Loading...
20130604 Late Correspondence~ Lque:fied petroleum gases (LPGs) include propane, butane, and other LPG mixtures that are popular fuel sources for heating, cooking, illumination, and industrial processes. LPG has an ignition temperature in air of 900 °F to 1,020 °F (482 °C to 549 °C) and a maximum flame temperature in air from 3, 5 9 5 °F to 3, 61 S °F ( 1, 9 7 9 °C to 1, 9 91 °C). These hazards require that storage facilities be arranged to minimize catastrophic events. National Fire. Protection Association (NFPA) ® 5 8, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code, includes the following distance requirements for separating LPG containers from adjacent containers, important buildings, groups of buildings, or the property line of adjacent parcels where structures can be erected. gal m3 ft m ft 2,001-30,000 7.6-114 50* 15 so 30,001-70,000 114-265 50 15 75 70,001-90,000 265-341 50 15 100 90,001-120,000 341-454 50 15 125 120,001-200,000 454-757 50 15 200 200,001-757-3,785 50 15 300 1,000,000 These bulk liquefied petroleum gas containers must meet minimum shell-to-shell spacing requirements. ? I> m ft m 15 5 1.5 23 1/4sumof 30 diameters of 38 adjacent containers 61 91 More than--·-) >3,785 50 15 (·4.; 122 1,000,000 ---Used with permission from NFPA® 58, Llque'fied Petroleum Gas Code, Copyright 0 2008, National Fire Protection Association. For additional information, refer to NFPA® 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, Chapter 22, International Fire Code®, Chapter 34, NFPA® 1, Uniform Fire Code®, Chapter 66 or NFPA® 58, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code, Chapter 6. *11.ris dimension may be reduced.to 10 ft (3 m) when containers incorporate redundant fail-safe product control measures and low-emission ttansfer procedures as specifically described in NFPA® 58. For archived downloads, go to: 7. From: Sent: To: Subject: MEMO from Sunshine TO: RPV City COUNCIL SunshineRPV@aol.com Tuesday, June 04, 2013 5:12 PM cc Vote "no" on the whole consent calendar and then RE: June 4, 2013 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 4 The ADA is not an unfunded mandate. It is a civil law. The name of the game is "risk management". I helped to write the State of California criteria for ADA compliance. The city may fund whatever improvements to make our City more "accessible" to people with disabilities that the City Council chooses. Nobody has to do anything but die. Every decision has it's consequences. RPV Staff is recommending that a lot of money be spent to avoid law suits filed by annoyed, disabled people. "Barrier free" is a "nice" thing. City Hall has an elevator to the second floor. Take the risk. Receive and file. Fund this Transition Plan some time after we have fixed all of the storm drains and the emergency circulation corridors. 4. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Accessibility Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan (Motahari) Recommendation: 1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2013-_, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ACCESSIBILITY SELF-EVALUATION AND TRANSITION PLAN; and, 2) Direct staff to initiate measure to construct the recommended ADA Improvements consistent with the attached implementation plan (Transition Plan). PS: Ask Mr. Motahari how deep the I beams need to be for the proposed Sutter wall on the City's trail easement on the Narbonne Right of Way just north of Sunnyside Ridge Road so that the CIP has an accurate cost estimate to restore this historic trail. 1 CITY OF TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK JUNE 4, 2013 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 Public Comments Email from Sharon Yarber 2 Email from Bob Nelson Respectfully submitted, ~~ Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, June 3, 2013**. W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas\20130604 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Yarber, Sharon <SYarber@firstam.com> Tuesday, June 04, 2013 10:34 AM cc Carolyn Lehr; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com> San Ramon San Ramon Memorandum.docx Please disregard the attachment to the email I just sent you. I have made some corrections to the specifications of the Permalok lining based on further communication just received from the CEO of Permalok. Please see the corrected Memorandum attached and please be sure this is in the weekly report and made a part of the Public Records. Sharon Yarber ****************************************************************************************** This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter. If you received this email as a commercial message and would like to opt out of future commercial messages, please let us know and we will remove you from our distribution list. Thank you.~ ****************************************************************************************** FAFLD 1 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Brooks and the Council Members of the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes From: Sharon Yarber Date: June 4, 2013 Re: San Ramon Canyon I have many comments, questions and concerns about the May 21, 2013 staff report pertaining to the change order for the San Ramon Project. The report is full of false and misleading statements. Please know that I have spoken at considerable length with the CEO of Permalok and have emails to support much of the information set forth herein. I have also spoken with Ehab Gergis at Harris. Please note. I am not addressing the issue of whether the new pipe is or is not an exact equal, as I am not qualified to do so. My concerns are with the process by which this was brought to Council and the public, and the inaccuracies in the staff report. The staff report states that Harris & Associates ("Harris") are "not steel pipe specialists". On what information is that statement based? Has Harris acknowledged that they are not steel pipe specialists? If so, when was that done? Why was Harris engaged to engineer a project that has at its essential component 4,100 feet of steel pipe if they are not steel pipe specialists? The list of Top 50 Trench less Design Firms of 2011 names Harris at# 30. Kennedy/Jenks is not listed. When did staff become aware or determine that Harris is not a steel pipe specialist? Was staff remiss in recommending that the Council retain Harris if Harris is not qualified to design the pipe specifications? Indeed, why would the City retain Harris for two major steel storm drain pipe projects if they are not specialists? While Mr. Gergis was most reticent about speaking with me about this matter, when I asked if Harris had ever indicated to the City that it was not a steel pipe specialist he said "no". When I asked him if Harris IS a steel pipe specialist his answer was that Harris designs steel pipe storm drains -that's what they are in the business of doing. The staff report indicates that the lining of the Permalok pipe used in Mccarrell Canyon is brittle and has not performed as well as expected "based upon a recent inspection of the pipe." That statement was designed to lead Council