie Avenue (Major Highway Class II) North of Pacific Coast Hwy 45 NP 12:00PM -2:30PM PP,NP I 2:00PM - Commercial22Striped(Thu)2:30PM (Wed) South of Pacific Coast Hwy 45 2 2 Striped PP 2 hr 8:00AM -6:00PM Commercial Vermont Avenue (Major Highway Class II) North of Pacific Coast Hwy 45 2 2 Striped NSAT PP,NP 12:00PM -Commercial/Residential 2:30PM (Wed) Between Pacific Coast Hwy and Normandie Ave NPAT I 0:00PM -6:00 Commercial/Golf Course4522StripedNSAT AM Nightly/NSAT/PP Gaffey Street (Major Highway Class II) South of Anaheim St 45 2 2 Striped NSAT NSAT.PP,NP 11:00PM Oil ReflneryNacant 5:00 AM Nightly Figueroa Place (Collector/Local) South of Anaheim St 25 I 1 Striped PP,NP 12:00PM -PP,NP 12:ooPM - Motel/Golf Course 2:30PM (Wed)2:30PM (Thu) Figueroa Street (Major Highway Class II) 2 hr 8:00AM -6:00PM North of Anaheim St 35 2 2 Striped PP Except Sun Commercial/Residential South of Anaheim St 35 2 2 Striped RC,2 hr 8:00AM - PP Commercial/Residential 6:00PM Except Sun NP -No Parking NS -No Stopping NPAT -No Parking Any Time NSAT -No Stopping Any Time RC -Red Curb PP -Parking Permitted KQACQ*POAA110N NANN!Nc.,f $..~SWN:~iHt~N% Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page I I C-142 .. 11 15 1 1l~.,.L ~....-....-....-....- ..,&-..,&- ....:#"-,t~t~-+--+-..... 6 10 1l~.,.L 1f .,.L....-....-....- ..,&-..,&- ....:#"-4~~..... KOA CORPORATION Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study ++Nollo Scale Figure 4 Existing Intersection Geometry Project Location LEGEND 16 Study Intersection Signalized Intersection Stop Sign Controlled Intersection Stop Sign Intersection Lane Geometry C-143 2.Existing (20 II) 2.2 Existing Transit Service The project study area is served by bus transit lines operated by Metro,Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority and Municipal Area Express.Table 3 summarizes the transit lines in the vicinity of the project site (within about one-third of a mile).Figure 5 shows the area transit lines relative to the project site. Table 3 -Summary of Area Transit Lines Frequency (Approximate) Line From ITo TolFrom Via Weekday 7:00 AM •9:00 AM 4:00 PM •6:00 PM Metro 205 ImperiallWilmington San Pedro Western Ave 30 to 35 Minutes 25 to 40 Minutes Station 550 City of West Hollyvv'ood San Pedro Gaffey StlVermont Ave 30 to 40 Minutes 30 to 40 Minutes Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority Palos Verdes Drive N, Green Route Ridgecrest School Miraleste Plaza Palos Verdes Drive E, 7 to 30 Minutes 30 Minutes Westen Ave,1st St, Miraleste Dr Palos Verdes Drive N, Miraleste Intermediate Miraleste Intermediate Palos Verdes Drive E,20 Minutes One Bus Green Eastview School School Westen Ave,Crestwood (School Days Only)(School Days Only) St,Miraleste Dr Palos Verdes Drive NI Palos Verdes Drive E,One way Two Buses One way One Bus Orange Route PV High School Westen Ave,1st St,within 5 Minutes Peninsula Verde Miraleste Dr (School Days Only) (School Days Only) Municipal Area Express (MAX) MX3 San Pedro Torrance Western Ave .30 to 35 Minutes Source: Metro·Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority Municipal Area Express Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 13 C-144 Note: Only the transit lines that are in close proximity (Le.Within approximately one-third of a mile)to the Project site are shown. ',JetoeS ot~ ,?'3\Os Legend •Project Site Municipal Area Express (MX3) ...........Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (Greer"Green Eastview &Orange Route) .......Metro 205 Metro 550 ~\\t •t •~H t ~ lHt•~t \t ,,. :0 !::0..Iii••I •:11.. $/ui l'I)• •~•I' IQ),~ I-e '0 IE .'-I~ +Not to Scale KOA CORPORATION I Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study HANNING &ENGiNHRINC Figure 5 Area Transit Lines C - 1 4 5 2.Existing (20 II) 2.3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service The existing weekday AM and PM peak hour turn movement volumes are provided in Figures 6 and 7, respectively.Based on the existing traffic volumes,a volume-to-capacity ratio for signalized intersections, an average delay value for stop-controlled intersections and the corresponding levels of service (LOS) were determined for the 17 study intersections for the weekday AM and PM peak hours.Table 4 provides a summary of the volume/capacity ratios (or average delays)and LOS values.The traffic analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix F for intersections located in the City of Los Angeles and in Appendix G for intersections located in the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes,Rolling Hills Estates and Lomita. Table 4 -Intersection Performance -Existing (20 I I) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Analysis Study Intersections City Methodology VIC or VIC or Delay LOS Delay LOS (sees)(sees) I Western Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CMA 0.881 D 0.908 2 Normandie Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CMA 0.651 B 0.647 B 3 Vermont Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CMA 0.808 D 0.720 C 4 Western Ave &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.539 A 0.454 A 5 Palos Verdes Dr E &Palos Verdes Dr N Rolling Hills Estates ICU 0.732 C 0.700 B 6 Western Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N Lomita ICU 0.924 0.969 7 President Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N [a]Los Angeles HCM 31.7 D 24.2 C 8 Gaffey StlVermont Ave &Anaheim StlN.Palos Verdes Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.738 C 0.776 C 9 Figueroa PI &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.774 C 0.816 D 10 Figueroa St &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.815 D 1.029 II Palos Verdes Dr E &Miraleste Dr [a]Rancho Palos Verdes HCM 74.0 99.1 12 Western Ave &Trudie Dr/Capitol Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.929 0.828 D 13 Miraleste Dr &Via Colin ita Ave [a]Rancho Palos Verdes HCM 14.2 B 18.8 C 14 Western Ave &Crestwood St Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.783 C 0.796 C 15 Miraleste Dr &1st St [a]Rancho Palos Verdes HCM 16.2 C 13.3 B 16 Western Ave &1st St Los Angeles CMA 0.877 D 0.848 D 17 Palos Verdes Dr E &Crest Rd Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.424 A 0.348 A Note: ICU "Intersection Capacity Utilization Method (VIC),CMA "Critical Movement Analysis Method (VIC),HCM -Highway Capacity Manual Method (Delay) [a]Stop controlled intersection.Average delay &corresponding LOS shown for most constrained movement(s). As shown in Table 4,all of the study intersections are operating at LOS D or better during both study peak hour periods except the following five intersections: •Western Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway (PM Peak Hour) •Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Figueroa Street and Anaheim Street (PM Peak Hour) •Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Western Avenue and Trudie Drive/Capitol Drive (AM Peak Hour) KOACfJllPORAUON WANNINQ t *NK,HNfE!\iN0 Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25.20 II -Page 15C-146 128 3j 1t 13 ~~1 1051-5 1821 f157 36~1~76 259 567 1j 1~94 ~o 4 -55 f154 1~7 1013 298 15j 1t 19 1~l.!!..4 1.§J 1632-2 -1690 1523-3 1221 f132 56++376 11~1~7 1~1~08 362 369 517 12~1t 91 110 L!1.3 1415--1582 26'61 +108 48~1~O 841 11 76 18j 1~2 L!Z.6 10 _569 331 f84 16~1~OO 224 ~O ..Q......J U2,.7 3-13 -19 17+f76 1~1~68 389 852 5~1~3 1~L.g7" 80-12 -66 141 +179 ~1~13 1432 2 4~1~54 ~~O 157-17 -94 531 +109 ~1~7 o 1040 12j 1t 4 1~~ 33-14 -11 1"161-f53 7~1~15 1565 985 4j 1t 44 ?3...J U2,.4 290-16 -136 201 +279 1~1~55 1221 574 10j 1~1 1..QU U!. 965-6 333++252 58~1~85 1003 Not to Scale LEGEND II Project Site ,.1..Study Intersection XX"+Intersection Turn Volume + 36 41~1~67 ~U1. 1185-9 -617 148).+247 2~1~9 18 ~ 1461-7 "41 f5 ~1~4 o KOA CORPORATION ~'<'.~.t··_;t-·.IH···'(;f,i'NGtNER,t--K; Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study Figure 6 Existing (2011)AM Peak Hour Turn VolumesC-147 248 9~1~28 !!...J t2!. 985-5 '-1065 2541 +121 17~I ~26 140 873 1j 1t 70 t2Z.0 4 '-30 f102 I ~5 742 352 311 16j 1t 52 13~1t 46 @0 UQ.19J u! 1493-2 '-14801620-3 '-1556 1021 f89 511 +236 15~I ~39 4~I ~56 378 376 747 14~1t 73 1~L!3.6 1335-'-1411 406++118 43~I ~7 553 '-65 +124 1~I ~19 1098 t2Q.6 10 .-528 271 f93 18~I ~60 196 U ~3 8-13 '-15 131 f44 1~I ~8 300 1169 7~1~32 1~UI.7 43-12 29* ~ 153- 131 +37 1~I ~4 2 1382 11~1~9 1~~ 37-14 .-29 50)f180 4~I ~04 1244 1410 6J 1t 66 ~L!§.4 153-16 .