20101130 Late CorrespondenceNovember 30'', 2010
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
WHEREAS: Findings of a quantitative risk analysis received in October, 2010 reveals
that residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and other County of LA residents are left
extremely vulnerable to vapor cloud explosion and other associated risks from a
catastrophic incident at the Rancho Liquid Propane and Butane facility located at 2110
No. Gaffey St. in San Pedro, CA.
WHEREAS: The City of Los Angeles has never conducted a Worst Case Scenario
Analysis of this facility and has allowed this "Ultra Hazardous" activity to be conducted
in the midst of a densely populated area affecting Rancho Palos Verdes
WHEREAS: An "ultra hazardous activity" is a question of law. SKF Farms v. Sup. Ct.
(1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902. California has adopted the Rest. 2d Torts approach for
determining whether activities are abnormally dangerous: The Rancho LPG facility fits
the following Ultra Hazardous criteria:
1. Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land, or chattel
of others;
2. Likelihood that the harm that results will be great;
3. Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage;
4. Inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care;
5. Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried out;
Extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes
THEREFORE: let it be resolved that the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes request
that the County of Los Angeles intervene in this matter in the interest of public safety and
demand immediate action to remove this unacceptable hazard.
'rCMIG Gam Wlcytf
:IVSD FROM �LL �"'u ='11
MADE A PART OF THE TH
NCIL MEETING OF
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE> CITY CLERK
San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, Inc.
®Post Office Box 6455, San Pedro, CA 90734
sphomeunited@earthlink.net - Fax: (310) 548-4255
November 30, 2010
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
LA City Hall
Suite 303
200 North Spring Street,
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3239
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa:
Our neighborhoods have been living in the shadow of the ultra -hazardous liquid petroleum. gas
(LPG) facility at 2110 North Gaffey Street, San Pedro, CA, since it was built in 1973. Against
the strong objections of our citizenry, the permit to build was granted without a risk assessment or
comprehensive safety review and without full disclosure of the hazards of LPG in the
environmental impact report. Regulations were enacted at that time to prevent such facilities from
being located close to populated areas. Unfortunately, this facility was given `grandfather
status'and a permit to operate was granted to Petrolane, Inc., of Long Beach, California. The
current operator is Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary company of Plains Midstream
Canada.
Rancho is the third owner in 37 years allowed to conduct a LPG operation at this location.
Obviously, there has been ample time for governmental agencies to remove this "ultra hazardous"
activity from our neighborhood and protect its citizens. None have made a concerted effort to do
so. Time is not our ally. Every passing day increases the risk of a catastrophic disaster due to
aging infrastructure, increased terrorism, and greater likelihood of seismic activity.
The recent hazardous risk analysis study, conducted by Cornerstone Technologies has only
heightened our concerns and suggests that the inaction of governmental agencies has made us
unnecessarily and increasingly vulnerable. The Rancho facility is on the Palos Verdes Fault zone
sitting both on liquefaction soil and a slide zone. An earthquake worst-case scenario,
simultaneously rupturing both butane tanks, could result in a 6.8 mile diameter burn impact zone.
The Palos Verdes Fault is active and capable of a magnitude 7.3 earthquake. As recently as
October 29, 2010, this fault experienced a 2.1 magnitude quake.
Surely, terrorists are aware of this facility's potential to create a catastrophic event since it is
readily vulnerable to a plane crash or rocket launch attack. San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners
United, Inc., (SPPHU) strongly believes it is the City's responsibility to remove this ultra
hazardous activity from our neighborhoods and that it should immediately and aggressively act to
do so. To that end, SPPHU respectfully requests that the City of LA commission the LAPD
Bomb Squad to conduct a terrorist attack risk analysis of the Rancho facility and to make the
findings of the study public. The lives of thousands of LA City residents depend upon the City of
LA leadership to act responsibly in this matter.
