Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20121204 Late Correspondence
From: M and D Richardson [medon@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 6:18 PM To: Brian Campbell <b.camp@cox.net> Cc: CC Subject: Re: Reelection Campaign Announcement & next Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Mr. Campbell, While you do not explicitly say so in your email newletter, I'm sure you are aware that you are next in line for the position of Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes through the council's custom of ensuring that each council member serves one year in that position. If you are indeed sincere in your statement of support for Councilman Duhovic as the next Mayor of RPV, I assume that you will formally withdraw your name from consideration at the Tuesday night meeting if you have not already done so. Please know that I agree with your endorsement of Councilman Duhovic as a better choice, as I believe that his qualifications as you describe them, along with his temperament and intellect, make him far better suited for the position. Sincerely, Don Richardson Rancho Palos Verdes, CA On Dec 1, 2012, at 4:00 PM, RPV Mayor Pro Tem, Brian Campbell wrote: Having trouble viewing this email? Click here Brian In the Coninunixty Supporting RPV Schools, Kids, First Responders, Seniors, Volunteers and Scouting. Camping with the Cub Scouts PV's Cornerstone Elementary loth Anniversary Video Fire Department 12/5/2012 s` r I want to thank all of my friends and neighbors that are active in the Scouting community, kids sports leagues, fellow parents in our local schools, my neighbors in all of the RPV -wide Homeowners Associations, Veterans groups, Chamber of Commerce business supporters, volunteers at the YMCA, Docents, Land Conservancy, Kiwanis and the dozens of great nonprofits that are an integral part of our community, First Responders, open space advocates and friends on both sides of the political isle that share a love of our peninsula and good local government. Thank you for all of your support and encouragement in making my decision to again work to represent all of you for another four years. More details will follow after the holidays. RPV Councilman Jerry/ Duhovic I also want to announce why RPV City Councilman Jerry Duhovic will have my unqualified support to be the next mayor of our city when the council leadership chang es next Tuesday, Dec 4th. Councilman Duhovic is a graduate of one of the finest leadership institutions in the world, the United States Air. Force Academy. He served our country as an active duty Air Force Officer. He currently is the number two executive at -a national $100 million financial services corporation and is responsible for more employees than are employed at the city of RPV with its approximate $23 million dollar budget and 53 full time staff. He serves on several corporate boards and committees and is Chairman of the Board for Pacific Point Securities. He has served on many committees, councils, and advisory panels serving as Chairman on multiple occasions. He has been involved in regulatory rule making and governance within the financial services industry, working with regulatory entities such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and various state regulators including making presentations to visiting Senatorial delegations during the dot com era. Prior to being elected to serve on the RPV City Council, Jerry served as Vice Chair of the Rancho Palos Verdes Finance Advisory Committee. Monthly Seniors Group Memorial Day 2012 4 Playing Hoops with some future Lakers & Clippers RPV City Talk: Profile of Brian Campbell, RPV Mayor Pro Tem, Part One RPV City Council 12/5/2012 RPV is facing numerous challenges this coming year. In addition to numerous behind -the -scenes contributions to various city -related matters, Jerry has already played a lead role in the ongoing city employee Union negotiations. He also has played an integral role with the outside management consultants that are expected to come back in January with a critical look at how our city is managed. He is a management, financial and IT expert that understands the need for oversight, transparency and establishment of good governance that will be demanded by our residents going forward. Last but not least, after this past year, our community very much wants to trust in its local government. For all of these reasons, and more, I believe that Jerry has the knowledge, experience, leadership qualities, demeanor, and skill set to be an excellent mayor. I hope you will join with me in my support of Jerry as the City Council selects our next Mayor for 2013. RPV City Councilman Jerry Duhovic jerry.duhovic(o)-rpv.com Thank you for taking the time to read this announcement. I never forget what a privilege it is to represent all of you on our local city council here in Rancho Palos Verdes. 1 Brian Copyright © 2oXX. All Rights Reserved. Forward this email ,K', This email was sent to medon@cox.net by b.camp@cox.net I Update Profile/Email Address I Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribeTM I Privacv Policy. City Councilman I Rancho Palos Verdes I Rancho Palos Verdes I CA 190275 12/5/2012 h RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2012 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 Staff Memorandum; Emails from: Janet Gunter; Bonnie Christensen Respectfully submitted, r� Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, December 3, 2012**. W:WGENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to agendasi20121204 additions revisions to agenda.doc MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KIT FOX, AICP, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2012 SUBJECT: LATE CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE PONTE VISTA PROJECT, THE BRICKWALK, LLC MIXED-USE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, THE RANCHO LPG BUTANE STORAGE FACILITY, THE MARYMOUNT COLLEGE SAN PEDRO CAMPUS AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS' CLEARWATER PROGRAM (BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT – AGENDA ITEM `C') Ponte Vista Project at Former Navy Housing Site, Los Angeles (San Pedro) On December 3, 2012, Staff received a copy of the attached letter from Councilman Joe Buscaino to the Ponte Vista developer, encouraging them to take the 1,135 -unit proposal "off the table" and to focus in the 830 -unit alternative identified in the Draft EIR (DEIR). The public comment period for the DEIR is scheduled to end on January 7, 2013. Staff will continue to monitor this item in future Border Issues Status Reports. Brickwalk, LLC Mixed -Use Condominiums, Rolling Hills Estates As discussed in tonight's Border Issues Status Report, the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission was scheduled to continue its review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) forthe Brickwalk, LLC mixed-use condominium project last night. Attached is a copy of the agenda and Staff report (without attachments). Staff was satisfied that- the amended responses to our comments on the DEIR have been addressed, and did not attend the hearing. We subsequently confirmed that the Planning Commission approved the EIR and project, and asked for a resolution recommending approval to the Rolling Hills Estates City Council to be brought back for adoption on December 17, 2012. The Rolling Hills Estates City Council is likely to review this project some time in early 2013. Staff will continue to monitor this item in future Border Issues Status Reports. Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro) In response to Councilman Buscaino's recent motion regarding insurance requirements and liability coverage for Rancho LPG—and consistent with the City Council's previous direction to Staff to review the Contra Costa County Risk Management Ordinance—Staff prepared a letter from the Mayor to Councilman Buscaino on November 20, 2012 (see attachments). The letter expresses support for his recent motion and suggests the adoption of certain C. Late Correspondence for Border Issues Status Report December 4, 2012 Page 2 provisions of the Contra Costa County ordinance, including establishment of a hazardous materials ombudsperson and a public information bank. On November 26, 2012, Staff received the attached e-mail from Janet Gunter, which includes a letter sent to City of Los Angeles Planning Director Michael LoGrande by San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United (SPPHU) President Chuck Hart. SPPHU is asking the City of Los Angeles to initiate nuisance abatement and permit revocation proceedings against Rancho LPG. Given that a similar nuisance claim in 1980 was not successful in the courts (Don Brown v. Petrolane), it is not clear what impact—if any—this latest filing will have upon the continued operations of the facility. Marymount College San Pedro Campus Master Plan, Los Angeles (San Pedro) On December 3, 2012, Staff received the attached responses to our comments on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Marymount College San Pedro Campus project. The responses have generally addressed the issues that we raised in our previous comments. However, we were disappointed to see LADOT continue to characterize the Rancho Palos Verdes and San Pedro campuses as "two separate and distinct projects," and to continue to ignore the interrelationship of these campuses with the Waterfront campus and other College facilities in downtown San Pedro. As mentioned in tonight's report, the public hearing for this project is scheduled for December 12, 2012. Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts' Clearwater Program, Eastview Area and Los Angeles (San Pedro) On November 29, 2012, the Daily Breeze reported that the Board of Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 2 unanimously approved certification of the Clearwater Program Final El on November 28, 2012 (see attachments). As mentioned in tonight's Staff report, separate action will be taken by the Army Corps of Engineers at a future date on the project's Final EIS for those off -shore portions of the project under Federal jurisdiction. Project construction is not expected to begin until 2016. Staff intends to remove this item from future Border Issues Status Reports. Attachments • Letter from Councilman Buscaino regarding Ponte Vista project (dated 11/13/12) • RHE PC agenda & Staff report for Brickwalk, LLC project (dated 12/3/12) • Letter to Councilman Buscaino regarding Rancho LPG facility (dated 11/20/12) • E-mail from Janet Gunter regarding Rancho LPG facility (received 11/26/12) • Response to comments on Marymount College San Pedro Campus MND (received 12/3/12) • Daily Breeze article regarding Clearwater Program El (published 11/29/12) MABorder Issues\Staff Reports\20121204_CC_LateCorrespondence.doc Letter from Councilman Buscaino regarding Ponte Vista project kLL Spring Street 125 geles, CA 90012 173-7015 13162&5431 Councilme*mber Joe Buscaino Fifteenth District November 13, 2012 Mr., Steve Magee, Executive Vice President, Land 1 -Star Financial 4350 Von Karmen Avenue, Suit . e 225 Newport Beach, CA 91660 RE: Proposed Ponte Vista Project 26500 South Western Avenue San Pedro, CA 90732 Dear Mr. Magee, DISTRICT OFFICES: SAN PEDRO OFFICE 638 S. Sea= Street Suite 552 San Pedro, CA 90731 370-732-4515 Fax 310-732-4500 WATTS OFFICE 10221 Compton Ave. Suite 200 Los Angeles. CA 90002 213-473-5128 Fax 213-473-5132 As you know, the City of Los Angeles Planning Department released the draft environmental impact report ("D-EIR") for the proposed Ponte Vista housing development last week on November 8th. The D-EIR describes a 1,135 dwelling unit project and several alternative development schemes, including a reduced project alternative of 830 dwelling units. t We understand from your development team that the 830 dwelling unit proposal is the current preferred alternative for 1 -Star Financial. I believe that it would serve all of us well to take the 1,135 unit proposal "off the table" at this time. The early feedback we have received from community leaders is that having the two alternatives in play is unnecessarily confusing, given the stronger economic feasibility of the 830 dwelling unit proposal. Thank you, in advance, for your -consideration of this request. I look forward to working With the 1 -Star team and the San Pedro community to finalize discussions about the development proposal for the 26900 South Western Avenue property and arrive at a project that we all consider a worthy addition to our exceptional seaside community. Sincerely, OE BUSC INO Councilmember, 15th District cc: Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council RHE PC agenda & Staff report or Brickwalk, LLC project CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North r Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Phone -(310) 377-1577 ■ Fax -(310) 377-4468 www.RollingHillsEstatesCa.Gov PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA December 3, 2012, 7:00 pm Regular Meeting Reports and documents relating to each agenda item are on file available for public inspection on our website. 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (11/5/12) 5. AUDIENCE ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - None BUSINESS ITEMS - None 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-07; APPLICANT: George Daneshgar; LOCATION: 655-683 Deep Valley Drive and 924-950 Indian Peak Road; A mixed-use residential project requiring approval of the following: 1) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67553; 2) A Conditional Use Permit for a mixed-use development; 3) a Precise Plan of Design for buildings and structures; 4) a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted building height; 5) a Variance to permit a smaller setback than required by Code; 6) a Variance to permit fewer parking spaces than required by Code; 7) a Grading permit; and 8) Environmental Impact Report. (NC) • Staff Report + Attachments 1-4 • Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments Attachment 5 • Attachments 6-8 9. COMMISSION ITEMS. 10. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 11. MATTERS OF INFORMATION A. Park and Activities Commission Draft Minutes (11/20/12) B. Joint City Council/Park and Activities Commission Draft Minutes (11/6/12) C. City Council Actions (11/13/12) D. Equestrian Committee Draft Minutes (10/29/12) 12. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you require a disability -related modification or accommodation to attend or participate in this meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please call the City Clerk's Office at (310) 377-1577 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Oy�;1N G HIt�. Reporf Cit 'r, y Rolling of Estatev 195 DATE: DECEMBER 3, 2012 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: NIKI WETZEL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-07 APPLICANT: MR. STEPHEN JORDAN, THE AURIC GROUP, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: BRICKWALK, LLC (MR. GEORGE DANESHGAR) LOCATION: 655-683 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE/924-950 INDIAN PEAK ROAD ____ OVERVIEW._.. The following is a request to approve: 1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67553; 2. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a mixed-use development including 148 condominium/townhome units and 14,200 square feet of commercial space in the Commercial General (C-G)/Mixed-Use Overlay Zone; 3. A Precise Plan of Design (PPD) for buildings and structures; 4. A Variance to exceed the maximum permitted building height; 5. A Variance to permit a smaller setback than required by Code; 6. A Variance to permit fewer parking spaces than required by Code/shared parking agreement; 7. A Grading application is required to permit stabilization of the landslide and building pads for buildings and structures; and 8. An Environmental Impact Report, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) IY_mweI Zi1iP►17 This item was last heard at a continued public hearing held on October 15, 2012. At that meeting, the Planning Commission took public testimony including a presentation from the applicant's traffic consultant on proposed traffic mitigation measures, discussed the issues and continued the public hearing to tonight's meeting to allow staff and the applicant to prepare further information. The staff report and minutes of that meeting are included herein as Attachment 1. DISCUSSION At the public hearing held initially held on September 4, 2012 and continued on October 15, 2012, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare further information on a variety of issues. The issues and related information are provided below. Construction Phasing The applicant's Construction Phasing Plan is included as Attachment 2 herein as prepared by Bolton Engineering inclusive of exhibits for each phase. Phase 1, anticipated to take two weeks, would consist of site preparation including demolition, erosion control, utility removal and vegetation clearance. Phase 2, anticipated to take 3 weeks, would consist of site access grading including installation of caisson soldier pile walls along Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. Phase 3, anticipated to take 21 weeks, would consist of construction of the wall and tieback system including drilling soldier piles, installing steel, and excavation and installation of grade beam whalers and tiebacks. Phase 4, anticipated to take 24 weeks, would consist of site excavation and recompaction including excavating existing strata to bearing materials beginning along the easterly boundary. Approximately 104,000 cubic yards (c.y.) of material would be hauled offsite. As grading moves westerly, material will be removed and recompacted into the excavation opened by the removal and raised to final grades. With regard to safety measures to protect the public and neighboring properties during construction, the applicant hasindicated-via email the following: "As for the question on the safety measures, the proposed system is not a new concept for the industry and we've had the engineering and geotechnical teams from the City of RPV, RHE and the developer's own team discuss the proposed system. The details of this design will be fully vetted during the plan check process and the developer will work collaboratively with the City of RPV and RHE. At this point of design, i think this is the best answer we can provide, but perhaps as a condition, we can propose a pre -grading meeting that will inform all the neighbors of the plans and conduct outreach. Again, this would be after the approved grading/improvement plans go through the City's plan check process." Staff would note that a condition of approval requiring a pre -grade meeting has been typical of past major grading projects, and staff- will- include a condition of approval to that effect in any Resolution approving the project. Haul Route Plan The applicant contacted Chandler's Sand and Gravel and determined that there'is capacity to accept the approximately 104,000 c.y. of export anticipated with project construction. It is not possible, however, to accurately determine which facility in the region will be used as it will depend on timing of construction and capacity at that time. A condition of approval will require a haul route plan to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to commencement of grading. Financial Issues The Planning Commission indicated concern over financial assurances that grading will be completedonce commenced. The applicant indicates that the financial assurance will come in the form of the required grading bond. According to the City Engineer, it is likely that the bond amount will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars based upon the amount of earthwork and drainage facilities required. Should grading cease, the bond would be forfeited and the acquired funds would be used to further grade the site. A condition of approval will require that the applicant post a grading bond prior to commencement of grading. 