20111004 Late CorrespondenceL IR
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2011
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
C Notice to Public Agencies regarding Chandler Ranch Lawsuit; Email from
Jeanne Lacombe
H Email from George (Jorg) Raue
1 Revised Ordinance
5 Emails from James Gordon; Susan Brooks
Respectfully submitted,
W- WrIm 1/0. 4/ 1 WWWR Im, �, �/, /
• -
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page were submitted through
Monday, October 3, 2011**.
WAGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20111004 additions revisions to agenda.doc
I
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
N 14
M
�o 15
16
F
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jeffrey Lewis (Bar No. 183934)
Kelly B. Dunagan (Bar No. 210852)
609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
Tel. (310) 265-4490
Fax. (310) 872-5389
E -Mail: Jef[@JeffLewisLaw.com
Attorneys for plaintiff and petitioner
RESIDENTS AGAINST CHANDLER
[_.11M M
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — CENTRAL DISTRICT
RESIDENTS AGAINST CHANDLER ) Case No.: BS 133552
RANCH, an unincorporated association, NOTICE TO PUBLIC AGENCIES OF
Plaintiff and Petitioner, FILING OF ACTION
VS.
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, a
municipal corporation; the CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS ESTATES; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive,
Defendants and Respondents,
MICHAEL COPE, an individual;
CHANDLER RANCH PROPERTIES,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and ROLLING HILLS
COUNTRY CLUB, a California
corporation,
Real Parties in Interest
NOTICE TO PUBLIC AGENCIES OF FILING OF ACTION
1
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6.5, the
2
agencies identified on the service list attached hereto have been identified by respondent as either
3
a responsible public agency or a public agency having a natural resource affected by the subject
4
project.
5
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that on August 24, 2011, Petitioner RESIDENTS
6
AGAINST CHANDLER RANCH filed a petition for writ of mandate against Respondents, City
7
of Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills Estates City Council. The petition alleges that
8
Respondents violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
9
The project site consists of the existing Rolling Hills Country Club, Chandler's Palos
10
Verdes Sand and Gravel facility (Chandler's), and adjacent vacant land. The 228 -acre site is.
11
irregularly shaped and is located along the east and west sides of Palos Verdes (PV) Drive East
12
between Pacific Coast Highway and Palos Verdes Drive North in the Cities of Rolling Hills
13
Estates and Torrance, Los Angeles County, California. The Country Club and Chandler's facility
14
are respectively located at 26311 and 27000 Palos Verdes Drive East. The site is located on the
q
15
Torrance 7.5 -Minute United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Topographic Quadrangle and Map
a a
16
Page 793 of the Los Angeles County Thomas Guide.
w
17
In brief summary, the proposed project consists of redeveloping/reusing the existing
i8
Chandler's facility and the adjacent Rolling Hills Country Club with the following:
19
• 114 single-family homes (33.77 acres of residential lots), 113 of which would be
20
within a new residential community;
21
• A reconfigured/relocated 18 -hole golf course (151.86 acres);
22
• A new clubhouse complex (10.16 acres) that includes a 61,411 -square feet (ft2)
23
structure; and
24
3.9 acres set aside as natural open space.
25
26
27
M1
28
-2-
NOTICE TO PUBLIC AGENCIES OF FILING OF ACTION
C2 D [�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
N
13
M 14
#d 15
�a
16
a
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
.� .�..... ..
28
The Project Site State Clearinghouse Number is 2008011027.
DATED: September 27, 2011
By:
ey
Attorney for petitioner and plaintiff
RESIDENTS AGAINST CHANDLER RANCH
'3'
NOTICE TO PUBLIC AGENCIES OF FILING OF ACTION
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Residents Against Chandler Ranch v. City of Rolling Hills Estates
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.: BS 133552
I, Jeffrey Lewis, declare that I am over the age of 18 years, 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 ❑ the original 19 a true copy thereof, enclosed in a
sealed envelope with postage pre -paid, addressed as follows:
See attached service list.
❑ 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 fitm's practice for collection and processing of
correspondence 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 course 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.
❑ BY FAX. I faxed such document to the FAX number(s) listed above.
❑ 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 course 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.
® (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,m' Los Angeles County, California.