to believe that it is necessary and appropriate to now re-think using Permalok's pipe because of a recent discovery of problems with the Mccarrell pipe. Staff failed to inform you that as late as December, 2011 staff was aware that the lining of the Mccarrell Canyon pipe was not wearing as well as expected, which is why Harris and Permalok went to great lengths to develop new specifications for San Ramon that included a DIFFERENT lining, with different material at 150% the thickness of the one used for Mccarrell. The lining in Mccarrell is 16 mils and the lining specifications for San Ramon are 80 mils. The staff report would lead one to believe that the exact lining of Mccarrell was to be used again in San Ramon which is obviously not correct. The staff report says "staff' believes the two types of pipe are equivalent, and "staff' believes the "proposed pipe lining material and process to be superior to the epoxy lining specified by the City in its original plans and specifications". Who specifically on "staff' holds this belief and what expertise does that person have to form such an opinion? Is that person a steel pipe specialist? If so, why was Permalok approved when clearly that staff expert should have been intimately familiar with all steel pipe alternatives and have determined while the specs were being formulated that Permalok was inferior. Indeed, if we have such an expert about pipes on staff why did we even need to hire Harris or Kennedy/Jenks? Mr. Gergis made it clear in our conversation that all aspects of the various pipe alternatives, including pricing, had been explored during the design process. Obviously, what is now being proposed was considered by Harris and staff but not included in the design specifications. The staff report goes into great detail about the entire process of shipping the pipe from St. Louis, MO and states as fact that the extensive transportation process damaged the Mccarrell Canyon pipe. What evidence does staff have to support that statement? Permalok denies this. Has anyone lodged a complaint against Permalok about the loss the City will sustain from having to make the "extensive amounts of repairs" caused by such damage during transport that the staff report says will be incurred? The answer is No. The staff report fails to disclose that Permalok advised staff on April 18, 2013 that they had opened their new facility in Salt Lake City, UT and would be shipping from there. The staff report also fails to reflect that on April 18, 2013 Permalok offered to rebate directly to the City $400,000.00 because steel prices had come down and the shipping costs would be reduced since they would ship from Salt Lake instead of St. Louis, which offer was ultimately rejected by the City. While in my view it was appropriate to reject such offer, I would like to learn from Council or the City Attorney who (staff, senior management, Council, City Attorney) made the determination to reject the refund offer, and if the City Attorney advised against accepting the offer. I would also like to know whether the making of such offer "colored" or in any way influenced the Council's opinion with respect to using the Permalok product. The contractor L.H. Woods ("Woods") made the suggestion for the alternate pipe on March 18, 2013, less than two weeks after the City approved the contract with Woods at the March 5th Council meeting. It is patently obvious that Woods never had any intention of using Permalok, they just made a low bid and then switched to a less expensive product AFTER the contract was awarded (but prior to the contract being executed on April 2, 2013) which results in approximately $315,000 in additional profit. I am confident Woods is well aware of the statutory provision for the 50/50 split of cost savings. I am fully supportive of the City getting equal or better product at a lower cost through "value engineering" and splitting the cost savings is a win-win situation for the contractor and the City; indeed, the split gives an incentive to the contractor to look for less expensive, yet comparable products and procedures. The problem with the San Ramon situation is we have the design engineer (Harris) saying it is not equal, and then staff engaging in forum shopping to find another expert to conclude that it is. The question of whether or not the new pipe is an exact equal to the Permalok pipe remains unanswered, in my opinion. I would like to know who recommended Kennedy/Jenks to render its opinion about the substitute pipe. Did staff select them or were they recommended by Woods? I would also like to know when staff began communicating with Kennedy/Jenks, when the contract was entered into, how much Kennedy/Jenks charged for its services and who is responsible for the payment. If the City is responsible, who authorized the expenditure, as I do not believe this expense was ever approved by Council? If the City Manager authorized the expenditure then we know the fee was $25,000.00 or less. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars have we paid Harris to design this project, yet the City will rely on the Kennedy/Jenks findings when they have not been involved heretofore with the project? Will Kennedy/Jenks have full liability to the City for any problems with the pipe if it turns out to be inferior to Permalok and cause problems? Harris provided Permalok with a copy of the Woods letter of March 18, 2013 outlining the Woods proposal for the switch. On March 21, 2013 Permalok responded by letter to Harris explaining why the substitute pipe was inferior. I would like to know if that letter was forwarded to staff by Harris. Did anyone from staff ever directly contact Permalok to get their response to the Woods proposal or the findings of Kennedy/Jenks? According to Permalok they were never contacted by the City for their input. The staff report says the "vast majority of all large diameter steel piping used throughout the country is installed using the bell lap welded method previously described". When did staff become aware of this wide use of this process? Why was the Permalok process allowed to be included in the design specifications? Is it or is it not also widely used? Has any analysis been done about how this project might actually differ dramatically from the "vast majority" of other projects, given that the property is in a landslide area and includes deep canyons and steep drops where the water moves with excessive velocity and then discharges into the ocean? Interestingly, Permalok asserts that the Permalok joint system has the requisite flexibility to withstand the unstable land conditions that the landslide prone San Ramon Canyon has. There is no discussion in the staff report about this issue. Indeed, the CEO at Permalok told me that Permalok's joint offers more flexibility than a welded joint and is far more capable of withstanding a seismic occurrence! Has this been considered or evaluated? San Ramon is on an ancient earthquake fault. The staff report states, without explanation, that "Staff is also concerned about the Permalok pipe delivery schedule". Why, because it has to be shipped from Utah