20130702 Late CorrespondenceSEP 1 4 2010
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, any official position of the City of Los Angeles with respect to
legislation, rules, regulations or policies proposed to or pending before a local,
state, or federal government body or agency must have first been adopted in the
form of a Resolution by the City Council with the concurrence of the Mayor; and
WHEREAS, the recent tragedy in San Bruno, California where a natural
gas line explosion killed at least 7 people, and wiped out over 30 homes has
highlighted the potential dangers of both underground and above-ground storage
of explosive materials; and
WHEREAS, the 20 acre private facility, located on North Gaffey Street in
San Pedro, contains two large above-ground storage tanks that each can
accommodate 12 million gallons of butane produced by nearby refineries; and
WHEREAS, nearby residents are extremely concerned that a similar
disaster will occur at the San Pedro facility; and
WHEREAS, the San Pedro facility is governed by several agencies,
including the National Fire Protection Association and OSHA; and
WHEREAS, the federal government should institute requirements for
above-ground hazardous material storage facilities similar to those that it
requires for oil refineries, such as requirements that on-site emergency and fire
personnel be stationed at the refinery at all times; and
WHEREAS, it is imperative that new regulations be put in place to assure
the safety of nearby residents of above-ground storage tank facilities--givernhe
potential safety risks, including locating these operations away from residential
areas;
NOW, THt:REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, with the concurrence of the
Mayor that by the adoption of this Resolution, the City of Los Angeles, hereby
includes in its 2009-2010 Federal Legislative Program SUPPORT for federal
legislation and/or regulations that would provide additional requirements for
above-ground storage facilities of hazardous materials, including regulations that
· irement for facilities located near residential zones, as
RECEIVE!:; ;7 ~!J...as~e~s~ · emergency response/fire personnel.
AND MADf I\ PAffl OF l"HE'RECOliD AT THE /~
COUNCIL MEETING OF~ ------0 . _ , (/ c~:~'~,~~;~,:~~1~1 ~;,?'~':RK PRESENTEDt~~v 1 ~ Di~
-~~
;-: "']
., . ·-'./~'
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CODE
Chapter 450-8 -RISK MANAGEMENT
Sections:
450-8.002 -Background and findings.
450-8.004 -Purpose and goals.
450-8.006 -Authority.
450-8.008 -Administration.
450-8.010 -ApplicabiBty.
450:..8.012 -Inspection.
450-8.014 -Definitions.
450-8.016 -Stationary source safety requirements.
450-8.018 -Review, audit and inspection.
450-8.020 -Trade secret.
450-8.022 -Hazardous materials ombudsperson.
450-8.024 -Public information bank.
450-8.026 -Fees.
450-8.028 -Penalties.
450-8.030 -Annual perfonnance review and evaluation.
450-8.032 -Construction.
450-8.002 -Background and fmdings.
The board of supervisors of Contra Costa County finds as follows:
(a) Recent incidents in Contra Costa County at industrial chemical, petrochemical, and oil
industry facilities have prompted the consideration of reviews, inspections, and audits
that supplement existing federal and state safety programs and the imposition of
additional safety measures to protect public health and safety from accidental releases.
(b) Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.A. Section 7412(4)) required the
Federal Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to promulgate the rule known as the
"Risk Management Program," which is intended to prevent accidental releases of
regulated substances, as defined in the federal program, and reduce the severity of those
releases that do occur. All facilities subject to this federal regulation must prepare a risk
management plan (RMP) based on a risk management program established at the facility,
that includes a hazard assessment of the facility, an accidental release prevention
program, and an emergency response program ( 40 CFR Section 68). The facility must
submit the Federal RMP to the EPA by June 21, 1999 (40 CFR Section 68-150-68.185).
The federal RMP will be available to state and local government and the public.
( c) The California Health and Safety Code Article 2 (Section 25531 et seq.) of Chapter
6.95 was amended effective January 1, 1997 to implement the federal EPA's risk
management program rule with certain state-specific amendments. The state's risk
management program is known as the California Accidental Release Prevention
.(CalARP) Program.
( d) The cmmtp recognizes that regulatory requirements al6ne will not guarantee public
hetdti2 a;ul. safety, and that tile public is a kev stakelwl<ler in chemical ac[;,ident
12rewmtion. preparedness, and rtespm•!Je at tf~e local level P?eye1zting accidental
releases of reJ:.ulmed substances is the sleared responsihilitv of industry1 government
and tlae public. The first steps toward accide1li prevention are identifying tlie hazards
and assessing tlae risks. Once information about chemical hazards in the community is
opgnly skared. industry. government. and the communitv can work together towards
red11cing th/ risk to miblic health and sa(e!J?..
(e) The success ofa safety program is depemlent ttptm the cooperation ofimlustrial
chemical and oil refgn.ing facilities witki12 Contra Costa County. The public must be
assured that measures necessary to prevent incidents are being implemented, including
changes or actions required by the department or the stationa.rY source that are necessary
to comply with this chapter.
(Ord. 98-48 § 2).
450-8.004 -Purpose and goals.
(a) The purpose of this chapter is to impose regulations which improve industrial safety
by:
(1) Requiring the conduct of process hazard analyses for covered processes handling
hazardous materials not covered by the federal or state accidental release prevention
programs;
(2) Requiring the review of action items resulting from process hazard analyses and
requiring completion of those action items selected by the stationary source for
implementation within a reasonable time frame;
(3) Requiring the review of accidental release prevention efforts of stationary sources and
providing for the conduct of investigations and analyses for the determination of the root
cause for certain incidents;
.. --...
(4) Providing review, inspection, auditing and safety requirements that are more stringent
than those required in existing law and regulations;
(5) Providing for public input into the safety plan and safety program and public review
of any inspection and audit results;
(6) Facilitating cooperation between industry, the county, and the public in the prevention
and reduction of incidents at stationary sources;
(7) Expanding the application of certain provisions of the federal and state accidental
release prevention programs to processes not covered by the federal or state accidental
release prevention programs;
.(8) Verifying that an approved security and vulnerability study is performed, and that the
recommendations are addressed within a reasonable time frame;
(9) .Requiring the development and implementation of a written human factors program;
and
(10) Preventing and reducing the number, frequency, and severity of accidental releases
in the county. ·
(Ords. 2006-22 § 2, 98-48 § 2).
450-8.006 -Authority.
The ordinance codified in this chapter is adopted bv the cmmfy p11.rsuant to its police
power foy the purposes ofprotecting_pu.hlic Juza.Ith and saktv by prevention of
accidental releases oOuazardous materials and to as:ntre protection ofthe environment.
(Ord. 98-48 § 2).
450-8~008 -Administration.
The department is charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing this
chapter.
(Ord. 98-48 § 2).
4.50-8.010 -Applicability.