-160 23++371 1~I ~63 964 ~U- 7 '-1151 101 rs ~I ~1 o o ~lt 919 16j 1~9 1Mj uz:. 587-6 '-824 537++314 39~I ~78 683 LEGEND •Project Site _1..Study Intersection XX)Intersection Turn Volume Not 10 Scale+ 65 60J 1t 05 ~~ 910-9 '-503 1""53+f241 1~I ~5 6 KOA CORPORATION Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study Figure 7 ~<V\JiHH';(;?,f:NGiNf'WHG Existing (2011)PM Peak Hour Turn VolumesC-148 3.ProjectTraffic This section defines the traffic that would be generated by the proposed project in a three-step process including trip generation,trip distribution and trip assignment. 3.1 Project Trip Generation The project trip generation was 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 5 shows the trip generation rates that were utilized,and the trip generatio':!for the project. Empirical Trip Generation Rates The following describes the trip generation surveys that were conducted to determine empirical trip rates used to calculate project trips. Marymount College RPV Campus Trip Generation Survey It is anticipated that the non-residential component of the proposed San Pedro Campus would have similar trip generation characteristics compared to the RPV Campus since both campuses would have undergraduate/graduate programs under the same college but on two sites.For this reason,a trip survey was conducted at the RPV Campus to determine empirical trip rates for that campus.The survey was conducted on Tuesday,March 22,2011 and Wednesday,March 30,20 I I.Manual counts were collected on the site driveway during the AM and PM peak periods.Vehicles that arrived to and departed from the RPV Campus but parked on the adjacent and/or nearby streets were also included in the counts.In addition,24-hour counts using video recordings were collected on the site driveway.Based on the count data collected,the average vehicle trip rate per student was 2.34 per day.During the AM and PM peak hours,the average vehicle trip rate per student was 0.26 and 0.24,respectively. Marymount College Palos Verdes North Residential Facility Trip Generation Survey A trip generation survey was also conducted at the existing Palos Verdes Drive North residential facility (proposed San Pedro Campus site)to determine empirical trip rates for the residential student component.The survey was conducted on Thursday,March 24,20 II during the AM and PM peak periods.Manual counts of private vehicles were collected on the access driveway located at President Avenue.Based on the survey results,the AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip rates were derived to be 0.31 and 0.35 trips per student.The daily vehicle trip rate, which was determined to be 3.88 trips per student,is based on the daily to AM+PM ratio for apartment use from the ITE Trip Generation book and multiplied by the AM plus PM rates. Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 18 C-149 3.Project Traffic Table 5 -Project Trip Generation Proposed Project College 1,500 Student 3,510 390 296 94 360 90 270 Internal Trip Reduction [4]53%=.LID :2!m d.S.8.::5.Q :.m ~:..l.11 Subtotal 1,638 182 138 44 168 42 126 Resident Student Trip Reduction (75%AM)[5]-137 -137 -104 -33 0 0 0 Total Non-Residential College Trips 1,501 45 34 II 168 42 126 Residence Halls for Students 800 Student 3,104 248 32 216 280 146 134 'Limited Cars for Residents'Trip Reduction (56%)[6]-1.738 -139 -18 .:..!..ll -157 ~-75 Subtotal 1,366 109 14 95 123 64 59 Internal Trip Reduction (77%AM,62%PM)[7][8]:Ml :Sf :ll -73 ::l.2.-40 ::M. Total Non-RPV Campus Trips 519 25 3 22 47 24 23 Trips to/from RPV Campus [9]400 Student 1,552 124 16 108 140 73 67 'Limited Cars for Residents'Trip Reduction (56%)[6]~.:62-:2--60 :l8.:1l :'Jl Total Trips to/from RPV Campus 683 55 7 48 62 32 30 Faculty Apartments 8 DU 53 4 I 3 5 3 2 Internal Trip Reduction (77%AM,62%PM)[7]:2 :oJ.:l .:2 :oJ..:2 :l Total Faculty Apartment Trips 47 I 0 I 2 I I Total Trip Generation (Proposed Project Uses)2,750 126 44 82 279 99 180 Existing Uses Housing Facility [10]DU 536 43 7 36 48 25 23 Net Total Trip Generation 2,214 83 37 46 231 74 157 [I]Trip generation rates are based on trip surveys conducted at the Marymount College RPV Campus on March 22 and 30,2011. [2]The AM and PM peak hour trip rates are based on trip generation surveys conducted at the Palos Verdes Drive North residential facility on March 24, 20 II.The daily rate is based on daily to AM+PM ratio for apartment use from tihe ITE Trip Generation book and multiplied by the AM plus PM rates. [3.88 daily trip rate =(6.651 (0.51 +0.62»*(0.31 +0.35)] [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 students.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.The remaining trips are expected to be generated by faculty/staff. [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 tihe apartment dormitory component per tihe Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project Traffic Impact Analysis,RBF Consulting,July 31,2007.The empirical data showed that 77%of tihe vehicles during the AM peak and 62%of the vehicles during the PM peak are traveling to/from tihe RPV campus. [8]The internal trip reduction for tihe PM was assumed for daily. [9]Based on information provided by Marymount College representative,about 400 of tihe 800 residents would take classes at the Marymount College RPV Campus on a typical weekday. [10]The AM and PM peak hour trips are based on raw trip generation survey data conducted at tihe Palos Verdes Drive North Facility on March 24,20 I I.The daily trips are based on daily to AM+PM ratio for apartment use from ITE Trip Generation book and multiplied by the raw AM plus PM peak hour trips. [536 daily trips =(6.65 1 (0.51 +0.62»*(43+48)] Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,201 1-Page 19 C-150 3.Project Traffic Trip Generation Discounts The following are trip discounts that were applied to the project trip generation calculations: Internal Trip Reduction -The proposed San Pedro Campus,upon build out,would have 1,500 students,800 of whom would be resident students living on campus.Thus,a 53%(800 / I,500) trip reduction was applied to the trip generation for the non-residential component of the project. Resident Student Trip Reduction -Marymount College will schedule the AM peak period classes on the San Pedro Campus exclusively for resident students living on campus.Thus,commuter students are not expected to generate vehicle trips during this period.A trip reduction of 75% was applied to the AM peak hour,with the remaining trips expected to be generated by faculty/staff/visitors.No trip reduction was taken for the PM peak hour. 'Limited Cars for Residents'Trip Reduction -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 the residents would not be allowed to have a vehicle on campus and therefore would not generate vehicle trips. Internal Trip Reduction (For Resident Students)-This trip reduction applies to on-campus residents who no longer need to drive to an off-site campus.The internal trip reduction is based on empirical rates for the apartment dormitory component per the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project Traffic Impact Analysis dated July 31,2007.The empirical data showed that 77%of the vehicles during the AM peak period and 62%of the vehicles during the PM peak period are traveling to/from the RPV Campus. The empirical trip rates and trip generation discounts are also discussed in the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.The trip rates and trip generation discounts were discussed with and approved by LADOT. As shown in Table 5,the project upon build out is estimated to generate 2,750 daily trips including 126 AM peak hour trips and 279 PM peak hour trips.The project site currently generates about 536 daily trips including 43 trips during the AM peak hour and 48 trips during the PM peak hour.Thus,the project would result in an increase of 2,214 net daily trips of which 83 net trips would occur during the AM peak-hour and 231 net trips would occur during the PM peak-hour. 3.2 Project Trip Distribution 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,and regional traffic flows.In addition,the project trip distribution was also based on existing student and faculty/staff zip code information.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,as shown in Figure 8.The second distribution is for trips generated by the resident students traveling to/from the RPV Campus,as shown in Figure 9. Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 20 C-151 0% 0%1 10%-5 0%+ o~1~% 0% 4 20% 2% 2% ~ 3 -0% 0%+l 1% o~1G% 2% 2% 0%-2 0%+lO% o~1~% 10% 0%1 to% 0%- 10%+fO% 10~1~% 10% 7.5% 0.5j 1~% t 0% 3% t 0% 10 -10% 0%+l 0% 3~1~% 0% 0%1 t 1% 13 -0% 0%+l 0% o~1~% 1% 7.5% 3% 1% 0% 0.5%t 0%-12 0%+ o~1~% 6%-~r'"~%30%+42%I I 52% 42%- Project Driveways 30%- 12%+ 0% 0% 0% 0%1 to% 17 -0% 0%+l 5% o~1~% 0% 7% 7% ~ 14 -0% l 0% o~1~% 0.5 0j 1~% 0.5%1 4% 1j 1~% ~ 0%-16 -0% 0%++0% o~1~% 4% +Not to Scale LEGEND Project Site Study Intersection Trip Distribution Percentages 0% 0% 0% 0% KOA CORPORATION Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study Figure 8 ~HMH·W·;(;r,t~lG!Nr-wr;(;Project Trip Distribution -To/From Proposed Campus 0% 6%-7 30%++58% 420~1~2% 0% 35j 1~% 0%1 45%-9 3%+l 0% o~1~% OOj 1~O% 0%1 14%-6 0%+l 8% o~1~% C-152 ~% 13 -0% +0% 20% OJ 1t 5 % 0%t 75%+100~ 65%1tala 11 30% 5%t t 0% 12 -0% 0%++0% o~1~% 30% +35% 1~5% 65% O%t to% 10 -0% 0%++0% o~1~% 0% 0%- 0%+ o~1~% 20% 100%- Project Driveways 75%- 25%+ 1~O% 0% 0% 15 0% t 0% 17 -0% 0%+f100% o~1GOO% 0% 0% 0% 20% 10 0j 1t% ~ 14 -0% fO% o~1~% 20% 0%-16 0%++0% o~1~% + 0% Not to Scale 0% 0% O%t to% 0%-7 75%++0% 100~1~% 0% O%t to% 0%-9 0%++0% o~1~% 0%0%0%0%0% OJ 1t%OJ 1t%OJ 1t%1t%OJ 1t% 0%t t 0%~t 0%0%t ~ 0%-0%-2 3 -0%4 0%-5 0%++0%0%++0%0%++0%+0%0%+ oo~1~%o~1~%o~1~%1~%o~1~5% 0%0%0%0%0% 0%0% OOj 1t%OJ 1t% LEGEND •Project Site • 1 StUdy Intersection XX)Trip Distribution Percentages O%t to% 65%-6 0%++35% o~1~5% 0% KOA CORPORATION Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study Figure 9 !O,;."\(;I·.II1";(;t HG!NURH.;(;Project Trip Distribution Between Proposed Campus and Existing RPV CampusC-153 3.Project Traffic It should be noted that the trip distribution between the San Pedro and RPV Campuses as shown in Figure 9 is based on license plate survey data.The survey was conducted on Tuesday,March 22,20 II for 90 minutes during the AM peak period and for 90 minutes during the PM peak period.Personnel were stationed at the RPV Campus to identify license plate information for vehicles arriving to the Campus including those parking on-site and on-street.In addition,personnel were stationed at the intersections of Western/Trudie,Western/Crestwood,Westernll st,and Palos Verdes Drive East/Palos Verdes Drive North.Based on our review of the roadway system,these are the access points that are most likely to be used by motorists traveling between the proposed project site and the RPV Campus. License plate information was collected for vehicles heading southbound on Western Avenue and turning right onto Trudie Drive,Crestwood Street and 1st Street.License plate information was also collected for those vehicles turning left from westbound Palos Verdes Drive North onto southbound Palos Verdes Drive East.The license plate information collected at the RPV Campus was matched with the license plate information collected at the four access points in order to determine the percentage of trips that use each route. 3.3 Project Trip Assignment The final product of the three-step process is a full accounting of project trips,by direction and turning movement at the study intersections.The project trips were assigned based on distribution inputs using the TRAFFIX program.Figures 10 and II illustrate the project trips for the weekday AM and PM peak hours,respectively. Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 23 C-154 1 1 6 0 jl~jl~jl~jl~ 2..-J U-U-U- 0-2 -0 3 -0 4 5 -0 ()).ro ()).ro ro ()).f31 ~l~~l~l~~l~ 0 0 0 0 11 31 l~ 14 ~l~ ..!...J U- 12 -0 01 ro ~l~ 4 2jlt 2..-J l2- 0-13 -0 ()).ro ~l~ 10 o jl~ 2..-J U- 0-10 -3 ()).ro ~l~o Project Driveways 14-;;~ ro l~o o l~ 15 U- 17 -0 ()).f48 ~l~o 10 ~l~ ..!...J U- 0-14 -0 ()).ro ~l~ 3 o 1j 1~ 3...J U- 0-16 -0 ()).ro ~l~ 1 o jl~ 2..-J U- 9-6 -31 ()).f17 ~l~o +NollO Scale o jl~ 2..-J U- 0-7 -0 14+f17 4~1~ o LEGEND II Project Site • 1 Study Intersection XX)Intersection Turn Volume KOA CORPORATION Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study Figure 10 [';.MJHIi··;(;·ts i:HGiHEf:WK,Net Project Only AM Peak Hour Turn Volumes C-155 ~ ]j lG4 8~8~~6 23 It 11 19 ~It LJ t..2..- 0-12 0++0 ~l~ 13 7jit u U- 0-13 -0 0++0 ~l~ 7 ~t..2..- 13-10 -4 0++0 ~l~o 83- Project Driveways +0 l~o o It 15 t..2..- 17 -0 0+G6 ~1~4 o 15 :JIt ~t..2..- 0-14 -0 0++0 ~l~ 9 5 ~I~ .!...-J u... 0-16 -0 0++0 ~l~ 2 4 1 1 8 0jitjitjitjitjit u t..2..-t..2..-t..2..-t..2..-u... 0-2 -0 3 4 -0 5 -13 4++0 0++0 0++0 +0 0+G3 1~1~~l~~lG l~~1~2 13 3 3 25 0 0 0 jl~jit ojit u t..2..- 8-7 -0 371 G4 8~1~6 o U?- 6 -37 0+G1 ~1G5 o Not to Scale+ o 1~I t u t..2..- 57-9 -5 4++0 ~l~o LEGEND III Project Site • 1 Study Intersection >0<+Intersection Turn Volume KOA CORPORATION III ~':'Ar",;~·..!tf··.;G.3-.ENG~Nr.:,r-R:r',;;(; Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study Figure 11 Net Project Only PM Peak Hour Turn VolumesC-156 4.Existing Plus Project This section documents existing traffic conditions at the study intersections with the addition of net project-generated traffic.Traffic volumes for these conditions were derived by adding project trips to the existing traffic volumes.The Existing Plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Figures 12 and 13 for the weekday AM and PM peak hour periods,respectively. 4.I Project Related Improvement As part of the project,the northbound approach at the intersection of President Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North would be improved to provide a shared left-through lane and an exclusive right turn only lane. 4.2 uisti!Jg Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Table 6 summarizes the resulting level of service values at the study intersections for the Existing Plus Project conditions.The traffic analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix F for intersections located in the City of Los Angeles and in Appendix H for intersections in the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes,Rolling Hills Estates and Lomita. Table 6 -Intersection Performance -Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Analysis Study Intersections City Methodology VIC or VIC or Delay LOS Delay LOS (sees)(sees) I Western Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CMA 0.881 D 0.916 2 Normandie Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CMA 0.651 B 0.647 B 3 Vermont Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CMA 0.808 D 0.721 C 4 Western Ave &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.539 A 0.463 A 5 Palos Verdes Dr E &Palos Verdes Dr N Rolling Hills Estates ICU 0.752 C 0.715 C 6 Western Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N Lomita ICU 0.942 0.982 ~7 President Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N [a]Los Angeles HCM >100 72.5 8 Gaffey StlVermont Ave &Anaheim StlN.Palos Verdes Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.744 C 0.785 9 Figueroa PI &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.781 C 0.846 ..10 Figueroa St &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.816 D 1.040 II Palos Verdes Dr E &Miraleste Dr [a]Rancho Palos Verdes HCM >100 >100 12 Western Ave &Trudie Dr/Capitol Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.931 0.834 D 13 Miraleste Dr &Via Colinita Ave [a]Rancho Palos Verdes HCM 18.5 C 19.9 C 14 Western Ave &Crestwood St Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.784 C 0.803 D 15 Miraleste Dr &1st St [a]Rancho Palos Verdes HCM 16.4 C 13.4 B 16 Western Ave &1st St Los Angeles CMA 0.877 D 0.853 D 17 Palos Verdes Dr E &Crest Rd Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.443 A 0.365 A Note: ICU -Intersection Capacity Utilization Method (V/C).CMA -Critical Movement Analysis Method (VIC),HCM -Highway Capacity Manual Method (Delay) [aJ Stop controlled intersection.Average delay &corresponding LOS shown for most constrained movement(s). RQACQIPORAnQN Nf\NN1NO $.I'NWNHWil'>l% Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 26 C-157 128 3j 1t 13 ~U,!1 1054-5 -842 1~+188 36~i ~81 259 ~o 4 -55 f154 I ~7 1013 520 299 12~1t91 15:J 1t19 1~U1.3 1~U1.4 1.£) 1415-1 -1582 1632-2 -1690 1523-3 2"691 f108 122+(132 56"1 G6 48~I ~o 11~I ~7 1~i ~08 841 362 369 866 5j 1t 23 1~L!3! 80-12 -66 141 +179 ~I ~13 1436 76 18:J 1~2 8~L:!Z.6 581-10 -572 33+f84 16~I ~oo 224 1050 205 384 12~1t 4 1~52 ~1t 83 1~~~6 U U1.4 33-14 -11 15 13 -19 1161 f53 f22 1]l.f76 7~I ~15 I ~3 1~I ~68 1568 364 399 985 2 5:J 1t 44 4~1~54 ~L3Q.5 ~~O 290-16 -136 157-17 -94 201 +279 5Jl.(157 1~I ~55 ~I ~6 1222 0 LEGEND II Project Site • 1 Study Intersection XX)Intersection Turn Volume 574 10j 1~7 1..QU U1. 