Respectfully,
Chuck Hart
President
RECEIVED FROM
AND MADE A PART OF TH!E R CORD AT
THE
COUNCIL
COUNCIL MEETING OF
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
LAks,.,
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
5 Pension Workshop Presentations
6 Emails from: Jean Wang; Walter Chung
Respectfully submitted,
-(IA&
Carla Morreale
W:WGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20101129 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
0
OM
M
Kung-pei Hwang, ASA, MAAA
Senior Pension Actuary, CalPERS
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
topics to Be Covered
o Overview of CalPERS
o CalPERS Investment Returns
o History of City's Retirement Plan
o History of Employer Rates
o June 30, 2009 Annual Valuation Report
0 1932 —Began operation as the State Employees'
Retirement System
0 1941 —First contracting with public agencies and
School districts
0 2009 — 1568 contracting agencies with 1.6+ million
members as of June 30
o The largest public pension fund in the nation with
assets of $217 billion as of November 26, 2010
o Average Monthly Retirement Benefits as of 6/30/09
Public agency: $2,188
2.5% @ 55 Pool: $17150
City of Rancho Palos Verdes: $1,071
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
i
>' .► ,� :01
0.1 %19.5
1 .7°l0
14. 1 '3%15.3
13 0°r
8.50% 8.50% 8:50'%O % 8.75°/6 8.75% '8-751°8.50% 8.50% 8.50% 8.25% 8.25% 8.25± 825% 8.25% 7.7 /6 7.75% 7.75% 7.75% 7.75% 7.75% i/.
14 6.5%
3.9% v /7%
-5.1 %
0
-24.0%
Fiscal Year
--"—Actuarial Interest Rate — — Annual Rates of Return -15-Year Rolling Geometric Average
'Ian
LJ-11story of Ulty s Retire ent v
o 12-01-74 - City contracted with CalPERS
2% @ 60, 3 -year Final Compensation (FC)
o 04-01-78 - Added 1959 Survivor Benefit, Level 1
o 09-02-00 - Amended for 1959 Survivor Benefit, Level 4
o 04-21-01 - Amended for 2% @ 55 and 1 -year FC
o 07-01-05 - Joined the 2% @ 55 risk pool
o 09-29-07 - Amended for 2.5% @ 55
o 05-17-10 - Paid off Side Fund
H113otuAvr4wy Ot" IEMPNIOyer Kates
6%
4%
2%
0%
Fiscal Year
o Different Level of Benefits (second
Tier) `
1. for new hires only
Second Tier Option
Current Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
2.5% @ 55 2.5% @ 55 2% @ 55 2% @ 55
1 yr FC 3 -yr FC 1 yr FC 3 -yr FC
2010111 10.263% 9.680% 8.984% 8.475%
2011112 13.353% 12.749% 10.059% 9.539%
2% @ 60
1 yr FC
7.209%
8.197%
2%@60
3 -yr FC
6.755%
7.733%
o Employee Cost Sharing
Employees may share the cost of optional
benefits (e.g. 2.5% @ 55)
Two approaches:
o Written Agreement (MOU)
Increase contributions credited to employer account
and after tax
o By contract amendment
Increase contributions credited to employee account
and can be pre-tax
hedudnig EmplloyerCOSt — 3
f On'
ptions 0 K
o Prepay Annual Contribution
Fiscal Year 2011/2012 Miscellaneous
Required Employer Contribution $ 683,521
Lump Sum Prepayment Option * 658,481
The required employer contribution has been reduced by a half year interest
credit at the 7.75% actuarial assumed interest rate, resulting in an approximate
3.66% discount.