(a) This chapter shall apply to stationary sources except that:
(b) The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter except Sections 450-
8.016(c) and (e), and 450-8.0lS(f) and (g):
(1) Storage tanks containing a nonregulated substance, except for storage tanks that
contain a material that has a flashpoint above one hundred forty-one degrees Fahrenheit
and below two hundred degrees Fahrenheit in accordance with the definition of
combustible liquid in 49 CFR 173.120(b );
(2) Drum storage of: (A) a nonregulated substance; (B) less than ten thousand pounds of
a hazard category B material located such that the drums could reasonably be expected to
be involved in a single release; and (C) a hazard category A material, located such that
the drums could reasonably be expected to be involved in a single release, at less than the
quantity specified as the threshold planning quantity on the extremely hazardous
substances list (Appendix A to 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter J, Part 355, as amended
from time to time) or five hundred pounds, whichever is less;
(3) Activities in process plant laboratories or laboratories that are under the supervision
of a technically qualified individual as defined in Section 720.3( ee) of 40 CFR. This
exemption does not apply to specialty chemical production; manufacture, processing or
use of substances in pilot plant scale operations; and activities conducted outside the
,laboratory;
( 4) Utilitiesoexcept for fuel gas and natural gas systems to the battery limits of a process
unit; and
(5) Any waste tanks, containers or other devices subject to the federal and state hazardous
waste laws, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 40 CFR
Chapter I, Subchapter I, commencing with Part 260, the California Hazardous Waste
Control Law, California Health and Safety Code, commencing with Section 25100 and
the California Code of Regulations, Title 22 Division 4.5 Environmental Health
Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste.
(Ords. 2006-22 § 3, 98-48 § 2).
450-8.012 -Inspection.
The department shall be allowed reasonable access to any part of the stationary source
subject to the requirements of this chapter, Sections 450-8.016 and 450-8.018 and to
supporting documentation retained by the source for the purpose of determining
compliance with this chapter.
(Ord. 98-48 § 2).
450-8.014 -Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter, the definitions set forth in this section shall apply. Words
used in this chapter not defined in this section shall have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Clean Air Act Regulations (40 CFR Section 68.3) and in California Health and
Safety Code Article 2 (Section 25531 et seq.) of Chapter 6.95, unless the context
indicates otherwise.
(a) "Covered process" means any process at a stationary source.
(b) '1Department" means the Contra Costa County llealtla services director and anv
di;rectm· tmthorized deputies.
l
J
(c) "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, raking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and
technological factors.
(d) "Hazard category A materials" are substances which meet the hazard category A
material definition as set forth in Section 84-63.1016 of this code.
(e) "Hazard category B materials" are substances which meet the hazard category B
material definition as set forth in Section 84-63.1016 of this code.
(f) "Industry codes, standards, and guidelines" means the edition of the codes, standards,
and guidelines in effect at the time of original design or construction for the design,
construction, alteration, maintenance or repair of process units, industrial equipment, or
other industrial facilities, structures or buildings published by, but not limited to, the
American Petroleum Institute (API), the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the
Arµerican Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) or the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), and meets recognized and generally accepted good engineering
practices (RAGAGEP).
(g) "Inherently safer systems" means-"inherently safer design strategies" as discussed in
the latest edition of the Center for Chemical Process Safety Publication "Inherently Safer
Chemical Processes," and means feasible alternative equipment, processes, materials, lay-
outs, and procedures meant to eliminate, minimize, or reduce the risk of a major chemical
accident or release by modifying a process rather than adding external layers of
protection. Examples include, but are not limited to, substitution of materials with lower
vapor pressure, lower flammability, or lower toxicity; isolation of hazardous processes;
and use of processes which operate at lower temperatures and/or pressures.
(h) "Major chemical accident or re!ease 11 means an incide12t that meets the definition
of a level 3 or level 2 iru:ident i12 tlie comn2unify waming svstem incident level
classification svstem defined in the hazardous materials incident notification policy. as
detemaitJ,ed by the depo:rtment; or results in the release of a regulated substance and
meets one or more ofthe &flowing criteria:
(1) Results in one or more fatalities;
(2) Results in greater than twenty-four hours of hospital treatment of three or more
persons;
(3) Causes on-and/or .off-site property damage (iru:luding clean-up and restoration
activities) initially estimated at five Jmmired thousand dollars or nwre. On-site
estinw.tes slaal/ be per!Ormed by the stationary source. Off-site estimates shall be
per(ormeil. hv apwopriate agencies and compiled bv the department;
( 4) Results in a vapor cloud of.ilmtmwbles and/or combustibles that is more than five
thoutiatul. pounds.
(i) "Regulated substance" means (1) any chemical substance which satisfies the
provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 25532(g), as amend~d from time
l
I
I
to time, or (2) a substance which satisfies the provisions of hazard categories A or B in
Section 84-63.1016 of this code. Mixtures containing less than one percent of a regulated
substance shall not be considered in the determination of the presence of a regulated
material.
G) "Risk management program" means the documentation, development,
implementation, am! integration of management svstems by the facility to comply with
the regulations set forth in 40 CFR, Part 68 and the California Health and Safety Code,
Article 2, commencing with Section 25531.
(k) "RMP" means the risk management plan required to be submitted pursuant to the
requirements of the 40 CFR Section 68.150-68.185 and the California Health and Safety
Code Article 2 (Section 25531 et seq.) of Chapter 6.95.
(1) "Root caus.e" means prime reasons, such as failures of some management systems, that
allow faulty design, inadequate training, or improper changes, which lead to an unsafe act
or condition, and result in an incident. If root causes were removed, the particular
incident would not have occurred.
(m) "Safety plan" means the safety plan required to be submitted to the department
pursuant to the requirements of Section 450-8.016 of this chapter.
(n) "Safety program" means the documentation, development, implementation, and
integration of management systems by the stationary source to comply with the safety
requirements set forth in Section 450-8.016 of this chapter.
(o) "Stationary source'' or rrsource" means a facility which inchules at least one
process as defined in 40 CFR 68 • .10 that is suhiect to federal risk management program
level 3 reguirenumts and whose primary Nonh American Industry Classification
Sv.stem code (NA.JCS) is 324 (Petroleum mui Coal Products Manufacturing) or 325
{.£hemica! MamJftu:tM.ring!.
(p) "California accidental release prevention program" means the documentation,
development, implementation, and integration of management systems by a facility to
comply with the regulations set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 19,
Division 2, Chapter 4.5.
(q) "Catastrophic release" means a major uncontrolled emission. (ire. or explosion,
i1evob1i'fl.g one Of' more Mglelv. lu11prdous che1nicals. that presents serious danger to
emplovees in the workplace and/or the public. As used in this section, "highly hazardous
chemical" has the meaning ascribed to it in 29 CFR 1910.119(b) as of May 21, 2003.
(r) "Human factors" means a discipline concerned with designing machines, operations,
and work environments so that they match human capabilities, limitations, and needs.
"Human factors" can be further referred to as environmental, organizational, and job
factors, and human and individual characteristics that influence behavior at work in a way
that can affect health and safety.
(s) "H1zman svstems" means the svsterliS, such as written and miwrittei'z policies,
procedures. and practices. in ef{ect to minimize the existence/persistence oflatent
conditions at tJie stationary source. It also includes the broad area of safety culture of a
stationary source to the extent that it influences the actions of individuals or groups of
individuals.
(Ords. 2006-22 § 4, 98-48 § 2).
450-8.016 -Stationary source safety requirements.