974-6 -626 3331 +269 58~i ~90 1003 +Not to Scale 36 42:J 1~67 ~U1. 1185-9 -621 1'481 f247 2~I ~9 18 o ~lt ~U- 1461-7 181 f22 5~I ~4 o KOA CORPORATION <1 ~<>\!",i!'"m",(;,r,tNGiNr:rR'(,;{.:; Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study Figure 12 Existing (2011)Plus Project AM Peak Hour Turn VolumesC-158 248 9~1~28 !U lE- 989-5 -1078 2541 +144 17~i G48 140 881 1j 1t 70 LEo 4 -30 f102 i ~5 767 353 312 16j 1t52 13~1t46 1~U2.1~~ 1493-2 -1480 1620-3 -1556 1Q2l.f89 51+G36 15~i G39 4~1~57 381 379 751 14~1t 73 1~t..,g6 1335-1 -1411 41Ql.+118 45~i ~7 566 +151 i G88 267 lE4 11 1188 7:J 1~32 11!J UI.7~ 43-12 29++124 1~1G19 1111 5~ 811-10 271 f93 18~1~60 196 317~15~68 <51 ~)~"-z.s <1~~93"';;-)+8 r--6412it'~10e )/\s:.,115i(y/~~296rff6/;£54 108":>,J;3 .... o ~lt 1~ 614-6 537+f335 39~i G93 683 ~ 890-7 471 GO 8~i ~7 o 65 1397 295 411 62~1t 05 12j 1~9 1t 66 ~1~67 gJ ~1~~L!i8 U ~9 967-9 -50a 37-14 -29 15 a-13 -15 1571 f241 501 +180 f34 131 f44 1~1~5 4~i ~04 i ~9 1~i ~8 6 1253 221 307 +1415 2 7:J 1t 69 3~1t 76 Not to Scale ~t..,g9 153-16 17 -184 LEGEND 231-G1 131 G3 II Project Site 1~i ~63 1~1r;a.1 Study Intersection 966 2 XX"+Intersection Turn Volume KOA CORPORATION ~r'>\(,i!'"lH".J(;,~,l'NGiNEf1n,.)(; Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study Figure 13 Existing (2011)Plus Project PM Peak Hour Turn VolumesC-159 4.Existing Plus Project As shown in Table 6,under the Existing Plus Project conditions,all of the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both study peak hour periods except for the following six intersections: •Western Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway (PM Peak Hour) •Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North (AM and PM Peak Hours) •President Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Figueroa Street and Anaheim Street (PM Peak Hour) •Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Western Avenue and Trudie Drive/Capitol Drive (AM Peak Hour) Determination of significant traffic impacts created by project traffic is discussed in Section 7 of this report. .KQACOFtPOAA110N nANN!H(~$,·l!NWN£EMN% Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 29 C-160 5.Future (2031)Without Project This section provides an analysis of future traffic conditions in the study area with ambient growth and related area projects added but without the proposed project.The year 2031 was selected for analysis based on the anticipated 20-year build out of the project. 5.1 Ambient Growth For the analysis of background traffic for year 2031,a traffic growth factor of 7.1 %for the 20-year period was utilized to provide for increases in traffic from the existing traffic counts.This growth rate is based on the 20 I0 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP)traffic growth projections for the study area.This growth rate was discussed and verified with LADOT staff. To apply this ambient growth rate to the existing (20 I I)traffic volumes,a factor of 1.071 was utilized. This factor simulates a 7.1 %increase over the 20-year period between existing (20 I I)and future (2031) conditions. 5.2 Related Projects An area of influence,generally defined by an approximate two-mile radius from the project site,was utilized in order to capture specific locations of other approved and pending projects.Based on discussions with staff from the cities of Los Angeles,Rancho Palos Verdes,Rolling Hills Estates and Lomita,77 area/related projects were compiled.These area/related projects were considered to potentially contribute measurable traffic volumes to the study intersections during the future analysis periods.Figure 14 shows the locations of the related projects.A description of the related projects and the trip generation of each are summarized in Appendix D. The related projects were separated into zones and trips attributed to these related projects were added to the surrounding street system using similar distribution and assignment methodology applied for project trips,with some adjustments for related projects near the edge of the study area.Appendix D illustrates the related projects trip assignments by turning movement during the AM and PM peak hours. 5.3 Future Without Project Intersection Levels of Service The Future 2031 Without Project traffic volumes are shown in Figures 15 and 16 for the weekday AM and PM peak hour periods,respectively.To analyze the Future Without Project conditions,the intersection turn volumes were processed using the CMA,ICU and HCM methodologies,where appropriate.Table 7 summarizes the level of service operations at the study intersections for this scenario.The traffic analysis worksheets are prOVided in Appendix F for intersections located in the City of Los Angeles and Appendix J for intersections located in the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and Lomita. KOAC(JRPOAAUQN NANNiNG A·t<NW~~fMi;ii'jt; Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 30 C-161 + til c: '(0:a !··I ••1 '"1a;;~&W I...••~~~G. o.., '0 ttla. (])=g ttl § Z (]) ~ Along Deep Valley Dr ~...A N.'.'A .::~AlA.• PalOS V.61~retesDII~r:..-.. LEGEND II Project Site •Related Project and Reference No.(Los Angeles) II Related Project and Reference No.(Rancho Palos Verdes) •Related Project and Reference No.(Lomita) A Related Project and Reference No.(Rolling Hills Estates) Nollo Scale KOA CORPORATION IMarymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study ~HANNiNG &2NGi,··H:Sfi!NG Figure 14 Location of Related Projects C - 1 6 2 152 4~1t 29 "!U ~4 1296-----'5 '-----1057 1951-f173 38~l ~90 282 906 1~1~24 t..2Q.3 4 .-----59 f174 l ~2 1413 495 427 17:J 1t 40 22j 1t 90 1~Ul2 1~~ 1864-----'2 '-----1883 1710-----'3 '-----2099 1311 +142 6Ql.f436 12~l ~1 1~l ~73 593 433 723 13~1~08 1~Lg2 1591-----'.-----1752 4""101 +129 64~l ~20 1116 82 1j 1~4 ~O 10 .-----685 351 f90 18~l ~15 240 .QJ ~2 3-----'13 .-----20 18"+f81 1~l ~80 454 1079 11~1t 36 1~L,!!7 86-----'12 .-----71 15"1 +218 1~l ~32 1683 ~8 2 4:J 1~72 ~~3 17 .-----106 ~+229 2~l ~6 o 1303 13~1t 5 1~UQ. 35-----'14 .-----12 124"1 f57 7~l ~23 1835 1129 7:J 1~19 ~~7 324-----'16 .-----162 231 +299 1~l ~94 1394 Not to Scale LEGEND II Project Site • 1 Study Intersection XX)Intersection Turn Volume + 797 12~1t 66 1.!!.J ~ 1182-----'6 .-----732 3861 +312 67~l ~83 1329 U 1998-----'7 4""1 rs ~l ~6o 39 52~1~07 ~~ 1454-----'9 .-----746 165"1 f265 2~l ~O 19 KOA CORPORATION Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study Figure 15 .~PlAHtlH',iG?,tN(;;!NEH;if"·iG Future 2031 Without Project -AM Peak Hour Turn Volumes C-163 274 11~1t 50 ~~ 1142-----'5 4-----1213 2721 +133 18~1G40 159 1221 1~1~34 U:.!.4 4 4-----32 +114 1~9 1013 556 375 18~1t74 14~1t57 1~L:!!t 1l!.J U? 1674-----'2 4-----1692 1893-----'3 4-----1784 1091 f96 55+G07 16~1G49 5~1~26 542 442 1030 16j 1t 87 1~~9 1497-----'1 4-----1597 503+f154 51~1G17 768 456 ~1t 81 ~8 10 4-----631 291 +100 1~1~79 210 U t2.Q.7 9-----'13 4-----16 141 f47 1~1~3 342 1422 11j 1t 61 1~~8 46-----'12 311 +153 1~1G48 1350 15 2 3~1t 88 ~~8 169-----'17 4-----200 35++102 3~1G16 2 1667 12j 1t 2 1~~ 14 4-----31 54)+193 ~1~18 1523 ~ 178-----'16 291 +397 2~1~89 1133 1246 17~1~o 1£.J 668-----'6 6301 46~1~82 922 LEGEND •Project Site • 1 Study Intersection XX")Intersection Turn Volume Nol 10 Scale+ 70 74~1~09 ~~ 1109-----'9 4-----605 166+G59 1~1~7 6 :!U' 1096-----'7 111 f"6 ~1~3 o KOA CORPORATION Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study Figure 16 ~?',A(-"rW,,(;t U,1(;!Nl'2R;lV;Future 2031 Without Project -PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes C-164 5.Future (203/)Without Project Table 7 -Intersection Performance -Future (2031)Without Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Analysis Study Intersections City Methodology VIC or Delay LOS LOS (sees) I Western Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CMA 1.080 2 Normandie Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CMA 0.800 3 Vermont Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CMA 0.942 4 Western Ave &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.710 5 Palos Verdes Dr E &Palos Verdes Dr N Rolling Hills Estates ICU 0.829 6 Western Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N Lomita ICU 1.242 7 President Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N [a]Los Angeles HCM >100 8 Gaffey StlVermont Ave &Anaheim StiN.Palos Verdes Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.924 9 Figueroa PI &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.953 10 Figueroa St &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.992 II Palos Verdes Dr E &Miraleste Dr [a]Rancho Palos Verdes HCM >100 12 Western Ave &Trudie Dr/Capitol Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 1.069 13 Miraleste Dr &Via Colinita Ave [a]Rancho Palos Verdes HCM 22.1 14 Western Ave &Crestwood St Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.881 15 Miraleste Dr &1st St [a]Rancho Palos Verdes HCM 24.6 16 Western Ave &1st St Los Angeles CMA 1.038 17 Palos Verdes Dr E &Crest Rd Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.543 Note: ICU -Intersection Capacity Utilization Method 01'C),CMA -Critical Movement Analysis Method 01'C),HCM -Highway Capacity Manual Method (Delay) [a]Stop controlled intersection.Average delay &corresponding LOS shown for most constrained movement(s). As shown in Table 7,6 of the 17 study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hour periods under the Future (2031)Without Project conditions.The following II study intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or F during one or both study periods under the Future (2031)Without Project conditions: •Western Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Vermont Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway (AM Peak Hour) •Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North (AM and PM Peak Hours) •President Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Gaffey StreetlVermont Avenue and Anaheim Street/Palos Verdes Drive North (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Figueroa Place and Anaheim Street (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Figueroa Street and Anaheim Street (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Western Avenue and Trudie Drive/Capitol Drive (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Western Avenue and Crestwood Street (PM Peak Hour) •Western Avenue and Ist Street (AM and PM Peak Hours) B,QACa)ilPQAAU.QN NANNlN0*·l1NWNl1EMNC Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 34 C-165 6.Future (203 I)With Project 6.1 Project Related Improvements As discussed previously,the northbound approach at the intersection of President Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North would be improved to provide a shared left-through lane and an exclusive right turn lane as part of the project. 6.2 Future With Project Intersection Levels of Service This section documents future traffic conditions at the study intersections with the addition of net project-generated traffic.Traffic volumes for these conditions were derived by adding the project trip increase tQ the Future Without Project volumes.Figures 17 and 18 illustrate the AM and PM peak-hour turn movement volumes at the study intersections under Future With Project conditions. Table 8 summarizes the resulting level of service values at the study intersections for Future (2031) With Project conditions.The traffic analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix F for intersections located in the City of Los Angeles and in Appendix K for intersections located in the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes,Rolling Hills Estates and Lomita. Table 8 -Intersection Performance -Future (20ll)With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Analysis Study Intersections City Methodology V/Cor Delay LOS LOS (sees) I Western Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CMA 1.080 2 Normandie Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CMA 0.800 3 Vermont Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CMA 0.942 4 Western Ave &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.710 5 Palos Verdes Dr E &Palos Verdes Dr N Rolling Hills Estates ICU 0.849 6 Western Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N Lomita ICU 1.259 7 President Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N [a]Los Angeles HCM >100 8 Gaffey StlVermont Ave &Anaheim StlN.Palos Verdes Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.930 9 Figueroa PI &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.960 10 Figueroa St &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.993 II Palos Verdes Dr E &Miraleste Dr [a]Rancho Palos Verdes HCM >100 12 Western Ave &Trudie Dr/Capitol Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 1.071 13 Miraleste Dr &Via Colinita Ave [a]Rancho Palos Verdes HCM 22.6 14 Western Ave &Crestwood St Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.882 15 Miraleste Dr &1st St [a]Rancho Palos Verdes HCM 25.2 16 Western Ave &1st St Los Angeles CMA 1.038 17 Palos Verdes Dr E &Crest Rd Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.579 Note: ICU -Intersection Capacity Utilization Method (II/C),CMA -Critical Movement Analysis Method (II/C),HCM -Highway Capacity Manual Method (Delay) [a]Stop controlled intersection.Average delay &corresponding LOS shown for most constrained movement(s). Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 35 C-166 152 4~1t 30 ~~4 1299--5 -1057 195++204 38~1G96 282 912 1~1~24 UQ.3 4 -59 f174 1~2 1413 428 22~1t 90 1~~ 1710--3 -2099 60++436 1~1~73 433 496 17j 1t 40 1~Ul2 1864--2 -1883 131l.+142 12~1r;1 593 726 13j 1~08 1~Lg2 1591---1752 4""1"3++129 64~1G20 1116 ~O 10 _688 351 f90 18~1~15 240 82 1j 1~4 1094 11j 1t 36 ~t.Ji7 86--12 -71 1'5l G18 1~1G32 1688 797 12~1t 72 1.!!..J ~ 1191--6 3861 f328 67~1~88 1329 .?.-.J 1998--7 181 f22 5~1~6 o 39 1313 223 423 53:J 1~07 13~1t 5 1~80 ~1t 96 ~~1~~~7 .2...J'~9 1454--9 -750 35--14 -12 15 3--13 -20 165+G65 1241 f57 f39 181 f81 2~1~O 7~1G23 1~1 1~1G80 19 1838 397 464 +1129 2 8j 1~19 4j 1~72 Not to Scale ~uz.7 ~~3 324--16 -162 17 -106 LEGEND 23++299 94++277•Project Site 1~1~94 2~1r;5.1 Study Intersection 1395 0 .xx+Intersection Turn Volume KOA CORPORATION ~HM".;~.!lr·;(;r f~K;!NHV···J:; Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study Figure 17 Future 2031 With Project -AM Peak Hour Turn Volumes C-167 274 11j 1~50 ~U! 1146-----'5 4-----1225 27'21 f157 18~I 062 159 t..i!.4 4 4-----32 +114 I ~9 1038 1229 1~1~34 557 376 18~1t 74 14~1t 57 1~l..!.U 1lU L£. 1674-----'2 4-----1692 1893-----'3 4-----1784 1(i9)f96 55+G07 16~I 049 5~I ~27 545 445 1034 16j 1t 87 1~L!l9 1497-----'1 4-----1597 507+f154 53~I 017 781 ~8 10 4-----635 291 +100 19~I ~79 210 U t2!-3 9-----'13 4-----16 141 f47 1~I ~3 349 1440 11~1~61 1E.J ~8 46-----'12 311 f153 1~I 048 1363 tJZ.5 III 15tSt 15 6lhSl 9lf1Sl 25lhSl 19lf1Sl ~ 169-----' 351 +139 3~I 050 2 1682 12~1t 2 ~~ 40-----'14 4-----31 541 +193 4~I ~18 1532 1628 9j 1~28 ?I.......J lE5 178-----'16 4-----185 291 +397 2~I ~89 1134 1246 17~1~9 1£..j ~ 694-----'6 4-----957 630+(527 46~I ~97 922 LEGEND III Project Site • 1 Study Intersection XX)Intersection Turn Volume +Not to Scale !!.....J 1104-----'7 481 GO 8~I ~9 o 70 76j 1~09 ~~ 1166-----'9 4-----610 17Ql.+259 1~I ~7 6 KOA CORPORATION Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study Figure 18 ~<;."vnm;G t.U·lG!Nf-EW·K,Future 2031 With Project -PM Peak Hour Turn VolumesC-168 6.Future (2031)With Project As shown in Table 8,6 of the 17 study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hour periods under the Future (2031)Witb Project conditions.The following I1 study intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or F during one or both study periods. •Western Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Vermont Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway (AM Peak Hour) •Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North (AM and PM Peak Hours) •President Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Gaffey StreetlVermont Avenue and Anaheim Street/Palos Verdes Drive North (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Figueroa Place and Anaheim Street (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Figueroa Street and Anaheim Street (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Western Avenue and Trudie Drive/Capitol Drive (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Western Avenue and Crestwood Street (PM Peak Hour) •Western Avenue and Ist Street (AM and PM Peak Hours) KOACQItPOMUQN NANN!N01t·*NWH*EWNt, Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 38 C-169 7.Project Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures 7.I Determination of Traffic Impacts Traffic impacts are identified if a proposed development will result in a significant adverse change in traffic conditions at a study