instead of California? How much delay would that cause - a day or two? What timeline for delivery has been promised by Northwest, the manufacturer of the proposed substitute pipe? Has that pipe already been ordered and when was it ordered -before or after May 21, 2013? Let's obtain a copy of the purchase order. The staff report states that Harris "accepted" the Kennedy/Jenks findings. That is not true. The staff report indicates that Exhibit C thereto is a letter from Harris. In fact, Exhibit C is a letter from Woods bearing a stamp from Harris & Associates. City Attorney Carol Lynch sent an email to me saying that the stamp by Harris on the Woods letter indicated its "approval" of the substitution. That is not true either. Kennedy/Jenks findings are that the substitute pipe is the equivalent of the Permalok pipe. Harris merely placed a stamp on the Woods letter (Exhibit C) which stamp makes clear that the proposal from Woods was "reviewed as a substitute and not as an approved equal". Council agreed to this "value engineering" change of the most critical component of the largest and most costly public project in the history of this City based on that stamp! This is shocking. Why wasn't someone from Harris asked to prepare a detailed evaluation of or response to the Kennedy/Jenks report? Why wasn't someone from Harris asked to come before Council and explain the implications of the change request and the meaning of its "stamp" and the statement "reviewed as a substitute and not an approved equal"? Why wasn't a third consultant retained to resolve the conflict between the findings of Harris and Kennedy/Jenks, or is the staff's determination what resolved the conflict? If it is staff, then it is vital to know whether the specific staff employee(s) or consultant who did so is/are competent to make these determinations. The Woods letter also refers to submittals 36 and 43 from Harris. What are those and why were they not attached to the staff report? Carol Lynch has made it clear that once a contract is put out to bidders it cannot be re-negotiated with the bidder who is awarded the contract. Since the contract says Permalok has to be used, "or pre- approved exact equal", and since Harris has not approved it as an exact equal, and Kennedy/Jenks is not the design engineer for the project, you are arguably not complying with the contract which places all of the bidders at a disadvantage, thus potentially exposing the City to delay if it needs to re-open the bidding (as it is likely legally obligated to do). Further, you actually have potentially exposed the City to risk of litigation from one or more of the contractors who were unsuccessful bidders if you do not re- open the bidding. I understand that on the last day for submitting of bids, the firm of Mike Buba lo Construction submitted a bid that was close to $1 mil lower than Woods, but it was rejected by staff as not timely. I understand from speaking with one of the owners of Buba lo that the bid was submitted one minute late. So the City ultimately did NOT select the lowest responsible bidder because the bid got in a minute late? He stated to me that the City's clock on its time/date stamp was two minutes fast. What did the bid package say as to what the deadline for submission of bids was based on, a specific time, or the time according to the City's clock? I would like copies of the letters from the attorney for Buba lo complaining about this rejection and the City Attorney's letters in response. Is Council aware of this rejected bid or these letters? Should not staff have brought the issue of the timeliness of receipt of the Buba lo bid before Council to decide if it should be rejected or accepted? This should not be a staff decision. While I agree that bidders have to play by the rules, and perhaps it was appropriate to reject the bid because it was late, still this should have been brought before the Council for consideration and consultation with the City Attorney. The Council Rules and Procedures (Section 5.7) provide that Consent Calendar items are to be limited to (i) previously agendized matters that were discussed and acted upon by Council, or (ii) routine matters of a ministerial nature. This major change to the San Ramon pipe, which has been engineered over the last several years, is not a routine, ministerial matter and should never have been on the Consent Calendar. Clearly, the issues involved have not been properly vetted and Council has been manipulated by the staff and its misleading and false staff report. This is yet another example of why staff reports need to come out far earlier than they do to give Council and the public an opportunity to do adequate due diligence before being acted upon, especially on vitally important issues. The City's conduct may have actually cost the taxpayers a loss of approximately $1 million dollars. Future "value engineering" proposals will likely be submitted in the future (along with change order suggestions that will increase the costs). These will need to be reviewed and thoroughly scrutinized, and not be Consent Calendar items. This whole matter does not pass the "smell" test. I hereby request that the following actions be taken at the June 4, 2013 Council meeting: 1. You vote to place on the agenda for the next Council meeting my request to rescind or reconsider the approval of the change order and re-open the matter for further discussion. I would request that representatives of Harris, Permalok and Kenndy/Jenks be invited to participate along with the appropriate staff and I would suggest they all be extensively questioned so that a proper decision can be made; 2. You engage a third steel pipe expert to see if we can resolve the conflicting opinions of Harris and Kennedy/Jenks, and have that third opinion presented at such Council meeting; 3. You direct the City Manager to inform Woods that this matter will be reconsidered and that its proceeding with ordering of the substitute pipe is done at its own peril; 4. That a Special, Independent investigator be retained to thoroughly investigate this entire matter and that appropriate action be taken following the conclusion of such independent investigation; and 5. You direct the City Manager to cease placing matters on the Consent Calendar that do not comply with the Rules and Procedures. Subject: FW: CC Mtng 6/4; Public Hearing: Item 2: UWS/SeaBluff Differences are Resolved -Original Message----- From: Nelsongang <nelsongang@aol.com> To: cc <cc@rpv.com> Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 10:44 am Subject: CC Mtng 6/4; Public Hearing: Item 2: UWS/SeaBluff Differences are Resolved Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro-Tern Duhovic, Members Campbell, Knight, Misetich This morning Lauren Ramezani, Sr. Admin. Analyst in RPV's Public Works, lead a meeting between UWS and Sea Bluff that quickly resolved the issue of overpayment to the satisfaction of both UWS and Sea Bluff. l'y1ark Blackburn, Pres. UWS, Sandie Nelson, Pres. Sea Bluff Board, Bob Nelson, Board attended with Sea Bluff Treasurer Bill Tillotson joining us at the end, post his dentist encounter. This