Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20130402 Late Correspondence
0 2� a ltq�ladll -S CL -�"Ap'� �-A..o .ti•ti.�l�. J� c3.. c�u:a� — �a �� I�+.vt 44A� Z • ��- �� �c.�"li 4- !!A / 2- CEIVED FROM ' " D MADE A PART OF T E RECORD Al UNCIL MEETING OF rl " OFFICE OF THE JITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK AC AD Misc. Rept 12-11 Abalone Cove -Portuguese Bend Global Positioning System (GPS) Network: What is it? What do the results tell us? Background: In 1994, the -City of RPV, at the urging of Perry Ehlig, established a GPS survey network to monitor the active Abalone Cove (ACL), Portuguese Bend (PBL) and Klondike Canyon (KCL) landslides. The network replaced land surveys conducted annually by the LA County Surveyors in order to more accurately access displacements within the active landslides and to detect possible movement occurring in the adjacent ancient Altamira landslide. Currently 67 stations are measured once a year, typically in the late fall (dry part of the year) (see Fig 1). Measurements: A GPS receiver is set up over a monument and provided there is no visual obstruction by trees, etc. and a minimum of five un -obstructed satellites (more are desirable) are available, readings are taken for about 30 minutes. The raw data are then improved using augmentation techniques to enhance the signal and improve the precision and accuracy of the readings. Overall, for points moving less than 0.3 feet, the relative error at the 95% Level of Confidence averages 0.026 feet (0.31 inches). Under ideal conditions, the differential system employed here is accurate to about +1- 0.3 inches, measurements less than that are considered no movement. Results: Horizontal displacement of the GPS stations (Fig. 1) is shown in Fig. 2, contoured in feet. The area with less than 0.5" (0.6 inches) of movement since 1994 is considered as "stable". The 1 foot contour essentially defines the two active landslides. Note that the GPS stations in the area south of PVPDS have been destroyed and the high displacement (> 70 feet) contour probably should extend to the beach. Figures 3, 4 and 5 illustrate details of the movement in the Abalone Cove landslide and the relationship to rainfall. Fig. 1 GPS Stations AS = Abalone Cove KC = Mondike Canyon ° �2 ' • Cr = Crenshaw Ext. Landsfide Ft = Frying Triangle Ash A@57 '• Asia ERO7 ART 7 s \ f ; Crenshaw A° `6xtensictn F VrIg s rea Lay A816 , A 53 4 V "et PM t C t A820 % 1FTOE A907 j5 ,812 _ y P'`3.P$2T 1'327 Fi07 1 6 aBbO hw paw ter"pa&st A604 /F�/ 7 NW9" P8T2 1 Canyon Abakmee C AAV OS / PW6 PBD40 13 Landsll LcncWkJe �• V802 NCO6 ANT V802 P36� cG0 KCl9 K �KC16 4902 � �A52402 KI / londsGde N ';tea 1 ACLAD Misc. Rept. 12-11 10 Abaldne Cove Landslide Total Movement 1994 to 2010 Based on GPS ii f 4� IAllo Buz E l: m . Yjitl� a �: "111 !;}I ins" Awa Fig. 4 Cumulative movement of GPS stations within the ACL 30 25 OR CD w CU 115 10 5 M 0.5 0.4 m 0.3 C C m 0.2 0.1 •� - �L�n>oR��wlr1. nlwntAn+Ant�nwn�n,Rn�n*+c�1�n,Rnin � .. M _ Fig. 5 Annual movement of select GPS stations compared to annual rainfall. 3 +"' ACLAD Misr. Rept 12-11 OS ` ° GPS Based Horizontal Displacement 1994-2010 _� • If855 `\ .Contours 111 feet -1- 0.05ft=0.6in 0.20ft=2.4in 0.50 ft = 6 in 1.0 ft = 12 in try. ^ S PM t _ry � " - ACfl1/E3 Q 90 J f 1 % .05 ^'•� 70F 2 0 A o ems^ 'f l 2.0 / 1.0 10 30 g0 TO � 1 Aso Fig. 2 Horizontal movement in the Abalone Cove and Portuguese Bendlandslides and adjacent part of the ancient Altamira landslide since 1994. Fig 3 Movement within Abalone Cove Landslide Based on Gopal Posdimft Sysion (GPS) Abalone Canoe 3.5 rz�1; _�' . �y r 2-4 (WS Systun knUU i in W4) o W i0 0 A to .01. O b O O o 6 O O C3 O Q 61 W A O W O O O O O O O O O O O M&&4*44- Y-4, JI.- rz f v cJ; ax —il— C AUX,,) z.:,, -rL );)L Rol "111114 Will ---- lj� I RUAK Ali IPRY MET A� I A i b=L ---- k- u - (%, — . %Tc -7A �+ l A st- 11In +1 A Dkd,V-- "Po r.1� VAX j d�)a �.. . ..__....1' ` PRO i� �. tel__• +1�_a , �I % as i. WEPIRM [ r� yyel 1Ir V _L 1. .a1jeA 1.._. 0 A .eA r j -A tL=L I v4t- u K C V Pot- IJK) IdLA-II&- lie, 0 A IV 1,2 -7 6CI, 0 e V -eJ2 Alt4gL� QA�� Jrl �,� J�.�-:.���,, J J� vv ; a:����? � 1st j -A WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2.0, 2012 road," said Los Angeles City Councilman Joe Buscaino, ?Vater-sa' turated- who represents San Pedro. "Our immediate goal is tp soil is bl-a---ed for San Pedro slide1. Precipitationand irrigation may have contributed to road's collapse, study.says. BY DAN WEIBEL Amajorlandslide along a seaside cliff in San Pedro that could cost up to $70 mil- lion to repair was triggered last year by soil saturated with groundwater„ a new study shows. A build-up of water was largely blamed for the No- vember collapse of a stretch of Paseo del Mar after a heavy weekend rainstorm, . according to an 800=page re- ' port from Shannon & Wil- son Inc., a geotechnical and environmental consulting firm. The failure took out 600 feet of the scenic road and carved a gaping chasm into the 120 -foot -high -coastal bluff, where the ground had been creeping seaward for several months. "Precipitation, irrigation, and to a lesser extent, coast- al bluff erosion may, have contributed to the develop- ment of the White Point Landslide," according to the report, which was released Monday. "Residential develop- ment in the area may have also contributed to the land- slide because of its influence on groundwater infiltra- tion," the report noted. Officials said homes in the area remain safe, al- though additional measures are needed to further stabi- lize adjacent land in the White Point Nature Preserve before the next rainy season begins. BOH CHAMBERLIN Los Angeles Times A FRONTAGE ROAD just south of,Paseo del Mar in San Pedro lies in pieces after a landslide in November. There is still some con- cern because of a continuing buildup of groundwater in the western and northern areas surrounding the slide. Groundwater levels, however, have leveled off on the east side, which is the closest to homes, and on- going monitoring has not re- corded any significant land movement since Nov 20. "It's very unfortunate. Paseo del Mar is an historic look for short-term solu- tions." , Such measures, which are estimated to cost $6 mil- lion to $7 million, include drains to remove water from the landslide area, ways to anchor and brace the ground, detours for motor- ists and traffic circles at the ends of the collapsed area. About $15 million in funding has been identified so far. . The long-term solutions call for grading portions of the slide area and various plans to rebuild and rein- force Paseo del, Mar. The most expensive option would require building anew bridge — a project that would cost an.estimated $62 million and take up to four years to complete. Buscaino said the effort to find a long-range solution should involve the commu- nity, but building a consen- sus might be difficult. At a meeting Monday night at White Point Elementary School to discuss the slide, the 70 or so people on hand were divided on the options for Paseo del Mar. dan.weikel@latimes.com V p _ _ CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING CLEARANCE Community Development Department PERMIT NO.: ZON2013-00110 Planning Division APPLIED: 3/20/2013 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. ISSUED: 3/20/2013 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 EXPIRES: 9/16/2013 (310) 544-5228 FAX: (310) 544-5293 E-mail: planning@rpv.com SITE ADDRESS: LOT120 LACA51 W POMEGRANATE RD ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 7572016024 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Up to two borings for geologic investigation purposes, up to a maximum of 300 -feet deep. OWNER/APPLICANT TOKIYE YAMAGUCHI PO BOX 335 MALIBU CA 90265 TYPE OF USE: Other Use and/or Structure APPLICATION TYPE(S): Geologic Investigation Permit PRIMARY CONTACT DON COX 8891 WATSON ST, STE 103 CYPRESS CA 90630 ZONING: RS -1 (Single-Fam. 1 DU/ac) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTES: This approval is for up to two borings for geologic investigation purposes, up to a maximum of 300 -feet deep, between March 20, 2013 and April 8, 2013. All work, including brush clearing, site preparation, drilling and/or trenching, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. No work is permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. All areas disturbed as a result of this project shall be restored to their pre-existing condition at the completion of the work. A trust deposit of $500 shall be established by the applicant to ensure site restoration. If necessary, the trust deposit shall be used by the City to restore any disturbed areas of the site. No grading for the creation of roads or drilling pads is permitted by this permit. Existing paths will be utilized. If it is found, in the course of the activities permitted by this approval, that the area is located within the limits of an archaeological site, the applicant shall either move the activity to another acceptable location or arrange to have an archaeologist present during all activities within the archaeological site. All reasonable efforts shall be made to avoid impacts to plant and animal life on the site, particularly any sensitive biological resources such as coastal sage scrub or wetlands. Page 1 of 2 FEES Type By Date Amount DATA GIP GIP ES ES ES 3/20/2013 3/20/2013 3/20/2013 $4.00 $327.00 $500.00 Total: $831.