The stationary source shall submit a safety plan to the department within one year of the
effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter or within three years of the date a
facility becomes a stationary source, that complies with the provisions of this section and
that includes the safety elements listed in subsection (a) of this section. In addition, the
stationary source shall comply with the safety requirements set forth in subsections (a)
thrpugh ( e) of this section and shall include a description of the manner of compliance
with these subsections in the safety plan. A new covered process at an existing stationary
source shall comply with subsections (a) through (e) of this section prior to initial startup.
(a) Sa(et;; Program Elements. All covered processes shall be subject to tlie sa[,efi
program elenumts listed below. The safety plan shall include a description of the manner
in which these safety program elements listed below shall be applied to the covered
process. These safety program elements shall be implemented in conformance with the
California accidental release prevention program and the safety plan shall follow
Chapters 5, 7,_2 and.2 of the Contra Costa County health services department CalARP
program guidance document.
(1) Process Saff!tp Jntormaiion.
(A) The stationary source shall complete a compilation o(Jvritten process safety
infomaation before conducting anp process hazard analysis as required bv tlais chapter.
The compilation of written process safety information is to enable the stationary source
and the employees involved in operating the covered process to identify and understand
the hazards posed by the covered process. This process safety information shall include
information pertaining to the hazards of the regulated substances used or produced by the
process, information pertaining to the technology of the process, information pertaining
to the equipment in the process, and information pertaining to the hazards of the
regulated substances in the process.
(i) This information shall consist of at least the following: toxicity information;
permissible exposure limits; physical data; reactivity data; corrosivity data; thermal and
chemical stability data; and hazardous effects of inadvertent mixing of different materials
that could foreseeably occur.
(ii) Material safety data sheets meeting the requirements of Section 5189, Title 8 of
California Code of Regulations may be used to comply with this requirement to the
extent they contain the information required by this subsection.
(iii) ln!Ormati01J qenaining to the technology ofthe process sl~all i1Aciude at least the
following: a block flow diggram or simplified process flow diagram; process claemistrv;
maximum i"12tended inventmy; safe upper and lower limits for :necll items as
tl_mperatur£s'!..pressures. flows or com11,ositions;. and, an evaluation of the
consequences of deviations. Where the original technical infOrmation no longer exists,
such infornzation mav be developed in conjum:tion with the process hazard analvsis in
su[fu:ient detail to support the analysis.
(iv) Information pertaining to the equipment in the process shall include: materials of
construction; piping and instrument diagrams (P&ID's); electrical classification; relief
system design and design basis; ventilation system design; design codes and standards
employed; material and energy balances for processes built after the compliance date of
the ordinance codified in this chapter; and safety systems (e.g., interlocks, detection or
suppression systems).
(B) The stationarysmerce shall docement that equipmerat complies with recognized and
genera/iv accepted good engineering practices.
(C) For existing equipment designed and constructed in accordance with codes,
standards, or practices that are no longer in general use, the stationary source shall
determine and document that the equipment is designed, maintained, inspected, tested,
and operating in a safe manner.
(2) Operating Procedures.
(A) The stationary sou,rce shall develoPJ. and i:tm;lement written operating procedures
that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each covered
process consistent with the process safe'f;V, information and shall address at least the
following elements:
(i) Steps for each operating phase: initial startup; normal operations; temporary
operations; emergency shutdown, including the conditions under which emergency
shutdown is required, and the assignment of shutdown responsibility to qualified
operators to ensure that emergency shutdown is executed in a safe and timely manner;
emergency operations; normal shutdown; and, startup following a turnaround, or after an
emergency shutdown.
(ii) Operating limits: consequences of deviation; and steps required to correct or avoid
deviation.
(B) Safety and Health Considerations. Properties of, and hazards presented by, the
chemicals used in the process; precautions necessary to prevent exposure, including
engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment; control
measures to be taken if physical contact or airborne exposure occurs; quality control for
raw 1?Mlterials and control of hazardous chemical inventorp levels; and. any special m·
unique !u~zards.
(C) Safety systems and their functions.
(D) Operating procedures shall be readily accessible to employees who work in or
maintain a process.
(E) The operating procedures shall be reviewed as often as necessary to assure that they
reflect current operating practice, including changes that result from changes in process
chemicals, technology, and equipment, and changes to stationary sources. The stationary
source shall certify annually that these operating procedures are current and accurate.
(F) lJl.e stationafJ!. source shall develog and implement safe work practices to provide
£or th,£ contrfllp.f.h§.Wds during operations such as lofli!!1aVtagout; confined space
entry; opening process equipment or piping; and control over entrance into a stationary
source by maintenance, contractor, laboratory, or other support personnel. These safe
work practices shall apply to employees and contractor employees.
(3) Emelopee ParticipatiolJ::_
(A) The sta:tioruuy source shall develo'fLa written pla?! ofoction regarding the
l1f1l!.lementation of the emplovee pamcipation requiJ·ed bv this clfilf!..fY·
(B) The stationary source shall consult with.employees and their representatives on the
conduct and development of process hazards analyses and on the development of the
other elements of the safety program in this chapter.
(C) The stationary source shall provide to employees and their representatives access to
process hazard analyses and to all other information required to be developed under this
chapter.
(4) Training. For each employee in su.cl2 covered process:
(A) Initial Training. Each employee presently involved in operating a covered process,
and each employee before being involved in operating a newly assigned covered process,
shall be trained in an overview of the process and in the operating procedures as specified
in subsection (a)(2)(A) of this section. The training shall include emphasis on the specific
safety and health hazards, emergency operations including shutdown, and safe work
practices applicable to the employee's job tasks. In lieu of initial training for those
employees already involved in operating a process, an owner or operator may certify in
writing that the employee has the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to safely carry
out the duties and responsibilities as specified in the operating procedures.
(B) !kfresher Training,. R.eft·esher troJning shall be provided at least every tlu·ee y_ear_s,
and more often if necessary, to each employee involved in operating a covered process to
assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of
the covered process. The stationary source, in consultation with the employees involved
in operating the process, shall determine the appropriate frequency of refresher training.
(C) Training Documentation. The stationary source shall ascertain that each employee
involved in operating a process has received and understood the training required by this
section. The stationary source shall prepare a record which contains the identity of the
employee, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood
the training.
(5) Mecluinical lntefl!'it& Including the Use oflndus~ry_J;!!.fi,fi,fi:&.,'ian,;[lards. and
!iEi!f.elines..
(A) 4fDllication. Stibs(fctums (a}(5)(Bi tlirf!ugh {a)(SJ(F) o[this scct{oiJ ffi'/!!l~ to th_e
(?!lowing, process equipment: ll..ressM.re vesse.~ and storqge ta_n(f~; piping subsystems
(including piping components such as valves); relief and vent systems and devices;
emergency shutdown systems; controls (including monitoring devices and sensors,
alarms, and interlocks) and pumps.
(B) Written Procedures. The stationary source shall establish and implement written
procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment.
( C) Training for Process Maintenance Activities. The stationary source shall train each
employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment in an
overview of that process and its hazards and in the procedures applicable to the
employee's job tasks to assure that the employee can perform the job tasks in a safe
manner.