concludes the subject of HOA overpayments to UWS in a satisfactory manner to both parties. Bob Nelson 310-444-4632 1 CrrYoF TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK JUNE 3, 2013 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached ·are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, June 4, 2013 City Council meeting: Item No. City Manager Report c 2 Respectfully submitted, Description of Material Powerpoint Presentation by Human Resources Manager Robinson Letter from Chuck Hart Email exchange between Mayor Brooks and Bob Nelson ~~ Carla Morreale W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas\20130603 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc 0 )\) $ ~ ~ ~ - 0 ::n ~ I CITY EMPLOYEE VS. CONTRACT EMPLO RANCHO PALOS VERDE POWERPOINT PRESENTER: SEAN M. ROBINSO ~ HUMAN RESOURCE DEFINITION OF COMM LAW EMPLOYEE (IRS) Under common-law rules ® · Anyone who performs services for you i generally your employee IF • You have the -right to control what will b done and how it will be done. DEFINITION OF CONTR EMPLOYEE (IRS) The general rule is: • An individual is an independent contract 0 you, the person for whom the services ar performed (in this case the City) ... • ... have the right to control or direct onl result of the work and not the means a methods of accomplishing the re 8 IRS 20-FACTOR TEST Internal Revenue Service Publication 15 three categories of facts that provide evide about the degree of control and independe • Behavioral Control (physical control, directing how a job is perf1 • Financial Control (economic co-mponents of the relationshi • Relationship Between the Parti e CARGILL CASE Temporary or leased workers who are treated like employees of a contracting agency may be compelled to enroll the worker for membership in the Public Employees' Retirement System ("PERS"), Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. Superior Court (Cargill), 32 Cal.4th 491 (2004 ). e CALPERS DEFINITION INDEPENDENT CONTRA (BASED ON THE CARGILL CASE) "An independent contractor is someone w contracts to do a piece of work according t his/her own methods AND Is subject to his/her employer's control onl the end product. or final result of work, an as to the means and manner in whic work is performed." CALPERS AUDIT PERS has the right to audit payroll and review any and all "contracts" AT ANY Tl for services to evaluate Common Law 8 Employee status. B ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF ASSISTANT $36.55/hr $24.34/h X 33°/o benefit ra $32.37/h Difference of $4.18/hr 11.4% Increase in cos Annual Cost ADVANTAGES/DISAD\h CONTRACTED EMPLd ADVANTAGES • Only pay for project • Obtain special 8 expertise • Ease of recruitment and selection • Performance issues easily resolved • Lack of control • Cannot supervis employees • Cannot be involv day to day decis • Absence of insti knowledge • Hour-fi ADVANTAGES/DISAD\h COMMON LAW EMPLJ ADVANTAGES • Fixed costs • Control when and 0 how work is done • Ability to perform multiple tasks/assignments • Employee/employer relationship • Lack of focused expertise in spe area • Fluctuating assignments • Peaks and Vall service levels • Seaso San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, Inc. · Post Office Box 6455, San Pedro, CA 90734 Email: sphomeunited@gmail.com -Fax (310) 548-4255 May 29, 2013 Mr. Daniel Meers, Asst. Dir. Emergency Response, Preparedness and Protection Branch CA EPA, Region 9 7 5 Hawthorne St. San Francisco', CA 94105 RE: RANCHO LPG LLC San Pedro, CA Dear Mr. Meer: Our homeowners anxiously await the EPA's decision on the compliance issues related to the Rancho LPG facility. We applaud the EPA's action and your agency's attempt to address the problems related to the elevated risk at this hazardous site. Our community's efforts to assure public safety have a long and arduous history relative to this LPG operation. The original intent of locating this LPG facility in San Pedro was to capture the ocean shipping opportunity through their access to a wharf at the Port of Los Angeles. The pipeline and wharf lease renewal were denied by the Port in 2004 due to the associated high risks of the butane gas. Now all transport of this gas is conducted by rail and truck traversing throughout local neighborhoods and communities daily. We don't know if you are aware of some recent facts that impact this LPG facility operation. This facility's main purpose has been to facilitate the excess butane produced by local refineries in their refining process. There are two refineries that have been identified as being the main sources of the butane storage at Rancho LPG, British Petroleum/Arco and Valero. It has been reported that BP/Arco owns about 2/3 of the butane that is stored at Rancho. There is a direct pipeline from BP/Arco refinery to the Rancho tanks that the Valero refinery also taps into. BP/Arco was recently purchased by the Tesoro Corporation. Tesoro owns the lion's share of the oil and gas holdings in the South Bay region. Certainly, in their massive operation, Tesoro could easily accommodate their newest property of BP I Arco' s butane gas storage. c The Rancho tank farm (under previous owners Petrolane LPG & Amerigas) made some economic sense when LPG was shipped by pipeline to the Port to be exported by ship. However, the Port and City's ignorance of public safety in meeting intended business goals in the 1970's, unnecessarily and unfairly, exposed its citizens and port tenants to extraordinary and unwarranted risks. Since the Port discontinued shipping LPG because it was too hazardous, the only value of the Rancho facility now is that LPG can be stored in obsolete tanks that were fully depreciated years ago in a densely populated area while it also clearly jeopardizes the entire Port of LA. It would be more expeditious to now ship this commodity directly from the BP/Arco (Tesoro) refinery. The Rancho tanks are geographically, geologically and functionally obsolete and should be replaced with a modern facility on refinery grounds that meet all current safety standards. It is inevitable that Rancho LPG will be shut down because it is too dangerous in its present location. The facility's likelihood of disaster only increases dramatically, day by day, due to its antiquated and failing infrastructure, the anticipated arrival of an LA earthquake (expected to exceed a 6.0 magnitude), simple human error, or a direct hit from an ever-rising terrorism potential. A subtle movement has now begun to bail out the owners of Rancho by having the Port purchase the facility. However, the EPA's intervention could provide a more immediate action in eliminating this looming threat to the region while restoring a much needed sense of integrity and responsibility to our government. Attached find a news article from the Nov. l 81h, 1978 New Hampshire "Telegraph" reporting at that time on the extraordinary hazard introduced to San Pedro by the "Petrolane LPG" facility and its shipping vessel operation. The only thing that has changed regarding the issue of safety since that time is that the facility operation has gotten even more risky! There is great legitimacy associated with fears of danger from the Rancho LPG site. Our community of San Pedro and the adjacent communities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Wilmington, Harbor City and Lomita do not deserve to endure the brunt of the horrific catastrophe that this extremely hazardous facility is capable of producing. We are hopeful that after over 40 years, we can look to our government, the EPA and other jurisdictional agencies to finally properly defend and protect us. Sincerely, Chuck Hart President LiquefiedGasReachesCalifornia B\ 01-:BORAH C'JPOl,LA Assot'iatrd Prc.