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTES: This approval is for up to two borings for geologic investigation purposes, up to a maximum of 300 -feet deep, between March 20, 2013 and April 8, 2013. All work, including brush clearing, site preparation, drilling and/or trenching, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. No work is permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. All areas disturbed as a result of this project shall be restored to their pre-existing condition at the completion of the work. A trust deposit of $500 shall be established by the applicant to ensure site restoration. If necessary, the trust deposit shall be used by the City to restore any disturbed areas of the site. No grading for the creation of roads or drilling pads is permitted by this permit. Existing paths will be utilized. If it is found, in the course of the activities permitted by this approval, that the area is located within the limits of an archaeological site, the applicant shall either move the activity to another acceptable location or arrange to have an archaeologist present during all activities within the archaeological site. All reasonable efforts shall be made to avoid impacts to plant and animal life on the site, particularly any sensitive biological resources such as coastal sage scrub or wetlands. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 1 PLANNING CLEARANCE Community Development Department PERMIT NQ.: Z©N2013-00110 Planning Division APPLIED: 3/20/2013 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. ISSUED: 3/20/2013 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 EXPIRES: 9/16/2013 (310) 544-5228 FAX: (310) 544-5293 E-mail: planning@rpv.com Prior to any activity on the site, the City shall be notifed when work is to begin. In addition, the City shall be notified when boring, trenching and/or other activities are complete, and when the restoration of the site is complete. Ingress and egress to the site shall be limited to the route shown on the approved plan. Any deviations shall be approved in advance by the City. Bore holes and trenches shall be capped or temporarily backfilled for safety until permanently backfilled. The City strongly urges the applicant for this project to contact the Homeowners' Association or local Art Jury, if any, to gain any additional approvals that may be required before applying for a building permit. A list of Homeowners' Associations is on file with the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department of Rancho Palos Verdes. For Community Development Director Date THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE NULL AND VOID AFTER September 16, 2013 UNLESS THE APPROVED PLANS ARE SUBMITTED TO BUILDING AND SAFETY TO INITIATE THE "PLAN CHECK" REVIEW PROCESS. THIS APPROVAL SHALL ALSO BECOME NULL AND VOID IF AFTER INITIATING THE "PLAN CHECK" REVIEW PROCESS OR RECEIVING A BUILDING PERMIT TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION, SAID PERMIT OR "PLAN CHECK" IS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE OR IS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT. Page 2 of 2 Evolving Liabilities Impact Coverage I Exclusive Story I Web Feature... http://www.aogr.com/index.php/web-features/exclusive-story/evolvi... THE AMERICAN COIL &GAS REPOKTEK-, Monday, April 01, 2013 Home Web Features Magazine Media Center About Us Calendar Subscribe August 2012 Exclusive Story Evolving Liabilities Impact Coverage By Thomas Jenkins RECEIVED FROM LIE.�5 AND MADE A PART OF TH> R�ORD TCOUNCIL MEETING OF OFFICE OF THE ITY CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK DALLAS—The oil and gas industry has seen enough boom -and -bust cycles to know that the pendulum eventually swings back. What is unusual these days is the feeling that the pendulum is moving in both directions at once, making it difficult for prudent owners and operators to prepare for whatever is coming next. On the positive "boom" side of the pendulum's swing, rapid development continues to drive demand for energy products around the world. At the same time, new technologies are opening opportunities to extract resources in areas that were once thought barren or impossible to exploit. Purely from a supply -and -demand perspective, the prospects for oil and gas businesses to thrive have never been so bright. However, the dark and challenging backswing is that the industry is under intense scrutiny and faces Evolving Liabilities Impact Coverage I Exclusive Story I Web Feature... http://www.aogr.com/index.php/web-features/exclusive-story/evolvi... increasing regulatory pressure at every level. The 2010 oil well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico created widespread mistrust that has reached beyond those involved in offshore drilling. Since then, contamination from oil pipeline spills and questions about whether earth tremors might be linked to hydraulic fracturing have added to a public perception that the industry as a whole is not as careful as it should be regarding its environmental impact. Altogether, these factors create an uncertain playing field that poses new exposure to liabilities piled on top of the well-known risks oil and gas businesses always have faced. That makes it more important than ever for owners and operators to work closely with an insurance broker that understands the industry and can help them identify the right coverage at the best price. By paying attention to a number of potential exposures, any oil and gas business can put an effective plan in place to manage risk. Avenues For Liability When rules are well established, a business has the information it needs to make decisions and carry on with operations. But when the old rules have been thrown out and new ones are not yet in place, businesses can be caught in limbo, uncertain about what is required and what must be avoided. When it comes to rules, the situation for oil and gas companies today is quite fluid. Legislatures, local officials and policymakers are questioning the effectiveness of current regulations and are considering changes that include more rigorous oversight, more onerous restrictions, and greater liability limits. A series of incidents and concerns has contributed to the unrest that is driving the movement toward strict regulations. These include: The 2010 deepwater blowout and oil spill dumped an estimated 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The three-month process of capping the well and stemming the flow of oil fed a public perception that oil companies could not be trusted to operate safely. The 2010 Enbridge pipeline rupture spilled more than 800,000 gallons of oil into a Michigan river. The incident brought public attention to the problem of corroded pipelines and their potential for contaminating the environment. Small earthquakes in a number of states where fracturing is used have raised a red flag. The technology also has led to concerns about groundwater pollution and radiation exposure. In reaction to these concerns, officials at federal, state and local agencies are rolling out tougher regulations and more stringent laws. For example, in the wake of the Gulf oil spill, Congress considered raising the maximum legal liability for economic damages from $75 million to $1 billion. At the state level, Pennsylvania policymakers increased the distance around an unconventional well for which the operator is presumed liable for any groundwater contamination from 1,000 to 2,500 feet. "Not in my backyard" protests have influenced local restrictions on where pipelines can be constructed and how drilling operations are permitted. Often, drilling operations now require extra permits, new procedures, and more coordination with local authorities. Some operators have seen an increase in lawsuits by area residents for inconveniences such as road closures, increased dust, and noise. Issues Beyond Pollution While pervasive, environmental concerns are not the only cause for new liability issues that oil and gas operators need to stay on top of. One example is the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Pacific Operators Offshore LLP v Valladolid, which has made it more likely that onshore employees will have access to funds designated to address injuries and fatalities for offshore workers. The case involves a worker who spent 95 percent of his time with Pacific Operators offshore, but who was killed in a forklift