intersection.A significant impact is typically identified if project-related traffic will cause service levels to deteriorate beyond a threshold limit specified by the overseeing agency.A traffic impact can also be significant if an intersection is already operating below the poorest acceptable level and project traffic will cause a further decline below a certain threshold. City of Los Angeles Significant Impact Criteria LADOT has established specific thresholds for project traffic-related increases in the volume-to-capacity ratio 01/C)of a study intersection.The following increases in the peak-hour VIC ratio are considered "significant"impacts: 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 Intersection,consIdering Impacts from the proJect,ambIent growth and related projects growth,and without proposed traffic impact 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 The City of Rancho Palos Verdes uses the following significance criteria to determine the project related traffic impact at an unsignalized intersection: Pre-Project Project Related Delay Increase Level of Service Delay (Seconds)(Seconds) E or F 35.1 or more 2.0 or more City of Rolling Hills Estates A traffic impact is identified at a signalized intersection in the City of Rolling Hills Estates when one or Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 39 C-170 7.Project Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures more of the following conditions occur: o A change in LOS with the project from C to D,or D to E o The LOS is at C or D with project traffic,and the change in VIC value is greater than 0.02 o The LOS is at E or F with project traffic,and the change in VIC value is greater than 0.0 I City of Lomita For the signalized intersection in the City of Lomita,a traffic impact is identified when the addition of project traffic increases the level of service to an unacceptable level (i.e.LOS E or F).In addition,the City of Lomita's Traffic Study Guidelines also state that a project that causes the degradation of traffic operations shall mitigate the impacts caused by the development to the greatest extent possible. 7.2 Project Traffic Impacts -Existing Plus Project Table 9 provides a summary of the VIC (or average delay)and LOS values for the Existing and Existing Plus Project scenarios.Traffic impacts created by the proposed project are determined by comparing the Existing conditions to the Existing Plus Project conditions.The overall traffic impacts created by the proposed project and determination of a significant impact based on each city's criteria are provided in the right three columns of the table. It should be noted that the City of Los Angeles does not have a significant traffic impact criteria for an intersection that is stop-controlled.For the intersection of President Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North,the VIC value was also calculated based on the CMA methodology and assuming a capacity of 1,200 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl)in order to determine the project impact in terms of VIC. As indicated in Table 9,the proposed project is anticipated to have a significant traffic impact at the following six study intersections: •Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive North (AM Peak Hour) •Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North (AM and PM Peak Hours) •President Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Figueroa Place and Anaheim Street (PM Peak Hour) •Figueroa Street and Anaheim Street (PM Peak Hour) •Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive (AM and PM Peak Hours) 7.3 Project Traffic Impacts -Future (2031)With Project Table 10 provides a summary of the VIC (or average delay)and LOS values for Future With Project conditions.Traffic impacts created by the project are determined by comparing the Future Without Project conditions to the Future With Project conditions.The overall traffic impacts created by the proposed project and determination of a significant impact based on each city's criteria are provided in the right three columns of the table. As noted previously,the VIC value was also calculated for the intersection of President Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North in order to determine the project impact in terms of VIC. KOACQkPORAUON nANNING *·l'NWN'l'~W;M% Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 40 C-171 7.Project Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 9 -Determination of Project Impacts -Existing Plus Project Existing (20 II)EXisting Plus Project Change in VIC or Analysis AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sees)Significant Study Intersections City Methodology VIC or View ~VICw VICW~AM PM Impact? Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Peak Peak (sees)(sees)(sees)(sees)Hour Hour I Western Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CMA 0.881 D 0.908 0.881 D 0.916 0.000 0.008 No 2 Normandie Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CMA 0.651 B 0.647 B 0.651 B 0.647 B 0.000 0.000 No 3 Vermont Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles CMA 0.808 D 0.720 C 0.808 D 0.721 C 0.000 0.001 No 4 Western Ave &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.539 A 0.454 A 0.539 A 0.463 A 0.000 ::.5 Palos Verdes Dr E &Palos Verdes Dr N Rolling Hills Estates ICU 0.732 C 0.700 B 0.752 C 0.715 C 0.020 6 Western Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N Lomita ICU 0.924 0.969 0.942 0.982 ~0.018 0.013 . 7 President Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N [aJ Los Angeles HCM 31.7 D 24.2 C >100 72.5 -48.3 - CMA 0.439 0.353 0.484 0.412 0.045 0.059 8 Gaffey StlVermont Ave &Anaheim StiN.Palos Verdes Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.738 C 0.776 C 0.744 C 0.785 I C I 0.006 0_.9 Figueroa PI &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.n4 C 0.816 D 0.781 C 0.846 *:0.007 0.030 - 10 Figueroa St &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.815 D ,=Miiii '.IHO 0.001 0.011 - II Palos Verdes Dr E&Miraleste Dr [aJ Rancho Palos Verdes HCM 74.0 99.1 >100 >100'-- - 12 Western Ave &Trudie Dr/Capitol Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.929 0.828 D 0.931 0.834 D 0.002 0.006 No 13 Miraleste Dr &Via Colinita Ave [aJ Rancho Palos Verdes HCM 14.2 B 18.8 C 18.5 C 19.9 C 4.3 1.1 No 14 Western Ave &Crestwood St Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.783 C 0.796 C 0.784 C 0.803 D 0.001 0.007 No 15 Miraleste Dr &1st St [aJ Rancho Palos Verdes HCM 16.2 C 13.3 B 16.4 C 13.4 B 0.2 0.1 No 16 Western Ave &1st St Los Angeles CMA 0.877 D 0.848 D 0.877 D 0.853 D 0.000 0.004 No 17 Palos Verdes Dr E&Crest Rd Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.424 A 0.348 A 0.443 A 0.365 A 0.019 0.017 No Note: ICU -Intersection Capacity Utilization Method fY/q.CMA -Critical Movement Analysis Method fYlq.HCM -Highway Capacity Manual Method (Delay) [aJ Stop controlled intersection.Average delay &corresponding LOS shown for most constrained movement(s). ..K.OACQRP()~ATION l'tANNJNG$liNCINfEMNG ::~~ Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 41 C - 1 7 2 7.Project Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 10 -Determination of Project Impacts -Future (20ll)With Project Note: ICU -Intersection Capacity Utilization Method (Vlq,CMA -Critical Movement Analysis Method (ylq,HCM -Highway Capacity Manual Method (Delay) [aJ Stop controlled intersection.Average delay &corresponding LOS shown for most constrained movement(s). Study Intersections I IWestem Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy 2 INormandie Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy 3 IVermont Ave &Pacific Coast Hwy 4 IWestern Ave &Anaheim St 5 IPalos Verdes Dr E &Palos Verdes Dr N 6 IWestern Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N 7 IPresident Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N raj 8 IGaffey StlVermont Ave &Anaheim StiN.Palos Verdes Dr 9 IFigueroa PI &Anaheim St I0 IFigueroa St &Anaheim St II IPalos Verdes Dr E &Miraleste Dr raj 12 IWestern Ave &Trudie Dr/Capitol Dr 13 IMiraleste Dr &Via Colinita Ave raj 14 IWestern Ave &Crestwood St 15 IMiraleste Dr &1st St raj 16 IWestern Ave &1st St 17 IPalos Verdes Dr E &Crest Rd City Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Rolling Hills Estates Lomita Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles Rancho Palos Verdes Analysis Methodology CMA CMA CMA CMA ICU ICU HCM CMA CMA CMA CMA HCM ICU HCM ICU HCM CMA ICU Future Without Project AM Peak Hour VIC or Delay I LOS (secs) 1.080 0.800 0.942 0.710 0.829 1.242 >100 0.591 0.924 0.953 0.992 >100 1.069 22.1 0.881 24.6 1.038 0.543 Future With Project I Change in VIC or Delay (sees)Significant AM PM Impact? LOS I Delay I LOS I Peak Peak Hour Hour 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.009 0.020 0.016 0.017 0.014 -- 0.044 0.057 0.006 0.009 0.007 0.030 0.001 0.011 -- 0.002 0.005 0.5 0.5 0.001 0.008 0.6 0.3 0.000 0.004 0.036 0.045 KOACQRIlOI\AIION NANNINGZ tiNtUNfEMNG Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 42 C - 1 7 3 7.Project Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures As indicated in Table 10,the proposed project is anticipated to have a significant traffic impact at the following six study intersections: •Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive North (AM Peak Hour) •Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North (AM and PM Peak Hours) •President Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North (AM and PM Peak Hours) •Figueroa Place and Anaheim Street (PM Peak Hour) •Figueroa Street and Anaheim Street (PM Peak Hour) •Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive (AM and PM Peak Hours) 7.