>ss \\'ritc.>r SAN PlWRO. Cabf ·· Mote than I l mtlhon gallon.~ or vola· tllc.> llquefwd pc.>trok>um gas weft' b<!tnJ! p1pt>d to®y to nfar· bv stora~t> tanks from a BnttSh tanker that dorked here under hea\'Y sail"l)' prttaut1ons. Tht> C;w<.>ndish was allowed lo dork at Los Angeles Harbor Friday aftt'moon aUt>r undergo- inR a four-hour safety inspec· lion by Coast Guar{f and city firc.> off1<ials Th<.> Cavend1i;h is expected to complete its unloading and be bark out beyond the breilkwa· ter by noon Sunday Two Harbor Department pa- trol boats and lwo Qoast Guard vessels guided the 638-foot tanker Jnlo the harbor. whif'h igmtes. it inrinerates and radi· had been cleared of other large ates intense heat. Ir the cloud sh•ps. doos not ignite. it can either The tanker's arrival Friday freeze or suffocate everythmg rert'Wed an unenthusiastic re-In its path.·· he warned. sponsc from c1uzen's groups At a news conferenre after opposed to the dock.mg. the ship's dock.inf!. John May, ··n is simply ludicrous to spokesman for Petrolane Inc . have l<>J!iSlatlon on the books to wlut'h purcha~ lht> U .5 mil· say ttiat LNG lhquefled natural lion gallons or Indonesian LPG. gasJ is too hazardous to bnng said. "I don•t thmk you should intn populated ansas and not bebeve anybody who teJls you apply 1l to LPG," sa1d Burt WU-there's no danger.·· son of the Campai~n Agamst On l)ec_ 17. 1976, the exp1o- Utrbty Servke ExpJu1tation. sion of lhe oil tanker Sansmena LPG is propane and bulane in Los Angeles Harbor. lert ccmprt'ssed and refr1geratf!'d t~ eight dead and 50 people about minus 40 degrees injured. Fahrenheit for sh1pPfng pur· To prevent a .similar inti· poses_ LNG is methane that is dent. the most stnnRent safety shipped after bt"ing compressed regulations in the porrs history and refrigerated to nunus 270 were put 1nto effect before the degrees. Cavend1sh"s arrival. .. It ls like bringing a lime Aircraft were orden>d by the bomb into Los Angel ell Ft-deral Av1at•on Admmlstra· Harbor." Wilson said. "The lton to fly no lower than 1,000 state of California should not be feet above and one-half mile on playing poht1cs wnh peoples' either Side of the ship win le it 1s lives. dorked. The Immediate area of ··Jn the event of a spill or ~rth 120 was lenced off and tank rupture of LPG. the liquid will be ref\ularly patrolled by gas would warm up and form a off-duty harbor depart.mt'nt po. vapor cloud. If the cloud hrt> olficers. r--... LPG Tanker in L.A. Harbor The Bnlish tanker. CavencJtsl'I, with 11.5 million gal· Jans of highly volat:le f1quel1eel petroleum gas m its hold, is framed Oy cables as 1t moves under the Vincent Thomas Bridge in the main channel of Los Angeles Harbor fmJBy . • Afr•UH>/!OIOI From: Sent: To: Cc: Mayor Susan Brooks <subrooks08@gmail.com> Sunday, June 02, 2013 9:21 AM nelsongang@aol.com CC; kristamjohnson@cox.net; < bucksanddoes4me@yahoo.com >; <chuck.tucker@cox.net>; emenhiser@aol.com; <BbTill@aol.com>; <jones1700 @cox.net>; <jolaine@jolainemerrill.com >; < shelly@horizonmgmt.com >; nelsongang@aol.com; Lauren Ramezani; Les Jones; Carolyn Lehr Subject: Re: Council Mtng 5/4/13; Public Hearing item 2 (UWS Rate Increase) Bob, I thought this concern was already addressed and solved. We can meet with Staff to review this tomorrow. I'm forwarding this to Lauren Ramazani and PW Director, Les Jones for their direct involvement. Glitches are one thing and EDCO Q.as been good about correcting them. I am personally unfamiliar with UWS, but they need to comply with appropriate rates and senior discounts, accordingly. My apologies for any problems incurred. If there are monies due, you should receive ALL of them. Best always, Susan Brooks Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 541-2971 rru E_J: (Sent from my iPad) On Jun 1, 2013, at 9:22 PM, Nelsongang <nelsongang@aol.com> wrote: Mayor Brooks, Mayor Pro-Tern Duhovic, Councilmen Misetich, Campbell and Knight; Krista Johnson (CHOA Board); Sea Bluff Board City Council Meeting June 4, 2013 Item: Public Hearings: #2 ' ... Rate Adjustment for Universal Waste Systems for FY 13-14' (Supports 2013 City Goal of Gov't Efficiency, Fiscal Control and Transparency) Subject: Sea Bluff HOA's Universal Waste $1,654.74 Overcharge Saga -FYI Attached are two pdf files; one for rates and one for emails and letters on this subject. 1. We understand tonight's rate increase request is backed by agreements with unions etc and will pass but, in the interest of 'transparency' we believe you should know how your vendor UWS has treated 60 homes in your Sea Bluff HOA; picking up 2 96 gal cans weekly from their Clubhouse using the residential backyard service rate. 2. They have monthly charged our HOA Clubhouse trash their quarterly rate since May of 2012 and continue to do so to this day. 3. By their March 2012 invoice we had overpaid $1,654.74, confirmed by both the HOA and Horizon Management, our management company. 4. On April 11 a demand letter was sent for a refund. We were offered 50%. 5. If you had overpaid the IRS and requested a refund you would get 100%, not the trash company's 50%. 6 The rabbit they and RPV Public Works pulled from their hat to justify the overcharge (yes, our city currently supports their trash vendor overcharging their residents) is no one lives in our Clubhouse which means UWS can charge whatever they want as a 'commercial account.' Of course the fact UWS is charging a residential rate and has forever means nothing. 7. Their invoices read 'residential' not commercial. Oh, they say, because it's a residential route. 8. In January 2010 we were charged $99.57 quarterly, in August 2012 that jumped to the current $207.71 monthly. Not a bad increase in less than 3 years! Did our Council know this was going on with their vendor? 9. We believe the correct charge per their current rate card is $172.02 +fuel surcharge+ environmental= $207.71 quarterly, not monthly. 10. When contracts are up we request transfer of Sea Bluff and its 60 homes to EDCO. It is obvious UWS doesn't give a hoot about their customers. We ask Lauren retain this email and substantiating attachments reflecting UWS attitude towards RPV customers as a formal complaint of our 60 RPV homes (since their dues pay the overcharge) when contract renewals come up. We are asking this package be presented to RPV's CHOA Board so that other HOAs served by UWS can check their invoices and HOA members who are seniors can see if they paid the senior rate or the higher 'best' rate offered by UWS. Bob Nelson As a private citizen 310-544-4632 <UWSemails. pdf.> <UWSrates. pdf.