accident while assigned to one of the company's onshore facilities. Instead of settling for state workers' comnensation coverage_ the emnlovee'c wife mnde n clnim nnrler the Evolving Liabilities Impact Coverage I Exclusive Story I Web Feature... http://www.aogr.com/index.php/web-features/exclusive-story/evolvi... more generous Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act. The coverage under that act has been extended to offshore oil rigs through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The Supreme Court stepped in to resolve conflicting rulings by lower courts regarding who was eligible for the offshore coverage. Rather than requiring that an employee be offshore when the incident occurs, the court ruled a claim could be made if employees could establish a nexus between their work and the employer's offshore operations. The ruling has the potential to increase a company's workers' comp costs. In addition, it may lead companies to reconsider whether it is worthwhile to have employees split their work time between offshore and onshore operations. Familiar Risks While new liability exposures are emerging, oil and gas companies need to continue to address the risks that always have been present in their operations. Workers' comp and contractual risk transfer are two areas that can strongly impact both the availability and pricing of insurance, if a company has not managed its risks well. Workers' comp can be a particularly troublesome area during tight labor markets. When there is more demand for experienced workers than supply, companies often hire workers who have little training. In addition, companies may move employees to unfamiliar sites, send them to remote locations that don't have the infrastructure to handle the influx of workers, or put them in harsh environments that may present dangers they are not used to. Owners and operators can counteract these exposures by screening workers for experience, past performance, certifications for special equipment, and alcohol and drug use. Companies that focus on orienting new employees and that provide training with a strong safety emphasis are in a better position to reduce their workers' comp incident records, which is a critical factor in determining future premiums. Another sound practice for reducing exposure to liability is careful scrutiny of all contracts and joint operating agreements. Typically, these documents delineate who is responsible when things go wrong and spell out requirements for liability coverage. For example, a joint operating agreement may require each party to carry $1 million in general liability coverage and divide the expenses evenly for any liability incurred above that limit. To avoid costly problems, companies should consider whether the limits cited are high enough to cover potential claims. On contracts with vendors that require insurance coverage, companies should be sure they receive proof of coverage before the vendor is allowed on site. They also should check for ongoing coverage if the contract stretches over a substantial time. In addition, contracts that cities or counties may require before operations begin should be reviewed carefully. If a company agrees to maintain the road leading into a drilling site and the county requires the company to indemnify road upkeep, the company may become liable if a fissure, fault, or snow removal on the road causes an accident. Each party to a contract is interested in protecting itself to the maximum extent possible, so no amount of review will produce a contract that completely favors the oil owner or operator. But by thoroughly reviewing each contract and understanding what is being agreed to, a company has a better chance to address potential problems before they become costly quagmires. Coverage Factors Just as the oil and gas industry is facing pressure from many directions, insurance carriers face a variety of factors that influence both pricing and the availability of coverage. Today, those factors are largely negative. Evolving Liabilities Impact Coverage I Exclusive Story I Web Feature... http://www.aogr.com/index.php/web-features/exclusive-story/evolvi... Oil and gas companies are part of most insurance companies' energy books, which include mining companies, petrochemical plants, and other similar enterprises. The benefit is that risks are spread across a broader base of companies. Unfortunately, however, the recent history of claims for all of these types of companies has not been favorable. From refinery fires in Canada to typhoon, earthquake and flood damage, to Australian mines and the Gulf blowout, catastrophes have been costly. One insurer's experience illustrates the impact of these and other catastrophes throughout the insurance industry. In 2010, Lloyd's of London reported paying $1.16 in claims for every $1.00 it received in premiums prior to 2009 reserve credit. Similarly, the top reinsurers reported that during the first nine months of 2011, payouts per $1.00 of premium were running at almost $1.09. The effect going forward is that underwriters become much more stringent about what their companies are willing to cover, and pricing for coverage is pushed upward. As a result of these pricing pressures, experts expect oil and gas companies with no or few losses to experience flat to 5 percent increases in premiums—unless they are in areas where catastrophic events are frequent, in which case, the increase may be as high as 15 percent. Best Foot Forward What can a company do to make sure it gets the right coverage at the best price? Oil and gas owners and operators should approach purchasing insurance much as they do attracting investors. When a company wants new investors, it puts its best foot forward, telling the story of its operations, assets, potential for success, and much more. Similarly, an underwriter needs to know all the positive information a company can compile. By working closely with the underwriter, a company has a much better chance to be viewed as a sound risk and deserving of the most competitive rates the insurer can offer. Among the things companies should highlight when talking with underwriters are its procedures for hiring qualified, well-trained workers; safety training programs; equipment maintenance practices; the experience of managers and supervisors; and past performance in conducting claims -free operations. Companies also should demonstrate sound practices in reviewing contracts, and arrange for appropriate contractual risk transfer whenever possible. In addition, companies should look for insurance carriers with solid financial ratings and long track records of insuring oil and gas businesses. Both indicate an ability to be there for an insured over the long haul. Finally, working with a broker who understands the industry and has expertise can make a difference. For example, control -of -well insurance policies may either indemnify the oil operation or "pay on behalf of when there are claims. The difference is that in the first case, the insured pays the bill and then presents it to the carrier to be reimbursed. Insurers pay claims directly in pay -on -behalf -of policies. For oil businesses with tight cash flows, having a pay -on -behalf -of policy can be an advantage that is easily overlooked by anyone who is unfamiliar with oil and gas industry coverage. With so much criticism and skepticism from different sources in today's unsettled regulatory and economic environment, oil and gas businesses could be forgiven for feeling abandoned and on their own. When it comes to risk management, however, they do not have to go it alone. By working with a broker that understands the industry's special needs and emerging issues, oil and gas operators and owners can be assured that someone is in their corner, ready to help them manage risks and reduce their exposure to liability. Evolving Liabilities Impact Coverage I Exclusive Story I Web Feature... http://www.aogr.com/index.php/web-features/exclusive-story/evolvi... THOMAS JENKINS is senior vice president and director of technical international risk, specializing in energy at Wells Fargo Insurance, the largest bank -owned insurance brokerage in the United States, with experience in property, casualty, benefits, intern Like 1 Web Features Exclusive Sto y I Exclusive Story 2 Exclusive Story Archives U.S. Rig Count Linking to AOGR Content SOFTWARE �O+a� SatvTto+u. +si l+ 713 ZFNEira %6 IRMA"! CLICK Off" dR 051'r Td CEM AJ M6oM r Your workflow... ilf5 Uninterrupted Copyright © 2013 The American Oil & Gas Reporter by National Publishers Group Inc. under both U.S. Law and Universal Copyright Convention. All rights reserved. Click here for Linking Policy Web Features • Exclusive Story 1 • Exclusive Story 2 • Exclusive Story Archives • U.S. Rig Count • Linking to AOGR Content Magazine • Sneak Peek Preview • Current Cover Story • Current Editor's Choice • Fra P. Fart-, IL40 CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: APRIL 2, 2013 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 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic 3 Staff and PVPLC staff edits to the PUMP Document in response to suggestions from members of the public Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, April 1, 2013**. W:WGENDA12013 Additions Revisions to agendas\20130402 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Jerry Duhovic [mailto:councilmanduhovic@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:22 AM To: Dennis Mclean Subject: Register of Demands Dennis, The following has been posed to me by a constituent. Please advise ASAP. What is CEPO/MMC ACADEMY EXPENSE? Staff Reply: This is a request for approval for airfare and shuttle for attendance by the City Clerk at the "Continuing Education for Public Officials/Master Municipal Clerks" Professional Development Series. What is CACEO Dues & Reg.? Who is JP? Staff Reply: This is a request for payment for a membership fee to the "California Association of Code Enforcement Officials" and class registration fee for the "4th Amendment/Trespassing course attended by the Code Enforcement Officer. What is survivor benefit in CALPERS for? Is this over and above Retirement benefit? Does it duplicate other insurance? This is a request for the payment to CaIPERS for the death benefit that would be paid to the surviving spouse/dependent of an active, eligible employee. CalPERS provides benefits to the beneficiaries or survivors of active and retired members upon their death. Benefits and eligible recipients vary based on whether the member was still working at the time of death or was retired; by the member's employer (State, school, or local public agency); occupation (miscellaneous (general office and others), safety, Industrial, or peace officer/firefighter); and the specific provisions in the contract between CaIPERS and the employer. Employees share about 50% of the cost through payroll deduction. Is $5,08o justified for copier maintenance or should that be a replacement? Staff Reply: This is a request for payment to Oce/Canon for six months support, licensing and on - demand device maintenance of three high duty (use) copier/scanner, as well as three months standard use fees. Why is the city paying for D&S Construction Business license? Staff Reply: This is a request for reimbursement to the taxpayer resulting from a duplicate payment. Why is city subscribing to Jobs Available? Is city providing this to employees and why? Staff Reply: This is a request for payment for an annual subscription for the Director of Community Development. Jobs Available is a listing of employment opportunities in the public sector. In the past, the HR Manager and other directors use Jobs Available to track compensation and benefits offered other candidates in other cities to ensure the City's compensation to employees is at the target level. Regards, Jerry Jerry V. Duhovic Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Pro Tem ierrv.duhovic0mv.com City Hall:(310)544-5207 Cell: (310)502-8036 01-;�- CfTY OF L40 --"RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ARA MIHRANIAN, D PUTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR bl DATE: APRIL 2, 2013 SUBJECT: PALOS VERDES NATURES PRESERVE - RECENT EDITS TO THE APRIL 2, 2013 PUBLIC USE MASTER PLAN (PUMP) DOCUMENT Since the transmittal of the updated PUMP Document to the City Council for tonight's meeting, City and PVPLC Staff have made some additional minor edits in response to suggestions from members of the public. Attached are the pages . from the PUMP Document that include these edits (shown in track changes and circled in black) which are summarized below: Chapter 1 — Introduction • Page 2 — deleted section references to NCCP. Chapter 2 — Preserve Trails Plan • Page 5 — replaced the word "unnecessary" with "unauthorized" as it refers to closed trails. • Page 5 - deleted section references to NCCP • Page 6 — replaced the word "entirely" with "mostly" regarding trails • Page 6 — deleted the "the intent to provide relatively comfortable user experience" Chapter 3 — Activities in the Preserve • Page 47 — added the words "of wild or feral animals" Chapter 4 — Preserve Amenities / Improvements • Page 53 — deleted the word "key" • Pages 53-54 — updated the text regarding kiosk signs • Page 54 — modified section heading to "Sign Verbiage and installation Process" • Page 55 — added the text "emergency services" • Page 55 — corrected ordering from "K" to "J" the protection of natural resources within the Preserve, Te r-e that the NGGP-Preseafe prey+de� +t usa�ti al epee aitfeswhile sew+eg-the--C-ity's eaique-fled ersi %y --Rd MaiRtoit4ing fK), fatkmi-sof--seflsl ' -the NCCP requires that the City and the PVPLC prepare a Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) for the Preserve. The PUMP is intended to be a covered activity under the NCCP and address issues germane to the Preserve such as public access, trail and trailhead I use, fencing, signage, lighting to name a few. In addition, the NC (section 6-2-:LXXX) calls out a number of "Management Recommendations" that will lik part of development of the PUMP to obtain coverage for these activities, including the development of a comprehensive Preserve Trails Plan (PTP). Pursuant to the City's NCCP, preparation of the PUMP should be based on extensive public input and must be completed within 2 years of the signing of the NCCP Implementation Agreement and be approved by the City Council and the Resource Agencies to be a covered activity. The City's NCCP Implementing Agreement has not been signed yet; however, the PUMP preparation is currently underway and well ahead of the schedule anticipated by the Resource Agencies. The basis of the Resource Agency review will be to ensure that the PUMP meets the "covered activity" requirements and is consistent with the biological conservation goals of and of the NCCP. Upon the City Council's adoption of the PUMP document, the Forrestal Management Plan will no longer be the governing document for the Forrestal Reserve. The PUMP document will replace the Forrestal Management Plan since the Forrestal Reserve is a part of the greater NCCP Preserve. Preparation of the PUMP In March 2006, the City Council assist City and PVPLC Staff with 2006, the City Council appointee geographic relationship with the interest or group affiliation. Listec PUMP Committee: • Donald Bell • Arlene Block • Barry Bonnickson • Troy Braswell • Eva Cicoria • Al Edgerton • Marc Jacobowitz • Bill James • Cassie Jones • Gordon Leon • Vic Quirarte endorsed the --idea of creating a steering committee to the development of the PUMP document. On June 6, 15 individuals to a PUMP Committee based on their Preserve, their trail use experience and their special below (in alphabetical order) are the 15 members of the Adopted: Draft Page 2 2. PRESERVE TRAILS PLAN The NCCP requires that the City and the PVPLC develop a Preserve Trails Plan (PTP) that is consistent with the City's Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) and places an emphasis on avoiding or minimizing impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat (CSS) and covered species in such a way that the identified trails are compatible with the Preserve and avoid direct access to sensitive resource areas and major biological features. Furthermore es the trails designated a t eeessary unauthorized ould be closed to minimize a After obtaining feedback from the PUMP Committee, City Staff and the PVPLC, on a proposed Preserve Trails Plan (PTP), in April 2008, the City Council adopted a PTP that identifies the trail routes, trail names and trail uses for the Preserve. The 2008 PTP was further amended by the City Council in October 2012. The approved PTP supersedes the trail routes and uses identified in the City's Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP), as described herein, Trail Implementation, Maintenance and Repair The City and the er-.PVPLC haves no obligation with respect to trail maintenance and trail repair. However, at the PVPLC's discretion and when funding is available, the PVPLC may perform trail maintenance or trail repair on existing unimproved trails identified in the approved PTP. At the City's sole discretion when funding is available, the City is responsible for constructing new trails identified in the PTP which currently do not exist. Improved trails in the d by the City. As a proposed covered activity (See Section XX and TableXX o the NCCP), all of the monitoring, new construction and main e PUMP and PTP will be consistent with the requirements of the NCCP, including the Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Covered Activities and compatible public uses in the Preserve (See Sections and . e NCCP). Ongoing monitoring of the trails and an ongoing educational effort are important aspects of trails management and may consist, but not be limited, to the following: Signs at the main entry points to the Preserve showing the respective PTP and the approved uses for each trail. 