-4-
NOTICE TO PUBLIC AGENCIES OF FILING OF ACTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SERVICE LIST
Residents Against Chandler Manch 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
10011 STREET
PO BOX 2815
SACRAMENTO CA 95812-2815
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1120 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814-5680
CITY OF LOMITA
PO BOX 339
LOMITA CA 90717-0339
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ATTN. KIT FOX
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275-5351
CITY OF TORRANCE
ATTN. JEFF GIBSON
3031 TORRANCE BLVD
TORRANCE 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
ATTN. RUTH I. FRAZEN
1955 WORKMAN 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
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
N
13
N
M 14
10,W
a 15
16
a
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
M
25
26
i 27
f ' 's 1 28
GABRIELINO/TONGVA .
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
NOTICE TO PUBLIC AGENCIES OF FILING OF ACTION
From: Lacombe [mailto:chateau4us@att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 20112:42 PM
To: kitf@rpv.com
Subject: Fw: Rancho LPG tanks permits
Hi Mr. Fox,
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 was 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, 2011 12:52 PM
Subject: RE: Rancho LPG tanks permits
Michael Davies
Office of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
310-914-7300
From: Lacombe [mailto:chateau4us@att.net]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 10:10 AM
To: Davies, Michael (Feinstein)
Subject: Re: Rancho LPG tanks permits
Dear Mr. Davies,
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, 2011 11:27 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, 20112:11 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,
had to insert the .jpg scans of the permits into a Word docurnent 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
From: Jorg Raue [mailto:raue@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 20115:38 PM
To: faaairspace@rpv.com
Subject: 2011 (REVISED) Proposal for Class C Air Space Designation surrounding Long Beach Airport
I am very pleased with the Revised Proposal and fully support it.
George (Jorg) Raue
Instrument Rated Pilot
Cert. No. 1952871
H $I
1:@77IIIIk,un, Lggu �
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.76.050D OF THE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE AND
CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF
TEMPORARY NONCOMMERCIAL BANNERS WITHIN
DESIGNATED AREAS WITHIN THE PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-
OF-WAY (CASE NO. ZON2011-00007).
WHEREAS, Section 17.76.050 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code") sets forth various procedures and
regulations regarding the provision of signage on private and public property
within the City; and,
WHEREAS, since 1998, the City's Development Code allowed temporary
special event banners or other signs for noncommercial organizations to be
placed in the public right-of-way with City approval; and,
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2008, the City Council approved of the following
three locations for the posting of 2 banners per location: Silver Spur Road and
Deep Valley Drive; Hawthorne Boulevard and Locklenna Lane; and Palos Verdes
Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive East; and,
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2010, Staff began issuing permits for the three
locations; and,
WHEREAS, due to concerns raised by residents and applicants, on
December 7, 2010, the City Council initiated a code amendment to eliminate the
existing program that allows noncommercial organizations to place temporary
banners or other signs in the City's right-of-way; and,
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2011, after notice issued pursuant to the
requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning
Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, and recommended to the City
Council that the program be retained but that additional or alternative sign sites
be identified, and that a more uniform sign program be created that would require
specific size and sign colors for temporary banners; and,
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2011, after notice issued pursuant to the
requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council
held a duly notice public hearing, at which time they denied Staff's request to
eliminate RPVMC Section 17.76.050.D.4, and adopted the Planning
Commission's recommendation to preserve the existing ordinance regarding the
temporary banner program with the inclusion of a limit of two banners at each
designated location where temporary banners are allowed, and the Council
Ordinance No. 2011-_
Page 1 of 5
directed Staff to identify other suitable locations for the placement of temporary
banners; and,
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2011, a public notice was sent to property
owners within 500 feet of the proposed three new locations, the interested parties
list, and previous applicants for temporary banners; and,
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2011, notice of a public hearing on the
proposed amendments to Section 17.76.050.D.4 of the Municipal Code was
published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures, the code amendment is exempt from further CEQA analysis as this
Class of exemptions allows construction of new, small structures in the public
street rights-of-way where development for roads and sidewalks have already
altered the land, and the proposed structures will not be causing further
disruption outside of these areas; and,
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2011, the public hearing item was
continued to October 4, 2011 in order to accommodate other agenda items; and,
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2011, the City Council held a duly noticed
public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to
be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code are
consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, zoning amendment
procedures.
Section 2: That the amendments to Title 17 are consistent with the
Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they
uphold, and do not hinder, the goals and policies of those plans. Specifically, the
modifications to Section 17.76.050.D4 will result in an aesthetically pleasing
manner in which banners are displayed within the City's street rights-of-way.