> From: Lauren Ramezani Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 10:47 AM To: Bob Nelson; Sharon, Tracy@ Horizon Mgmt; Dave (Sanitation District); Matt (UWS); Les Jones (RPV PW Acting Director) Subject: RE: UWS Rates: RPV Solid Waste Subcommittee Meeting Bob, Good morning, I forwarded your emails to Matt Blackburn at UWS. He provided the explanation below and several options for your consideration. To further explain what Matt says, the City sets the maximum rate (cap) on residential rates. But the City does not set rates for commercial rates. The rates are open and competitive among the 9 authorized commercial haulers. The Clubhouse falls within the commercial category (it is not a house, condo, townhome or apartment). However, Matt is offering you 3 options and reduced rates. Another option is to d.o business with another of the City's various other authorized haulers. You can shop for the best rate and service for the Clubhouse. The choice is with you. If you need any clarification, or want to discuss them in more detail I would be happy to arrange a conference call with you, Matt and Horizon management. I will wait for your instruction on how you want to proceed. BTW-Bob and Dave-I wanted to provide the following clarifications: 1. The Solid Waste Subcommittee is a Subcommittee of the City Council comprised of MPT Duhovic and Councilman Campbell. The meetings are open to the public; however, this is not a commission (like the Planning Commission) with members of the public. 2. Additionally, the rate adjustment is per a specific methodology and criteria that was pre-approved. EDCO has to follow that to the "T". Other factors cannot be considered. 3. Finally, the labor rate is per the agreement between local haulers and Package and General Utility Drivers Local Union 396, International. The rates apply to various haulers including EDCO and UWS. Matt has been copied on this email. Hope this answered your questions. Thanks. Lauren Ramezani Sr. Administrative Analyst-Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes From: Matt Blackburn, Universal Waste Systems Good Morning Lauren, Per our agreement we propose the following remedy. I want to start by saying that there is no maximum rate for non-residential customers. That being said the rate is high and I am willing to work with Sea bluff HOA to try to come to an amicable resolution. The reason the invoice states residential is for our routing purposes we service them with residential trucks, however we all know that a residential property is a property that is lived in which the club house is not lived in. (Postscript: And UWS is collecting backyard service for two trash cans, not the 3 usual, for which we are asked to pay $207 per month!) UWS currently provides unlimited collection at the clubhouse from behind the gates near the pool equipment. There is no limit to the amount of waste or items set out for collection. We propose 3 different options for them to choose from: • #1 Transition to a 3 barrel automated service and we will charge them the contract curbside rates depending on the size of the trash can. 0 This results in a cheaper rate, but there is no unlimited collection and they will have to bring the carts to the curb. • #2 Transition to a 3 barrel automated service and pay additional for backyard service 0 This results in a cheaper rate, but there is no unlimited collection. There will be a charge for roll out, but they will not have to do the roll out on their own. • #3 Leave the service exactly the same at a rate of $100.00 per month. 0 No change just a lower monthly rate. As for the past months. Again, there is no maximum rate for non-residential collections, however as I said the rate is somewhat excessive. I am willing to provide a credit in the amount of $827.37 (they owe us $1,654. 74) to the account, and adjust the open invoices for the months of April and May to which ever option the customer chooses moving forward which would be a credit in addition to the $827.37. Please let me know how they wish to proceed and I will process everything immediately. One final note I definitely have taken any call that has come in to me, and I did respond when I received the letter and spoke with Michelle at Horizon Management. (Postscript: Michelle's telephone logs show no call from UWS nor does she remember one.) Matt Blackburn Universal Waste Systems Inc. www.uwscompany.com Phone: (562) 695-8236 Fax: (562) 941-4915 ·----~-~-·-·---------------------- From: Nelsongang Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 12:21 PM To: Dave W.; Lauren Ramezani; CC; Sharon & Tracy (horiz gmt) Subject: Re: Rates: RPV Solid Waste Subcommittee Meeting Writing as a private citizen and not a Planning Commissioner: We appreciate your comments below on these rate adjustments .... Particularly since they come from a long time friend actually employed in our Sanitation District .... First -vent time! Just so you know -I've tried to stay at the fringe of this arena but our trash collector, UWS, and Sandie and my jobs with our HOA (Sandie -Pres; me -Board) collided when, in May, 2012 UWS started charging us monthly their quarterly rate for 'backyard pickup' for weekly collecting two barrels of trash at our Clubhouse and now owe us over $1600 they refuse to pay saying (I found out yesterday at RPV's 40th) our 'clubhouse is a business.' And, of course, their invoices clearly read 'residential' not business and their rate card nowhere carries for business the rate we're being charged. Rather their rate being charged us is for 'Backyard -quarterly.' And UWS will not return calls from our management company (Horizon Mgmt) staff in regards to their error and correction. So ... We currently have an April 11, 2013, demand letter out to UWS for $1,654.74 owed Sea Bluff HOA through March, 2013. At our Board meeting this Wednesday we will .... Another 2013 earlier problem, UWS non-collection at our Clubhouse, was solved with their management finding our we were not lying (as UWS office insisted we were) when he came over to find about 10 cans not collected in 2-3 months (from the date on papers in that trash). He was man enough to admit the crew had lost the keys to our gates (that they had signed for) so we replaced them. We're at that point where our Board just wants UWS out of here and bring on EDCO. Also, I need to tell you my 25 cents says our council knows nothing about your questions, comments below. These are usually automatic approvals as no citizens with your facts show up to testify. And if challenged, it would take a New York second for things like fuel cost, truck maintenance, etc. to take the stage instead of personnel or landfill rates. I believe RPV Public Works and those involved in trash probably have full plates that prevent them digging for substantiating facts as you have below. I'll pass this to Council members so at least someone in the approving cycle is aware. Thanks. Bob Nelson 310-544-4632 -----Original Message-----From: Dave W. To: 'Nelsongang' Sent: Mon, May 6, 2013 7:32 am Subject: RE: RPV Solid Waste Subcommittee Meeting Bob, I am on the list for that, I was just looking at the proposed trash