2. Trail maps and informational brochures available at the main ,L:r)ifV points. Adopted: Draft Page 5 3. Information on the Preserve, including the PTP on the City's website Trail Routes The trails identified in the PTP are locateEnt+rely-most) ithin the City's Preserve and are for the most part existing paths that have e past. Where possible, the trails within the Preserve connect to the trails adjacent to the Preserve. Trails within the Preserve are not intended to connect to trails that are located on private property unless appropriate public access easements are in place. The trail alignments identified for the PTP will be covered under the NCCP and are partly based on the City's Conceptual Trails Plan, including trails that are part of, or connect to, the Palos Verdes Loop Trail. These trails are retained as the basis for the PTP. Other trails currently in use by the public were added in order to identify a functional trail system for the Preserve. Trail Guidelines For the most part, the trails identified in the PTP are existing trail routes that have been identified based primarily on historical usage and current popularity. Generally, impact to the environment is to be minimized by using existing trails. Consideration was also given to line -of -sight, slope, and safety factors, as well as minimal potential for erosion. Furth ration the natural topography, the Furth tfvely-serrrferta-ethe intent to provide access to open area RnRfi��einaturalc s o sareas. Generally, trails are to be maintained or designed for minimum impact on existing and potential habitat. Finally, the public uses and trail routes/configurations are situated to be compatible with the Preserve, avoid disruption of any native vegetation (including an emphasis on avoiding or minimizing impacts to CSS), habitat, or wildlife as identified in the Natural Conservation Communities Plan (NCCP) [See Section &.2 -.4 -XXX of the NCCP (The Public Use Master Plan)]. Where habitat impacts, user conflicts, or safety concerns arise on a trail, change of trail use designation may be considered. Minor site improvements may also be used to correct the deficiency. Trail Surface Trails in the Preserve are to be "unimproved" trails and thus should be maintained in their natural surface material. The use of mulch is discouraged because of the potential to introduce non-native seeds to the Preserve and interfere with required fuel modification. Drainage control should be provided at appropriate points in such a way that the trail is not adversely affected by water erosion. Crossings over watercourses may require separate environmental review and/or permits (e.g., federal 404 and/or state 1600) that are not covered under the NCCP. Adopted: Draft Page 6 j) Field research and studies designed to contribute to the long-term protection of habitats and species and other basic research of habitats and species included in the Preserve. h. Preserve Hours Pursuant to Section 12.16.030 of the RPVMC, no person shall be or remain in the Preserve at any time between one hour after sundown and one hour before sunrise, unless attending or participating in city authorized activities, such as City permitted night hikes. PROHIBITED PUBLIC ACTIVITIES Activities that may affect covered species addressed in the NCCP and are not covered activities as set for in the NCCP are prohibited without the proper authorization from the Resource Agencies. Some, but not limited to, of the following activities are prohibited from occurring in the Preserve in order to reduce impacts upon biological resources and to minimize hazards to public safety and property within or adjacent to the Preserve: • Commercial or industrial uses • Placement of billboards • Introducing or dispersing non-native or exotic plant or animal species • Altering the surface or general topography • Paintballing • Archeryltar except as authorized herein) • Fee din of wild or feral nimals • New (ore ails or jumps (see "a." below) • Organized or unorganized bike races, including night rides and/or night riders • Unauthorized fuel clearing and/or planting • Camping/overnight stay (see "b." below) • Campfires and Barbecues in-non-deskjnated-afea-s (see "d." below) • Hunting or collection of wildlife (see "e." below) • Smoking c -:i -of any kind (see "d." below) • Motorized vehicles (see "f." below) • Paragliding and Parasailing (see "g." below) • Motorized or Radio -Controlled Models (see "h." below) • Any other use deemed inappropriate or in conflict with the NCCP. a. Bicycle Jumps The creation of man-made or natural jumps, whether on designated trails or off - trails, is prohibited in the Preserve. Such features promote activities in the Preserve that directly contradict the passive recreational use intended for the Preserve as described in the NCCP. Moreover, Section 12.16.010 of the RPVMC states that no person other than authorized employees or City agents or other authorized persons Adopted: Draft Page 47 a) Protect particularly sensitive species or habitats. For example, perimeter fencing could be used in habitat linkage areas where Preserve widths are narrower and there is greater exposure to adverse edge effects. b) Direct human access away from sensitive resource areas. Efforts to limit human access will involve the use of natural vegetation, topography, signs, and limited fencing. c) Protect from natural hazards or other public safety needs. d) Design and locate new fences within the Preserve so they do not impede wildlife movement or impact Covered Species. Signs educate, provide direction, and promote the sensitive use and enjoyment of natural areas by the visiting public. As identification devices, signs should not subject the public to excessive visual competition, but rather be an appropriate identification device that naturally blends with the surrounding environment and other signs in the Preserve. The use of signs that may attract attention to sensitive species should be used minimally in the Preserve because such signs may invite disturbance of their habitat. The following types of informational and regulatory signs may be located in the Preserve: • Trail markers as informational and identification signs that provide basic trail information to trail users. Trail markers provide identification to the trail ahead, uses allowed and not allowed on the trail route, a directional arrow, and if applicable, the City's trail system (i.e. Palos Verdes Loop Trail markers should be located at the starting point to a trail, as well as irey rail junctions where trails cross or intersect. In cases where two or more i s intersect, trail markers should be provided to identify each trail. • Trailhead signs at key public access points to provide the name of the Reserve and to identify that Reserve's trail system. Additionally, City regulations should be posted on the Trailhead Sign. _ Kiosks sig�;s�arcl ca ed near main entrances adjacent to public parkin may include_ tom^--Ra^;e ntast tiee 40F law en#ercen€; end a aaqe t+aeaihr ee1. AS, an o Reserve Map showing facilities and trails o The trail information with brochures and maps o Additional information such as trail conditions and amenities_ o Trail user responsibilities, rules and regulations e Adopted: Draft u Page 53 ncv contact information and ranaer hotline numbe T signs, as deemed necessary, may be installed to in is t restoration, erosion -control areas, temporary trail closures, alert users (to slow Liown,yield,_horses on trail, walk bikes, etc.), -etc. 1 Interpretive signs may be installed adjacent to trails when necessary to enhance public understanding of the history, geology, wildlife, habitat and special characteristics of an area. Interpretation should work in service of the visitor and the missions of the governing institutions. Interpretation is meant to increase awareness and understanding, build personal connections, and foster stewardship behaviors that help manage and protect resources. • Precautionary "warning signs" may be installed at designated areas deemed to be hazardous based on concerns pertaining to geologic instability, The City's Public Works Director and the City's geotechnical consultants should identify the exact on- site location for each precautionary "warning sign." Precautionary "warning signs" relating to the temporary closure of certain trail segments should be posted at strategic and visible locations, pursuant to the City Attorney's guidance. These signs should feature graphic representations of the potential danger, based on the nature and location of the hazard. • Re ulatory Signs may be installed to advise the public of rules and regulations. ign Verbiage and In tallation Process Pursuant to the Preserve Management Agreement between the City and the PVPLC, the PVPLC is