(D) lnspecti.on and Testing •.
(1) Inspections and tests sltall be pertprmJ14.,gfl-Rtf!cess equie,ment. Inspection and
testing procediires shall follow recognized and generally accepted good engineering
practices. The frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment shall be consistent
with applicable manufacturers' recommendations and good engineering practices, and
more :frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience. The
stationary source shall document each inspection and test that has been performed on
process equipment. The documentation shall identify the date of the inspection or test, the
name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other
identifier of the equipment on which the inspection or test was performed, a description
of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test.
(E) Equipment Deficiencies. The stationary source shall correct deficiencies in equipment
that are outside acceptable limits (defined by the process safety information in subsection
(a)(l) of this section) before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary
means are taken to assure safe operatiqn.
(F) Quality Assurance. In the construction of new plants and equipment, the stationary
source shall assure that equipment as it is fabricated is suitable for the process application
for which they will be used. Appropriate checks and inspections shall be performed to
assure that equipment is installed properly and consistent with design specifications and
the manufacturer's instructions. The stationary source shall assure that maintenance
materials, spare parts and equipment are suitable for the process application for which
they will be used.
,........,
( 6) M£magement of Claange.
(A) I~ stationary source sluall estalJ.!jsk and im.f!i.(ment r;Jitten procedures to manage
ckfl!J:lfffl!i!?!f:C..l!IJ11!!1:.!:J:ep,lacements in kirulv') to process chemical§. te<;fanology,
f!{llliemep.h_and procedpres; . .fU'Jd fhll!JlfJt~tJ..tm.ar:Jl. sources that affect.!!.£~
l!l'Ot:eSS.
(B) The procedures shall assure that the following considerations are addressed prior to
any change: the technical basis for the proposed change; impact of change on safety and
health; modifications to operating procedures; necessary time period for the change; and
authorization requirements for the proposed change.
( C) Employees involved in operating a process and maintenance and contract employees
whose job tasks will be affected by a change in the process shall be informed of, and
trained in, tbe change prior to startup of the process or affected part of the process.
(D) If.a change covered by this section results in a change in the process safety
information required by subsection (a)(l) of this section, such information shall be
updated accordingly.
(E) If a change covered by this section results in a change in the operating procedures or
practices required by subsection (a)(2) of this section, such procedures or practices shall
be updated accordingly.
(7) Pre-Startup Reviews.
(A) The stationary source shall perform a pre-startup safety review for new stationary
sources and for modified stationary sources when the modification is significant enough
to require a change in the process safety information.
(B) The pre-startup safety review shall confirm that prior to the introduction of regulated
substances to a covered process: construction and equipment is in accordance with design
specifications; safety, operating, maintenance~ and emergency procedures are in place
and are adequate; for new covered processes, a process hazard analysis has been
performed and recommendations have been resolved or implemented before startup; and
modified covered processes meet the requirements contained in management of change,
subsection (a)(6) of this section; and training of each employee involved in operating a
process has been completed.
(8) ColfN!_liance A1uiits.
(A) TJ2e stationary source slueil ce11ify that thev lu~ve evaliiated complim·we witlt the
J!.'i'Ovisions r;ithitf secJ.iOfL/Pi least every tl:refLY.£Dfl.ll! xeriff thatjhe procedures anfl.
practifes fkyeloped unde.r.,tkis chapter twe aJ!...f!Ji.M!l.! cmd.~«l.~ Q.~(l!Jlfollowed_.
(B) The compliance audit shall be conducted by at least one person knowledgeable in the
process.
(C) A report of the findings of the audit shall be developed.
(D) The stationary source shall promptly determine and document an appropriate
response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies
have been corrected.
(E) The stationary source shall retain the two most recent compliance audit reports.
(9) Incident Investigation.
(A) The stationary source shall investigate each incident which resulted in, or could
reasonably have resulted in a catastrophic release of a regulated substance.
(B) An incident investigation shall be initiated as promptly as possible, but not later than
forty-eight hours following the incident.
(C) An incident investigation team shall be established and consist of at least one person
knowledgeable in the covered process involved, including a contract employee if the
incident involved work of the contractor, and other persons with appropriate knowledge
and experience to thoroughly investigate and analyze the incident.
(D) A report shall be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation which includes at a
minimum: date of incident; date investigation began; a description of the incident; the
factors that contributed to the incident; and recommendations resulting from the
investigation. The written summary shall indicate whether the cause of the incident
and/or recommendations resulting from the investigation are specific only to the process
or equipment involved in the incident, or are applicable to other processes or equipment
at the stationary source. The incident investigation report shall be made available to the
department up~n request.
(E) The stationary source shall establish a system to promptly address and resolve the
incident report findings and recommendations. Resolutions and corrective actions shall
be documented.
(F) The report shall be reviewed with all affected personnel whose job tasks are relevant
to the incident findings including contract employees where applicable.
(G) Incident investigation reports shall be retained for five years.
(10) Hot Work.
(A) The stationary source shall issue a hot work permit for hot work operations
conducted on or near a covered process.
(B) The permit shall document that the fire prevention and protection requirements in
Section 5189 of Title 8 of California Code Regulations have been implemented prior to
beginning the hot work operations; it shall indicate the date(s) authorized for hot work;
and identify the object on which hot work is to be performed. The permit shall be kept on
file until completion of the hot work operations.
( 11) C.on(rar;Jf!!S:.
(A) A@piication. This section fdpplies to ctmtracton; performing maintenance or repair,
tur1uu·ound. maior renovation. or specialfy work on or adjacent to a covered process. It
does not apply to contractors providing incidental services which do not influence
process safety, such as janitorial work, food and drink services, laundry, delivery or other
supply services.
(B) Stationary Source .ReSJl!!.nsibilities.
(i) 'fhe statiomuy sou!f.ei.1£.1!£31-SJi£ctl1J!l a contracto1', sh.ail obtair; and evaluate
jnformation reganiing tlae con.tn:u:t owner or operator fg sa(~!£.fJ.er(prma;zcf!. a~:d
.l!ff!.gft1.W#S:.
(ii) The stationary source shall inform contract owner or operator of the known potential
fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the contractor's work and the process.
(iii) The stationary source shall explain to the contract owner or operator the applicable
provi~ions of the emergency response program subsection (a)(l2) of this section.
(iv) The stationary source shall develop and implement safe work practices consistent
with subsection (a)(2) of this section.to control the entrance, presence, and exit of the
contract owner or operator and contract employees in covered process areas.
(v) The stationary source shall periodically evaluate the performance of the contract
owner or operator in fulfilling their obligations as specified in subsection (a)(l l)(C) of
this section.
(C) Contract Otvt&er or Operator Responsf:.bi{itief..
(i) Tl}§ cofJ'#l'f!Ct qwner or operator shal-i assure that each contl·act enwlovee is trained;
in tlae work practices necessarr_ to safply_ perforna his/her lob.
(ii) The contract owner or operator shall assure that each contract employee is instructed
in the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to his/her job and
the process, and the applicable provisions of the emergency action plan.
(iii) The contract owner or operator shall document that each contract employee has
received and understood the training required by this section. The contract owner or
operator shall prepare a record which contains the identity of the contract employee, the
date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training.