hauler rate increases. One thing I wonder about, EDCO cites a 4.6% increase in labor costs, "based on previously contract approved labor rates". Does this mean that EDCO gave their workers a 4.6% raise in pay and/or benefits last year? I find that hard to believe. They also talk about disposal fees at local landfills. One of them is the Sanitation Districts' Puente Hills landfill in Whittier, which they note is closing in October._They quote disposal fees at Puente Hills of $38.41 per ton, but any hauler that brings a lot of trash to that landfill gets a volume discount-see the link below. http://www. lacsd .org/solidwaste/swfacil ities/sol id_ waste_ disposal_ and _recycla bles_rates.asp I would imagine EDCO would be looking to make every possible argument for a rate increase, and then it's the city staff's job to see what the actual figures are-seems like it would be kind of a negotiation. But it looks like staff is recommending giving EDCO exactly what they're asking for. Dave From: Nelsongang Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 5:49 PM To: Dave W. Subject: Fwd: RPV Solid Waste Subcommittee Meeting Dave, You, as a Sanitation District ... living in RPV, might want to put yourself on 'rpvlistserver' for this Committee (as well as applying next time there is an opening). I'd be happy to back you with discussion, introductions and email to Council when the time comes. This meeting concerns rate adjustments for trash collection but sanitation sewers are also part of their universe and we've already .... Bob Nelson 310-544-4632 ·····Original Message----· From: rpvlistserver To: nelsongang Sent: Fri, May 3, 2013 2:57 pm Subject: Solid Waste Subcommittee Meeting A Solid Waste Subcommittee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 8, 2013 at 7 p.m. at Hesse Park, Fireside room. The agenda and related staff reports are attached .... Thank you. RPV Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes ·universal Waste Systems (UWS) FY12 ... 13 b'e;t&c..i..FI"' \-1•1'. . Monthly (notto exceed) Rat~ effective July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. . µ,'l"S = r72 .. o? _,_ . ~irigle ... Famil f!,/F Accounts ·py 12-13 + :i.s-.s0 (!~ .. · ... Cu~bside {automated··.· Backyarq ( an9~I) ~c.a;v~) · · ~. . . . . 2..o7,7l~S'""llu. S~all cart Medi~ Gari Large eart Bac~ard1' Ma.nuii."* · · ~1>1~1>1.1.A.t.: : s·erVlG6S' (35 gallon) (64 gallon) (96 gal~oQ} . , •. f'11,~o ~1ll,!i5 Month/yRates $ 18.51 $ 23.81 $ 29.11 $ 20.85 s:-:,:1~"~~--:.~7 ! Quarterly Rates (billing is quarterly) $ 55,53 $ 71.43 $ 87..33 $ 62.55 u..,,..." .,71 .... c: Annual Pre-Payment Discounted Rate . "'" ">-> .,...,. (incl. 5% Disc.) . $ 211.01 $ 271.43 331.8 $ 653.68 $ 23! .69 ~ \!oo'I>'" Senior Mcinthly R:ates'{lJlCt.111'/o discount) •. . ·$ 16.66 $ · 21.43 $ $ · 51.61 $ 1a.n JC:P:~/..j't nnuatSenlor Pre-Pay D~ountRate(lncl.5%.Dlsc.) · $ 189..9'1 $ 2.44.29 298,6'7 $ 588.31 $ 213.92. rinf/7~: *Specific segments of UWS'e servlw area exotuslvely receive maOl.tal ba~rd oollectlon. Bae service consists of unlimited manual I ) collectlon of Ira.sh, recyollng and green waste, wlth the use of manual cans, • fl~~ tAf;11'' "*Manure rate ls per32 gaDon manual can, per month. Tue manure rate ls In addltloni.oihe month!ytraah/recycllng/green waste rates. & oP -;(\'' ,,;:)":. ~ MultF·Family M/.F) Bin Seryice Accounts FY 12-13. · . '¥.t1'>.A ~ Contamer/Serv1~ Typt? 'Frequency of Service/Co action . Extnt . 1:xfwk 2xlwk · 3x/yJk . 4x/wk 5x/wk . 6X/wk Pickups 2 Cub/!; Yards 3 Oublo yards Manure 3 Cubic Yards ubioYards $71.94 $128.13 $142.48 $184.32 $212.41 $15.64 $100.10 $156.27 $184.36 $227.53 $ 256.78 $26,07 $130.31 NIA . NIA NIA NIA '$26.07 $114.20 $184.41 $227.57 $274.94 $318.58 $36.49 $7.42 $10.56 $11.86 $13.16 $14.46 $41.65 $100.12 $126.12 $152.11 $178.11 $27.48 $66.44 $85,94 105.45 $124.96 I I 56 -SEA BLUFF PALOS VERDES PENINSULA H.O.A. UNI -UNIVERSAL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC All History by Date Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:02 PM Total Payables: . 4,536.19 Invoice Disbursement 4,536.19 PO BOX3038 cancelled Payables: 0.00 WHITTIER CA 90605 Current Balance: 0.00 ' Date Type Document# Reference Amount Cancelled Balance .. ""'* ·-. ·~ . ' • .. . . ... ...... 01(10/2010 Invoice 291479 JAN-MAR10 SVC #4643 $99.57 $0.00 $99.57 01/10/2010 Check 1975 Check (Computer) \. ($99.57) $0.00 $0.00 04(09/2010 Invoice 311188 APR.JUN10SVC#4643 ~ $99.57 $0.00 $99.57 04(09/2010 Check 2008 Check (Computer) i\t)i ($99.57) $0.00 $0.00 07(06/2010 Invoice 326179 JUL-DEC10 SVG#4643 ~f'l\p ~. $378.37 $0.00 $378.37 07/06/2010 Check 2038 Check (Computer) <P" ($378.37) $0.00 $0.00 01/07/2011 Invoice 360328 JAN-MAR10 SVC #4643 (7 $51.20 $0.00 $51.20 01/07/2011 Check 2117 Check (Computer) ($51.20) $0.00 $0.00 04(01/2011 Invoice 381798 APR-JUN11 SVC #4643 $165.00 $0.00 $165.00 04(01/2011 Check 2146 Check (Computer) ($165.00) $0.00 $0.00 07/14/2011 Invoice 402044 JUL-SEP11 SVC #4643 $169.14 $0.00 $169.14 07(14/2011 Check 2181 Check {Computer) ($169.14) ·$0.00 $0.00 10/07/2011 Invoice 421055 OCT·DEC11 SVC #4643 $169.14 $0.00 $169.14 10/07/2011 Check 2208 Check (Computer) ($169.14) $0.00 $0.00 01/06/2012 Invoice 434805 JAN-MAR12 SVC #4643 $169.14 $0.00 $169.14 01/06/2012 Check 2232 Check (Computer) ($169.14) $0.00 $0.00 04/20/2012 Invoice 457440 APR-JUN12SVC#4643 ?A•O A.fft,) $169.14 $0.00 $169.14 04/20/2012 Check 2268 Check (Computer) M -P..Yi ":f(n...Oer ($169.14) $0.00 $0.00 05(09(2012 Invoice 461280 MAY12 CLUBHSESVC#4643 ~1>.jil'-'-$204.24 $0.00 $204.24 05/09/2012 Check 2273 Check {Computer) )1~0 <Srr~$204.24) $0.00 $0.00 06/08/2012 Invoice 466507 ~CLUBHSE SVC #4643 ;fw~e'\'S""-$204.24 $0.00 $204.24 06/08/2012 Check 2287 Check (Computer) ?A\O&Yfllf ($204.24) $0.00 $0.00 07/06/2012 Inv (Recuning) 477437 JUL 12 CLUBHSE SVC #4643 $204.24 $0.00 $204.24 07/06/2012 Check 2295 Check (Computer) ($204.24) $0.00 $0.00 08/03/2012 Inv (Recuning) 481465 AUG12 CLUBHSE SVC#4643 $207.71 $0.00 $207.71 08/03/2012 Check 2310 Check (Computer) ($207.71) $0.00 $0.00 09/07/2012 Inv (Recurring} 484930 SEP12 CLUBHSE SVC #4643 $207.71 $0.00 $207.71 09/07/2012 Check 2320 Check (Computer) ($207.71) $0.00 $0.00 10/05(2012 Inv (Recurring) 498417 OCT12 CLUBHSE SVC#4643 $207.71 $0.00 $207.71 10/05/2012 Check 2331 Check (Computer) ($207.71) $0.00 $0.00 11/02/2012 Inv (Recuning) 502477 NOV12 CLUBHSE SVC #4643 $207.71 ~ $0.00 $207.71 11/02/2012 Check 2340 \II Check (Computer) ($207.71) $0.00 $0.00 ~ 12107/2012 Inv (Recuning) 505595 .. DEC12 CLUBHSE SVC #4643 $207.71 $0.00 $207.71 12/07/2012 Check 2349 t..o Check (Computer) ($207.71) $0.00 $0.00 01/11/2013 Inv {Recurring) 519870 s-JAN13 CLUBHSE SVC#4643 $207.71 3'-$0.00 $207.71 01/11/2013 Check 2364 1 Check (Computer) ($207.71) 1 $0.00 $0.00 02108/2013 Inv (Recurring} 1--523243 2 FEB13 CLUBHSE SVC ~3 $207.71 -.t $0.00 $207.71 02/08/2013 Check 2374 <) Check (Computer} ($207.71) c $0.00 $0.00 ! ::! 03/01/201~ lnv .l:B.ecurrln.oL .. 526699 MA 3C U $.!;:.~--...........• ..J6Q.?,Z.L .[/) .. ..!Q.00 ... ~01.71 03/01/2013 Check 2385 Check (Computer) ($207.71) $0.00 $0.00 Current Balance: 0.00 INVOICE Statement . . -=il=-2-2-vi . I ·,, P.O Box 3038 • Whittier. CA 90605 An·" i { !' j V\. h.