generally responsible for providing trail information signs while the City is generally responsible for providing entry signs/kiosks and/or warning signs beyond PVPLC's responsibilities. As determined necessary by the PVPLC, the PVPLC is responsible for the installation or replacement of up to 25 signs per year that provide trail direction and way finding; trail location and identification; donor recognition, trail closure, protection of habitat and species, and geologic, historic features and education. The specifications regarding signs in the Preserve, including their general placement, should be reviewed at the monthly team meetings between the City (Community Development and Public Works Departments) and the PVPLC prior to installation. Signs that are in a state of disrepair, vandalized, weathered or removed should be repaired immediately by the responsible entity. Signs that explain the rules of the Preserve (e.g., hiking, bicycle riding and horseback riding) are most effective at public entrance points. Signs for educational nature trails and on roads near wildlife corridors (to reduce road kills) shall be posted at appropriate locations. As set forth in the NCCP (Section XXX/Fencing and Signage), the following recommendations shall be considered in the placement of all Preserve signage: Adopted: Draft Page 54 a) Provide educational brochures, interpretive kiosks, and signs to educate the public about the resources and goals of the NCCP and Preserve. b) Establish signs for access control and education at the periphery of the Preserve that are accessible to individuals. Post signs to prohibit firearms and unleashed pets. c) Install signs for educational nature trails. d) Limit the use and/or language of signs that might attract attention to sensitive species, because such designation may invite disturbance of their habitat. e) Install temporary signs to indicate habitat restoration or erosion-control areas. f) Install barriers and informational signs to discourage shortcuts between established trails. g) Establish road signs near wildlife corridors to help reduce road kills. h) Consider signs denoting reduced speed limits along roads that have relatively high incidence of road killed appropriate, contact information for law enforcemen , services, and management staff. 11 Include, where appropriate, signs that identify where_a trail ends at private property. Lighting With the exception of temporary safety or security lighting for NCCP covered activities; lighting shall not be permitted within the Preserve. Drinking Fountains Typically, water facilities, such as drinking fountains, are not available within the Preserve because of the lack of utilities. In cases where existing water and sewer lines are available, drinking fountains may be located at certain trailheads. In such cases, the drinking fountains should also include doggie bowls. Bathrooms While Bathrooms structures are not allowed in the Preserve, portable bathrooms may be located at trailheads within the Preserve or at other appropriate locations that are easily accessible to City maintenance crews. Trash Bins As a means of encouraging the public's role in the maintenance of the trails and the surrounding grounds, trash bins should be installed in the Preserve by the City at strategic locations that are accessible to the general public and City maintenance crews. The trash bins shall be wildlife proof and shall be constructed from materials that blend with the natural terrain and shall be placed at locations that are easily accessible to City maintenance crews. For security reasons, it is recommended that the trash bins be mounted to the ground or chained to a solid structure, such as a sign pole or bench, to prevent tampering. Trash bins should be designed with an enclosure to ensure that trash is not removed by humans or animals. Adopted: Draft Page 55 4 CrTY OF O RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: APRIL 1, 2013 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, April 2, 2013 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material E Email from Janet Gunter 3 Emails from: Eva Cicoria; Michael Jost; Sunshine; Email exchange between Andrea Vona and Sunshine Respectfully submitted, &.&Clu'r� Carla Worreale W: WGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas120130401 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc From: Kit Fox Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 1:38 PM To: Teresa Takaoka Subject: FW: Homeowners 2nd submission to LA re: Public Nuisance of Rancho LPG Attachments: spphu_nuisance_abatement letter_march_2013.doc Importance: High Late Correspondence on Item E Kit Fox, ACCP Ciiij of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 5.44-5226 kitf0Wv.com. From: Janet Gunter [mailto:arriane5(&aol.com] Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 1:35 PM To: Kit Fox Subject: Fwd: Homeowners 2nd submission to LA re: Public Nuisance of Rancho LPG -----Original Message ----- From: Janet Gunter <arriane5�a. aol.com> To: chateau4us <chateau4usO-aft.net>; kittf <kittf rpv.com> Sent: Mon, Mar 25, 2013 10:26 pm Subject: Homeowners 2nd submission to LA re: Public Nuisance of Rancho LPG w San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, Inc. 10C Post Office Box 6455, San Pedro, CA 90734 Email: sphomeunited@earthlink.net Fax (310) 548-4255 March 25, 2013 Ms. Aleta James City Planner LA City Planning Dept., Room 525 200 Spring St. Los Angeles, CA 90012 RE: NUSAINCE ABATEMENT: RANCHO LPG, SAN PEDRO Dear Ms, James, Per the recent email received from you dated March 14, 2013, please find the enclosed legal demand from the US Environmental Protection Agency against RanchoLPG LLC. Aside from the listed items of non-compliance to federal laws and regulations as noted in the EPA letter, we emphasize the underlying foundational issues that will undermine any attempts by Rancho to fully meet compliance. In addition to the 6 EPA listed violations, Rancho does not comply with the basic API standards (25 10) for LPG storage. Specifically, they fail the set back requirements of 200 ft. from neighboring land use. This specific standard applies to the facility on the south, east and northeast. Had this facility (under the original name of Petrolane LPG) received a proper City permitting review process, this deficiency would have been identified resulting in the refusal of a permit to build. The LA City permit was only issued under "permitted as built" five years after the facility's construction, and certified while under full operation. AQMD records show that the Rancho facility was designated as "sold" from it's second owner, Amerigas, on their inspection forms as early as 2005. The actual date of change of ownership is unclear although we found a reference that the final change to Rancho did not occur until November of 2008. Whatever the case, the Amerigas named permit was the only one on file until 2009. When the facility formally changed into the operation of Rancho LPG, they were required under the law to procure an AQMD permit in that name. Rancho did not apply for a permit until after an inspection in early 2009 when the inspector, Gale Jones, advised them that their permit should have been changed to the current operation's name. This means that they were operating under the new ownership for several months, or perhaps years, absent the proper AQMD permit in clear violation of the law. Also required was a new Risk Management Plan. The plan that Rancho submitted was simply a "roll over" plan from the previous Amerigas facility with a number of those deficiencies noted in the EPA complaint. This illustrates a company that is indifferent to laws and in particular to safety. NO The facility has received a number of violations for many years varying in magnitude of seriousness. Enclosed in our complaint are AQMD records of their inspections and over 30 violations and notices to Comply beginning in the year 2000, while under the Amerigas name, and extending forward under the Rancho name until February of 2013. As you will see by this history, there is a chronic situation of problems. Facilities, such as this one, are guaranteed operational malfunctions, leaks, accidents and errors that are simply unpredictable, uncontrollable and literally guaranteed. In the case of Rancho LPG, with its 40+ year old infrastructure, you can be assured that the problems associated with failure will continue to become worse every day that they remain in operation. The formidable volume of 25 Million Gallons of Butane Gas elevates concerns related to public safety to an extremely high level. There is no other facility in the Harbor region that can compete with the vulnerabilities and hazards associated with this LPG facility. In 2010, Rancho reported emissions of 1,3 Butadiene, (8.2 lb/yr), benzene (20.6 lb/yr), formaldehyde (260.5 lb/yr) These gasses are all carcinogens. Strangely, they have not reported