2 A further financial issue was raised by the Planning Commission related to a pro forma or other information showing that the proposed project at the requested density is necessary to secure adequate funds to repair the landslide on the project site. Staff requested this information from the applicant, and the applicant has declined to provide this information at this time due to its sensitivity and company proprietary information. The applicant further requested, if necessary, that the information be provided in a closed forum to the City Council in conjunction with their review of the project if possible. Support of Hillside to the Rear of Townhomes The Planning Commission requested information related to the method of support for the hillside to the rear of the townhomes in the easterly portion of the project site. Petra, the project geotechnical engineer, provided a response included herein as Attachment 3. The response indicates that the tiebacks necessary in other portions of the project site are not necessary in this area given that bedrock in this portion dips at a lower angle and because the design wall heights are much lower than the wall which is required for the podium condominium building. To provide support, 10 to 20 -foot high retaining walls are proposed along the property boundary/edge of roadway with descending slopes at the toe of walls. Also, townhomes will be built "into" the slope with approximately 10' -high walls at the back of units. The City's consulting geotechnical engineer reviewed the Petra response and provided comments included -herein -as Attachment 4: -The commen'ts-'recommend -that inclinometers be installed along the edge of Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Boulevard prior to excavation to monitor the stability of the existing roads and slope during excavation and construction of the proposed tie -back walls and pile supported walls. Staff recommends that this be added as a condition of approval in any Resolution recommending approval of the project to the City Council. Landscape Concept Plan and Cross Sections Attachment 5 provides a landscape concept plan and cross sections showing the location of landscaping for the townhomes, podium building and surface lot for the Brickwalk commercial development. Plans show that landscaping for retaining walls between and to the rear of townhomes would consist of groundcover and shrubs. Landscaping for slope areas between uphill and downhill townhomes would consist of groundcover. To the rear of the podium building, a planter with shrubs appears to separate the podium deck and an approximately 18' - high wall. Groundcover is located on the slope at the top of the hillside nearest Indian Peak Road. For the Brickwalk area, shrubs are shown at the front of parking stalls with, ground cover indicated at the top of an approximately 16' -high wall in this area of the site. Revised Volume 81: Response to Comments and Errata Attachment 6 provides a revised Final Environmental Impact Report — Volume Ill: Response to Comments and Errata. Compared to the version previously provided on September 4, 2012, this revised version includes a letter from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (received on September 8, 2012) and a response to those comments. In addition, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes had provided additional comments (see email from Kit Fox dated September 27, 2012 included as Attachment 7) which are addressed in Biological Resources Comment L-3-2 and Geology and Soils Comment L-3-18. (it can be noted that Mr. Fox's email indicates that comments from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Engineer would be forthcoming, but no related comments were received by staff.) Revisions to the Response to Comments and Errata were clarifications and did not result in any new project impacts or mitigation measures. 3 Comments from Commissioner Conway Commissioner Conway emailed questions regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report to staff. These comments are indicated below followed by responses from the City's Environmental Consultant: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 1. 4.5-2: What does "Ultimate site seismic design acceleration shall be determined by the project structural engineer during the project design phase "mean? Final determinations regarding the seismic design will be made during the preparation of construction drawings for the proposed project. The structural engineer, in conjunction with the geotechnical engineer of record, will confirm whether the preliminary determinations regarding seismic design continue to be appropriate or whether modifications to the design are required based on known site conditions. 2. 4.7-3: 1 note that there are no TMDL mitigation measures. Why is that? The Draft SUSMP prepared for the proposed project and described in Section 4.7 does address TMDL's to the extent that they are constituents of concern on the project site. TMDL's within the Machado Lake watershed include nutrients, trash, pesticides and metals. T-fre--Modular- Wetland- -System -treats--nutrients. -7---h-e--catch--basin -filter--addresses tr-a-s-h-- nd any potential residual pesticide residue found in on-site soils. Metals were determined not to be a constituent of concern on the project site. Thus, the SUSMP addresses the identified TMDL, as appropriate. 3. 4.7-4: How can we determine that these impacts are less than significant when we don't know what they are? Why shouldn't increased runoff be accommodated on site? The potential increase in runoff associated with the proposed project was 0.22 percent over existing conditions. This increase is less than one percent and is considered less than significant 4. 4.13-1: there is discussion of allowed oversized loads. I'd like to ensure that this is not construed to allow overloaded vehicles. We also need to establish some baseline for existing condition of streets to ensure that they are repaired to the condition prior to the project. It is not appropriate to prohibit hauling or transport of oversize loads during construction given the types of equipment and material that need to be used on-site,- The hours of operation of these loads are limited to 9 a,m. to 3 p.m., unless approved by the City Engineer. Measure 4.13-1 states that damage to existing pavement would be repaired. The term "existing" is meant to be the condition of the pavement at the time that construction of the project site commences. 5. 4.13-4: This appears to be similar to 4.13-3, except that the trigger is occupancy permit and includes widening rather than just striping. Exhibit 5 of last night's presentation would help me understand the differences between the two mitigation measures. Why would the City construct these improvements? Measure 4.13-3 relates to construction traffic impacts at this intersection, and Measure 4.13-4 relates to operational traffic impacts at this intersection. [Please note that, as requested, Figure 5 (Recommended Intersection Improvements) is included herein as Attachment 8.] 4 6. 4.2-43: 1 note two Standard Conditions that are not in the MMP. Any reason these can't be included? Standard Conditions SC -1 through SC -3 will be included in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Since they are not mitigation measures they are not included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Regardless, the applicant's compliance with SC -1 through SC -3 is required. Project Traffic Mitigation Measures and Palos Verdes Bike Lane Project/Peninsula Village Overlay Zone The Planning Commission requested information related to the relationship between project traffic mitigation measures and improvements included in the Palos Verdes Drive North Bike Lane/Peninsula Village Overlay Zone Traffic Impact Fee Analysis. Attachment 9 provides a memorandum from the City Traffic Engineer addressing these issues. Specifically, page 2 of the memorandum shows the similarities and differences between the street and intersection improvements proposed by the different projects. In summary, the memorandum indicates that the subject project's intersection improvements are similar to or do not conflict with other improvements with the exception of Palos Verdes Drive North and Hawthorne Boulevard. Similar improvements as part of the Palos Verdes Drive North Bike Lane Project will likely have been completed at this intersection prior to construction of the subject project. In -lieu fees paid by the project applicant would partially reimburse the City for work completed here. In addition, at Palos Verdes Drive North and Crenshaw Boulevard, no improvements are currently proposed; however, the agpltcantwoutd--be-required-to pay-a-fair=share contribution toward any -- - future improvements constructed at the time an impact occurs. The memorandum also discusses each proposed mitigation measure, timing for implementation (i.e., when the measure is triggered), and method of implementation. Any Resolution recommending approval of the proposed project to the City Council will include these measures as conditions of approval. Other Traffic/Parking Issues The Planning Commission inquired as to potential impacts to the Post Office should a signal be installed at Deep Valley Drive/Silver Spur Road. The City Traffic Engineer indicates that no impacts to the Post Office would be expected. It is not expected that queuing traffic would extend to the driveway accessing the Post Office. The Planning Commission also requested information related to a Construction Management Plan. A Construction Management Plan typically address items including, but not limited to, employee parking, damage to pavement, number of trucks/truck frequency, and scheduling/phasing of street closures. Section 13.7 of the Traffic Impact Analysis/Parking Study (Appendix J to the Draft Environmental Impact Report) discusses the Congestion Management Plan in more detail. Any Resolution recommending approval of the proposed project to the City Council will include these measures as conditions of approval as also seen in Mitigation Measure 4.13-1. With regard to damage to pavement, staff recommends that the Construction Management Plan as a condition of approval be required to include a photo log of the haul route to be provided by the applicant prior to commencement of grading to be used at the end of construction to ascertain any damage. The Planning Commission inquired as to whether onstreet parking spaces will be lost on Roxcove Drive south of Silver Spur with intersection improvements. The City Traffic Engineer has confirmed that no spaces would be lost with intersection improvements. 6'1 The Planning Commission inquired as to whether onstreet parking spaces will be lost on Roxcove Drive south of Silver Spur with intersection improvements. The City Traffic Engineer has confirmed that no spaces would be lost with intersection improvements. To clarify, the shared parking agreement requested for the project is to permit customers and employees of the Brickwalk commercial development to utilize the ground -floor parking spaces in the podium condominium building. The shared parking analysis included in the project Traffic Impact Analysis/Parking Study indicates that a deficiency of 6-7 spaces occurs during weekday peak periods (12 p.m. to 2 p.m.) due to concurrent restaurant and office use at the Brickwalk development. However, a surplus of 12 commercial spaces is forecast in the podium condominium building resulting in a surplus of 5-6 spaces during peak weekday hours with utilization by Brickwalk customers and employees. Therefore, sufficient parking is expected to be provided for all uses offstreet, and onstreet parking is not expected to be impacted by the proposed project. It can be noted that the Draft Environmental Impact Report suggests that the +/- 30 onstreet spaces bordering the Brickwalk development could you also be used to meet this need. However, with implementation of a shared parking agreement as described, the use of onstreet parking would not be necessary. RECOMMENDATION The Public Hearing for this item remains open. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Continues to take Public Testimony; 2. Discusses the issues; and 3. Closes the Public Hearing and 4. Directs staff to prepare a Resolution recommending approval of the project to the City Council subject to conditions of approval outlined in this and previous staff reports and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the next Planning Commission meeting. Separate Landscape Concept Plan EXHIBITS Attached 1. Staff Report and Minutes Excerpt — October 15, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Construction Phasing Plan by Bolton Engineering Corporation (November 28, 2012) 3. Response from Petra (October 2, 2012) 4. Willdan Geotechnical Response Review (November 27, 2012) 5. Final Environmental Impact Report- Response to Comments and Errata (November 2012) 6. Email from Mr. Kit Fox (September 27, 2012) 7. Figure 5 — Recommended Intersection Improvements Prepared by LLG Engineers 8. Memorandum from City Traffic Engineer (November 28, 2012) Pa01-07 pm3 9 Letter to Councilman Buscaino regarding Rancho LPG facility } ANTHONY M. MISETICH, MAYOR BRIAN CAMPBELL, MAYOR PRO TEM SUSAN BROOKS, COUNCILWOMAN JERRY V. DUHOVIC, COUNCILMAN JIM KNIGHT, COUNCILMAN Councilman Joe Buscaino, 15th District City of Los Angeles 200 N. Spring St., Rm. 425 Los Angeles, CA 90012 November 20, 2012 SUBJECT: Risk Management and Liquid Bulk Storage/Liquid Petroleum Gas (LBS/LPG) Facilities in the Los Angeles Harbor Area Dear Coun ' "-Ba caino: My City Council colleagues and I were very pleased to learn of your November 13th motion, asking the Los Angeles City Attorney to reporton the insurance requirements and liability coverage of LBS/LPG facilities, and to suggest improvements to City laws in this respect (see enclosures). During our City Council's recent review of issues related to the Rancho LPG facility in San Pedro, concerned residents brought to our attention the Contra Costa County Risk Management Ordinance as a possible model for regulating LBS/LPG facilities at the local level. A copy of the Contra Costa County ordinance is enclosed for your reference. The general purposes of the Contra Costa County ordinance are to regulate and protect the community from the effects of substances that are not otherwise covered by Federal or State regulations and oversight; and to provide opportunities for more transparent, accountable and timely review of audits, inspections, investigations, response plans and similar document and processes. In particular, we draw your attention to provisions of the Contra Costa ordinance that might have particular benefit to residents in the Harbor Area and on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, if adopted by the City of Los -Angeles: • Section 450-8.022 — Hazardous Materials Ombudsperson: A designated City of Los Angeles ombudsperson would serve as a "single point of contact... regarding environmental health concerns, questions, and complaints about hazardous materials programs." The ombudsperson would be "empowered to identify and solve problems and make recommendations," as well as to "[investigate] concerns and complaints, [facilitate] their resolution and [assist] people in gathering information about programs, procedures, or issues." • Section 450-8.024 — Public Information Bank: The City of Los Angeles would be empowered to "collect and provide ready access, including the use of 30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 / (310) 544-5205 / FAX (310) 544-5291 / WWW.PALOSVERDES.COM/RPV 4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Councilman Joe Buscalno November 20, 2012 Page 2 electronic accessibility as reasonably available, to public documents... including at a minimum, business plan inventories and emergency response plans, risk management plans, safety plans, and department incident reports." The City of Rancho Palos .Verdes believes that including provisions such as these in a City of Los Angeles risk management ordinance could serve to bolster public confidence in the safety and security of LBS/LPG facilities in the Harbor Area. Again, I thank you for your continued leadership in addressing this issue affecting all of our constituents. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Senior Administrative Analyst Kit Fox at (310) 544-5226 or kitf@rpv.com. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Misetich Mayor enclosures cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Carolyn Lehr, Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager Mayor James Gazeley and the Lomita City Council Michael Rock, Lomita City Manager Mayor George F. Bird, Jr., and the Palos Verdes Estates City Council Judy Smith, Palos Verdes Estates City Manager Mayor James Black and the Rolling Hills City Council Anton Dahlerbruch, Rolling Hills City Manager Mayor Susan Seamans and the Rolling Hills Estates City Count, Doug Prichard, Rolling Hills Estates City Manager Kit Fox, Senior Administrative Analyst MABorder Issues\Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility\20121120_Buscaino_RiskManagementOrdinance.doc is, 13 -S 7 G10 /,,,,57 MOTION NOV 1 2012 Residents and neighbors surrounding the Rancho LPG facility located in San Pedro have expressed various concerns regarding the safety and legality of this facility, This particular liquid bulk tank facility was built in 1973, and is located on private property outside the Port of Los Angeles. It includes two 12.5 million gallon refrigerated banks containing butane, a liquefied petroleum gas which is a by-product of the refining process. Within the past decade, there have been various city reviews of the storage facility, dating back to 2004, and have involved the Planning Department, City Attorney, Harbor Department, Fire Department, the City P,dministrative Office (CAO) as well as the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA). Aside from the Rancho LPG facility in San Pedro, there are a variety of other liquid bulk storage facilities both above and below ground in the Harbor area, which have also raised concerns among nearby residents. It is imperative that the City ensure that any potential threats are thoroughly explored and mitigated. Residents have expressed interest in knowing what existing City, County, State, and or Federal safety regulations and laws are in place to ensure that LPG and LBS facilities are being monitored, what safety standards are in place that must be followed, and if there is any room for improvement on existing laws and regulations. In particular, they are interested to know if there are any existing requirements, by City, County, State, or Federal statute, that specify the amount of liability coverage the owner/operator of a LBS/LPG facility Must carry to be in compliance with the law. I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Attorney be instructed to report on existing City, County, State, and Federal laws and regulations concerning insurance requirements of LPG and LBS facilities, and report on the required liability coverage that operators of said facilities must carry to remain in compliance and stay in operation. I FURTHER MOVE that the City Attorney report on any suggestions, based on their findings, of ways to improve City laws on liability coverage requirements for LBSILPG facilities, as well as any recommended change to County, State, and Federal laws arid regulations that the City would consider lobbying to that respective level of government. Presented B JOE BUSCAINO N' C o uhci Ime m b e r,,l 51" i strij ct Seconded BY— Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT Sections: 450-8.002 - Background and findings. 