(iv) The contract owner or operator shall assure that each contract employee follows the
safety rules of the stationary source including the safe work practices required by
subsection (a)(2) of this section.
(v) The contract owner or operator shall advise the stationary source of any unique
hazards presented by the contract owner or operator's work, or of any hazards found by
the contract owner or operator's work.
(A) Tlae stationa1y source shall develop and implement an emergency response
program fol' the purpose ofprotecti.ng public healtl: and the environment. Such
program shall include the following elements:
(i) An emergency response plan, which shall be maintained at the stationary source and
contain at least the following elements: procedures for informing the public and local
emergency response agencies about accidental releases, emergency planning, and
emergency response; documentation of proper first-aid and emergency medical treatment
necessary to treat accidental human exposures; and procedures and measures for
emergency response after an accidental release of a regulated substance;
(ii) Procedures for the use of emergency response equipment and for its inspection,
testing, and maintenance, including documentation of inspection, testing, and
maintenance;
(iii) Training for all employees in relevant procedures and the incident command system;
and .
(iv) Procedures to review and update, as appropriate, the emergency response plan to
reflect changes at the stationary souree and ensure that employees are informed of
changes.
(B) A written plan that complies with other federal contingency plan regulations or is
consistent with the approach in the National Response Team's Integrated Contingency
Plan Guidance ("One Plan") and that, among other matters, includes the elements
provided in subsection (a)(l2)(A) of this section, shall satisfy the requirements of this
section ifthe &tationary source also complies with subsection (a)(l2)(C) of this section.
(C) The emergency response plan developed under this section shall be coordinated with
the community emergency response plan developed under 42 U.S.C. Section 11003.
Upon request of the local emergency planning committee or emergency response
officials, the stationary source shall promptly provide to the local emergency response
officials information necessary for developing and implementing the community
emergency response plan.
(D) The stationary source whose employees will not respond to accidental releases of
regulated substances need not comply with subsections (a)(l2)(A) through (a)(l2)(C) of
this section provided that they meet the following:
(i) For stationary sources with any regulated toxic substance held in a process above the
threshold quantity, the stationary source is included in the community emergency
response plan developed under Section 11003 of Title 42 of the United States Code
(USC); or
(ii) For stationary sources with only regulated flammable substances held in a process
above the threshold quantity the stationary source has coordinated response actions with
the local fire department; and
(iii) Appropriate mechanisms are in place to notify emergency responders when there is a
need for a response.
(13) Safety Program Ma.nag_emep,t
(A) The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this chapter shall develop a
management system to oversee the implementation of the safety program elements.
(B) The owner or oeerator sliall assign a aM.alified perso,n or l!OSition that has tht
Ovtfft:,all res1.!,<.msihility for the development. implemrmtation. and i:ntegationofthe
sa{!?Jl. program p(ements.
(C) When responsibility for implementing individual requirements of this chapter is
assigned to persons other than the person identified under subsection (a)(13)(B) of this
section, the names or positions of these people shall be documented and the lines of
authority defined through an organi~tion chart or similar document.
(b) Human Factors PNJgram.
(1) StationaFJ? sources sleall develop a ~ritten lu1mf!!!fp.ctors program that [ollows the
luJ-nuu?ff!-ctors guitla11.ctt, docume1?t del!elon,ed or qdgpted bv tlie departm.ent. The
program shall be developed within one year following the issuance of the Contra Costa
County guidance documents, the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section,
or as otherwise allowed by this chapter, whichever is later. The human factors program
shall address:
(A) The inclusion of human factors in the process hazards analysis process;
(B) The consideration of human systems as causal factors in the incident investigation
process for major chemical accidents or releases or for an incident that could reasonably
have resulted in a major chemical accident or release;
(C) The training of employees in the human factors program;
(D) Operating procedures;
(E) Maintenance safe work practice procedures and maintenance procedures for
specialized equipment, piping, and instruments, no later than June 30, 2011; and
(F) The requirement to conduct a management of change prior to staffing changes for
changes in permanent staffing levels/reorganization in operations, maintenance, health
and safety, or emergency response. This requirement shall also apply to stationary
sources using contractors in permanent positions in operations and maintenance. Prior to
conducting the management of change, the stationary source shall ensure that the job
function descriptions are current and accurate for the positions under consideration.
Staffing changes that last longer than ninety days are considered permanent. Temporary
---------------" """"·-·-· ---------------------------
.--..
changes associated with strike preparations shall also be subject to this requirement.
Employees and their representatives shall be consulted in the management of change.
(2) Employees and their representatives shall participate in the development of the
written human factors program.
(3) The program shall include, but not be limited to, issues such as staffing, shiftwork and
overtime.
(4) A description of the human factors program subsections (b)(l) through (b)(3) of this
section shall be included in the safety plan prepared by the stationary source.
( c) Root Cal4Se Analysis arui Incident Investigation.
(1) Stationary sources shall conduct a root cause analysis for each major chemical
accident or release which occurs after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this
chapter. Stationary sources shall periodically update the department on facts related to the
release or incident, and the status of a root cause analysis conducted pursuant to this
section, at meetings scheduled by the department in cooperation with the stationary
source. To the maximum extent feasible, the department and the stationary source shall
coordinate these meetings with other agencies with jurisdiction over the stationary
source. Within thirty days of completing a root cause analysis performed pursuant to this
section, the stationary source shall submit to the department a final report containing that
analysis, including recommendations to be implemented to mitigate against the release or
incident reoccurring, if any, and a schedule for completion of resulting recommendations.
The department may require the stationary oource to submit written, periodic update
reports at a frequency not to exceed every thirty days until the final report is submitted.
The methodology of the root cause analysis shall be one of the methodologies recognized
by the Center for Chemical Process Safety or shall be reviewed by the department to
determine substantial equivalency.
(2) The d1u.1utment may elect to do its own inde11,~ndent toot cause analysis or incident
ieftvestiggtion ,lqr, a maier c~f!J.'fPca{ qpc~if.er1(JJ.Y.f1Zleas,e.. If the department elects to
conduct a root cause analysis or incident investigation the stationary source shall
cooperate with the department by providing the following access and information in a
manner consistent with the safety of department and stationary source personnel and
without placing undue burdens on the operation of the stationary source:
(i) Allow the department to investigate the accident site and directly related facilities such
as control rooms, physical evidence and where practicable the external and internal
inspection of equipment;
(ii) Provide the department with pertinent documentation; and
(iii) Allow the department to conduct independent interviews of stationary source
employees, subject to all rights of the stationary source and employees to be represented
by legal counsel and/or management and union representatives during such interviews. If
in the course of the department's root cause analysis or incident investigation access is
required to areas of the stationary source which in the judgment of the stationary source
----------------·· "··-·-.
-
requires personnel entering the area to use protective equipment and/or have specialized
training the department shall provide its personnel with such equipment and training. To
the maximum extent feasible, the department shall coordinate any root cause analysis or
incident investigation it conducts with investigations conducted by other agencies with
jurisdiction over the stationary source to minimize the adverse impacts on the stationary
source and/or its employees.