Payment must be received by CaIPERS between July 1 and July 15, 2011
June 30, 2009 Annual Valuation Report -
o Funded Status and Funding Progress
Pool's Pool's
Funded Ratio Funded Ratio Pool's Plan's
(Actuarial Value (Market Value Unfunded Side
Valuation Pool of Assets) of Assets) Liability Fund
6/30/2003
2% @
55
Pool
91.4%
95.7%
$ 224,087,511
$ (1,550,604)
6/30/2004
2%
@
55
Pool
89.6%
88.2%
285,151,012
(1,833,858)
6/30/2005
2%
@
55
Pool
89.5%
92.1%
302,747,651
(1,948,887)
6/30/2006
2.5%
@
55
Pool
86.3%
91.1%
125,229,676
(2,427,908)
6/30/2007
2.5%
@
55
Pool
87.4%
100.6%
166,207,063
(2,521,769)
6/30/2008
2.5%
@
55
Pool
87.0%
88.0%
200,202,098
(2,505,494)
6/30/2009
2.5%
@
55
Pool
81.4%
59.4%
340,993,809
(1,767,892)
6/30/2010
2.5%
@
55
Pool
0
June 30, 2009 Annual Valuation Report - 2
o Funded Status and Funding Progress
Accrued Actuarial Value Unfunded Funded
Valuation Liability of Assets Liability Ratio
6/30/95
$3,134,140
6/30/96
3,4261301
.� 6/30/97
3,618,649
6/30/98
3,983,347
6/30/99
41468,478
6/30/00
5,690,826
6/30/01
61,515,182
6/30/02
7,477,012
6/30/03
81964,495
$3,2101,698
$ (76,558)
102.4%
3,7641,306
(338,005)
109.9%
414571968
(839,319)
123.2%
51497,926
(1,514,579)
138.0%
61503,040
(2,034,562)
145.5%
71227,658
(11536,832)
127.0%
71445,220
(930,038)
114.3%
7,1781,677
298,335
96.0%
7,413,891
1,550,604
82.7%
0
0
June 30, 2009 Annual Valuation Report - 3
o The current assumption on the rate of
investment returns is 7.75% compounded
annually
o The CalPERS Board is currently working
on a new asset allocation policy and
.� might change the assumption on the rate
of future investment returns
June ou, 2009 Annual Valuation Report - 4
o Future rates might increase gradually and
slightly due to temporary asset smoothing
method, if CalPERS actuarial assumptions
are met in the future
0 5 -year Rate Projection*
2012/13
13.8%
2013/14
15.5%
2014/15
15.8%
2015/16
16.1%
2016/17
16.4%
* Assuming investment return of 13% for 2009/10 and 7.75% thereafter
This projection further assumes no future benefit increases, no future changes in
actuarial assumptions and full realization of actuarial assumptions.
I
November 30, 2010
John E. Bartel
"IR, F Fl
W=
0 Defined Benefit vs Defined Contribution Plans
0 Pension Terminology
M Current Pension Trends
0 Thinking About Goals
0 Principles
0 Goals
November 30, 2010 2
I O -P
11 1111111 IF I
M
November 30, 2010
3
Defined Benefit Plan
Guaranteed annual pension based on retirement age, years
of service and salary
California Public Sector
Ca1PERS
1937 Act Systems
Private Sector — Generally only very large employers
Defined Contribution Plan
Employer contribution is a fixed dollar amount; benefit
based on contributions and investment earnings offset by
expenses
Public Sector — 457 Plan
Private Sector — 401(k) Plan
November 30, 2010
4
2 OP 12.
R'
Defined enefit/Defined
Contribution
Dex[eci Cont>iibtltton
run
'
Dei�t�ed Be�nc�fit
Contribution
What is "Defined"?
Benefit
What is the
Amount paid to
Whatever is necessary to fund
employee
"Contribution" as
promised benefits
each year
employees render
service?
What is the "Benefit"
Balance of accumulated
Amount paid to
contributions (including
provided?
former employee
investment earnings)
each year
Who Accepts
Risk & Reward
Employee
Inflation
Employer
Employee
Mortality
Employer
Employee
Investment Return
Employer
Employee
Retirement
Employer
November 30, 2010
5
l
termq UnY
November 30, 20] 0
6
Pq
3 op (2.