-'-.. Telephone: {562) 941-4.900 ''-=----r+---- Fox: 1562) 941-4915 .:;z. c,;, ~ ~= ~Il- Account N''llJllher: Invoice Number; Invoice Date: P.O. Number: Page:l 5"0 .·4.H31 457440 04/03/12 DOE UPON RECEIPT ' ... ~. l Cli.rrent:··:rnv.oiae ·Amount Total .Amount Due Description Amount 169.14 159.14 Previous Balance Credits and Adjustments Payments Received Current Charges o.oo o.oo 0.00 Please pay tota amount due. hank you. 159.14 0.00 Bill To: Taxes and Fees (AB939) Total .l\mount Due 169.14 IB~lling Period: APR±t-JONE 2012 . serVioe Address: 0 SEABLUFF CLUBHOUSE RANCHO PALOS VERDES SEABLUFF HOA/H COMPANY ATTN:LEE ROBERTS 21535 HAWTHORNE BLVD.#530 TORRANCE CA 90503 Date Qty Description Notes Reference Charges Credits. AB939 04/01/12 l. 00 :R,ESIDENTIAL SVC APR-JON 2012 169.14 / 0 SEABLUFF CLUBHOUSE RANCHO PALOS VEllDES I' / / I ( 1-:> fi~'T' 't"t.ec> :;:t.~OC>\~ AJtlli: Fo~ Composting workshop 4/21/12 @Hesse Park (9:30am to llam) -C. M "Y l :rttt.:1c -N..~:z ? I\." 'i> H.e,ee" Paper Shredd,ing Event 4/14/12 ® City Hall parking lot (9am to noon) ( Mo i.::>'Tl.l'-j \l:>l Grfb...! .PAte;) (E-Waate collection lie mulch giveaway) 0 HHW/E-Easte Collection 5/5/12 ® City Hall/City Yard (9am to 3pm) 169.14 QT~L/ ~tLL-. ('2_Q~L'>-) '?J\ £0 -kJ ~\ \"fuo X...::>\J~t.CE5 A«E Fo(Z No ~"N 5 A.'-~l f.fli.\~ l-tE"ee ( MA.Y l:n.c'-'€ ?..oil.-) 30 DAYS . 60 DAYS 90DAYS 120 DAYS Total Due 159.14 a: ... ~-i~\8 INVOICE RO Box 3038 • Wbitti~ CA 90605 Tdephone: {562) 941-4900 "1J>tli~i ~ ~ Fem: (562) 941-4915 ...... ~ . Description Statement lo)rn © ~ o w ~ ~ lfil MAY 0 3 2012 ~ By Amount :tnvoice Nulliber: Invoice Date: P.O. Number: Page:l 461280 05/01/12 Previous Balance Credits and Adjustments Payments Received Current Charges 169.14. 0.00 -169.14 204.24 0.00 Bill 'J!o: Taxes and Fees (AB939) Total Am.ount Due 204.24 SEABLUFF HONH COMPANY ATTN:LEE ROBERTS 21530 HAWTHORNE BLVD.#530 TORRANCE CA 90503 ';jjt;3f~~;q~~~ :~;A~F.iM~i xl»~!JJ:-:. ~P,f.C'~~· .3(Jf~t¥\t}i'WLGn;::::'.k'.~li.<'.i1~@;.~~.~ ;:wp~g,~~::'i 'A:::If.~~'$.~:· ·;~~g~~iri ltl\1~8@.: .. ~~it 04/24/12 l.00 PAYMENT 2268 -169.14 -169.14 05/0l/12 l.00 RESIDENTIAL SVC May/2012 169.14 ~ ~ 0 SEABLUFF CLUBHOUSE RANCHO PALOS VERDES «,,_ 05/01/12 1.00 FUEL SURCHARGE J"t "-.._ 25.37J f-.lwca> 25.37 05/01/12 1.00 ENVIRONMENTAL FEE 9. 73 cw~C"l> 9. 73 11-l\S Mo"J.STIO( .·:~ .. ·.:.:·. .204. 24 c'"' ~es /....L-R-~~ y ru APR-t L.. ( · '.~'ODA'XS:" Approvd~: Date: :=>-s /3 h:r--... ,. Code To: _______ _ :i.20 DAYS'.·· .. : 204.24 INVOICE 4 • • ~ m ~ mrre· m rn rm lJU JUN 0 4 2012 ili P.O Box 3038 • Whittier. CA 90605 Telephone: (562) 941-4900 Fax: (562} 941-4915 ~01 ~i:::B!.:.y=======l I Ao count f;lu;mmary Description Previous Balance Credits and Adjustments Payments Received Current Charges Taxes and Fees (AB939) Total Amount Due !Billing Period.: _rn 2012 Amount 0.00 0.00 0.00 204.24 0.00 204 .. -24 Service Address: . 0 SEABLUFF CLUBHOUSE RANCHO PALOS Account N"umb.er: J:nvoice Number: J:nvoice Date: P. 0. Nulllbe:r: " Page:l 4_6431 466507 06/01/12 DUE UPON RECEJ:PT Current J:nvoice Amount f -·Total ·Amou:iit. Due · · 1 204.24 204.24 . Please pay total amount due. Thank you. Bill 'l'o: SEABLUFF HOA/H COMPANY ATTN:LEE ROBERTS 21535 HAWTHORNE BLVD.#530 • T.ORRANCE..CA.9D5D3 Date Qty Description/Notes Reference Charges Credits·. AB939 06/0l/12 06/0l/12 06/01/12 1.00 :RESIDENTIAL SVC Jun/2012 ~ SEABLUFF CLUBHOUSE RANCHO PALOS VERDES \ 1. 00 FUEL SURCHl\RGE / 1. 00 ENVIRONMENTAL FEE ::Jv.~E Appwovai~ 169.14 25 .37 9.73 ~---····--..•.. -.,. A lJ{.e:;A;D !, ~"I.~ -A.Pf(..rL. 1• Dai?~· Q~· \:;\": '/'j --~-··~'" ---------------· Codolo: ~~ ......... -~-· ...:22.~ ~------··· . 60 DAYS . 90DAYS 120 DAYS Total Due 204.24 Please defa~Ya'n6e~!1£~~£.~~ortion I Accouzit · l-tuniber: with your payment -do not send cash. . Make checks payalJle to Universal Waste Systems, ~voice Number: J:nvoioe Date: P.O. Number: 25.37 9.73 .. ;46431 466507 06/01/12 DUE UPO:N" RECJ:EPT P.O Box. 3038 • Wbittiei; CA 90605 Telephone: (562) 941-4900 Fax:(562)941-4.915 Total Amount· Due I I .Amount EncloBedcij 204 •24 I I I I I I L Please pay total amount due. Thank you. SEABLUFF HOA/H COMPANY ATTN: LEE ROBERTS 21535 HAWTHORNE BLVD.#530 TORRANCE CA 90503 Universal Waste Systems, Inc P.O.Box 3038 Whittier CA 90605 INVOICE -+Iii ~.!\,[t_~ .. ~~ 't~a Account Number: '2.0tl- Page:l 4643 ~o Box 3038 • Whittiei; CA 90605 Telephone: (562) 941-4900 m [E flli [E a w [E ml illl FEB 2 8 2013 ~ :tnvoioe N'Ulllber: Invoice Date: P.O. Number: 526'6'99 03/01/13 DUE UPON RECEJ:PT Fax: (562) 941-4915 !Account Summary Description Previous Balance Credits and Adjustments Payments Received Current Charges Taxes and Fees (AB939) By Amount 207. 71 0.00 ·207.71 207.71 o.oo Total Amount Due 207.71 !Billing Period: MARCH 2013 I ervice Address: · 0 SEABLUFF CLUBHOUSE RANCHO PALOS current Invoice Amount 207.71 Total Amount Due 207. 71 Please pay total amount due. Thank you. Bill To: SEABLUFF HOA/H COMPANY ATTN:LEE ROBERTS 21535 HAWTHORNE BLV0.#530 TORRANCE CA 90503 Date Qty Description Notes Reference Charges Credits · AB93.9 ·Extended 02/l6'/13 03/01/13 03/0J./13 03/0J./J.3 1,00 PAYMENT 2374 1.00 RESIDENTIAL SVC Mar/2013 ~ 0 SEABLOFF CLUBHOUSE RANCHO PALOS VERDES \ 1.00 FUEL SURCHARGV 1.00 ENVIRONMENTAL FEE C...utl-.~- M" f',:rn-t 1-/ '6 L L'-A.. T Q\.t.A~ n::eu.1 K ~ 1E: 30 DAYS 60 DAYS 90DAYS 207. 71 172.02 25.BO 9.89 Approval:. __ /).,....... _____ _ rJate: ___ ~....___.:J...-P'_/t_~_ 120 DAYS Total. Due 207.71 P.O Box 3038 • Whittielf CA 90605 Telephone: f562) 941-4900 Fax: (562) 941-4915 !Account SUllJll\ary Description Previous Balance Credits and Adjustments Payments Received Current Charges ·Taxes and Fees (AB939) -T~~-:i;-Mou:nt ·nu·Er~----~= -····- !Billing Period: JULY-SEPT 2012 INVOICE Statement Amount o.oo 0.00 0.00 87.33 o.oo ·--<· ~--'-Sf"~~'·-"-- I Service Address; 6612 CHANNELVIEW CRT RANCHO PALOS VERDES Account NUlllber: Invoice Date: P.O. Number: Current Invoice Amount P·age:l 43701 480197 07/10/12 DUE UPON RECEIPT Total Amount Due 87.33 87.33 Please pay otal amount ue. Thank you. Bill To: ROBERT A NELSON 6612 CHANNELVIEW COURT -----=· ---.RANGHQ-PA60.SNERDES CA-90175-. Date Qty 'Description Notes Reference Charges Credits AB939 Extt?nded 07/01/12 l. 0 0 RESIDENTIAL SERVICE 95 GALLON JULY, AUG, SEPT 87.33 87.33 6612 CHANNELVIEW CRT RANCHO PALOS VERDES \ 30 DAYS 120 DAYS Total Due -· -8-7 .3-3 ·~87~3.3 P.O Box 3038 • Whittier, CA 90605 Telephone: (562) 941-4900 -;·~~~s: ~~eJl!~S~~~:~~~~:---~~j--:;~:=~-·-~~~~:~·-··-··------····-:;:.,~~---. with your payment -do not send cash. . • . Make checks payable to Unive>:sal Waste Systems, :t"1'nvoice Number: 480197 Invoice Date: 07/10/12 P.O. Number: DUE UPON RECIEPT Total Amount Due I 87. 33 ~ 3 ::>.. 0 Please pay total amount due. Thank you. additional fees, please submit payment by 7/30/12 -l·ilid'lf.llt!if:1i§tnlfli·C·1it·ldi611m@l·liift•G@--t.¥144•®®9.Jli@MMEGml!n1>-t1m91mm:11t.11 Bill To: Please remit payment to: ROBERT A NELSON 6612 CHANNELVIEW COURT RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 90275 Universal Waste Systems, Inc P.O.Box 3038 Whittier CA 90605