450-8.004 - Purpose and goals. 450-8.006 - Authority. 450-8.008 - Administration. 450-8.010 - Applicability. 450-8.012 - Inspection. 450-8.014 - Definitions. 450-8.016 , Stationary source safety requirements. 450-8.018 - Review, audit and inspection. 450-8.020 - Trade secret. 450-8.022 - Hazardous materials ombudsperson. 450-8.024 - Public information bank. 450-8.026 - Fees. 450-8.028 - Penalties. 450-8.030 - Annual performance review and evaluation. 450-8.032 - Construction. 450-8.002 - Background and findings. The board of supervisors of Contra Costa County finds as follows: (a) Recent incidents in Contra Costa County at industrial chemical, petrochemical, and oil industry facilities have prompted the consideration of reviews, inspections, and audits that supplement existing federal and state safety programs and the imposition of additional safety measures to protect public health and safety from accidental releases. (b) Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.A. Section 7412(4)) required the Federal Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to promulgate the rule known as the "Risk Management Program," which is intended to prevent accidental releases of regulated substances, as defined in the federal program, and reduce the severity of those releases that do occur.. All facilities subject to this federal regulation must prepare a risk management plan (RMS') "based on a risk management program established at the facility, that includes a hazard assessment of the facility, an accidental release prevention program, and an emergency response program (40 CFR Section 68). The facility must submit the Federal RMP to the EPA by June 21, 1999 (40 CFR Section 68- 150-68.185). The federal RMP will be available to state and local government and the public. (c) The California Health and Safety Code Article 2 (Section 25531 et seq.) of Chapter 6.95 was amended effective January 1, 1997 to implement the federal EPA's risk management program rule with certain state -specific amendments. The state's risk management program is known as the California Accidental Release Prevention (CaIARP) Program. (d) The county recognizes that regulatory requirements alone will not guarantee public health and safety, and that the public is a key stakeholder in chemical accident prevention, Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 1 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT preparedness, and response at the local level. Preventing accidental releases of regulated substances is the shared responsibility of industry, government and the public. The first steps toward accident prevention are identifying the hazards and assessing the risks. Once information about chemical hazards in the community is openly shared, industry, government, and the community can work together towards reducing the risk to public health and safety. (e) The success of a safety program is dependent upon the cooperation of industrial chemical and oil refining facilities within Contra Costa County. The public must be assured that measures necessary to prevent incidents are being implemented, including changes or actions required by the department or the stationary source that are necessary to comply with this chapter. (Ord. 98-48 § 2). 450-8.004 - Purpose and goals. (a) The purp9se of this chapter is to impose regulations which improve industrial safety by: (1) Requiring the conduct of process hazard analyses for covered processes handling hazardous materials not covered by the federal or state accidental release prevention programs; (2) Requiring the review of action items resulting from process hazard analyses and requiring completion of those action items selected by the stationary source for implementation within a reasonable time frame; (3) Requiring the review of accidental release prevention efforts of stationary sources and providing for the conduct of investigations and analyses for the determination of the root cause for certain incidents; (4) Providing review, inspection, auditing and safety requirements that are more stringent than those required in existing law and regulations; (5) Providing for public input into the safety plan and safety program and public review of any inspection and audit results; (6) Facilitating cooperation between industry, the county, and the public in the prevention and reduction of incidents at stationary sources; (7) Expanding the application of certain provisions of the federal and state accidental release prevention programs to processes not covered by the federal or stateaccidental release prevention programs; (8) Verifying that an approved security and vulnerability study is performed, and that the recommendations are addressed within a reasonable time frame; (9) Requiring the development and implementation of a written human factors program; and (10) Preventing and reducing the number, frequency, and severity of accidental releases in the county. (Ords. 2006-22 § 2, 98-48 § 2). Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 2 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT 450-8.006 - Authority. The ordinance codified in this chapter is adopted by the county pursuant to its police power for the purposes of protecting public health and safety by prevention of accidental releases of hazardous materials and to assure protection of the environment. (Ord. 98-48 § 2). 450-8.008 - Administration. The department is charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing this chapter. (Ord. 98-48 § 2). 450-8.010 - Applicability. (a) This chapter shall apply to stationary sources except that: (b) The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter except Sections 450-8.016(c) and (e), and 450-8.018(f) and (g): (1) Storage tanks containing a nonregulated substance, except for storage tanks that contain a material that has a flashpoint above one hundred forty-one degrees Fahrenheit and below two hundred degrees Fahrenheit in accordance with the definition of combustible liquid in 49 CFR 173.120(b); (2) Drum storage of: (A) a nonregulated substance; (B) less than ten thousand pounds of a hazard category B material located such that the drums could reasonably be expected to be involved in a single release; and (C) a hazard category A material, located such that the drums could reasonably be expected to be involved in a single release, at less than the quantity specified as the threshold planning quantity on the extremely hazardous substances list (Appendix A to 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter J, Part 355, as amended from time to time) or five hundred pounds, whichever is less; (3) Activities in process plant laboratories or laboratories that are under the supervision of a technically qualified individual as defined in Section 720.3(ee) of 40 CFR. This exemption does not apply to specialty chemical production; manufacture, processing or use of substances in pilot plant scale operations; and activities conducted outside the laboratory; (4) Utilities, except for fuel gas and natural gas systems to the battery limits of a process unit; and (5) Any waste tanks, containers or other devices subject to the federal and state hazardous waste laws, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter I, commencing with Part 260, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, California Health and Safety Code, commencing with Section 25100 and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22 Division 4.5 Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste. (Ords. 2006-22 § 3, 98-48 § 2). Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 3 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT 450-8.012 - Inspection. The department shall be allowed reasonable access to any part of the stationary source subject to the requirements of this chapter, Sections 450-8.016 and 450-8.018 and to supporting documentation retained by the source for the purpose of determining compliance with this chapter. (Ord. 98-48 § 2). 450-8.014 - Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the definitions set forth in this section shall apply. Words used in this chapter not defined in this section shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Clean Air Act Regulations (40 CFR Section 68.3) and in California Health and Safety Code Article 2 (Section 25531 et seq.) of Chapter 6.95, unless the context indicates otherwise. (a) "Covered process" means any process at a stationary source. (b) "Department" means the Contra Costa County health services director and any director authorized deputies. (c) "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. (d) "Hazard category A materials" are substances which meet the hazard category A material definition as set forth in Section 84-63.1016 of this code. (e) "Hazard category B materials" are substances which meet the hazard category B material definition as set forth in Section 84-63.1016 of this code. (f) "Industry codes, standards, and guidelines" means the edition of the codes, standards, and guidelines in effect at the time of original design or construction for the design, construction, alteration, maintenance or repair of process units, industrial equipment, or other industrial facilities, structures or buildings published by, but not limited to, the American Petroleum Institute (API), the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) or the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and meets recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP). - (g) "Inherently safer systems" means "inherently safer design strategies as discussed in the latest edition of the Center for Chemical Process Safety Publication "Inherently Safer Chemical Processes," and means feasible alternative equipment, processes, materials, lay -outs, and procedures meant to eliminate, minimize, or reduce the risk of a major chemical accident or release by modifying a process rather than adding external layers of protection. Examples include, but are not limited to, substitution of materials with lower vapor pressure, lower flammability, or lower toxicity; isolation of hazardous processes; and use of processes which operate at lower temperatures and/or pressures. (h) "Major chemical accident or release" means an incident that meets the definition of a level 3 or level 2 incident in the community warning system incident level classification system defined in the hazardous materials incident notification policy, as determined by the department; or results in the release of a regulated substance and meets one or more of the following criteria: Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 4 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT (1) Results in one or more fatalities; (2) Results in greater than twenty-four hours of hospital treatment of three or more persons; (3) Causes on- and/or off-site property damage (including clean-up and restoration activities) initially estimated at five hundred thousand dollars or more. On-site estimates shall be performed by the stationary source. Off-site estimates shall be performed by appropriate agencies and compiled by the department; (4) Results in a vapor cloud of flammables and/or combustibles that is more than five thousand pounds. (i) "Regulated substance" means (1) any chemical substance which satisfies the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 25532(g), as amended from time to time, or (2) a substance which satisfies the provisions of hazard categories A or B in Section 84-63.1016 of this code. Mixtures containing less than one percent of a regulated substance shall not be considered in the determination of the presence of a regulated material. (j) 'Risk management program" means the documentation, development, implementation, and integration of management systems by the facility to comply with the regulations set forth in 40 CFR, Part 68 and the California Health and Safety Code, Article 2, commencing with Section 25531. (k) "RMP" means the risk management plan required to be submitted pursuant to the requirements of the 40 CFR Section 68.150-68.185 and the California Health and Safety Code Article 2 (Section 25531 et seq.) of Chapter 6.95. (1) "Root cause" means prime reasons, such as failures of some management systems, that allow faulty design, inadequate training, or improper changes, which lead to an unsafe act or condition, and result in an incident. If root causes were removed, the particular incident would not have occurred. (m) "Safety plan" means the safety plan required to be submitted to the department pursuant to the requirements of Section 450-8.016 of this chapter. (n) "Safety program" means the documentation, development, implementation, and integration of management systems by the stationary source to comply with the safety requirements set forth in Section 450-8.016 of this chapter. (o) "Stationary source" or "source" means a facility which includes at least one process as defined in 40 CFR 68.10 that is subject to federal risk management program level 3 requirements and whose primary North American Industry Classification System code (NAICS) is 324 (Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing) or 325 (Chemical Manufacturing). (p) "California accidental release prevention program" means the documentation, development, implementation, and integration of management systems by a facility to comply with the regulations set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5. (q) "Catastrophic release" means a major uncontrolled emission, fire, or explosion, involving one or more highly hazardous chemicals, that presents serious danger to employees in the workplace and/or the public. As used in this section, "highly hazardous chemical' has the meaning ascribed to it in 29 CFR 1910.119(b) as of May 21, 2003. Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 5 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT (r) "Human factors" means a discipline concerned with designing machines, operations, and work environments so that they match human capabilities, limitations, and needs. "Human factors" can be further referred to as environmental, organizational, and job factors, and human and individual characteristics that influence behavior at work in a way that can affect health and safety. (s) "Human systems" means the systems, such as written and unwritten policies, procedures, and practices, in effect to minimize the existence/persistence of latent conditions at the stationary source. It also includes the broad area of safety culture of a stationary source to the extent that it influences the actions of individuals or groups of individuals. (Ords. 2006-22 § 4, 98-48 § 2). 450-8.016 - Stationary source safety requirements. The stationary source shall submit a safety plan to the department within one year of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter or within three years of the date a facility becomes a stationary source, that complies with the provisions of this section and that includes the safety elements listed in subsection (a) of this section. In addition, the stationary source shall comply with the safety requirements set forth in subsections (a) through (e) of this section and shall include a description of the manner of compliance with these subsections in the safety plan. A new covered process at an existing stationary source shall comply with subsections (a) through (e) of this section prior to initial startup. (a) Safety Program Elements. All covered processes shall be subject to the safety program elements listed below. The safety plan shall include a description of the manner in which these safety program elements listed below shall be applied to the covered process. These safety program elements shall be implemented in conformance with the California accidental release prevention program and the safety plan shall follow Chapters 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the Contra Costa County health services department CalARP program guidance document. (1) Process Safety Information. (A) The stationary source shall complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis as required by this chapter. The compilation of written process safety information is to enable the stationary source and the employees involved in operating the covered process to identify and understand the hazards posed by the covered process. This process safety" infbrmation shall include information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced by the process, information pertaining to the technology of the process, information pertaining to the equipment in the process, and information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances in the process. (i) This information shall consist of at least the following: toxicity information; permissible exposure limits; physical data; reactivity data; corrosivity data; thermal and chemical stability data; and hazardous effects of inadvertent mixing of different materials that could foreseeably occur. (ii) Material safety data sheets meeting the requirements of Section 5189, Title 8 of California Code of Regulations may be used to comply with this requirement to the extent they contain the information required by this subsection. Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 6 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT (iii) Information pertaining to the technology of the process shall include at least the following: a block flow diagram or simplified process flow diagram; process chemistry; maximum intended inventory; safe upper and lower limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows or compositions; and, an evaluation of the consequences of deviations. Where the original technical information no longer exists, such information may be developed in conjunction with the process hazard analysis in sufficient detail to support the analysis. (iv) Information pertaining to the equipment in the process shall include: materials of construction; piping and instrument diagrams (P&ID's); electrical classification; relief system design and design basis; ventilation system design; design codes and standards employed; material and energy balances for processes built after the compliance date of the ordinance codified in this chapter; and safety systems (e.g., interlocks, detection or suppression systems). (B) The stationary source shall document that equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. (C) For existing equipment designed and constructed in accordance with codes, standards, or practices that are no longer in general use, the stationary source shall determine and document that the equipment is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner. (2) Operating Procedures. (A) The stationary source shall develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety information and shall address at least the following elements: (i) Steps for each operating phase: initial startup; normal operations; temporary operations; emergency shutdown, including the conditions under which emergency shutdown is required, and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified operators to ensure that emergency shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner; emergency operations; normal shutdown; and, startup following a turnaround, or after an emergency shutdown. (ii) Operating limits: consequences of deviation; and step. ;1 quired to correct or avoid deviation. (B) Safety and Health Considerations. Properties of, and hazards presented by, the chemicals used in the process; precautions necessary to prevent exposure, including engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment; control measures to be taken if physical contact or airborne exposure occurs; quality control for raw materials and control of hazardous chemical inventory levels; and, any special or unique hazards. (C) Safety systems and their functions. (D) Operating procedures shall be readily accessible to employees who work in or maintain a process. Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 7 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT (E) The operating procedures shall be reviewed as often as necessary to assure that they reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in process chemicals, technology, and equipment, and changes to stationary sources. The stationary source shall certify annually that these operating procedures are current and accurate. (F) The stationary source shall develop and implement safe work practices to provide for the control of hazards during operations such as lockout/tagout; confined space entry; opening process equipment or piping; and control over entrance into a stationary source by maintenance, contractor, laboratory, or other support personnel. These safe work practices shall apply to employees and contractor employees. (3) Employee Participation. (A) The stationary source shall develop a written plan of action regarding the implementation of the employee participation required by this chapter. (B) The stationary source shall consult with employees and their representatives on the conduct and development of process hazards analyses and on the development of the other elements of the safety program in this chapter. (C) The stationary source shall provide to employees and their representatives access to process hazard analyses and to all other information required to be developed under this chapter. (4) Training. For each employee in such covered process: (A) Initial Training. Each employee presently involved in operating a covered process, and each employee before being involved in operating a newly assigned covered process, shall be trained in an overview of the process and in the operating procedures as specified in subsection (a)(2)(A) of this section. The training shall include emphasis on the specific safety and health hazards, emergency operations including shutdown, and safe work practices applicable to the employee's job tasks. In lieu of initial training for those employees already involved in operating a process, an owner or operator may certify in writing that the employee has the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to safely carry out the duties and responsibilities as specified in the operating procedures. (B) Refresher Training. Refresher training shall be provided at least every three years, and more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating*a covered process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the covered process. The stationary source, in consultation with the employees involved in operating the process, shall determine the appropriate frequency of refresher training. (C) Training Documentation. The stationary source shall ascertain that each employee involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required by this section. The stationary source shall prepare a record which contains the identity of the employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training. (5) Mechanical Integrity, Including the Use of Industry Codes, Standards, and Guidelines. Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 8 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT (A) Application. Subsections (a)(5)(B) through (a)(5)(F) of this section apply to the following process equipment: pressure vessels and storage tanks; piping subsystems (including piping components such as valves); relief and vent systems and devices; emergency shutdown systems; controls (including monitoring devices and sensors, alarms, and interlocks) and pumps. (B) Written Procedures. The stationary source shall establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment. (C) Training for Process Maintenance Activities. The stationary source shall train each employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment in an overview of that process and its hazards and in the procedures applicable to the employee's job tasks to assure that the employee can perform the job tasks in a safe manner. (D) Inspection and Testing. (1) Inspections and tests shall be performed on process equipment. Inspection and testing procedures shall follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. The frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be consistent with applicable manufacturers' recommendations and good engineering practices, and more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience. The stationary source shall document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment. The documentation shall identify the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which the inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test. (E) Equipment Deficiencies. The stationary source shall correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits (defined by the process safety information in subsection (a)(1) of this section) before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation. (F) Quality Assurance. In the construction of new plants and equipment, the stationary source shall assure that equipment as it is fabricated is suitable fpr the process application for which they will be used. Appropriate checks and inspections shall be performed to assure that equipment is installed properly and>,:n istent with design specifications and the manufacturer's instructions. The stationary source shall assure that maintenance materials, spare parts and equipment are suitable for the process application for which they will be used. (6) Management of Change. (A) The stationary source shall establish and implement written procedures to manage changes (except for "replacements in kind") to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and changes to stationary sources that affect a covered process. (B) The procedures shall assure that the following considerations are addressed prior to any change: the technical basis for the proposed change; impact of change on safety Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 9 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT and health; modifications to operating procedures; necessary time period for the change; and authorization requirements for the proposed change. (C) Employees involved in operating a process and maintenance and contract employees whose job tasks will be affected by a change in the process shall be informed of, and trained in, the change prior to startup of the process or affected part of the process. (D) If a change covered by this section results in a change in the process safety information required by subsection (a)(1) of this section, such information shall be updated accordingly. (E) If a change covered by this section results in a change in the operating procedures or practices required by subsection (a)(2) of this section, such procedures or practices shall be updated accordingly. (7) Pre -Startup Reviews. (A) The stationary source shall perform a pre -startup safety review for new stationary sources and for modified stationary sources when the modification is significant enough to require a change in the process safety information. (B) The pre -startup safety review shall confirm that prior to the introduction of regulated substances to a covered process: construction and equipment is in accordance with design specifications; safety, operating, maintenance, and emergency procedures are in place and are adequate; for new covered processes, a process hazard analysis has been performed and recommendations have been resolved or implemented before startup; and modified covered processes meet the requirements contained in management of change, subsection (a)(6) of this section; and training of each employee involved in operating a process has been completed. (8) Compliance Audits. (A) The stationary source shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions of this section at least every three years to verify that the procedures and practices developed under this chapter are adequate and are being followed. (B) The compliance audit shall be conducted by at least one person knIowledgeable in the process. (C) A report of the findings of the audit shall be developed. (D) The stationary source shall promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected. (E) The stationary source shall retain the two most recent compliance audit reports. (9) Incident Investigation. (A) The stationary source shall investigate each incident which resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release of a regulated substance. Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 10 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT (B) An incident investigation shall be initiated as promptly as possible, but not later than forty-eight hours following the incident. (C) An incident investigation team shall be established and consist of at least one person knowledgeable in the covered process involved, including a contract employee if the incident involved work of the contractor, and other persons with appropriate knowledge and experience to thoroughly investigate and analyze the incident. (D) A report shall be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation which includes at a minimum: date of incident; date investigation began; a description of the incident; the factors that contributed to the incident; and recommendations resulting from the investigation. The written summary shall indicate whether the cause of the incident and/or recommendations resulting from the investigation are specific only to the process or equipment involved in the incident, or are applicable to other processes or equipment at the stationary source. The incident investigation report shall be made available to the department upon request. (E) The stationary source shall establish a system to promptly address and resolve the incident report findings and recommendations. Resolutions and corrective actions shall be documented. (F) The report shall be reviewed with all affected personnel whose job tasks are relevant to the incident findings including contract employees where applicable. (G) Incident investigation reports shall be retained for five years. (10) Hot Work. (A) The stationary source shall issue a hot work permit for hot work operations conducted on or near a covered process. (B) The permit shall document that the fire prevention and protection requirements in Section 5189 of Title 8 of California Code Regulations have been implemented prior to beginning the hot work operations; it shall indicate the date(s) authorized for hot work; and identify the object on which hot work is to be performed. The permit shall be kept on file until completion of the hot work operations. (11) Contractors. (A) Application. This section applies to contractors performing maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovation, or specialty work on or adjacent to a covered process. It does not apply to contractors providing incidental services which do not influence process safety, such as janitorial work, food and drink services, laundry, delivery or other supply services. (B) Stationary Source Responsibilities. (i) The stationary source, when selecting a contractor, shall obtain and evaluate information regarding the contract owner or operator's safety performance and programs. (ii) The stationary source shall inform contract owner or operator of the known Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 11 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the contractor's work and the process. (iii) The stationary source shall explain to the contract owner or operator the applicable provisions of the emergency response program subsection (a)(12) of this section. (iv) The stationary source shall develop and implement safe work practices consistent with subsection (a)(2) of this section to control the entrance, presence, and exit of the contract owner or operator and contract employees in covered process areas. (v) The stationary source shall periodically evaluate the performance of the contract owner or operator in fulfilling their obligations as specified in subsection (a)(1 1)(C) of this section. (C) Contract Owner or Operator Responsibilities. (i) The contract owner or operator shall assure that each contract employee is trained in the work practices necessary to safely perform his/her job. (ii) The contract owner or operator shall assure that each contract employee is instructed in the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to his/her job and the process, and the applicable provisions of the emergency action plan. (iii) The contract owner or operator shall document that each contract employee has received and understood the training required by this section. The contract owner or operator shall prepare a record which contains the identity of the contract employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training. (iv) The contract owner or operator shall assure that each contract employee follows the safety rules of the stationary source including the safe work practices required by subsection (a)(2) of this section. (v) The contract owner or operator shall advise the stationary source of any unique hazards presented by the contract owner or operator'8 work, or of any hazards found by the contract owner or operator's work. (12) Emergency Response Program. (A) The stationary source shall develop and implement an emergency response program for the purpose of protecting public health and the environment. Such program shall include the following elements: (i) An emergency response plan, which shall be maintained at the stationary source and contain at least the following elements: procedures for informing the public and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases, emergency planning, and emergency response; documentation of proper first-aid and emergency medical treatment necessary to treat accidental human exposures; and procedures and measures for emergency response after an accidental release Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 12 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT of a regulated substance; (ii) Procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection, testing, and maintenance, including documentation of inspection, testing, and maintenance; (iii) Training for all employees in relevant procedures and the incident command system; and (iv) Procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response plan to reflect changes at the stationary source and ensure that employees are informed of changes. (B) A written plan that complies with other federal contingency plan regulations or is consistent with the approach in the National Response Team's Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance ("One Plan") and that, among other matters, includes the elements provided in subsection (a)(12)(A) of this section, shall satisfy the requirements of this section if the stationary source also complies with subsection (a)(12)(C) of this section. (C) The emergency response plan developed under this section shall be coordinated with the community emergency response plan developed under 42 U.S.C. Section 11003. Upon request of the local emergency planning committee or emergency response officials, the stationary source shall promptly provide to the local emergency response officials information necessary for developing and implementing the community emergency response plan. (D) The stationary source whose employees will not respond to accidental releases of regulated substances need not comply with subsections (a)(1 2)(A) through (a)(1 2)(C) of this section provided that they meet the following: (i) For stationary sources with any regulated toxic substance held in a process above the threshold quantity, the stationary source is included in the community emergency response plan developed under Section 11003 of Title 42 of the United States Code (USC); or (ii) For stationary sources with only regulated flammable substances held in a process above the threshold quantity the stationary source -1 has coordinated response actions with the local fire department; and (iii) Appropriate mechanisms are in place to notify emergency responders when there is a need for a response. (13) Safety Program Management. (A) The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this chapter shall develop a management system to oversee the implementation of the safety program elements. (B) The owner or operator shall assign a qualified person or position that has the overall responsibility for the development, implementation, and integration of the safety program elements. (C) When responsibility for implementing individual requirements of this chapter is Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 13 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT assigned to persons other than the person identified under subsection (a)(1 3)(B) of this section, the names or positions of these people shall be documented and the lines of authority defined through an organization chart or similar document. (b) Human Factors Program. (1) Stationary sources shall develop a written human factors program that follows the human factors guidance document developed or adopted by the department. The program shall be developed within one year following the issuance of the Contra Costa County guidance documents, the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, or as otherwise allowed by this chapter, whichever is later. The human factors program shall address: (A) The inclusion of human factors in the process hazards analysis process; (B) The consideration of human systems as causal factors in the incident investigation process for major chemical accidents or releases or for an incident that could reasonably have resulted in a major chemical accident or release; (C) The training of employees in the human factors program; (D) Operating procedures; (E) Maintenance safe work practice procedures and maintenance procedures for specialized equipment, piping, and instruments, no later than June 30, 2011; and (F) The requirement to conduct a management of change prior to staffing changes for changes in permanent staffing levels/reorganization in operations, maintenance, health and safety, or emergency response. This requirement shall also apply to stationary sources using contractors in permanent positions in operations and maintenance. Prior to conducting the management of change, the stationary source shall ensure that the job function descriptions are current and accurate for the positions under consideration. Staffing changes that last longer than ninety days are considered permanent. Temporary changes associated with strike preparations shall also be subject to this requirement. Employees and their representatives shall be consulted in the management of change. 