Vested Rieht: As determined by CA Supreme Court
Generally believed members have three contractual rights:
Right to payment of promised benefits:
Employee must be eligible to continue earning benefit formula in
place when hired.
Cannot be reduced or eliminated unless traded for something of equal
or greater value.
Individual right, can not be negotiated away.
Obligation of the employer to fund the benefits
Obligation of the employer to provide an actuarially sound
retirement fund
Check with City Attorney
November 30, 2010 7
CaIPERS Retirement formulas
Options vary based on
Type of employer [State, School, Local Public Agency]
Occupation [Miscellaneous, Safety]
Contract between Agency and Ca1PERS
Benefit is Product of 3 things :
Benefit factor at retirement age
City service
Average Earnings: highest year or average of the highest 3
years
November 30, 2010 K
3.0%
2.5%
i.
2.0%
0
V
Miscellaneous (CalPE )
Benefit Factor Comparison
1.5%@65 2%@60 ❑ 2%@55-*--2.5%@55-*-2.7%@55-+-3%@60
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
Retirement Age
Note: Miscellaneous has no benefit cap
November 30, 2010 91 nm
I
20/Wai!60
Z. +°/%ir% a5
2.7%ra�5
3%(&60
50
0.500%
1.092%
1.426%
2.000%
2.000%
2.000%
51
0.567%
1.156%
1.522%
2.100%
2.140%
2.100%
52
0.633%
1.224%
1.628%
2.200%
2.280%
2.200%
53
0.700%
1.296%
1.742%
2.300%
2.420%
2.300%
54
0.767%
1.376%
1.866%
2.400%
2.560%
2.400%
55
0.833%
1.460%
2.000%
2.500%
2.700%
2.500%
56
0.900%
1.552%
2.052%
2.500%
2.700%
2.600%
57
0.967%
1.650%
2.104%
2.500%
2.700%
2.700%
58
1.033%
1.758%
2.156%
2.500%
2.700%
2.800%
59
1.100%
1.874%
2.210%
2.500%
2.700%
2.900%
60
1.167%
2.000%
2.262%
2.500%
2.700%
3.000%
61
1.233%
2.134%
2.314%
2.500%
2.700%
3.000%
62
1.300%
2.272%
2.366%
2.500%
2.700%
3.000%
63
1.367%
2.418%
2.418%
2.500%
2.700%
3.000%
64
1.433%
2.418%
2.418%
2.500%
2.700%
3.000%
65
1.500%
2.418%
2.418%
2.500%
2.700%
3.000%
Member Contribution Rate
2%
7%
7%
8%
8%
8%
November 30, 2010
10
Contribution Rate
Sum of the "Normal Cost" and "Amortization"
Normal Cost
"Value" of benefits earned by active employees during current
fiscal year
• Employee & Employer component
• Normally stable from year-to-year
Amortization
• Current year pa ment of short fall (or excess of ) assets
compared to liability
• Can fluctuate from year to year
LANbvem ber 30, 2010
! a •
,Rate*,i R
Normal Cost + Amortization
* Some or all of the employee rate may be paid by the employer
November 30, 2010 12
Current PeiTrends
November 30, 2010 13
Current Pension Trends
Ca1PERS: .
Miscellaneous Second Tier
2@55 & 2@60
Final 3 Year Average Compensation
Have employees pay:
All or larger portion of member rate
Portion of employer rate increase due to enhanced
formula
November 30, 2010 1 e1
7 s
. Current Pension 'Trends
Non-Ca1PERS Public Sector:
Some, more creative, formulas, e.g. Orange County
Have employees pay:
All or larger portion of member rate
«Portion of employer rate increase due to enhanced
formula
Non-Ca1PERS Public Sector:
• Some, more creative, formulas, e.g. Orange County
• Have employees pay:
All or larger portion of member rate
Portion of employer rate increase due to enhanced
formula
November 30.2010 15 Qq
Current Pension Trends
Private Sector:
Generally
Larger/union based employers retained Defined
Benefit Plans
Smaller/non-union based employers moved to
Defined Contribution Plans
Movement from Defined Benefit to Defined
Contribution Plans
Easier to explain
Regulatory environment
Accounting rules
Predictable costs
November 30, 2010 16
g off'
Current Pension Trends
What changes is Ca1PERS looking at?