(3) No part of the conclusions, :findings or recommendations of the root cause analysis
conducted by the department or stationary source, or incident investigation conducted by
the department, relating to any major chemical accident or release or the investigation
thereof shall be admitted as evidence or used in any action or suit for damages arising out
of any matter mentioned in such report.
( d) Process Hazard Analysis/ Action items.
(1) Process lu1r.ard analvses will be conducted for each ofthe covered processes
accordi11g, to 011e of tlie fJJllowing metlaods: What-If. Cl2ecklist, What-lf!Checklist.
!lar,ard a,nd Opert;;hility Stlf:Ji.l' (HAZQZ). Failurq Mode tua(,Effgcts Ana,(Yftis (.FMEA).
Lau.It tree analysis or an wmropriate equivalent metlwdology_ awroved by tlze
deeartment prior to comlucting the process lun.ard analysis. The process hazard
analysis shall be appropriate to the complexity of the covered process and shall identify,
evaluate, and control the hazards involved in the covered process. The process hazard
analysis shall address: the hazards of the process; the identification of any previous
incident which had a likely potential for catastrophic consequences; engineering and
administrative control applicable to the hazards and their interrelationships such as
appropriate application of detection methodologies to provide early warning of releases
(acceptable detection methods might include process monitoring and control
instrumentation with alanns, and detection hardware such as hydrocarbon sensors);
consequences of failure of engineering and administrative controls; covered process and
stationary source siting; human factors; and a qualitative evaluation ofa range of the
possible safety and health effects of failure of controls. PHAs should also include
consideration of external events except for seismic analyses, which are only required
when criteria listed in subsection ( d)(2) of this section are satisfied. All process hazard
analyses shall be performed by a team with expertise in engineering and process
operations, and the team shall include at least one employee who has experience and
knowledge specific to the process being evaluated. Also, one member of the team must
be knowledgeable in the specific process hazard analysis methodology being used.
(2) The process hazard analyses shall be conducted within one year of the effective date
of the ordinance codified in this chapter and no later than the submittal date of the safety
plan. Previously completed process hazard analyses that comply with the California Code
of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5189, and/or the California Code of Regulations, Title 19,
Section 2760.2 are acceptable for the purposes of this chapter. Process hazard analyses
shall be updated and revalidated at least once every five years after completion of the
initial process hazard analysis. Updated and revalidated process hazard analyses
completed to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5189,
and/or the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Section 2760 are acceptable for
meeting the update and revalidation requirement. Seismic events shall be considered for
processes containing a substance defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 19,
Chapter 4.51, Section 2770.5, if the distance to the nearest public receptor for a worst
case release scenario specified by the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Chapter
4.5, Section 2750.3 is within the distance to a toxic or :flammable endpoint as defined in
California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Chapter 4.5, Section 2750.2(a).
(3) For all covered processes, the stationary source shall consider the use of inherently
safer systems in the development and analysis of mitigation items resulting from a
process hazard analysis and in the design and review of new processes and facilities. The
stationary source shall select and implement inherently safer systems to the greatest
extent feasible. If a stationary source concludes that an inherently safer system is not
feasible, the basis for this conclusion shall be documented in meaningful detail.
( 4) For all covered processes, the stationary source shall document the decision made to
implement or not implement all process hazard analysis recommended action items and
the results of recommendations for additional study. The stationary source shall complete
recommended actions from the initial PHA's and from PHA revalidations, identified by
the process hazard analysis and selected for implementation by the stationary source as
follows: all actions not requiring a process shutdown shall be completed within one year
after submittal of the safety plan; all actions requiring a process shutdown shall be
completed during the first regularly scheduled turnaround of the applicable process
subsequent to one year after submittal of the safety plan unless the stationary source
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the department that such a schedule is infeasible. For
recommended actions not selected for implementation, the stationary source shall include
the justification for not implementing the recommended action. For all covered processes,
the stationary source shall retain documentation of closure, and any associated
justifications, of actions identified by the process hazard analysis. The stationary source
shall communicate the actions to operating, maintenance, and other employees whose
work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations or
actions.
(e) Accident History.
(1) The stationary source shall include an accident history in the safety plan of all major
chemical accidents or releases from June 1, 1992, through the date _of safety plan
submittal to the department. For each major chemical accident or release the stationary
source shall report the following information, to the extent known:
Date, time and approximate duration of the release;
Chemicals released;
Estimated quantity released in pounds;
Type of release event and its source;
Weather conditions at the time of the release;
On-site impacts;
Known off-site impacts;
Initiating event and contributing factors;
Root cause(s);
Whether off-site responders were notified; and
Operational or process changes that resulted from the investigation of the release.
(2) The stationary source shall annually submit a report of the accident history to the
department. The first report shall be due two years after the effective date of the
ordinance codified in this chapter, and subsequent reports shall be due by June 30th of
each year.
(f) f;er.tifJfatio'fb T!J:e own.er or werator shall submit in t!ae s11fetyu_lan a single
certificafioJJ t!aat, to tlte best oftlee sig1utr~s knowledge1 information. and belief(ormetf.
after reaponable inquim tiae inf.ormation submitted is true. accurate. and complete.
(g) Security and Vulnerability Assessment. Each stationary source shall perform and
document a security and vulnerability assessment as defined in the Contra Costa County
CalARP program guidance document, by June 30, 2007, and at least once every five
years after the initial assessment, or as prescribed by federal regulation. The stationary
source shall document its process for assuring that recommendations are addressed.
(h) Safety Culture Assessment. The statio:nafy source shall conduct a safety culture
assessment. The assessment shall be based upon a method listed in the Contra Costa
County CalARP program guidance document or shall be reviewed by the department to
determine substantial equivalency. The initial assessment shall be performed by one year
following the revisions to the Industrial Safety Ordinance guidance document that
addresses the safety culture assessment, and at least once every five years thereafter. The
safety culture assessment will be reviewed during the audit and inspection of the
stationary source. The department may perforin its own safety culture assessment after a
major chemical accident or release or the occurrence of any incident that could
reasonably have led to a major chemical accident or release, or based on department audit
results of the stationary source.
(Ords. 2006-22 § 5, 2000-20 § 1, 98-48 § 2).
450-8JU8-Review, audit and inspection.
(a) Upon submissioJJ oja safetp plan bi the stationary smarr;_e. the department shall
review the sawtv plan to determine if all the elements required by Section 450-IJJJ16 of
f!!is chapter are included and complete. The department shall provide to the stationary
source a written notice of deficiencies, if any. The stationary source shall have sixty
calendar days from receipt of the notice of deficiencies to make any corrections. The
stationary source may request, in writing, a one-time thirty-day calendar day extension to
c<;>rrect deficiencies. By the end of the sixty calendar days or any extension period, the
stationary source shall resubmit the revised safety plan to the department. After the
department determines that the safety plan is complete, the department shall schedule a
public meeting on the stationary source's safety plan to explain its contents to the public
and take public comments. Public comments on the safety plan shall be taken by the
department for a period of forty-five days after the safety plan is made available to the
public. The department shall schedule a public meeting on the stationary source's safety
plan during the forty-five day comment period. The public meetings shall be held in the
affected community on evenings or weekends. The department shall respond in writing to
all written comments received during the forty-five day comment period and to all oral
comments received and not addressed at the public meeting. The department shall make
portions of the safety plan, which are not protected trade secret information, available to
the public for the public meeting.