any hazardous air pollutants since that year. The AQMD inspects the facility only once a year. During an inspection in 2011 Rancho received a notice of violation for butane leaks greater than 100,000 parts per million. On March 8, 2012 a collision occurred between a Rancho rail car and a semi truck at the intersection of Westmont Drive & Gaffey Street. (photo enclosed) This collision was located just outside the Rancho facility gates and on a section of rail under the jurisdiction of the City and Port of Los Angeles. Miraculously, there was no rupture of the rail car. The accident occurred just as the local elementary school, Taper Avenue, was dismissing students. There was no notice to the three most adjacent schools, the daycare center across the street, the local businesses or any adjacent homeowners. The accident was not reported by the facility to LA Fire, nor was it reported to the City of LA regarding the activity which took place on the Port's own "permitted" rail property. The accident was reported to the LA Port and Harbor commission by homeowners. This section of the rail is on a monthly "roll over" permit granted by the City of LA (managed by the Port of LA) and carries with it an approximately $1 million dollar Rancho liability insurance policy. Had an accident occurred, the damages incurred from explosion and fire would have dwarfed this meager policy. Again, in October of 2012, multiple calls were made to the AQMD regarding odors of gas in the Harbor area. After careful investigation by the AQMD, the odors were attributed to a leak of toxic agent Ethyl Mercaptan (an odorant added to propane & smaller vessels of butane ) from the Rancho facility. It is important to note that the bulk of LPG stored at Rancho is "butane" which is both colorless and "odorless". The massive 25 million gallons of stored butane gas is NOT infused with Ethly Mercaptan. This means that there is NO way to clearly identify Butane leaks from the two largest tanks on the premises. On January 30th, 2013, a significant "flaring event" was digitally recorded at approximately 4:30 AM. (photos enclosed) by a local resident. This was immediately reported to the EPA (Mary Wesling) who inquired to Rancho whether it was their release or not. The email answer to EPA was copied to our homeowners (also enclosed) from Rancho stating that it was, in fact, their facility and that they were under no obligation to report the incident to the AQMD. The problems, risks and jeopardy from Rancho are more than apparent. The City Planning provisions within the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance allow City Zoning authorities to protect the public peace, health and safety from any land use which becomes a nuisance. The written determinations that your department has requested to substantiate this point are all present and recorded by the AQMD and the EPA in reports of violations. This is your written proof of a troubled history with an "ultra -hazardous" facility that cannot control future problems and has a very real prognosis for catastrophe. The issue boils down to the repetition of violations due to the natural break down of an antiquated infrastructure accompanied by great potential for accident, human error, extraordinary seismic and geologic vulnerabilities, and significant terrorism potential. While some repair may temporarily resolve a problem at Rancho LPG, the greater problem is related to a prolonged tacit approval by the City of LA to allow the threat of the public to continue. Cq) The fact that the Rancho LPG facility meets all criteria of the legal definition of an "Ultra -Hazardous Activity" (as referenced below) gives great momentum to the necessity of removal. UL TRAHAZARDO US ACTIVITY CRITERA Whether an activity is ultra hazardous is a question of law. SKF Farms v.Sup. Ct. (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902. California has adopted the Rest. 2d Torts approach for determining whether activities are abnormally dangerous: 1. Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land, or chattel of others; 2. Likelihood that the harm that results will be great; 3. Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage; 4. Inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care; 5. Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried out; 6. Extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes. The essential question is whether the risk created is so unusual, either because of its magnitude or because of the circumstances surrounding it, as to justify the imposition of strict liability from the harm that results, even though it is carried on with all the reasonable care. In the case of Rancho LPG, the multiple violations submitted indicate that "reasonable care" has not truly been adequately demonstrated adding even more significance to the urgency in removing this facility. DAMAGES There has never been any disclosure by real estate brokers to buyers that Rancho LPG stores 25 million gallons of butane on a site that is a documented earthquake rupture zone, a liquefaction & landslide area, and in a tsunami zone. Butane burns far more readily than other fuels and the excessive temperature from its fire will ignite combustibles for miles. Other fuels must va_. op rize before they will burn. Butane vaporizes so instantly that it creates its own vapor explosion! Despite all USGS and City of LA documents stating the opposite, "Rancho LPG"/ "Plains All American Pipeline's" consistent position states they are not in an earthquake rupture zone nor a Landslide and Liquefaction Area. Such obduracy borders the ridiculous. A disclosure of the true risk posed by this facility would result in a decline of the value of homes within a radius of 6.8 miles (potential worst case of impact). Notice should be given to future prospective buyers of the potential devastation to the entire surrounding area from an explosion at Rancho LPG's facility. This includes the lending institutions and buyers of the projected 800 + homes in the Ponte Vista housing development currently going through the Environmental Impact Review Process in the City of LA. Damages would be the actual loss in value of any real estate in the area caused by the disclosure of the above. Since Liquid Petroleum Gas is so explosive and the volume of gas held at Rancho so immense (representing the equivalent, according to Rancho's own consultant, of over 50 atomic bombs), the concern for public safety is paramount! Rancho has demonstrated an indifference on the part of their company to public safety. This is unacceptable. The existence of Rancho LPG continues to threaten the safety of the Harbor area and the Port of Los Angeles. The violations detailed in this letter point to Rancho's clear allegiance to their company's profits and continued disregard for public safety. 0 It is therefore our request that the City of Los Angeles Planning Department initiate Nuisance Abatement hearings pursuant to the authority that LA City Planning possesses under LAMC 12.27.1 (copy enclosed); and that the LA Planning Department exercise the power it possesses under Section 217 of the Charter (copy enclosed) to subpoena Rancho's insurance. Our Homeowners wish to remain steadfast in our pursuit of Nuisance Abatement proceedings with the LA City Planning Department. It is vital to the safety and security of Harbor Area residents and to the operations of the Port of Los Angeles to remove this threat as soon as possible. The LA City Planning Department and the City of Los Angeles must act immediately to protect and ensure the safety and well being of its people and its neighboring communities. Sincerely, Chuck Hart President (310) 833-0959 Cc: Michael LoGrande, LA Planning Director Mayor Villaraigosa City Attorney Trutanich City Controller Greuel City Councilman Joe Buscaino (All) LA City Councilmembers LA Harbor Commission LA City Attorney Candidate, Mike Feuer LA City Controller Candidate, Ron Galperin Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Mary Wesling, CA EPA From: Eva Cicoria <cicoriae@aol.com> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 8:02 AM To: Ara Mihranian Cc: CC Subject: PVNP Ara, I support the Staffs proposal for a quarterly forum for the public to convey concerns and hear the concerns of others on all the public use issues that may arise under the PUMP. I'm not a fan of the idea to have these meetings monthly as that is not only a big burden on staffs time, but on the public's as well. Eva P.S. I'll feel the same way tomorrow, April 2. (: 3, From: Mike Jost <MJJost@socal.rr.com> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 2:00 PM To: CC Subject: Support Trails Advisory Board Hororable Mayor and City Council, As a PVPLC Trail Crew Leader I support a three member Trails Advisory Board. I've worked with Barry Bonnickson, Troy Braswell and Kurt Loheit on various trail projects. They always find a trail solution that