Continued recognition of 6/30/09 asset losses
Investment return
Currently 73/4%
-,Like decrease to 71/z% or 7'/4%
O Rates will increase ::::�2 percentage points for each 1/4%
investment return decrease
LA1q November 30, 2010 17
0 AMLea,ue ofCalliornia Ciffies
November 30, 2010 18
League of California Cities Recommended
General Pension Reform Principles
"Any serious discussion of public pension reform
must begin with a set of principles/goals...."
• Primary Goal — Provide full -career employees
with benefits that maintain standard of living into
retirement
• Set benefit level:
Fair & adequate and
Fiscally sustainable for employers and taxpayers
• Base all pension benefits on proper actuarial work
November 30, 2010 19 Q4
League of California Cities Recommended
General Pension Reform Principles (cont)
View pensions in context of overall compensation.
Changes in retirement benefits must be evaluated in
concert with other compensation.
Maintain reciprocity
• Address perceived abuses: Plans resulting in benefits
that are higher than necessary
• Managing pensions is shared responsibility
between:
• System
• Employees
• Employers
November 30, 2010 20
c 0 o 17L
League of California Cities Deform
Recommendations
• Maintain defined benefit plan as central benefit
• Rollback/repeal excessive benefit plans
• Benefit formulas
Miscellaneous
2% @55 offset by 50% of Social Security
100% cap
Average of highest 3 years
November 30, 2010 21
League of California. Cities Reform
Recommendations (cont.)
• Alternatives to defined benefit for non-career job
classifications
• Give employers flexibility to determine when part-time
employees are entitled to pension benefits
• Rate volatility
Keep within reasonable distance of normal cost
Establish reserve funding
• Shared risk
If employer rate exceeds normal cost, employees should
be expected to share some financial responsibility
November 30, 2010 22 nN,
11 OP 12
League of t Reform
Recommendations r
Disability retirement
Full disability benefits should be retained for those who
are injured and can not work in any capacity
Restrict disability benefits for those able to work (in
same or similar job) after work-related injury
Retain
Reciprocity and
Vested rights
November 30, 2010 23 QA
League of CaliforniaReform
Recommendations
Tiered plans
Minimize disparity between current and prospective employees
Consider changes in context of other compensation issues
Oversight
Agencies that fail to contribute the Annual Required
Contribution should be subject to oversight
Ca1PERS Board membership should be changed:
Better employee/employer balance
More public agency representation
November 30, 2010 24 Q4
l°-®p(�2_
From: Adam Raymond [adamr@rpv.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:33 AM
To: 'Teri Takaoka'
Subject: FW: MAX Bus service to Palos Verdes Peninsula
From: C Jean Wang [ma iIto: CJean.Wang@aero.org]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 7:39 PM
To: CITYMANAGER@RPV.COM
Subject: MAX Bus service to Palos Verdes Peninsula
Ms. Lehr and Ms. Petru:
I'm a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes since 1999 and I have been working in the city of EI Segundo for more than 30 years.
One of the service I enjoy is riding the MAX line 2 bus from Rancho Palos Verdes to work at EI Segundo without making a
bus transfer. A lot of the passengers on MAX line #2 are working professionals who live in RPV and ride the bus to work in EI
Segundo. I was not able to do so prior to moving to RPV.
I have always been very proud of myself being able to ride the bus daily to work contributing the CLEAN AIR and relief the
traffic situation in South Bay. I'm very bothered by the recent news that the City is considering discontinuation of this bus
service. In addition to my personal contribution to GREEN ENVIRONMENT the bus service helps keep my expenses on gas
at a more reasonable level, given the sharp increases in petroleum in recent years.