(b) (1) '[he dep,o.rimf!pi shall2 wi(J:dn one y_ear o£tlu~ submission oftlj.e statjonlY:P.,
so11.rce 1s safetJ? g,,lan, conduct an initial audit and insJl~stiop..f!fthe stationary source's
saletr!!.rogram to determine compliance with this chap_ter. Based upon the department's
review of the safety plan and the audit and inspection of the stationary source, the
department may require modifications or additions to the safety plan submitted by the
stationary source, or safety program to bring the safety plan or safety program into
compliance with the requirements of this chapter. Any determination that modifications
or additions to the safety plan or safety program are required shall be in writing,
collectively referred to as the "preliminary determination." The preliminary determination
shall explain the basis for the modifications or additions required to bring the safety plan
or safety program into compliance with the requirements of this chapter and provide a
timetable for resolution of the recommendations. The preliminary determination shall be
mailed to the stationary source.
(2) The stationary source shall respond in writing to the preliminary determination issued
by the department. The response sit.all state that the stationary so11,rce will incorporate
lf8.to tke sa(ete plan or saf etv program the revisions contained in the preliminary
determinatioa, ?! shall state that the stationary source rejects the revisions; in whole or
in part. For each rejected revision, the stationary source shall explain the basis for
rejecting such revision. Such explanation may include substitute revisions.
(3) The stationary source's written response to the department's preliminary determination
shall be received by the department within ninety days of the issuance of the preliminary
determination or such shorter time as the department specifies in the preliminary
determination as being necessary to protect public health and safety. Prior to the written
response being due and upon written request from the stationary source, the department
may provide, in writing, additional time for the response to be received.
(4) After receiving the written response from the stationary source, the department shall
issue a public notice pursuant to the department's public participation policy and make
portions of the safety plan, the preliminary determination and the stationary source's
responses, which are not protected trade secret information, available for public review.
Public comments on the safety plan shall be taken by the department for a period offorty-
five days after the safety plan, the preliminary determination and the stationary source's
responses are made available to the public. The department shall schedule a public
··---··· «•·--·----~---------------·--------
meeting on the stationary source's safety plan during the forty-five day comment period.
The public meetings shall be held in the affected community on evenings or weekends.
The department shall respond in writing to all written comments received during the
forty-five day comment period and to all oral comments received and not addressed at the
public meeting.
(c) Based upon the department's preliminary determination, review of the stationary
source's responses and review of public comments on the safety plan, the preliminary
determination and the stationary source's responses, the department may require
modifications or additions to the safety plan submitted by the stationary source or safety
program to bring the safety plan or safety program into compliance with the requirements
of this chapter. Any determination that modifications or additions to the safety plan or
safety program are required, and any determination that no modifications or additions to
the safety plan or safety program are required shall be in writing (collectively referred to
as "final deteQilination"), shall be mailed to the stationary source and shall be made
availl:!-ble to the public. The department may not include in a final determination any
requirements to a safety plan or safety program that would cause a violation of, or
conflict with, any state or federal law or regulation or a violation of any permit or order
issued by any state or federal agency.
(d) Within thirty days of the department's final determination, the stationary source
and/or any person may appeal the fmal determination to the board of supervisors pursuant
to Chapter 14-4 of this code by a verified written notice of appeal filed with the clerk of
the board of supervisors and payment of the applicable appeal fee. The appeal must be
limited to issues raised during the public comment period. The notice shall state the
grounds for ~y such appeal, including (i) the reasoning that'the appeal is necessary
because the stationary source is in compliance with this chapter, or (ii) the reasoning that
the appeal is necessary to bring the stationary source into compliance with this chapter. In
acting on the appeal, the board shall have the same authority over the final determination
as the department. The board may require modifications or additions to the safety plan or
safety program to bring the safety plan or safety program into compliance with the
requirements of this chapter. The board may not include in its decision on the final
determination any requirements to a safety plan or safety program that would cause a
violation of, or conflict with, any state or federal law or regulation or a violation of any
permit or order issued by any state or federal agency. The decision· of the board of
supervisors shall be final :with respect to the final determination.
( e) Ih! safety plan sludl be valid for a period o(.tkree yea.rs from the date o(receiet hr
t!ae department and shall be reviewed and updated bv the stationary sou1·ce every three
years pursuant to the requiremen.ts ofthis chapter. Anv revisions to the safety plan as a
res1JU ol!J1c_f!!Jdew and update shall !Je submitted to the department and shall be
subiec(to tlie provisions gf_,this section._
(f) The department may, within thirty days of a major chemical accident or release,
initiate a safety inspection to review and audit the stationary source's compliance with the
provisions of Section 450-8.016 of this chapter. The department shall review and audit
the stationary source's compliance with the provisions of Section 450-8.016 of this
chapter at least once every three years. The department may audit the stationary source
based upon any of the following criteria: accident history of the stationary source,
accident history of other stationary sources in the same industry, quantity of regulated
substances present at the stationary source, location of the stationary source and its
proximity to the public and environmental receptors, the presence of specific regulated
substances, the hazards identified in the safety plan, a plan for providing neutral and
random oversight, or a complaint from the stationary source's employee(s) or their
representative. The stationary source shall allow the department to conduct these
inspections and audits. 1'1ie department, at its option. mgy_Jelect an outside consf:!!tant
to assist in conducting suds insP,ection.
(g) Within thirty days of a major chemical accident or release the department may
commence an incident safety inspection with respect to the process involved in the
incident pursuant to the provisions of Section 450-8.016(c) of this chapter.
(h) (1) Based upo12 tl~e department 1s aiul.it. safetv insp~ction or an incident insnection1
tlae department mav require modifications or additions to the safetv pla;s submitted hv
ilee stationary source or safetv program to bring the safety e,lan or safety program into
comf!.liancfi witk the retmirements ofthis chapter. Any determination by the department
shall be in writing and shall be mailed to the stationary source (referred to as the "notice
of findings"). The stationary source shall have sixty calendar days from receipt of the
notice of findings to make any corrections. The stationary source may request, in writing,
a one-time thirty-day calendar day extension to make corrections. The department may
not include in its notice of findings requirements to a safety plan or safety program that
would cause a violation of, or conflict with, any state or federal law or regulation or a
violation of any permit or order issued by any state or federal agency. The notice of
findings made by the department will be available to the public.
(2) Within thirty days of the department's notice of findings, the stationary source and/or
any person may appeal the notice of findings to the board of supervisors pursuant to
Chapter 14-4 of this code by a verified written notice of appeal filed with the clerk of the
board of supervisors and payment of the applicable appeal fee. The appeal must state the
grounds for any such appeal, including (i) the reasoning that the appeal is necessary
because the stationary source is in compliance with this chapter, or (ii) the reasoning that
the appeal is necessary to bring the stationary source into compliance with this chapter. In
acting on the appeal, the board shall have the same authority over the notice of findings
as the department. Tlie board may require modifications or additions to tlae safety plmi
01· sa{f!tv progrmn to bring tiie safety plan or safety program into compliance witle the
reguireme11:ls o(tlds chapter. The board may not include in its decision on the notice of
findings any requirements to a safety plan or safety program that would cause a violation
of, or conflict with, any state or federal law or regulation or a violation of any permit or
order issued by any state or federal agency. The decision of the board of supervisors shall
be final with respect to the notice of findings.