Section 3: The City Council finds that the amendments to Title 17 are
necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare in the area.
Section 4: Section 17.76.050.D.4 of Chapter 17.76 (Miscellaneous
Permits and Standards) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby modified, to
read as follows (language shown in strikethrough text for text removed and with
underline text for new text):
Ordinance No. 2011-_
Page 2 of 5
4. Temporary special event or other signs banners advertising special
noncommercial organizations events may be placed in the public rights-of-
way, pursuant to the following guide) ICiJ requirements:
a. For purposes of this section, speGial- event -signs -shall 'mited to
signs which a temporary banner shall be permitted only to advertise a
specific non-commercial ast+vity event occurring on a ffar#isular specific
date(s);
b. €er The noncommercial advertiser of a special event signs, WFittee
Fequest-shall submit an application to the director on the form provided
by the City for this purpose. The application shall be ie filed to with
the director no sooner than ninety days prior to tiepeGia;-ev� 't 'he
first date when the banner will be posted. Applications shall be
processed and approved on a first come, first served basis. The
director shall approve the application for a particular location if it
complies with the criteria set forth in this Section, and shall not deny an
C. Signs The temporary banner shall be installed by the applicant only be
Plased at one of the locations in the City's street rights-of-way
Went+fied and designated by the diFe that have been approved
previously by the City Council;
d. Signs Banners shall be securely attached to the structures that have
been erected by the City for this purpose in a the manner prescribed
by the director so as not to pose a traffic hazard and/or impede
pedestrian or vehicular access or visibility within the public City's street
rights-of-way;
e. For -special -event signs, Each noncommercial erganization advertiser
shall be limited to the placement of twe one temporary signs banner
within the City's publiG street rights-of-way peg for each special event;
POF signs — Cher than—speGfal event signs, Each noncommercial
ergan+zatien--advertiser shall be limited to the placement of two su.,h
signs special event banners within the City's publiG street rights-of-way
per during each calendar year, commencing on January 1s' of each
year;
h_g. Each sign banner shall be displayed for a maximumep riod of thirty
30 days;
Ordinance No. 2011 -
Page 3 of 5
i h. The special event skjps banner shall be removed by the applicant
within fer-ty-eight twenty-four (24) hours of the ey after the
conclusion of the event that the banner is advertising or of the end of
the banner display period, whichever occurs first; and
ISM
MIT
_ M7--: ...........
.
.
i. Each banner shall be four (4) feet in height by ight (8) feet in width
and shall be made only of vinyl with a #2 grommet in each corner,
which will allow for the banner to be securely affixed to the structure at
the Council -approved banner site location;
i. Each banner must have a solid white background with blue or green
letters;
k. Only one (1) logo or graphic design shall be allowed on each banner,
with no color restriction; and
I. Banners must be clean and in good repair at all times.
Section 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision,
sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to
any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that
it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection,
subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact
that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses,
phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 7: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in
three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The
City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and
shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to
be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
Section 8: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and
effect at 12:01 AM on the 31St day after its passage.
Ordinance No. 2011-_
Page 4 of 5
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
day of 2011.
Tom Long, Mayor
I, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, hereby certify that the above Ordinance No. was duly and regularly
passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on
October 4, 2011.
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 2011-_
Page 5 of 5
-----Original Message -----
From: James [mailto:bubba32@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:40 AM
To: aram@rpv.com
Cc: jlkarp; tmredfield@cox.net; cc@rpv.com
Subject: Sept 29, 2011 @11:48 AM 99 cars parked on Marymount neighboring
streets
Ara
This morning at 10:48 AM there were 99 cars parked on the streets
neighboring Marymount college.
I understand that at Tuesday evenings' Neighborhood Advisory Committee
(NAC)meeting Dr. Brophy stated he is now offering 99 Seniors:.'to audit
Marymount classes.
Where will they park.
Where will hundreds more Marymount students park?
Why did Dr. Brophy stonewall questions about the promises made by the
college to get colldge parking off these streets?
Jim
October 4, 2011
Dear Councilmembers,
Our community of Mira Catalina has 130 homes and we are directly across the street from Marymount
College. While we look forward to better relationships with the College in the wake of a challenging
political year, we are concerned about increased cars now parking in our neighborhood on Casilina and
Narino Drives, respectively.