I have chosen to live in PV because it is a really nice city; I truly believe the City will continue to be that way by helping to keep
the MAX bus service in the area.
v/r,
Jean Wang
310-336-8498
cjean.wang@aero.org
11/30/2010 1 °P I
From:
Adam Raymond [adamr@rpv.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:32 AM
To:
'Teri Takaoka'
Subject:
RE: Max 2 Route
-----Original Message -----
From: Walter H Chung(mailto:Walter.H.Chung@aero.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:12 AM
To: citymanager@rpv.com
Subject: Max 2 Route
To Whom it May Concern,
I am a frequent rider of the Max 2 route and it really is the only route for me (and for
others) that makes mass transit practical. I have seen a copy of the financial analysis
for the route and understand that on a per rider basis this doesn't seem to make much
fiscal sense. However, are there other ways in which to may this cost more palatable such
as cutting down on the number of buses used for route 2 (currently there are four) or
increasing the fare or obtaining funds from other cities on the peninsula such as Rolling
Hills.? A couple other points that ought to be considered are that during the gas price
"crisis" a few years back ridership on route
2 spiked dramatically (standing room only on some buses) and that students often use this
bus within PV to get to Peninsula High.
Thank You for Your Time,
Walter Chung
C-7
L 14
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: NOVEMBER 29, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, November 30, 2010 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
6 Emails from: Susan Boyd; Elaine M. Lim; Thomas Wei; Wayne
Otsuki; Yonggiang Shi; Alan Jenkin; Ha Tran -Nguyen; Zhan Shi;
Steve Sperry; Eric Frisco
Respectfully submitted,
c
Carla Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20101129 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
From: Susan C Boyd [Susan. C. Boyd@aero.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:40 AM
To: CITYMANAGER@RPV.COM
Subject: Municipal Area Express Bus (MAX line 2)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Ms. Lehr,
I have been a resident of PV for more than 20 years and I've been a regular MAX rider for over 10 years. It is very important
for me that the city continues its support to the MAX bus line in the city of RPV. There is a meeting next Tuesday (11/30/10)
regarding whether to continue funding this bus line. While the promotion of a clean environment and traffic relieve are the
highest priority everywhere nowadays, it certainly help the city to achieve this goal to have more people riding the bus and off
the road by taking buses.
Perhaps we can get Rolling Hills Estates, Rolling Hills and the Palos Verdes Estates to help out as there are people from
those cities are taking the bus regularly. During the 7 years that I lived in the city of Rolling Hills Estates I was a regular MAX
rider. Thanks!
Susan Boyd
16 off'
11/29/2010
Page 1 of 1
From: Elaine M Lim [Elaine. M.Lim@aero.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:08 AM
To: CITYMANAGER@RPV.COM
Subject: MAX Bus service to Palos Verdes Peninsula
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Ms. Lehr and Ms. Petru:
As a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes for over 30 years, I am especially disturbed that the City is even
considering discontinuation of this bus service, which I ride to get to my job in EI Segundo. The service is
extremely convenient and helps keep our family's expenses on gas at a more reasonable level, given the sharp
increases in petroleum in recent years, and helps to keep the peninsula a desirable place to live by keeping
pollution levels lower.
The gas crunch in the 70s led more people to use the buses as an alternate, greener method to getting to work. I
believe that using commuter buses is still an effective way to manage our carbon footprint; however, discontinuing
the MAX bus service is more like penalizing the environmentally conscious (who, by the way, help keep our city's
air cleaner by using these buses). Surely there are other innovative solutions the City could consider other than
merely cutting off this bus service.
I have chosen to live in PV because it is a really nice city; I would like to believe it will continue to be that way by
helping to keep the MAX bus service in the area.
o: 310.336.2033
maiito:elaine.m.limO-aero.org
1
11/29/2010
-----Original Message -----
From: Wei, Thomas S [mailto:thomas.s.wei@boeing.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 11:30 AM
To: finance@rpv.com
Subject: Max BUS
To Adam or Others It May Concern
I'm an RPV resident.