3 t (2) Employees and their representatives shall participate in the development of the written human factors program. (3) The program shall include, but not be limited to, issues such as staffing, shiftwork and overtime. (4) A description of the human factors program subsections (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section shall be included in the safety plan prepared by the stationary source. (c) Root Cause Analysis and Incident Investigation. (1) Stationary sources shall conduct a root cause analysis for each major chemical accident or release which occurs after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. Stationary sources shall periodically update the department on facts related to the release or incident, and the status of a root cause analysis conducted pursuant to this section, at Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 14 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT meetings scheduled by the department in cooperation with the stationary source. To the maximum extent feasible, the department and the stationary source shall coordinate these meetings with other agencies with jurisdiction over the stationary source. Within thirty days of completing a root cause analysis performed pursuant to this section, the stationary source shall submit to the department a final report containing that analysis, including recommendations to be implemented to mitigate against the release or incident reoccurring, if any, and a schedule for completion of resulting recommendations. The department may require the stationary source to submit written, periodic update reports at a frequency not to exceed every thirty days until the final report is submitted. The methodology of the root cause analysis shall be one of the methodologies recognized by the Center for Chemical Process Safety or shall be reviewed by the department to determine substantial equivalency. (2) The department may elect to do its own independent root cause analysis or incident investigation for a major chemical accident or release. If the department elects to conduct a root cause analysis or incident investigation the stationary source shall cooperate with the department by providing the following access and information in a manner consistent with the safety of department and stationary source personnel and without placing undue burdens on the operation of the stationary source: (i) Allow the department to investigate the accident site and directly related facilities such as control rooms, physical evidence and where practicable the external and internal inspection of equipment; (ii) Provide the department with pertinent documentation; and (iii) Allow the department to conduct independent interviews of stationary source employees, subject to all rights of the stationary source and employees to be represented by legal counsel and/or management and union representatives during such interviews. If in the course of the department's root cause analysis or incident investigation access is required to areas of the stationary source which in the judgment of the stationary source requires personnel entering the area to use protective equipment and/or have specialized training the department shall provide its personnel with such equipment and training. To the maximum extent feasible, the department shall coordinate any root cause analysis or incident investigation it conducts with investigations conducted by other agencies with jurisdiction over the stationary source to minimize the adverse impacts on the stationary source and/or its ern,ployees. (3) No part of the conclusions, findings or recommendations of the -->root cause analysis conducted by the department or stationary source, or incident investigation conducted by the department, relating to any major chemical accident or release or the investigation thereof shall be admitted as evidence or used in any action or suit for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report. (d) Process Hazard Analysis/Action Items. (1) Process hazard analyses will be conducted for each of the covered processes according to one of the following methods: What -If, Checklist, What-If/Checklist, Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP), Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), fault tree analysis or an appropriate equivalent methodology approved by the department prior to conducting the process hazard analysis. The process hazard analysis shall be appropriate to the complexity Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 15 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT of the covered process and shall identify, evaluate, and control the hazards involved in the covered process. The process hazard analysis shall address: the hazards of the process; the identification of any previous incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences; engineering and administrative control applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships such as appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases (acceptable detection methods might include process monitoring and control instrumentation with alarms, and detection hardware such as hydrocarbon sensors); consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls; covered process and stationary source siting; human factors; and a qualitative evaluation of a range of the possible safety and health effects of failure of controls. PHAs should also include consideration of external events except for seismic analyses, which are only required when criteria listed in subsection (d)(2) of this section are satisfied. All process hazard analyses shall be performed by a team with expertise in engineering and process operations, and the team shall include at least one employee who has experience and knowledge specific to the process being evaluated. Also, one member of the team must be knowledgeable in the specific process hazard analysis methodology being used. (2) The process hazard analyses shall be conducted within one year of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter and no later than the submittal date of the safety plan. Previously completed process hazard analyses that comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5189, and/or the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Section 2760.2 are acceptable for the purposes of this chapter. Process hazard analyses shall be updated and revalidated at least once every five years after completion of the initial process hazard analysis. Updated and revalidated process hazard analyses completed to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5189, and/or the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Section 2760 are acceptable for meeting the update and revalidation requirement. Seismic events shall be considered for processes containing a substance defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Chapter 4.51, Section 2770.5, if the distance to the nearest public receptor for a worst case release scenario specified by the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Chapter 4.5, Section 2750.3 is within the distance to a toxic or flammable endpoint as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Chapter 4.5, Section 2750.2(a). (3) For all covered processes, the stationary source shall consider the use of inherently safer systems in the development and analysis of mitigation items resulting from a process hazard analysis and in the design and review of new processes and facilities:"The stationary source shall select and implement inherently safer systems to the greatest extent feasible. If a stationary source concludes that an inherently safer system is not feasible, the basis for this conclusion shall be documented in meaningful detail. (4) For all covered processes, the stationary source shall document the decision made to implement or not implement all process hazard analysis recommended action items and the results of recommendations for additional study. The stationary source shall complete recommended actions from the initial PHA's and from PHA revalidations, identified by the process hazard analysis and selected for implementation by the stationary source as follows: all actions not requiring a process shutdown shall be completed within one year after submittal of the safety plan; all actions requiring a process shutdown shall be completed during the first regularly scheduled turnaround of the applicable process subsequent to one year after submittal of the safety plan unless the stationary source demonstrates to the satisfaction of the department that such a schedule is infeasible. For recommended actions Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 16 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT not selected for implementation, the stationary source shall include the justification for not implementing the recommended action. For all covered processes, the stationary source shall retain documentation of closure, and any associated justifications, of actions identified by the process hazard analysis. The stationary source shall communicate the actions to operating, maintenance, and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations or actions. (e) Accident History. (1) The stationary source shall include an accident history in the safety plan of all major chemical accidents or releases from June 1, 1992, through the date of safety plan submittal to the department. For each major chemical accident or release the stationary source shall report the following information, to the extent known: Date, time and approximate duration of the release; Chemicals released; Estimated quantity released in pounds; Type of release event and its source; Weather conditions at the time of the release; On-site impacts; Known off-site impacts; Initiating event and contributing factors; Root cause(s); Whether off-site responders were notified; and Operational or process changes that resulted from the investigation of the release. (2) The stationary source shall annually submit a report of the accident history to the department. The first report shall be due two years after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, and subsequent reports shall be due by June 30th of each year. (f) Certification. The owner or operator shall submit in the safety plan a single certification that, to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the information submitted is true, accurate, and complete. (g) Security and Vulnerability Assessment. Each stationary source shall perform and document a security and vulnerability assessment as defined in the Contra Costa County CaIARP program guidance document, by June 30, 2007, and at least once every five years after the initial assessment, or as prescribed by federal regulation. The stationary source shall document its process for assuring that recommendations are addressed. (h) Safety Culture Assessment. The stationary source shall conduct a safety culture assessment. The assessment shall be based upon a method listed in the Contra Costa County CaIARP program guidance document or shall be reviewed by the department to determine Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 17 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT substantial equivalency. The initial assessment shall be performed by one year following the revisions to the Industrial Safety Ordinance guidance document that addresses the safety culture assessment, and at least once every five years thereafter. The safety culture assessment will be reviewed during the audit and inspection of the stationary source. The department may perform its own safety culture assessment after a major chemical accident or release or the occurrence of any incident that could reasonably have led to a major chemical accident or release, or based on department audit results of the stationary source. (Ords. 2006-22 § 5, 2000-20 § 1, 98-48 § 2). 450-8.018 - Review, audit and inspection. (a) Upon submission of a safety plan by the stationary source, the department shall review the safety plan to determine if all the elements required by Section 450-8.016 of this chapter are included and complete. The department shall provide to the stationary source a written notice of deficiencies, if any. The stationary, source shall have sixty calendar days from receipt of the notice of deficiencies to make any corrections. The stationary source may request, in writing, a one-time thirty -day calendar day extension to correct deficiencies. By the end of the sixty calendar days or any extension period, the stationary source shall resubmit the revised safety plan to the department. After the department determines that the safety plan is complete, the department shall schedule a public meeting on the stationary source's safety plan to explain its contents to the public and take public comments. Public comments on the safety plan shall be taken by the department for a period of forty-five days after the safety plan is made available to the public. The department shall schedule a public meeting on the stationary source's safety plan during the forty-five day comment period. The public meetings shall be held in the affected community on evenings or weekends. The department shall respond in writing to all written comments received during the forty-five day comment period and to all oral comments received and not addressed at the public meeting. The department shall make portions of the safety plan, which are not protected trade secret information, available to the public for the public meeting. (b) (1) The department shall, within one year of the submission of the stationary source's safety plan, conduct an initial audit and inspection of the stationary source's safety program to determine compliance with this chapter. Based upon the department's review of the safety plan and the audit and inspection of the stationary source, the department may require modifications or additions to the safety plan submitted by the stationary source, or safety program to bring the safety plan or safety program into compliance with the requirements of this chapter. Any determination that modifications or additions to the safety plan or safety program are required shall be in writing, collectively -referred to as the "preliminary determination." The preliminary determination shall explain the basis for the modifications or additions required to bring the safety plan or safety program into compliance with the requirements of this chapter and provide a timetable for resolution of the recommendations. The preliminary determination shall be mailed to the stationary source. (2) The stationary source shall respond in writing to the preliminary determination issued by the department. The response shall state that the stationary source will incorporate into the safety plan or safety program the revisions contained in the preliminary determination or shall state that the stationary source rejects the revisions; in whole or in part. For each rejected revision, the stationary source shall explain the basis for rejecting such revision. Such explanation may include substitute revisions. (3) The stationary source's written response to the department's preliminary determination shall be received by the department within ninety days of the issuance of the preliminary determination Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 18 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT or such shorter time as the department specifies in the preliminary determination as being necessary to protect public health and safety. Prior to the written response being due and upon written request from the stationary source, the department may provide, in writing, additional time for the response to be received. (4) After receiving the written response from the stationary source, the department shall issue a public notice pursuant to the department's public participation policy and make portions of the safety plan, the preliminary determination and the stationary source's responses, which are not protected trade secret information, available for public review. Public comments on the safety plan shall be taken by the department for a period of forty-five days after the safety plan, the preliminary determination and the stationary source's responses are made available to the public. The department shall schedule a public meeting on the stationary source's safety plan during the forty-five day comment period. The public meetings shall be held in the affected community on evenings or weekends. The department shall respond in writing to all written comments received during the forty-five day comment period and to all oral comments received and not addressed at the public meeting. (c) Based upon the department's preliminary determination, review of the stationary source's responses and review of public comments on the safety plan, the preliminary determination and the stationary source's responses, the department may require modifications or additions to the safety plan submitted by the stationary source or safety program to bring the safety plan or safety program into compliance with the requirements of this chapter. Any determination that modifications or additions to the safety plan or safety program are required, and any determination that no modifications or additions to the safety plan or safety program are required shall be in writing (collectively referred to as "final determination"), shall be mailed to the stationary source and shall be made available to the public. The department may not include in a final determination any requirements to a safety plan or safety program that would cause a violation of, or conflict with, any state or federal law or regulation or a violation of any permit or order issued by any state or federal agency. (d) Within thirty days of the department's final determination, the stationary source and/or any person may appeal the final determination to the board of supervisors pursuant to Chapter 14-4 of this code by a verified written notice of appeal filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors and payment of the applicable appeal fee. The appeal must be limited to issues raised during the public comment period. The notice shall state the grounds for any such appeal, including (i) the reasoning that the appeal is necessary because the stationary source is in compliance with this chapter, or (ii) the reasoning that the appeal is necessary to bring the stationary source into compliance with this chapter. -In acting on the appeal, the board shall have the same authority over the final determination as the department. The board may require modifications or additions to the safety plan or safety program 'to bring the safety plan or safety program into compliance with the requirements of this chapter. The board may not include in its decision on the final determination any requirements to a safety plan or safety program that would cause a violation of, or conflict with, any state or federal law or regulation or a violation of any permit or order issued by any state or federal agency. The decision of the board of supervisors shall be final with respect to the final determination. (e) The safety plan shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of receipt by the department and shall be reviewed and updated by the stationary source every three years pursuant to the requirements of this chapter. Any revisions to the safety plan as a result of the review and update shall be submitted to the department and shall be subject to the provisions of this section. (f) The department may, within thirty days of a major chemical accident or release, initiate a safety Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 19 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT inspection to review and audit the stationary source's compliance with the provisions of Section 450- 8.016 of this chapter. The department shall review and audit the stationary source's compliance with the provisions of Section 450-8.016 of this chapter at least once every three years. The department may audit the stationary source based upon any of the following criteria: accident history of the stationary source, accident history of other stationary sources in the same industry, quantity of regulated substances present at the stationary source, location of the stationary source and its proximity to the public and environmental receptors, the presence of specific regulated substances, the hazards identified in the safety plan, a plan for providing neutral and random oversight, or a complaint from the stationary source's employee(s) or their representative. The stationary source shall allow the department to conduct these inspections and audits. The department, at its option, may select an outside consultant to assist in conducting such inspection. (g) Within thirty days of a major chemical accident or release the department may commence an incident safety inspection with respect to the process involved in the incident pursuant to the provisions of Section 450-8.016(c) of this chapter. (h) (1) Based upon the department's audit, safety inspection or an incident inspection, the department may require modifications or additions to the safety plan submitted by the stationary source or safety program to bring the safety plan or safety program into compliance with the requirements of this chapter. Any determination by the department shall be in writing and shall be mailed to the stationary source (referred to as the "notice of findings"). The stationary source shall have sixty calendar days from receipt of the notice of findings to make any corrections. The stationary source may request, in writing, a one-time thirty -day calendar day extension to make corrections. The department may not include in its notice of findings requirements to a safety plan or safety program that would cause a violation of, or conflict with, any state or federal law or regulation or a violation of any permit or order issued by any state or federal agency. The notice of findings made by the department will be available to the public. (2) Within thirty days of the department's notice of findings, the stationary source and/or any person may appeal the notice of findings to the board of supervisors pursuant to Chapter 14-4 of this code by a verified written notice of appeal filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors and payment of the applicable appeal fee. The appeal must state the grounds for any such appeal, including (i) the reasoning that the appeal is necessary because the stationary source is in compliance with this chapter, or (ii) the reasoning that the appeal is necessary to bring the stationary source into compliance with this chapter. In acting on the appeal, the board shall have the same authority over the notice of findings as the department. The board may require modifications or additions to the safety plan or safety program to bring the safety plan or safety program into compliance with the requirements of this chapter. The board may not include in its decision on the notice of findings any requirements to a safety plan or safety program that would cause a violation of, or conflict with, any state or federal law or regulation or a violation of any permit or order issued by any state or federal agency. The decision of the board of supervisors shall be final with respect to the notice of findings. (i) Nothing in this section shall preclude, limit, or interfere in any way with the authority of the county to exercise its enforcement, investigatory, and information gathering authorities under any other provision of law nor shall anything in the chapter effect or diminish the rights of the stationary source to claim legal privileges such as attorney client privilege and/or work product with respect to information and/or documents required to be submitted to or reviewed by the department. (Ords. 2006-22 § 6, 98-48 § 2). Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 20 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT 450-8.020 - Trade secret. The disclosure of any trade secret information required by this chapter shall be governed by California Health and Safety Code Section 25538, as amended from time to time, or as otherwise protected or required by law. (Ord. 98-48 § 2). 450-8.022 - Hazardous materials ombudsperson. The department shall continue to employ an ombudsperson for hazardous materials programs. The ombudsperson will serve as a single point of contact for people who live or work in Contra Costa County regarding environmental health concerns, questions, and complaints about hazardous materials programs. The ombudsperson will be empowered to identify and solve problems and make recommendations to the department. The ombudsperson's role will be one of investigating concerns and complaints, facilitating their resolution and assisting people in gathering information about programs, procedures, or issues. The ombudsperson may retain appropriate technical experts in order to fulfill technical assistance requests from members of the public. The cost of experts may be funded through programs established by the U.S. EPA or other appropriate entities. (Ords. 2000-20 § 2, 98-48 § 2). 450-8.024 - Public information bank. The department shall collect and provide ready access, including the use of electronic accessibility as reasonably available, to public documents which are relevant to the goals of this chapter, including at a minimum, business plan inventories and emergency response plans, risk management plans, safety plans, and department incident reports. This section shall not apply to trade secret information or other information protected from disclosure under federal or state law. The public information bank shall be completed by December 31, 2000. (Ord. 98-48 § 2). 450-8.026 - Fees. The department may, upon a majority vote of the board of supervisors, adopt a schedule of fees to be collected from each stationary source subject to the requirements of this chiptef, Any review, inspection, audit fee schedule shall be set in an amount sufficient to pay only those casts reasonably necessary to carry out the requirements of this chapter, including costs of staff,. -and/or consultant time or public hearings and administrative overhead. The fee schedule shall include the cost of the ombudsperson position. (Ord. 98-48 § 2). 450-8.028 - Penalties. Regardless of the availability of other civil or administrative remedies and procedures for enforcing this chapter, every act or condition prohibited or declared unlawful by this chapter, and every knowing or wilful failure or omission to act as required herein, is a violation of this code and shall be punishable and/or subject to enforcement pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 14-67 of the County Ordinance Code specifically including but not limited to Article 14-6.4 (public nuisance), and Article 14-8 (criminal enforcement), as misdemeanors or infractions. Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 21 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT (Ord. 98-48 § 2). 450-8.030 - Annual performance review and evaluation. (a) The department shall annually: (1) review its activities to implement this chapter, and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of this chapter in achieving its purpose and goals pursuant to Section 450-8.004 of this chapter. (b) An annual performance review and evaluation report shall be prepared by the department based upon the previous fiscal year's activities and shall be submitted to the board of supervisors on or before October 31, 2000 and each year thereafter. The report shall contain: (1) A brief description of how the department is meeting the requirements of this chapter as follows: (i) effectiveness of the department's program to ensure stationary source compliance with this chapter; (ii) effectiveness of the procedures for records management; (iii) number and type of audits and inspections conducted by the department pursuant to this chapter; (iv) number of root cause analyses and/or incident investigations conducted by the department; (v) the department's process for public participation; (vi) effectiveness of the public information bank, including status of electronic accessibility; (vii) effectiveness of the hazardous materials ombudsperson; (viii) other required program elements necessary to implement and manage this chapter. (2) A listing of all stationary sources covered by this chapter, including for each: (i) the status of the stationary source's safety plan and program; (ii) a summary of all stationary source safety plan updates and a listing of where the safety plans are publicly available; (iii) the annual accident history report submitted by the stationary source pursuant to Section 450-8.016(e)(2) of this chapter; (iv) a summary, including the status, of any root cause analyses conducted or being conducted by the stationary source and required by this chapter, including the status of implementation of recommendations; (v) a summary, including the status, of any audits, inspections, root cause analyses and/or incident investigations conducted or being conducted by the department pursuant to this chapter, including the status of implementation of recommendations; (vi) description of inherently safer systems implemented by the stationary source; and (vii) legal enforcement actions initiated by the department, including administrative, civil, and criminal actions pursuant to this chapter. (3) Total penalties assessed as a result of enforcement of this chapter. (4) Total fees, service charges, and other assessments collected specifically for, the support of this chapter. (5) Total personnel and personnel years utilized by the jurisdiction to directly implement or administer this chapter. (6) Comments from interested parties regarding the effectiveness of the local program that raise public safety issues. (7) The impact of the chapter in improving industrial safety. (c) The department shall provide a copy of the annual performance audit submission required by Title 19 Chapter 4.5 Section 2780.5 of the California Code of Regulations to the board of supervisors on or before October 31 st of each year. (Ords. 2006-22 § 7, 98-48 § 2). Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 22 of 23 Title 4 - HEALTH AND SAFETY Division 450 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES Chapter 450-8 - RISK MANAGEMENT 450-8.032 - Construction. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code and for the purposes of this chapter wherever it provides that the department shall act, such direction in all instances shall be deemed and is directory, discretionary and permissive and not mandatory. (Ord. 98-48 § 2). Contra Costa County, California, Ordinance Code Page 23 of 23 E-mail from Janet Gunter regarding Rancho LPG facility Page 1 of 4 Kit Fox From: Carolynn Petru Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 8:37 AM To: Kit Fox Subject: FW: Nuisance Abatement Filing on Rancho Liquid Petroleum Gas Facility, San Pedro Attachments: saftyelt.pdf; rupturezonecityla-1.jpg; bea_correspondence_Aug_3,_2012... Breeze_submission.doc Hi Kit — FYI — it doesn't appear that you were copied on this email that was sent to the City Council. CP From: Janet Gunter [mailto:arriane5@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 10:51 AM To: Ricardo.Hong@lacity.org; meveloff@gmail.com; william.carter@lacity.org; marisol.espinoza@lacity.org; Joebuscaino@cox.net; jacob.haik@lacity.org; jcynthiaperry@aol.com; rkim@lacbos.org; CC; g.sugano@lomitacity.com; burl ing102@aol.com; diananave@gmail.com; info@centralsanpedro.org; DBabcock-Doherty@portla.org; ksmith@klct.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; chateau4us@att.net; jody.james@sbcglobal.net; connie@rutter.us; dakotahpat@sbcglobal.net; vvimmerarchitect@aim.com; amardesich@earthlink.net; dlrivera@prodigy.net; bonbon31@earthlink.net Cc: dan.weikel@latimes.com; ron.white@latimes.com; paul_h_rosenberg@hotmail.com; kfoshay@kcet.org; djgoldstein@cbs.com; patrick.healy@nbcuni.com; toni.guinyard@nbcuni.com; tawesten@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; carl.southwell@gmail.com; donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com; ronkil@aol.com; ronkilgore1070@gmail.com Subject: Fwd: Nuisance Abatement Filing on Rancho Liquid Petroleum Gas Facility, San Pedro NC's please distribute to all members per SPPHU. Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: det310 <det310@juno.com> To: Michael. LoGrande <Michael.LoGrande@lacity.org> Sent: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 12:17 pm Subject: Nuisance Abatement, Rancho LPG November 22, 2012 Michael J. LoGrande, Zoning Administrator Los Angeles Planning Department 201 North Figueroa Street #4 Los Angeles, CA 90012 RE: FILING FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT/REVOCATION RANCHO LPG (ORIGINALLY, PETROLANE LPG) 2110 No. Gaffey St. San Pedro, CA 90731 Dear Mr. LoGrande: 11/29/2012 Page 2 of 4 The San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United is a non-profit 501 C-3 corporation that was a litigant and prevailed in the interest of the community in the China Shipping lawsuit in 2003. Unfortunately, our Homeowners have been unaware until recently of the changes in 2008 to Nuisance Abatement criteria that now offers the opportunity to take action on situations that have been "grandfathered in" as a means to protect the citizenry. We applaud the long overdue wisdom of this inclusion. We now "officially" lodge our complaint and action with a demand to the City of LA to protect our community. The above listed Liquid Petroleum Gas storage facility has been a matter of consistent concern to residents since inception in 1973. Since that time an extensive list of LA City and County officials, State officials and Agencies, Federal officials and agencies have all been solicited to take action on this ultra hazardous facility due to the risk it poses to the public to no avail. The introduction of the liquid petroleum gas facility (initially, Petrolane) created a condition that is harmful to the public's health and safety. The large radius of impact endangers a great number of people. Ordinary citizens are negatively affected by the presence of this facility. The incorporation of this facility was a violation of the 1 St principle of Civil Law; "Exposure of the public to risks that they do not know about, nor have agreed to accept." The seriousness of the potential harm significantly outweighs the social utility of Rancho LPG. Plaintiffs within the radius of impact suffer harm that is different from the type of harm experienced by the general public. Rancho LPG's operation is a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiffs. This LPG facility was introduced without benefit of a risk analysis, without a proper EIR; The EIR does not respond to the volatility of its gas commodity, the existence of residential neighborhoods, and the myriad of geologic and seismic vulnerabilities of the property. The facility was given an undefined "emergency exemption" to CEQA and LA City fire regulations. Governor Brown's 1977 report by the PUC confirms these facts. We have included a copy of the City of LA Planning Department's own map which clearly shows that the two 12.5 to 13 million gallon capacity tanks of the storage facility are located directly in the Earthquake Rupture Zone of the Palos Verdes Fault (mag. 7.3). As if that is not worrisome enough, the existing tanks were built "without having pulled LA City Building Permits"and were only "certified" after serious controversy and pressure in 1978 while the facility was in operation. The tanks construction meets a seismic sub -standard of 5.5-6.0! The cataclysmic potential of this facility is incredible. Yet, the City of LA has appeared unconcerned about the danger. LA City's business permitting process demands that a business must "re -file" as a new business if there is a change of over 50% in their business operation. Rancho/Petrolane/Amerigas LPG facility located in the Harbor area for the main purpose of shipping their LPG by sea. Although only one EIR was conducted under a "Marine Terminal" at the Port of LA, the actual storage facility was always located on a remote and separate piece of LA City private property with a pipeline to a "wharf' located at the Port of LA. Over 68% of their propane product was shipped by sea with the remaining percentage made up of rail and truck transport. In approximately 2006, the Port of LA refused to renew the company's 30 year old pipeline lease to the wharf. At that time, there was an immediate and demonstrative change in their operation shifting ALL hazardous Liquid Energy Gas transport to Rail and Truck! This is an inherently more dangerous mode of transport. Also, sometime within those 30 years, the business of major "propane" shipping, changed to "butane" shipping. The largest tanks are now storing "butane" rather than the original "propane". These business changes should have triggered a new EIR, but that never happened. The bottom line is now this: As tragically irresponsible as the above conditions are and have been since 1972, the situation has only gotten more intense with time. We are continually witnessing devastation caused by antiquated infrastructure problems in the US. This facility is now sitting on an infrastructure that is over 40 years old. The likelihood of significant earthquake has increased dramatically and we now understand with climate change an increase in concern for tsunami in the port region as well. The facility sits within i/2 mile of the inner harbor of the port with a storm drain at its base that leads directly into the LA harbor. Any significant rise in that harbor is going to channel water back to the facility site, which happens to be in a "flood zone". There was recently a sign removed within 11/29/2012 Page 3 of 4 200 ft. of the facility that said, "You are now exiting a tsunami zone" yet there is no rise in elevation nor apparently was there any consideration of the storm drain location. The potential for terrorism has greatly increased making this site one of the most obvious choices for attack. This volatile gas burns at over 3500 degrees F, and the heat generated from a fire there would ignite flammables for miles. This makes the available cadre of refineries, fuel storage facilities and marine oil terminals abutting and across the street from these tanks a virtual "bonanza" target of opportunity for terrorists. It is time for sanity to prevail on this issue. Attached is one of the personal emails sent to one of our activists from Professor Bob Bea of UC Berkeley. Professor Bea has been the premiere expert hired by the US government to establish the "why" of engineering failures in catastrophes such as the Gulf disaster, Katrina and San Bruno. He was contacted after his appearance on "60 Minutes" and has reviewed details of the Rancho facility. Like our residents, Bea has grave concerns about this facility and its potential of "domino effect" that could likely cause an inferno never witnessed before by man. There is no reason why our citizens should have to prove to government the perilous potential of this facility with their lives. The handwriting has been written boldly on the wall for years now. In closing, we invite all City Officials and other Civic groups to join in this complaint to remove this looming threat to our public. This is the City of LA's opportunity to step up in a legal action that can save lives and property. It is long overdue. Take action before it is too late! Sincerely, Chuck Hart President, San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, Inc. PO Box 6455 San Pedro, CA 90734 For more information: Janet Gunter (310) 251-7075 Attach. (3): map of rupture zone source document: p.47, Safety Element of the Los Angeles City Plan copy, Bea email correspondence Cc: Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa City Atty Carmen Trutanich City Controller Wendy Greuel City Councilman Joe Buscaino City Councilwoman Jan Perry LA County Supervisors RPV City Councilmembers Lomita City Councilmembers San Pedro Neighborhood Councils Port Community Advisory Committee NetZero now offers 4G mobile br NetZero now offers 4G mobile broadband. Sign up now. 11/29/2012 Page 4 of 4 Woman is 57 But Looks 27 Mom publishes simple facelift trick that angered doctors... Con sumerLifestvles.org 11/29/2012 7 6t pU.