During the 1990's when I was on the Council, there was high enrollment and similar issues arose. As I
recall, President Dr. Tom McFadden addressed the issue by having campus police issue citations to
students who violated the understanding they must respect the confines of each neighborhood and park
either along Crest or PVD East, if no parking was available on site. It is my understanding, students and
personnel had permits for their vehicles, so it was easy to spot the offenders. As a teacher at
Marymount in 1997, 1 was issued a parking sticker. As a student at Marymount in 2000, she was issued a
permit as well. It actually made for a good working relationship between the school and the community.
Perhaps Marymount can institute this policy once again. Now that it has become a four-year college, it
is natural to expect more students, but the EIR states they need to accommodate those students on
campus. Without an active plan at this time, we suggest researching if additional spaces can be allocated
somewhere on campus. Regardless, we would rather not see any red -curbing along PVD East because
they do need a place to park and cars were always parked there. Also, we would prefer not to have to
resort to "Permit only Parking" for our neighborhood, because that puts undue pressure on residents w/
visitors, workers, etc.
Thank you for your consideration of this concern. Let's find a friendly way to address this issue with
Marymount as we embark on a new beginning.
Best Regards,
Susan Brooks
President, Mira Catalina Homeowner's Association
5
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2011
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, October40, 2011 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
C Letter from Ron Conrow
H Email from Don and Debbie Stewart
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
W:WGENDA\2011 Additions Revisions to agendas\20111004 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
I l� L,
- IN
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 Stakeholder 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.
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. Conrowt7a-,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
City Hall East
200 N. Main Stre
Room 800
Los Angeles, CA
CARMEN A. TRUTANICH
City Attorney
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.org/atty
Subject: Rancho LPG Facility, 2011 North Gaffey Street, San Pedro, California
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, l respond to all of these issues below,
after a brief discussion of the relevant background facts, as 1 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.1 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.
' As you are aware,] 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").
X. 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.
ncies.
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,
Cal/EPA, California Emergency Management Agency, California Department of Toxic Substances
Control, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Los Angeles County Fire
Department, the City of Los Angeles Fire Department, the Los 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 Ievel of risk
for the Rancho Facility. In direct response to these concerns, the EPA engaged Michigan
2
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 Q. 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 (1 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 Crawl, the author of the Michigan Tech Report, concludes:
"...the ddsign 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 ($LEVE) "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
5" b,c /t
"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 Cal/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
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.
11. 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 contends 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 legai 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.
4
�A
Ill[. 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
Cal.3d 626 at 634.) While our Office welcomes new and credible information, we are not aware, at
this time, of any conduct qn 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. WAR 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 Cal.App.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 performance 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
0
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 Petrolane 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 (1 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 ETR, p. 1).
Furthermore, the rail line leading to the Rancho Facility was analyzed and depicted in the site
plan in the Petrolane EIR (Petrolane 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
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 ETR 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 EIR, 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
Miscikowski 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 Perruit 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 CEQA 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
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
0040�%
WILLIAM W. CARTER
Chief Deputy City Attorney
Attachments
cc: Honorable Harbor Commissioners
Geraldine Knatz, Ph.D, Executive Director
Brian L. 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
g
From: Debbie Stewart [debbiestewart23@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 7:37 PM
To: 'Dennis McLean'
Cc: cc@rpv.com; citymanager@rpv.com
Subject: Good Job Dennis! 2011 proposed Class C change.
Hi Dennis,
I studied your RPV staff report and the WAC report regarding the revised FAA Long Beach airspace
Class C proposal. I concur with both reports that the impact on RPV will be minimal. On behalf of myself
and others, I would like to thank you and your staff for "Leading The Charge" against the previous 2010
proposal. As you know, if 2010 proposal was implemented as written, the unintended consequences
would have had extreme multiple negative impacts on the city and also would have compromised flight
safety. In my opinion, as an aviator and pilot, the revised 2011 proposal will now actually elevate flight
safety for aircraft crews, their passengers and the public on the ground positioned below the aircraft. The
current proposal looks like a Win -Win for all concerned parties. By the way Dennis, this may be a rare
event. How often can you say, " Win- Win for Everybody" in politics and the regulating agency business
these days? Again, a job well done!
Regards,
Don and Debbie Stewart
RPV residents and general aviation pilots.
10/3/2011