I'm voicing my concern about discontinue the MAX service to RPV. I have
been taking it regularly and the percentage ridership for RPV rider to the
line 2 is fairly high (30%).
So please keep this line open.
Regards,
Thomas Wei
30921 Rue Valois
RPV, CA 90275
From: Wayne Otsuki [wto923@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:37 AM
To: CITYMANAGER@RPV.COM
Subject: MAX Bus Service
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Ms. Lehr and Ms. Petru:
I have been a regular rider of the MAX 2 bus almost since it began running. It is very
convenient (there are no other bus routes that go directly from the Golden Cove/Peninsular
Center areas to the El Segundo industrial area), and it helps environmentally in reducing
air pollution and in meeting air quality control standards. I would like to encourage the
City Council to continue supporting this bus service.
Thank you.
Wayne Otsuki
From: Yongqiang Shi [yonggiang_shi@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 12:34 AM
To: finance@rpv.com
Subject: We need MAX bus!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear RPV City Council:
My name is Yongqiang Shi and I am a resident of RPV. I have been a passenger on MAX bus since 2005. The
MAX bus is the only bus I can take directly to my work in El Segundo. I noticed that 50-75% of my fellow riders
on the bus are from RPV. I want that the city of RPV to continue the participation of the MAX bus program. Max
bus uses natural gas fuel and is "green" to the environment.
I think that the notice from City of RPV was posted too close to the council meeting and quite a lot of bus riders
were taking the entire week off for the Thanksgiving holiday. They may unaware of the city council meeting on the
bus program.
I look forward to continued participation of MAX bus program at the City of RPV.
Best Regards,
Yongqiang Shi
Scientist, The Boeing Company
310-364-9039 (W)
11/29/2010
I of i �.
From:
abjenkin@aol.com
Sent:
Sunday, November 28, 2010 8:25 PM
To:
finance@rpv.com
Subject:
Continue MAX 2
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Dear RPV City Council,
This is to request that you continue RPV participation in the MAX 2 service. I work at
Aerospace in E1 Segundo and I have been using this service since we moved to RPV in 1997.
The service saves us a lot of money that would otherwise be spent on gasoline and car
maintenance.
Since I am the sole income earner in my family, this is essential to help me pay my
mortgage and property tax. It will continue to be essential since I will have to also pay
University of California fees for my daughters starting next year.
I have observed that about 40 to 50% of the MAX 2 riders I see live in PV. I noticed the
3.7% number quoted by Dennis McLean in the memo "Municipal Area Express" dated November
16. That may apply for the MAX system as a whole (MAX 2, 3, and 3X), but I believe it is a
vast underestimate for MAX 2. I'm not sure how accurate the boarding statistics are, since
I have noticed that sometimes drivers do not record on their sheets when I show my EZ
Transit pass. Also, in addition to boarding statistics, drop-off statistics should be
counted, since on some days some riders only go one way (e.g., have to work past last MAX2
bus).
I understand from the memo that there is a funding shortfall in the transit budget. I
would encourage you to seek other solutions (negotiating with MAX, sharing with RHE and
PVE, increasing fares, a combination, etc.) before proceeding to completely terminate the
service.
Many thanks.
Alan Jenkin
5458 Eau Claire Dr.
RPV, CA 90275
-----Original Message -----
From: Tran -Nguyen, Ha T [mailto:ha.t.tran-nguyen@boeing.com]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 9:03 AM
To: finance@rpv.com
Subject: MAX Bus
To whom it may concern:
Subject: Rancho Palos Verdes City on Max Bus Continuation Service
I'm been riding the max bus to work in the last 8 years from my home in RPV
to work in El Segundo and like it a lot. It is convenient, relaxing,
reliable, cost saving and most importantly, using public transportation for
my commute every to and from work - which is a much better way to commute to
work than driving by myself everyday. During the summer, I also use the max
bus to get in to work in the morning with my bike and bike home from work.