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures As discussed in the previous section,the project would result in a significant traffic impact at six study intersections.The following summarizes the recommended mitigation measures to offset the potential project traffic impacts at the six study intersections. 5.Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive North -Restripe and modify the existing island on westbound Palos Verdes Drive North and install dual left-turn lanes.This improvement would require approval from the City of Rolling Hills Estates.The project will contribute its fair share of the cost of the improvement. 6.Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North -Modify the existing median,traffic signal equipment and striping to provide dual left-turn lanes on westbound Palos Verdes Drive North. This intersection is located in the City of Lomita.In addition,Western Avenue is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans.Thus,this improvement would require approval from the City of Lomita and Caltrans.The project will contribute its fair share of the cost of the improvement. 7.President Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North -Install a traffic signal at this intersection.A peak hour signal warrant analysis was conducted for the Existing Plus Project and Future With Project conditions.The signal warrant analysis'was based on the 20 I0 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).The warrant worksheets are attached in Appendix E. Based on the peak hour warrant,a traffic signal is warranted at this intersection.It should be noted that the signal warrant analysis assumes full buildout of the project.As discussed previously, the San Pedro Campus would be developed as a multi-phased project.It is recommended that traffic volumes at this location be reevaluated prior to completion of each project phase,and that a traffic signal be required when the traffic volumes including the project phase component warrant a traffic signal. 9.Figueroa Place and Anaheim Street -Modify the existing traffic signal and install a southbound right-turn signal phase that would overlap with the eastbound signal phase at the adjacent intersection of Anaheim Street/Figueroa Street.The intersection would also operate with northbound and southbound split phases.In order to accommodate the northbound/southbound split phase operation,the crosswalk on the east leg of the intersection would be removed.Based on the existing traffic count data,this crosswalk has nominal pedestrian traffic (i.e.three pedestrian during the AM peak hour and two pedestrians during the PM peak hour).A Synchro analysis was conducted that shows the signal coordination improvement at the two intersections. The Synchro analysis worksheets are found in Appendix M.The analysis showed an improvement KOACORPORATION ~tANMiHG t.l!NWNH!lJNG Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 43 C-174 7.Project Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures in overall traffic operations.This improvement is considered to be acceptable as mitigation for this intersection. IO.Fi~ueroa Street and Anaheim Street -Restripe Figueroa Street to provide an exclusive right- turn only lane in the southbound direction and an exclusive left-turn lane in the northbound direction. II.Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive -Install a traffic signal at this intersection.The traffic signal operation would include a protected left-turn phase in the southbound direction and a westbound right-turn overlap phase concurrent with the southbound left-turn phase.A peak hour signal warrant analysis was conducted based on the 20 I0 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)for all of the study scenarios.Based on the peak hour traffic signal warrant analysis,installation of a traffic signal is warranted at this intersection.It should be noted that the signal warrant is satisfied under all of the study scenarios.Thus,a traffic signal is warr.anted with or without the addition of project traffic.The warrant worksheets are attached in Appendix E.This improvement is a condition of approval for the Marymount College RPV Campus CUP.Approval of this improvement as a mitigation measure for the proposed project would require approval from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Figure 19 depicts the lane configurations and traffic control at the study intersections with the recommended mitigation measures. As discussed previously,the San Pedro Campus will be a multi-phased project with future development conditioned upon updated traffic studies to coincide with major phases of the·project's build out.For the purpose of analyzing traffic impacts for this project,a 20-year build out horizon (Year 2031)is assumed.It should be noted that the implementation of project phases will be subject to funding availability and the demand for campus expansion.Thus,the analysis of project phase components was not conducted within this traffic study. Tables II and 12 show the VIC,Delay and LOS results for the study intersections with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures under the Existing Plus Project and Future With Project conditions,respectively.As shown in these tables,the project traffic impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures.The traffic analysis worksheets for the 'Existing Plus Project Plus Mitigation'and 'Future With Project Plus Mitigation'scenarios are provided in Appendix F for intersections located in the City of Los Angeles.The traffic analysis worksheets for the 'Existing Plus Project Plus Mitigation'and 'Future With Project Plus Mitigation' scenarios are provided in Appendices I and L,respectively,for intersections located in the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes,Rolling Hills Estates and Lomita. Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 44 C-175 7.Project Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table II -Mitigation LOS Summary -Existing Plus PrOject Note: ICU -Intersection Capacity Utilization Method f'{/C),CMA -Critical Movement Analysis Method r"q,HCM -Highway Capacity Manual Method (Delay) [a]Stop controlled intersection.Average delay &corresponding lOS shown for most constrained movement(s). [b]Mitigation includes modifying the existing traffic signal and installing a southbound right-tum signal phase that would overlap with the eastbound left-tum phase at the adjacent intersection at Anaheim Street/Figueroa Street.The traffic impact is considered less than significant with the proposed mitigation. existing (20 II)Existing Plus Project Change in VIC or Existing Plus Project +Mitigation Change In VIC or AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sees)AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (secs)Residual Analysis SigniflC8l1tStudyInteneetionsCityVICarVICarVICarVICorIAMPMImpactl VICar VICar AM PM Significant Methodology Delay Delay Delay Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Peak Peak Impact?LOS LOS LOS Peak Peak (sees)(sees)(sees)(sees)Hour Hour (sees)(sees)Hour Hour 5 Palos Verdes Dr E &Palos Verdes Dr N Rolling Hills Estates ICU 0.732 C 0.700 B 0.752~0'020 0.015 0.700 B 0.701 C -0.032 0.001 No 6 Western Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N Lomita ICU 0.924 -0.969 -0.942 0.982 O.OIB 0.013 0.867 0 0.889 0 -0.057 -0.080 No 7 President Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N [aJ Los Angeles HCM 31.7 0 24.2 C >100 72.5 -48.3 CMA 0.439 0.353 0.484 0.4 12 0.045 0.059 0.3B7 A 0329 A No 9 Figueroa PI &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA 0.n4 C 0.816 0 0.781 C 0.846:11:0.007 0.030 [b]No 10 Figueroa St &Anaheim St Los Angeles CMA o.sl5 0 1.029 0.816 0 1.040 0.001 0.011 o.m C 0.995 __-0.036 -0.034 No II Palos Verdes Dr E &Miraleste Dr [a]Rancho Palos Verdes HCM 74.0 __99.1 >100 __>100 -0.849 0 0.816 0 I No Table 12 -Mitigation LOS Summary -Future (2031)With Project No No No No -0.037 Change in VIC or ---~~_-Delay (secs)Residual .