#w os,epU.4v U AV WONJOA -----Original Message ----- From: Robert G Bea <beaCcD-ce.berkeley.edu> To: Janet Gunter <arriane5CcD-aol.com> Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 2:46 pm Subject: Re: Link to article in City Watch LA today re: LPG situation very good summary Janet. i had a'mild stroke' July 22nd. major effect was loss of left eye vision. still undergoing tests to determine short and long term prognosis. no signs the circulation system 'trash' reached my brain. perhaps the San Bruno trial will provide opportunities to raise the flags about Rancho and about the prices of ignoring infrastructure risk assessment and management... industry and government. we will stay alert for the opportunities ... San Bruno is a perfect analog for a future Rancho disaster.... lack of any realistic assessment of the SYSTEM RISKS ... denial by industry.... more denial by government ..... public not informed.... you know the rest. bob bea On 8/3/12 11:13 AM, Janet Gunter wrote: http://citvwatchIa.com/comr)onent/content/article/317-8box- right/3555-where-theres-smoke-theres-fire-and-possibly-a- catastrophOutm source=General+CityWatch+List&utm campaign =f17bf8d350-CW10628 2 2012&utm medium=email Professor Emeritus Robert Bea, PhD, PE Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering University of California Berkeley Email: bea@ce.berkeley.edu Home Office Risk Assessment & Management Services 60 Shuey Drive Moraga, California 94556 Telephone 925-631-1587 Cell 925-699-3503 Email: BeaRAMS@gmail.com Response to comments on Marymount College San Pedro Campus MND CITY OF LOS ANGELES INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM 1600 Palos Verdes Dr North LADOT Case No. HRB11-008 Date: November 30, 2012 To: Marc Woersching, City Planner Department of City Planning 04C___� From: Mohammad H. Blorfroshan, Transportation Engineer Department of Transportation Subject: Response to traffic -related comments from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for the proposed Marymount College San Pedro Campus Project, 1600 Palos Verdes North [DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING CASE NO. ENVT2011.2478-M'ND] The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) issued a traffic assessment report for the proposed Marymount College San Pedro Campus. Project on July 24, 2012. On October 17, 2012, Mr. Kit Fox, Senior Administrative Analyst at the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV), issued a letter to your Department commenting on the republished Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and LADOT's assessment report for this Project. In his letter, Mr. Fox referenced to the traffic and circulations impacts in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), certified by the City of RPV in May 2010, for the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project for the College's main campus in the City of RPV. LADOT has carefully reviewed these comments and provided a response to these comments as follows: Response to Comments 1. Based on LADOT's review of the Marymount College San Pedro Campus Project traffic study report, the installation of traffic signal at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Miraleste Drive is not required until Phase Il of the Project, which is anticipated to be completed by the year 2019. It is understood that this new traffic signal is also a mitigation measure for the Phase II of the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project on the RVP Campus, which is currently conditioned to occur by June 2015. Because these are separate and distinct projects, there is no need to revise LADOT's assessment report to address the scheduling conflict for the installation of this traffic signal. In our report, we indicated that the College shall work with the City of RPV to seek the final approval of the traffic signal at this intersection. Therefore, Marymount College will simply coordinate with the City of RPV to implement a new traffic signal at this intersection prior to completion of Phase II of the RPV Campus's Expansion Project or Phase II of the San Pedro Campus Project, whichever occurs first 2. The EIR for the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project in RPV was prepared to identify impacts associated with that project, which was approved in May 2010 and has not been subsequently modified. The republished MND for the San Pedro Campus Project, which is located approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the RPV Campus, was prepared to identify impacts associated with San Pedro Campus. Since these are two separate and distinct projects, it is not unusual that the potential traffic impacts Marc Woersching -2- November 30, 2012 associated with the two projects would be different. It should also be noted that the traffic impact study for the San Pedro Campus Project, prepared by the KOA Corporation, based assumptions from the traffic impact study for the RVP Campus, where appropriate. As part of the process, KOA collected additional updated empirical data at the RVP Campus and the San Pedro Campus that was used for the San Pedro Campus study. The empirical data included current vehicle counts at the driveways on both .campuses. A license plate survey was also conducted to determine trip distribution patterns between campuses. This data provides the most accurate information to estimate trip generation and distribution for the San Pedro Campus Project. The traffic study assumptions were discussed and approved by LADOT. KOA's traffic study for the San Pedro Campus did not identify any significant traffic impact at the intersection of Capitol Drive, Trudie Drive, and Western Avenue. Therefore, there is no need for LADOT to revise the assessment report to indicate the significant traffic impact at this intersection. 3. RPV's comment asserts that the MND (i.e, the Traffic Study) for the San Pedro Campus Project has not adequately addressed the potential Project's impacts at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South. RPV did not provide any detailed information or explanation to .support its assertion that. the San Pedro Campus Project will generate significant numbers of new trips impacting this intersection. As .indicated before, the San Pedro Campus is approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the RPV Campus and the most direct route from the San Pedro Campus to the RPV Campus, and vice versa, is coming from the northerly direction along Palos Verdes Drive East. If a driver decides to travel from the San Pedro Campus to the RPV Campus coming from the south along Palos Verdes Drive South, this would add an additional 2.2 miles to the trip along a very circuitous route. Since this is unlikely to occur, this intersection was not analyzed in the traffic impact study for the San Pedro Campus Project. 4. In response to a request from the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council (NWSPNC), the Marymount College agreed to perform traffic analysis at eight (8) additional study intersections along the Western Avenue and Gaffey Street. KOA prepared the courtesy traffic analysis (CTA) at these intersections in December 2011. The CTA was not required by the City of Los Angeles, the lead agency for the San Pedro Campus Project, therefore, this study was not included as part of the traffic impact analysis for this project. The CTA utilized trip generation assumptions that were current at the time the study was prepared. In early 2012, however, Marymount College representatives recommended adjustments to the trip generation discount assumptions in the traffic impact analysis in order to provide a more conservative estimate of the San Pedro Campus Project's trip generation. The adjusted trip generation estimates were used for the final traffic impact study dated July 2012. For the sole purpose of responding to the City of RPV's comment, KOA has revised the CTA using trip generation assumptions that are consistent with those found in the final traffic impact study for the San Pedro Campus Project. The updated traffic impact study, reviewed by LADOT, revealed that the proposed San Pedro Campus Project will not cause any significant traffic impact at any of the eight studied intersections (see attached tables). The Marymount College is developing a comprehensive sustainability plan to reduce all of its environmental impacts. As part of the San Pedro Campus Project, the College will implement the measures listed below in order to reduce both traffic and pollution caused by campus vehicle trips. These measures are expected to minimize traffic impacts in the study area. Marc Woersching -3- November 30, 2012 • Provisions of an enhanced shuttle service between campuses by increasing bus frequency during peak periods of usage • Provisions of on -campus housing at the San Pedro Campus • Limitations of the number of student residents who may have a car on the San Pedro Campus • Schedule morning peak period classes on the San Pedro Campus primarily for on -campus resident students • Restrict the number of resident students driving to the RPV Campus during the morning peak period • Implement parking permit/decal system to restrict parking by students on the RPV Campus • Implement a carpool system If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (213) 485-1062. MB:mhb Attachments Jay Kim, Sean Haeri, Crystal Killian, DOT Karen Hoo, David Weintraub, DCP Jonathan Louie, KOA Corporation c: KOA CORPORATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING Table 6 - Intersection Level of Service Summary - Existing Plus Project Note: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization Method; CMA - Critical Movement Analysis Method Courtesy Traffic Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus November 14, 2012 Page 18 Existing (2012) Existing Plus Project Midday Midday ' Change in V/C Afternoon PM Peak Hour Afternoon PM Peak Hour Analysis Significant Study Intersections City Peak Hour Peak Hour Methodology Impact? Mid - PM V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Afternoon Peak Hour Peak Hour I Western Ave & Green Hills Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.503 A 0.569 A 0.511 A 0.578 A 0.008 0.009 No 2 Western Ave & Avenida Aprenda Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.519 A 0.613 B 0.527 A 0.623 B 0.008 0.010 No 3 Western Ave & Delasonde Dr/Westmont Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.731 C 0.746 C 0.739 C 0.754 C 0.008 0.008 No 4 Western Ave & Toscanini Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.587 A 0.658 B 0.595 A 0.668 B 0.008 0.010 No 5 Western Ave & Caddington Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.624 B 0.752 C 0.632 B 0.761 C 0.008 0.009 No 6 Gaffey St & Westmont Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.488 A 0.704 C 0.489 A 0.707 C 0.001 0.003 No 7 Gaffey St & Capitol Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.531 A 0.682 B 0.532 A 0.684 B 0.001 0.002 No 8 Gaffey St & Channel St Los Angeles CMA 0.512 A 0.665 B 0.513 A 0.666 B 0.001 0.001 No Note: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization Method; CMA - Critical Movement Analysis Method Courtesy Traffic Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus November 14, 2012 Page 18 KOA CORPORATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING Table 7 - Intersection Level of Service Summary - Future With Project Note: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, CMA - Critical Movement Analysis Method Courtesy Traffic Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus November 14, 2012 Page 19 Future Without Project Future With Project Midday . Midday Change in V/C Afternoon PM Peak Hour Afternoon PM Peak Hour Analysis Significant Study Intersections City Peak Hour Peak Hour Methodology Impact? Mid - PM V/C LOS VIC LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Afternoon P Peak Hour Peak Hour I Western Ave & Green Hills Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.857 D 0.771 C 0.864 D 0.781 C 0.007 0.010 No 2 Western Ave & Avenida Aprenda Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.720 C 0.761 C 0.727 C 0.771 C 0.007 0.010 No 3 Western Ave & Delasonde Dr/Westmont Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.885 D 0.897 D 0.893 D 0.905 E 0.008 0.008 No 4 Western Ave & Toscanini Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.699 B 0.771 C 0.706 C 0.780 C 0.007 0.009 No 5 Western Ave & Caddington Dr Rancho Palos Verdes ICU 0.756 C 0.885 D 0.763 C 0.895 D 0.007 0.010 No 6 Gaffey St & Westmont Dr Los Angeles CMA 0.651 B 0.876 D 0.653 B r 0.878 D 0.002 0.002 No 7 Gaffey St & Capitol Dr Los Angeles CMA 1 0.678 B r 0.832 1 D 0.680 B r 0.834 D 0.002 0.002 No 8 Gaffey St & Channel St Los Angeles CMA 1 0.645 g 0.795 1 C r 0.646 g 0.795 C 0.001 0.000 No Note: ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization Method, CMA - Critical Movement Analysis Method Courtesy Traffic Study for Marymount College San Pedro Campus November 14, 2012 Page 19 Daily Breeze article regarding Clearwater Program EIR http://www.dail.ybreeze.co.m/]a.ews/ei 22081.944/carsora.-san-pedro-wastewater.-line-approved Carson -to -San Pedro wastewater line approved By Kristin S. Agostoni Staff Writer Daily Breeze Posted- DailyBreeze.com A new underground wastewater pipeline proposed from Carson to San Pedro won support Wednesday from an administrative board for the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. At its meeting in Whittier, the District 2 board voted to certify a final environmental report for the so-called Clearwater Program. The vote was unanimous, said Don Avila, a public information officer for the districts. The pipeline will supplement two aging underground tunnels, built in 1937 and 1958, that carry treated wastewater from Carson to outfall pipes beneath the ocean. The project involves building a new outflow pipe at Royal Palms Beach, just west of the landslide area in San Pedro. It has been under review for the past six years. Construction would not begin until 2016, with the peak of the work occurring in 2020. - Kristin S. Agostoni Page I of] 29/11/2012 14:28 PM From: Kit Fox Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:35 AM To: Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: GAS LEAK IN INDIA KILLS AT LEAST 410 IN CITY OF BHOPAL Late Correspondence related to Border Issues (Item `C'). Kit Fox, AICP Senior Administrative Analigst City Manager's Office Citi of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 T: (310) 544-5226 E (310) 5445291 E: kitfCa wv.com From: Janet Gunter [mailto:arriane5@aol.com] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 6:06 PM To: MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; Connie@rutter.us; jody.james@sbcglobal.net; chateau4us@att.net; bonbon3l@earthlink.net; dlrivera@prodigy.net; jcynthiaperry@aol.com; dpettit@nrdc.org; Kit Fox; CC; pmwarren@cox.net; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; dakotahpat@sbcglobal.net; konnica@ca.rr.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; marisol.espinoza@lacity.org; jacob.haik@lacity.org; burlingl02@aol.com Cc: dan.weikel@latimes.com; ron.white@latimes.com; ronkil@aol.com; paul_h_rosenberg@hotmail.com; carl.southwell@gmail.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; bea@ce.berkeley.edu Subject: GAS LEAK IN INDIA KILLS AT LEAST 410 IN CITY OF BHOPAL 4000 dead. A grim anniversary. http: //www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1203.html#article One has to wonder how close the Harbor area is to a similar fate due to Rancho LPG. c � 12/4/2012 c ero INt we* N..JnTHISDay Fuck to Main Read the full text of The Times article or other headlines from the day. Student News Summaries Dailti News Ouiz Ward of the f)a Test Preo Question of'the E:)ay. jience 0 &A Letters to the Editor ask a Ke�fter Web Navigator MTeacher Daily Lesson Flan Lesson Plan Archive ?vevtis Snai)sliot Issues in Depth On This Day iia I^liatc�rti Crossword Puzzle C'anivus Wel}fines Education News, itieWs)al per an E-;clucalion JhLl F1 Teacher Resources Classroom mjb c ri tions M Conversation starters Vacation Donation Plan Qiscussioaa Toics Site Guide Feedback Job t.7coortunataes �»�0wwo To TNE'If [I! FARM MUM Repn Fo— VAY SE II TAILED, "II -I %P14rr WaINUONSAYS Like rr irry ti�c:�4Pr:�a vsdx �PSt�t6�xenod a-14 n `�.... » ta75 in vv- fAS tEAK IN MIA KILLS AT UST 416 IN v OF 810PAL ........___ b �r Mr 'M SPAM ' regia � ddus w.»ewr., r-exy»'ry W». M»',W9wYN%w »I vxawm aYy: o»�weuw..w ce»ar».r»Y iw,»aivwb:9w< tda°nikhh-tewr.Dd-d, ftp Po ky ;I SENATORS Cin Soca Afrk r raj vtwb Grow' ffA,N NN UN Nlpe'✓�984. iai.. 5.-4",w inn». � ��i� w«.» »naewr �I#id�'�1 �gPLFi4 .,.,,.«.w»�..., �w��.. r,w.« . �.9;'-3 Vii• mmw. www,.»...r E "t Hbart Patient: Progress and Vr tr mt RNi�Ae Cnescxt',� i '�.*s iie SaaaD,�xr.�' ta.vmure. rte. a. s w rr xswraae�. �»�aa+� mcg Sg ;.masm.xir:w sa w .PHx:4 ilPt�a'x satAis r6 ` aw uw<.xw ' 4I%,Vf H'fX*R�q'MM, 1M'waw.tir w�».n ipw.n nw r.»w #af SwiMiH»: sawM Mri.»M�xwau wa�..ww+�•k m'sY-anwea�.m �. N» xaxki»iff»a.�..i Www%i i a+z 1iw,a»waM lwaAwl W "dibis f"iti»yP.1yri4F Mar aw !xn»¢ie *a,n 9) w yy,�e»w».. �..ww w.z a .w. #� nAkAtn. m. vp. ma�:r •b »`w. �9a%4aYw. amR On New York Border. `Bar Havers" w Youth$ .� �� �oicar�wxnx 4w.� x. r, mwerem.»s eroYswa qwa E. erHrams caa..8cawwe.w, w I *�e �.�..= uw«...ap.....=7= «a GAS LEAK IN INDIA KILLS AT LEAST 410 IN CITY OF BHOPAL 12,000 REPORTED INJURED Officials Say the Fumes Came From Insecticide Plant of U.S.- Owned Company SANJOY HAZARIKA Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES NEW DELHI, Dec. 3 -- Toxic gas leaking from an American -owned insecticide plant in central India killed at least 410 people overnight, many as they slept, officials said today. At least 12,000 were reported injured in the disaster in the city of Bhopal, 2,000 of whom were hospitalized. The death toll in the city and its environs, 360 miles south of New Delhi, was expected to rise as more bodies were found and some of the critically injured died. United News of India put the death toll at 500, but the news agency's figure could not be independently confirmed. Underground Storage Tank An Indian environmental official, T. N. Khushoo, called it the "worst such disaster in Indian history." The Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh State, where Bhopal is situated, told reporters that the OTHER HEADLINES Farm Price System May Be Curtailed, Washington Says: Block Gives Budget Plan: Congress to Be Asked to End Supports Until Levels Go Sharply Below Average Regan Foresees Final Tax Plan Like Treasury's: Analysis by Department of Its Proposals Issued Administration Defends Its Policy on South Africa as Protests Grow 2 Senators Press Reagan on Arms: Republicans Urge Scrapping of 1979 Strategic Accord On New York Border, 'Bar Haven' for Youths Heart Patient: Progress and Treatment gas had escaped from one of three underground storage tanks at a Union Carbide Company plant in Bhopal. Witnesses said thousands of people had been taken to hospitals gasping for breath, many frothing at the mouth, their eyes inflamed. The streets were littered with the corpses of dogs, cats, water buffalo, cows and birds killed by the gas, methyl isocyanate, which is widely used in the preparation of insecticides. Doctors Are Rushed to City Doctors from neighboring towns and the Indian Army were rushed to the city of 900,000, where hospitals were said to be overflowing with the injured. Most of the victims were children and old people who were overwhelmed by the gas and suffocated, Indian press reports said. Even in small amounts, the gas produces heavy discharge from the eyes and is extremely irritating to the skin and internal organs. Exposure can apparently lead to enough fluid accumulation to cause drowning. (Page A8.) 