I, as a citizen of Palos Verdes community, vote to continue the Max Bus
Service in the Palos Verdes area as I and many other RPV residents depend on
it.
Thanks for listening.
Ha Tran -Nguyen
----Original Message -----
From: Zhan Shi [mailto:zhan_shi@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 12:52 PM
To: finance@rpv.com
Subject: Please continue MAX bus support
Dear Sir/Madam:
I was disappointed to hear of the proposal to discontinue RPV's
participation in
the MAX bus system. As a resident of RPV for the past six years, I have
been a
very pleased user of this very convenient, cost-effective, and
environmentally
friendly form of transporation between my home and my workplace in E1
Segundo.
The MAX line 2 bus is the only direct connection between RPV and E1 Segundo,
and
its operation during commuting hours keeps additional cars off our already
congested roads (particularly around the Peninsula High School
intersection).
The riders I have known have generally been quite pleased with the level of
service offered, and they are also happy to arrive at work on-time and
well -rested.
In fact, the availability of the MAX line 2 bus was a factor in my choosing
to
live in the RPV community in the first place. I have even informed my
colleagues at work who are new to the area of this wonderful service, which
should also help them consider RPV as a location for them to settle down.
I urge you to continue supporting the MAX bus and hope that it will continue
to
be a great benefit to the RPV community in the future.
Best regards,
Zhan Shi
MAX Support
From:
Adam Raymond [adamr@rpv.com]
Sent:
Monday, November 29, 2010 3:12 PM
To:
Nathan Zweizig
Cc:
'Teri Takaoka'
Subject: FW: MAX Support
Hello Nathan,
Teri asked me to forward late correspondence for the MAX item to you after 3.
Adam
Adam Raymond
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/.rpv
p: (310) 544-5213
f: (310) 544-5291
From: Sperry, Steve (AS) [mailto:steven.sperry@ngc.com]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 3:04 PM
To: finance@rpv.com
Subject: MAX Support
Page 1 of 1
Concerning the upcoming council meeting, I would like to voice my strong support for RPV continuing
its participation in the MAX transit service. I have ridden the MAX to work almost daily for the last —20
years. It is a rare transit service: one that runs on time, provides clean buses and has cheerful drivers
who watch out for their passengers. It would be most unfortunate were the many RPV -based, regular
MAX riders to be forced back into their cars to further crowd our overloaded roadways and to further
pollute the air we breathe. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to an erudite discussion
and a wise decision on the part of the RPV. City Council.
Steve Sperry
27502 Longhill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
11/29/2010
Page 1 of 1
From:
Adam Raymond [adamr@rpv.com]
Sent:
Monday, November 29, 2010 3:13 PM
To:
Nathan Zweizig
Cc:
'Teri Takaoka'
Subject: FW: MAX - Special meeting input
Another MAX late correspondence
Adam Raymond
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www. p alosverdes. comJrp v
p:(310)544-5213
f. (310) 544-5291
From: Eric Frisco [maiIto:eric.frisco@exoanalytic.com]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 3:10 PM
To: finance@rpv.com
Subject: MAX - Special meeting input
Dear RPV City Council,
I received notice of the meeting the Special Meeting regarding the Municipal Area Express
(MAX) as I boarded the bus this morning. I will not be able to attend the meeting, but wanted to
provide my inputs on the matter.
In short, I rely on the MAX 2 bus as my primary means of transportation each day to and from
work. It has proven to be an efficient, reliable, comfortable and safe transportation source,
which I appreciate as a business executive. I support a decision to continue the City's
participation in the MAX program. I also would support another fare increase to help keep the
service funded.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.
Sincerely,
Eric Frisco
Eric Frisco
ExoAnalytic Solutions
3601 N. Aviation Blvd., Suite 3800
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
310.725.9688 (office)
310.228.8219 (cell)
11/29/2010 1 0� ]