-..'.PM Significant LOS I Peak Peak Impact? Hour Hour C -0.044 0.004 No -0.085 -0.151 No AM PM LOS I Peak Peak I .-_.-.....-.-..~....,.....~I .........-.....-...-,.._~I Change in VIC or 6~~_•••1 __._...6 ••_'"i _..~-...Delay (secs) HCM HCM CMA CMA CMA ICU leu Analysis Methodology Lomita Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles City Rolling Hills Estate Rancho Palos Verdes President Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N [a] Study Intersections Palos Verdes Dr E&Palos Verdes Dr N Western Ave &Palos Verdes Dr N 9 IFigueroa PI &Anaheim St II IPalos Verdes Dr E &Miraleste Dr [a] 10 IAgueroa St &Anaheim St Note: ICU -Intersection Capactty Utilization Method C'llq,CMA •Critical Movement Analysis Method C'liq.HeM -Highway Capactty Manual Method (Delay) [a]Stop controlled intersection.Average delay &corresponding lOS shown for most constrained movement(s). [b]Mitigation includes modifying the existing traffic signal and installing a southbound right-tum signal phase that would overlap with the eastbound left-tum phase at the adjacent intersection at Anaheim Street/Figueroa Street.The traffic impact is considered less than significant with the proposed mitigation. ··KOACORPQRATJDN !!tANNiNOK fN01NHMNQ Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 45 C - 1 7 6 Install Traffic Signal 10 Synchronize Signal Operation With Intersection #10 I_I.1 G "'T'"" @ LEGEND Project Location Study Intersection Signalized Intersection Intersection Lane Geometry Install New Traffic Signal +Not to Scale ==¢>Proposed Mitigation KOA CORPORATION Marymount College San Pedro Campus -Traffic Study Figure 19 ~hM,)Hi'i(;it r::~lGINWn'Ki Intersection Geometry -With Mitigation C-177 8.Congestion Management Plan Conformance This section demonstrates the ways in which this traffic study was prepared to be in conformance with the procedures mandated by the County of Los Angeles Congestion Management Program. The Congestion Management Program (CMP)was created statewide because of Proposition III and has been implemented locally by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro).The CMP for Los Angeles County requires that the traffic impact of individual development projects of potentially regional significance be analyzed.A specific system of arterial roadways plus all freeways comprises the CMP system.Per CMP Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)Guidelines,a traffic impact analysis is conducted where: •At CMP arterial monitoring intersections,including freeway on-ramps or off-ramps,where the proposed project will add 50 or more vehicle trips during either AM or PM weekday peak- hours. •At CMP mainline freeway-monitoring locations,where the project will add 150 or more trips,in either direction,during either the AM or PM weekday peak-hours. The nearest CMP arterial monitoring intersections to the project site are the intersections of Gaffey Street/9th Street,Pacific Coast Highway/Figueroa Street and Western AvenuelToscanini Drive.Based on the incremental project trip generation estimates and traffic assignment presented in Section 3 of this report,the proposed project is not expected to add 50 or more new trips per hour to these locations. Therefore,no further analysis of this CMP monitoring intersection is required. The nearest CMP mainline freeway monitoring location to the project site is the segment of the 1-110 Freeway south of C Street.Based on the trip distribution and traffic assignment presented in Section 3, the proposed project is expected to add less than 150 new trips per hour to this freeway monitoring location.Therefore,no further analysis of CMP freeway monitoring stations is required. .K.QACQltPORAUQN NANNll'{(.t.lZNWN:lZ€!W"i@ Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25.20 II -Page 47 C-178 9.Summary and Conclusions The following is a summary of the findings and results of the traffic impact analysis within this report. •For existing (20 I I)conditions,all of the study intersections are operating at LOS D or better during both study peak hour periods with the exception of five study intersections. •The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,214 net daily trips of which 83 net trips would occur during the AM peak-hour and 231 net trips would occur during the PM peak-hour. •For the Existing Plus Project conditions,all of the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both study peak hour periods with the exception of six study intersections. •For the future (2031)conditions without development of the project,6 of the 17 study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both of the weekday AM and PM peak hours.The remaining II study intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or F during the AM and PM peak hours. •For the future (2031)conditions with project traffic included,the same 6 study intersections would operate at LOS D or better during both peak-hour periods,and the remaining II study intersections would operate at LOS E or F during one or both peak-hour periods. •The proposed project would result in a significant traffic impact at the following six study intersections: o Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive North o Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North o President Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North o Figueroa Place and Anaheim Street o Figueroa Street and Anaheim Street o Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive •In order to reduce the significant project traffic impacts to a less-than-significant level,a list of mitigation measures are recommended.The measures are summarized in Section 7.4 of this traffic report.The traffic impacts at the study intersections would be less than significant with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. • A peak hour traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersections of President Avenue/Palos Verdes Drive North and Palos Verdes Drive EastiMiraleste Drive.The signal warrant analysis shows that a traffic signal is warranted with the addition of project traffic at the President Avenue/Palos Verdes Drive North intersection.It should be noted that the signal warrant analysis assumes full buildout of the project.As discussed previously,the San Pedro Campus would be developed as a multi-phased project.It is recommended that traffic volumes at this location be reevaluated prior to completion of each project phase,and that a traffic signal be required when the traffic volumes including the project phase component warrant a traffic signal.In addition,the signal warrant analysis shows that a traffic signal is warranted for all scenarios at the Palos Verdes Drive EastiMiraleste Drive intersection. ··RQACORPQR.AU.ON NfI,NNIN0 *,·fNKHNHIUNtli Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 48 C-179 9.Summary and Conclusions •As a project improvement,the northbound approach of the intersection of President Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive North would be improved to provide a shared left-through lane and an exclusive right turn only lane.In addition,the project would have a new driveway located approximately 750 feet west of President Avenue.The secondary access would be restricted to right-turn in and right-turn out movements only. •The proposed project would not have a significant traffic impact at any CMP monitoring intersections and freeway monitoring stations. .KOACOItPORAU()N #ANNINO t.~NWN:HitiNu Prepared for Marymount College Traffic Impact Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus October 25,20 II -Page 49 C-180