3 (In Danbury, Conn., a spokesman for Union Carbide said it was temporarily closing part of a nearly identical plant in West Virginia while it investigated the Bhopal disaster. "We don't know what went wrong," the spokesman said. Page A8.) Valve Malfunction Suspected The managing director of Union Carbide in India, Y. P. Gokhale, was quoted as saying that the incident occurred when a tank valve apparently malfunctioned after an increase in pressure, allowing the gas to escape into the air in a 40 -minute period early today. It was not clear why the pressure had risen or how the leak was stopped. Mr. Kushoo, the environmental official, said it was still unclear whether it would be necessary to evacuate parts of Bhopal. The poison gas spread through about 25 square miles of Bhopal, an area said to be populated largely by poor families. Gandhi Announces Relief Fund Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, calling the incident "horrifying," announced the creation of a $400,000 Government relief fund. At the same time, the Central Bureau of Investigati Mr. Gandhi, traveling in southern India for the general election campaign, said that "everything possible will be done to provide relief to the sufferers," and added, "Such mishaps must never be allowed to recur." Rewnath Chaure, the Health Minister of Madhya Pradesh State, told a reporter in Bhopal that 302 people had died in one hospital alone. The state's Chief Minister, Arjun Singh, reported that about 2,000 people overcome by the gas fumes were hospitalized. He said at least 10,000 others were treated for symptoms including vomiting, breathing problems and inflamed eyes. Arrests Are Reported Authorities said five factory officials had been arrested and charged with criminal negligence in the disaster. (In Danbury, Conn., the Union Carbide Company said the reports that the managers had been arrested were incorrect.) The officials reportedly arrested were identified as J. Mukand, the works manager; S. B. Chowdhury, the production manager, and three other officials. It was not known if all were Indian nationals. Most of the initial reports on the leak, which began at 1 A.M. Monday (2:30 P.M. Sunday, New York time) were provided by India's two independent news agencies, Press Trust of India and United News of India, which had reporters on the scene in the early hours of the disaster. According to Press Trust of India, the gas spread over an area of about 200,000 people, many of whom awoke vomiting and complaining of dizziness, sore throats and burning eyes. Many could hardly talk, it reported, and some complained of brief spells of blindness. D United News of India said the factory siren did not sound to alert the neighborhood until two hours after the leak began, and it said the police and doctors did not come into the area until four hours after that. Shutdown Is Announced Mr. Singh, the Chief Minister, announced that he was ordering a shutdown of the Union Carbide plant and pledged not to allow it to resume production. He said the Government might demand that the company pay compensation to the victims. Mr. Singh also ordered schools, colleges, offices and markets closed. In a statewide radio broadcast later, Mr. Singh said the leak had been stopped and described the situation as "fully under control." He urged people not to spread rumors. Reports from Bhopal said thousands fled the city's crowded districts as word of the leak spread. Plant Opened in 1977 The Bhopal plant was opened in 1977 and produces about 2,500 tons of pesticides based on methyl isocyanate annually. In 1978, six people were reported killed when they were exposed to phosgene gas, another lethal mixture produced in the plant. According to a Union Carbide spokesman, the underground tank in which the leak occurred today contained 45 tons of methyl isocyanate in its liquid form. The chemical is colorless, burns easily and has a low evaporation level. The spokesman said enormous pressure had built up inside the tank, forcing a rupture of a valve and allowing the gas to pass into the air. Safety Features Noted According to a Union Carbide statement in Bombay, the storage tanks had special safety features. The main emergency devices, according to the statement, were vent scrubbers, which it said were "meant to neutralize and render the gas harmless prior to its release into the atmosphere." "In the accident," the statement added, "the rapid pressure built up resulted in a spurt of gas running unneu tralized which escaped into the atmosphere." Back to the top of this page. Back to today's nage. Go to another day. Front Page Image Provided by UMI .__ . ._.._..... ..... Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company Children's Privacy Notice �i From: Kit Fox Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:43 AM To: Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: GAS LEAK IN INDIA KILLS AT LEAST 410 IN CITY OF BHOPAL Late Correspondence related to Border Issues (Item `C'). Kit Fox, MCP Senior Administrative AnaliJst City Manager's Office City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 1(310) 544.-5226 F: (310) 5445291 E• kitfgn v.com From: Bonnie Christensen [mailto:bonbon31@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:42 AM To: Janet Gunter Cc: MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; det310@juno.com; connie@rutter.us; jody.james@sbcglobal.net; chateau4us@att.net; dirivera@prodigy.net; jcynthiaperry@aol.com; dpettit@nrdc.org; Kit Fox; CC; pmwarren@cox.net; marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; dakotahpat@sbcglobal.net; konnica@ca.rr.com; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; marisol.espinoza@lacity.org; jacob.haik@lacity.org; burling102@aol.com; dan.weikel@latimes.com; ron.white@latimes.com; ronkil@aol.com; paul_h_rosenberg@hotmail.com; carl.southwell@gmaii.com; Ipryor@usc.edu; bea@ce.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: GAS LEAK IN INDIA KILLS AT LEAST 410 IN CITY OF BHOPAL One has to wonder if any one around here cares except we who have been working on this since the 70's. Bonnie On Dec 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Janet Gunter wrote: 4000 dead. A grim anniversary. http: /www.nytimes.com/learning/generaI/onthisday/big/1203.html#article One has to wonder how close the Harbor area is to a similar fate due to Rancho LPG. 12/4/2012 C. LI MqL RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: DECEMBER 3, 2012 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, December 4, 2012 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material City Manager Powerpoint Presentation by Marvin Jackmon Report B Staff Modifications to Pages 11 and 12 of Draft City Council Minutes for November 7, 2012 Successor Agency C Email exchange between Councilwoman Brooks and Resident Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale W:\AGENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to agendas120121203 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc Rancho Palos Verdes Reliability Project Update December 4, 2012 • Update on Containment Plan • Continued Reliability Improvement — Cable Testing Project • Fire Prevention Update • Q&A K Containment Plan Status NO. STATUS AREA CITY DESCRIPTION INSTALL 1 -FUSED KURD 1 COMPLETE 1600 ADDISON RD. PALOS VERDES ESTATES SWITCH REPLACING CABLE AND 2 COMPLETE 2101 PALOS VERDES DR. W PALOS VERDES ESTATES CUTOVER CIRCUIT INSTALL 2 FUSED BURD 3 COMPLETE 7455 ALIDA PL. RANCHO PALOS VERDES SWITCHES INSTALL'I FUSED BURD 4 COMPLETE 2913 VIA VICTORIA PALOS VERDES ESTATES SWITCH 5 COMPLETE 7061 CREST RD. RANCHO PALOS VERDES' INSTALL BURD SWITCH INSTALL 2 -FUSED BURD SWITCHES & FAULT 6 COMPLETE 30142 AVENIDA CLASSICA RANCHO PALOS VERDES INDICATORS REPLACE STRUCTURE, 7 COMPLETE 30345 VIA BORICA RANCHO PALOS VERDES INSTALL 2=FBS 8 COMPLETE 81 ALBERO CT. RANCHO PALOS VERDES INSTALL 1 -FBS 9 COMPLETE 1341 PALOS VERDES DR. W' PALOS VERDES ESTATES INSTALL FI 10 COMPLETE 1553 PALOS VERDES DR. W PALOS VERDES ESTATES INSTALL F! 11 COMPLETE 2101 PALOS VERDES DR. W` PALOS VERDES ESTATES INSTALL A 12 COMPLETE 2573 PALOS VERDES DR. W' PALOS VERDES PENINSULA INSTALL FI 3 Proposed Master Plan Project Funding • General Rate Case (GRC) — CPUC Decision was made on November 29th • Internal Review on GRC n Proposed 2103 Infrastructure Improvements Scope of Work Benefit Install a new 4kV ductbank and replace getaway cable on (6) 4kV circuits Correct existing temperature overload and upgrade circuit capacity Cut over 30 transformers to Stalter 16kV Correct circuit overload, Recable feet of PILC cable (radial section) Correct existing overload on radial section and increase capacity Install new ducts and structures, upgrade —900 feet UG cable and 1100 feet of OH conductor (main line section) Increase circuit capacity and improve reliabiity Replace —300 feet getaway cable Increase circuit capcity and improve reliability Replace 7.1 cond miles, (1) switch replacement, 1 xfmr, 1 pole, 1 vault, 12 structure upgrades, CIC, Install ducts (13,936 ft) Increase circuit reliablity by replacing aging cable and equipment as well as upgrading existing infrastructure Replace (4) oil switch Improve reliability by preventing future outages Install 2 OH FIs Improve reliability by expediting service restoration time Install 1 UG RCS, (1) 4 Way Gas Switch, (1) 3 Way RAG Switch, (1) 3 Way Gas Switch, 3.8 CMs Improve circuit reliablity by replacing aging cable and equipment 12 Structures (DDS) Improve reliability by upgrading existing deteriorated and congested structures Install 1 OH RCS w/ Omni Rupter Enhance existing automation and expedite service resotation after an outage Replace 7.1 cond miles, (1) switch replacement, l xfmr, 1 pole,1 vault, 12 structure upgrades, CIC, Install ducts (13,93.6 ft) Improve reliability by replacing aging PILC cable on radial section and equipment Install BURD fuses and Fis Improve reliability by containing radial outages Install 2 OH FIs Improve reliability by expediting service restoration time 509 Fire Prevention • We completed all of the Pole Brushing for power line hazard reduction required under the Department of Forestry "Power Line Fire Prevention Field Guide", • We have increased the tree clearances from 18 inches to 4 feet to meet the California Public Utilities Commission fire hazard plan under rulemaking 08-11- 005. This ruling requires SCE to inspect and maintain all vegetation to greater distances along with tree risk assessment for fire protection and public safety. • We will complete the effort to mitigate avian contacts and the rubber phase covers on certain poles before the nesting season begins next year. 7 Fire Prevention Next Steps • Meeting onsite at Nature Preserve — SCE would like to meet City Council, City Staff, Sierra Club, Nature Preserve Staff. — Region Manager, Marvin Jackmon will coordinate. Questions? Emergencies: [Power outages and downed power lines] ♦ 1-800-611-1911 General Information: ♦ 1-800-655-4555 Marvin Jackmon Public Affairs Region Manager 310.783.9341 . . .... ......... . . . . . 1A Southern California Edison CA Public Utilities Commission CA Independent System Operator 10 Cassie Jones, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that she believes the scope of the project was inadequate because Zone 2 does not exist in a vacuum. She noted concern with the hydrology section of the EIR, which is based on the design of a 70 -year old storm drain system 4hat-was built prior to the reactivation of the Abalone-Cove_and Portuguese__----- nerd: and Bend landslides. Jim Knight, Rancho Palos Verdes, speaking as a private citizen, stated that he has concerns regarding the following: lack of a quantifiable standard to determine the factor of safety risks; deficiency of Altamira Canyon to handle rain water; mitigation measures for impervious surfaces; infusion of water into the toe of the Abalone Cove Landslide; and, the ability of the hold harmless agreement to stand up in court. Robert Cumby, Board Member, Portuguese Bend Community Association, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the Draft EIR understates the effectiveness of Altamira Canyon in its current condition, noting the continuing erosion of the canyon. He stated that although the 47 homes that include the homes in the Monks settlement were in the original development plan over 60 years ago, the infrastructure was designed for that time period and does not allow for the additional water intrusion that has developed from the development of lots above Portuguese Bend. He added that the traffic and road study focused on the surrounding areas and not within the community itself. Daniel Pinkham, Rancho Palos Verdes, shared a video illustrating the flow of water into Altamira Canyon near his home during a typical rainstorm and added that he has lost 60 feet of property in the last few years due to runoff drainage from rain. He expressed concern regarding additional loss of property due to the development of additional lots in the community. Vicki Pinkham, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that they have witnessed significant negative impacts on their home and property due to the existing construction of additional lots in the Portuguese Bend Community Association. She noted that her home is 27 inches from the road and the noise and pollution from large trucks affect their home, noting the historical entrance wall has been hit by a large cement truck. She added that the wall was demolished and never reconstructed. She commented on fire safety concerns as a result of the narrow road at the Narcissa entrance. Michael Chiles, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that there was a drainage study report regarding Altamira Canyon completed in 1972. He added that since 1972 additional developments have occurred above Altamira Canyon resulting in water drainage into the canyon and commented on problems regarding groundwater infiltration into the canyon. Marianne Hunter, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the Pinkham's video illustrated how " the storm water was not able to travel down the drainage system due to the volume and rate of speed of the water. She continued that there was discussion in the community Draft City Council Minutes November 7, 2012 Page 11 of 13 a that the City is relying on the roads to serve as the drainage system for the community; but noted that the addition of water to the area is problematic and that the roads cannot serve as a drainage system. She added that she had concerns regarding additional traffic in the community. Gordon Leon, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he was speaking as a private citizen and not as a Planning Commissioner, noted that the scope of the EIR does not include the surrounding areas, including Altamira Canyon and the Narcissa Drive access through Zone 5, which is directly adjacent to Zone 2. He noted that the main structural flaw of the EIR was the analysis of the effect of water on the landslide. He added that he had concerns regarding the load of rainwater on the roads, which serve as the storm drainage system for the area. Monika Bauer, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that she has been a resident in the Portuguese Bend area since 1998, and shared the experiences she and her family have had in her home as a result of several rainstorms in the area. She recommended the need for a more thorough EIR study and the need for improved roads in the area. Joan McClellan, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that she reviewed the map associated with the EIR which indicated the locations of storm drains, yet she could not find the storm drain at Cinnamon Lane and Narcissa Drive which was indicated to be present. She questioned whose liability it would be if there were problems related to additional water as a result of the development of homes. The City Council acknowledged receipt of the�comments4regarding the Draft_________________ Deleted: c Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Deleted: were received Ordinance Revisions from the general public___Deleted: and the city Council.¶ Councilman Knight returned to the dais at 9:50 P.M. City's 40th Anniversary Plans City Clerk Morreale reported that there was one request to speak regarding this item. Ken Dyda, Rancho Palos Verdes, suggested that during the 40th Anniversary celebration, the City take the opportunity to highlight some of the founding principals of the City for those who were not present at the City's incorporation. City Manager Lehr provided a brief report regarding the early plans for the City's 40th Anniversary celebration. Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff. Councilman Knight moved, seconded by Councilwoman Brooks, to receive and file the report. Draft City Council Minutes November 7, 2012 Page 12 of 13 From: Dennis Mclean Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 9:45 AM To: Carla Morreale; Teresa Takaoka Cc: Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Kathryn Downs; Carolyn Lehr Subject: FW: RDA Dissolution Status This email thread preceded (and motivated) our agendizing: Redevelopment Dissolution Status and Update (McLean) On the Successor Agency agenda. Unless someone disagrees, I think it should be included as Late Correspondence. I expect the presentation to take about 5 minutes. Thanks, Dennis McLean Director of Finance and Information Technology V City of Rancho Palos Verdes Finance and Information Technology 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.r)alosverdes.com/rDv dennism@rpv.com - (310) 544-5212 p — (310) 544-5291 f Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-rnail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Councilwoman Susan Brooks [mailto:subrooks08@gmaii.com] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 11:48 AM To: JACK DOWNHILL Cc: Dennis Mclean; Carolyn Lehr; Anthony Misetich Subject: Re: RDA Dissolution Status h Good points. Care to speak on them during public comments? Or can you write a letter tQ,the.. entire Council about this. Please note your concerns about the individuals involved, as well. I might add this to 'future agenda items' for the Council to consider. Glad you were able to attend the "2nd Tuesday event at Starbucks." Susan On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:24 AM, JACK DOWNHILL <pdownjae@hotmail.com> wrote: Hi Susan, Thanks for sending the RDA dissolution report. My immediate impression was no surprise. City staff have produced a very precise accounting of every last penny. After an elapse of time and a lot of mulling over in my mind, my question is WHY? What is the need ,desire, structural make up and perhaps even legality of a Successor Agency other than the City of RPV? This would be a "Government Entity" with questionable property ownership, Abalony Cove Shoreline Park (a gift to the RDA as a part of a lawsuit settlement), income only from Parking and a Day Care Facility, and all sorts of physical and financial obligations. Could it be personel, organizatioal position, position description etc ? It would have to function with a questionable source of income and bearing a miriad of obligations. On the other hand the City has Planning, 12/3/2012 I Finance, Public Works and Management already in place. Also might the State or particularly County have a voice/Interest since there are financial impliucations? My feelings are that Dyda and Clark were questionable choices as reviewers. WHY CREATE ANOTHER AGENCY? Any questions? Jack. Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:38:27 -0800 Subject: Fwd: RDA Dissolution Status From: subrooks08kgmail.com To: pdownjac(a),hotmail.com Jack, Nice talking with you. Here's a breakdown of the current status of both the RDA dissolution and the Successor Agency. Hope this of of help to you. Thank you for attending our monthly 'coffee' at Starbucks. You offer great knowledge of our Peninsula. Best, Susan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kathryn Downs <Kathryna`rpv.com> Date: Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:30 PM Subject: RDA Dissolution Status To: Susan Brooks <Susan.Brooks(a,Mv.com> Cc: Dennis Mclean <DennisM(a Mv.com> Hi Susan; as discussed on the phone today, please see the attached Summary Overview and let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Kathryn Downs Deputy Director of Finance & Information Technology (310) 544-5216 V w.Dalosverdes.com/rpv/ Susan Brooks, Councilwoman Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 12/3/2012