benefits all users with minimal impact on habitat. Their well established relationship with the conservancy and city staff insures a quick transition to actionable proposals. Their respect for and rapport with the Trail Crew will result in significant volunteer support for proper execution of those solutions. Karl Knapp, Trails and Roadway Superintendant over 1.5 million acres of California State land says: " 80% of user problems are solved by fixing the trails" A Trails Advisory Board has been proposed for years. Quarterly public meetings will result in many opinions, and little resolution. It's time to empower the TAB to implement solutions based on all reported trail data from: PVPLC, volunteer patrol, and city staff. To help locate problem areas Keepers should count user data for each trail. The public wants to help make trails safer and more enjoyable for all. We need real information sharing to effectively collaborate. Sincerely, Michael Jost PVPLC Trail Crew Leader From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:02 PM To: CC Subject: Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) April 2, 2013 Council Agenda Item 3 March 29, 2013 MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV Mayor. Copy to Council and Staff RE: Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) April 2, 2013 Council Agenda Item 3 Madam Mayor, here is the three days you requested. The draft Public Use Master Plan is still not ready for implementation. Not only is it a few pages longer than the last draft, it does not accomplish anything in the way of assisting the public with enjoying the PV Nature Preserve nor does it give the RPV Public Works Department any encouragement to maintain/improve the infrastructure in the now City owned properties. Since the City of RPV has not bothered to update our General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan, Parks Master Plan and Trails Network Plan, in a timely fashion, why should you consider another "Plan" to join the Natural Communities Conservation Plan and the RPV Coastal Vision Plan as "bottom up" diversions? Everything in the draft PUMP is either already stated in the City's Municipal Code, Coastal Specific Plan, Parks Master Plan and Trails Network Plan or should be including a resolution that said details are compliant with the existing RPV General Plan. Even though this is what "sustained development" is all about, the PV Nature Preserve should not be taking precedence over the rest of the City. Mayor Brooks, if you still don't understand what I am writing about, take in John Stossel's broadcast last night at http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/index.html. Sacramento CA, March 28 2013: "Green Tyranny" is the title of tonight's Stossel Show with John Stossel, on the Fox Business network. Host John Stossel will spotlight oppressive environmental regulations that victimize average people --- undermining their property rights and economic well- being --- without meaningful benefit for the environment. Mayor Brooks, you have the power. Please call for a motion to not take any action on this item. If nobody makes a motion, let the draft PUMP Document die the same death as the draft Parks, Recreation and Open Space Strategic Plan. o .� From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 1:09 PM To: cprotem73@verizon.net Cc: CC Subject: Farming of any kind and the PUMP review on Tuesday night. Whew. So the City does not own any land in Malaga Canyon, yet. Both the State level NCCP and the RPV NCCP "accommodate" agriculture. The national Parks Service is quite clear about how to do a "land conversion". I am really concerned that Staff might recommend using a Federal grant to purchase land for storm water run-off improvements before they come up with a way to save and expand the educational and historic agriculture use at Point Vicente Park. The latest draft PUMP is sure not going to help. It slams the door on our toes. And, it has no credence at the State level. A PUMP is a local creation. All the State's Natural Communities Conservation Act last amended in 2003 (California Fish and Wildlife Code 2800 and 2835) requires is 2820 (5) The plan identifies activities, and any restrictions on those activities, allowed within the reserve areas that are compatible with the conservation of species, habitats, natural communities, and their associated ecological functions. To do that we need 60 pages which say trails and agriculture are somewhat OK? If the latest PUMP Document is approved, all Kit Fox has to say is "Sorry, the PUMP overrides the General Plan." And, who is going to stand up against that? The best remaining city owned farmland is at Point Vicente Park. The best volunteer supported interpretive center is at Point Vicente Park. Anything you can do to get the City Manager to organize her troops in favor of saving the history and the future of teaching children how to produce food in our town will be appreciated by more than Farmer G's daughter and James Hatano's brain trust, Martin Martinez. ...S In a message dated 3/29/2013 7:03:46 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cprotem73 ccDverizon.net writes: They are currently negotiating to buy it except for the part on the south side of Montemalaga westward to existing homes. Ken Dyda On 03/29/13, SunshineRPVCa)aol.com wrote: Whoa! The City owns what land in Malaga Canyon? ...S In a message dated 3/18/2013 4:04:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cprotem73CaD_verizon.net writes: Sunshine, Just a thought. Item 3 Agricultural Use at Upper Point Vicente City sell that western portion of Malaga Canyon west of Grayslake on the north side of Montemalaga using the funds to help conversion. That portion could provide 7 or eight lots for home similar to those abutting the property on the west side. They could command a premium being view lots with no view impairment to others. They would also reduce the city's fire brush clearance costs while generating property tax. It also might be possible to have enough to include extra acreage, per Sunshine's suggestion, for demonstration dry farming. Ken Dyda From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 12:50 PM To: CC Subject: RE: A short Easter story in favor of agriculture. In case you have not visited it lately, there is a big bronze plaque at RPV's Founders Park. It tells a story. One little bit says... Onetime Kumekichi was walking to the point of exhaustion and was terribly hungry. He found a castor bean and consumed the bean thinking them to be edible. Extremely ill, he fell upon some cucumbers and in desperation ate them. They saved his life. My question on this day of salvation is... Why does the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' parklands, roadsides and nature reserves grow so many deadly castor beans and no life saving cucumbers? Pass the word. Call 310-377-0360 and try to ask the City Manager for an explanation. ...S N, From: Andrea Vona <avona@pvplc.org> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 10:39 AM To: SunshineRPV@aol.com; CC Subject: RE: A short Easter story in favor of agriculture. Good morning Sunshine, The castor bean (Ricinus communis) is a plant that the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy does work to remove as it is an invasive specires. A specific example of fairly recent activity is that we removed a population of castor bean from the canyon near the Rim trail in Portuguese Bend. This requires follow up visits to continue to remove additional seedlings as they emerge from the seedbank. The wild cucumber (March macrocarpus) is a lovely plant that we do propagate in our native plant nursery and out plant in habitat restoration projects. I hope this is helpful information, Andrea Andrea Vona Executive Director Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy 916 Silver Spur Road, #207 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 www.pvplc.org 310-541-7613 X204 310-541-7623 (fax) 310-930-0583 (cell) Preserving land and restoring habitat far the education and enjoyment of all. Join our mailing list Join us 10 From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 12:50 PM To: coCbrpv.com Subject: RE: A short Easter story in favor of agriculture. In case you have not visited it lately, there is a big bronze plaque at RPV's Founders Park. It tells a story. One little bit says... Onetime Kumekichi was walking to the point of exhaustion and was terribly hungry. He found a castor bean and consumed the bean thinking them to be edible. Extremely ill, he fell upon some cucumbers and in desperation ate them. They saved his life. My question on this day of salvation is... Why does the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' parklands, roadsides and nature reserves grow so many deadly castor beans and no life saving cucumbers? Pass the word. Call 310-377-0360 and try to ask the City Manager for an explanation. ...S 0