(i) Nothing in this section shall preclude, limit, or interfere in any way with the authority
of the county to exercise its enforcement, investigatory, and information gathering
authorities under any other provision of law nor shall anything in the chapter effect or
diminish the rights of the stationary source to claim legal privileges such as attorney
···---·····-----------------------
client privilege and/or work product with respect to information and/or documents
required to be submitted to or reviewed by the department.
(Ords. 2006-22 § 6, 98-48 § 2).
450-8.020 -Trade secret.
The disclosure of any trade secret information required by this chapter shall be governed
by California Health and Safety Code Section 25538, as amended from time to time, or as
otherwise protected or required by law.
(Ord. 98-48 § 2).
450-8.022 -Hazardous materials ombudsperson.
Tlte department shall contimie to ewmlov an ombudsperson for luizardous materials
programs. The ombudsperson will serve as a single point of contact for people who live
or work in Contra Costa County regarding environmental health concerns, questions, and
complaints about hazardous materials programs. Tlte ombudsperson: will be empowered
to identifv. and solve problems and make recommeru!.ations to the department. The
ombumrspn ?s role will be one ofinvestigaqng_ cmu:ems and complaints. t.acilitating_
tlieir resolution and assisting peo'l!)e in gathering in{prmation about,J1.rograms.
procedures. or issues. The ombudsnerson :may retain appropriate technical experts in
order to fulfill technical assistance requests from members o(the public. The cost of
gxperts mqv he f..if-nded tkroMJda programs established bx tk1_U.S. EPA or other
trpworn:.iate entities.
(Ords. 2000-20 § 2, 98-48 § 2).
450-8.024 -Public information bank.
The de2artment sle.all collect and provide readv access. including the use of electronic
f!.Ccessibilitv as reasonably available. to public documents whicle are relevant to the
goals oftlais chapter. including at a minimum, business plan inventories and
e:mergeuc.v resn.tmse plans. risk management IJ.lans. sa[e(y, plans. and deeartment
incident reports. This section shall not applv to tradg seer.ft in[,ormation or other
!nformation protected.from disclosure under (#4,.~ral or state law. T/ie public
information !!l&l'lk sJiall be completed by December 31. :woo.
(Ord. 98-48 § 2).
450-8.026 -Fees.
Tlie department mar. upon a :majority vote of the board of supervisors. adopt a
schedule o{fees to be collected from each stationar:v source subject to the requirements
o{tlds chapter. Any review. inspection. audit fee schedule shall be set in an amount
sufficient to pay only those costs reasonably necessary to carry out the requirements of
this chapter. including costs of staff amJ/or consultant time or public hearings and
administrative overlaead. Tlae fee schedule slu1ll incl1ede the cost of the omb1ulsperson
position.
(Ord. 98-48 § 2).
450-8.028 -Penalties.
Regardless o(lhe availability f!.Lotlier civil or administrative remedies and procedures
fer enforcing tlds ch.apter. every act or condition prolaihited or declared 1mlaw(u.l hr.
this cluaeter. and every knowing or wilful failure or omission to act as required lierein,
is a violation ofthis co1le and shall be mmislusble and/or saah!ect to enforcement
fllf/l'SUant to the provisions o(Clu,1eter 14-67 of the County Oulina11ce Code s11ecitica(/r.
including but not limited to Article 14-6.4 (public nuisance). and Ankle 14-8 (criminal
enforcement). as misdemeanors or infractions.
(Ord. 98-48 § 2).
450-8~030 -Annual performance review and evaluation.
(a) The department shall annually: (1) review its activities to implement this chapter, and
(2) evaluate the effectiveness of this chapter in achieving its purpose and goals pursuant
to Section 450-8.004 of this chapter.
(b) An annual performance review and evaluation report shall be prepared by the
department based upon the previous fiscal year's activities and shall be submitted to the
board of supervisors on or before October 31, 2000 and each year thereafter. The report
shall contain:
(1) A brief description of how the department is meeting the requirements of this chapter
as follows: (i) effectiveness of the department's program to ensure stationary source
compliance with this chapter; (ii) effectiveness of the procedures for records
management; (iii) number and type of audits and inspections conducted by the
department pursuant to this chapter; (iv) numbe.r of root cause analyses and/or incident
investigations conducted by the department; (v) the department's process for public
participation; (vi) effectiveness of the public information bank, including status of
electronic accessibility; (vii) effectiveness of the hazardous materials ombudsperson;
(viii) other required program elements necessary to implement and manage this chapter.
(2) A listing of all stationary sources covered by this chapter, including for each: (i) the
status of the stationary source's safety plan and program; (ii) a summary of all stationary
source safety plan updates and a listing of where the safety plans are publicly available;
(iii) the annual accident history report submitted by the stationary source pursuant to
Section 450-8.016(e)(2) of this chapter; (iv) a summary, including the status, of any root
cause analyses conducted or being conducted by the stationary source and required by
this chapter, including the status of implementation of recommendations; (v) a summary,
including the status, of any audits, inspections, root cause analyses and/or incident
investigations conducted or being conducted by the department pursuant to this chapter,
including the status of implementation of recommendations; (vi) description of inherently
safer systems implemented by the stationary source; and (vii) legal enforcement actions
Carolynn Petru
From:
Sent:
Mayor Susan Brooks <subrooks08@gmail.com>
Tuesday, July 02, 2013 5:50 PM
To: Carolynn Petru
Subject: Fwd: San Ramon project
----------Forwarded message ----------
From: Mayor Susan Brooks <subrooks08@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: San Ramon project
To: diane torrentera <dmtorrentera@msn.com>
Diane .
... because he and liis crew have to traverse the same road as we do all the time. Just know he's good at what he
does. My next door neighbors use him as does our former HOA president. No connection to this issue,
whatsoever. We are a small family-friendly community, are we not? I'm sorry if you inferred otherwise.
Susan Brooks
Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 541-2971
~
(Sent from my iPad)
On Jun 27, 2013, at 5:02 PM, diane torrentera <dmtorrentera@msn.com> wrote:
Why or what was the reason to bring up my husbands business? It has nothing to do with a
personal opinion. Sincerely, Diane Torrentera
Sent from my iPhone
Susan Brooks, Mayor
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
310 541-2971 home
r.;J ="-=,,__, _____ _
D
1
Carolynn Petru
From:
Sent:
ro:
Mayor Susan Brooks <subrooks08@gmail.com>
Tuesday, July 02, 2013 5:49 PM
Carolynn Petru
Subject: Fwd: San Ramon project
thisthis should have
----------Forwarded message ----------
From: diane torrentera <dmtorrentera@msn.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 5:02 PM
Subject: San Ramon project
To: "subrooks08@gmail.com" <subrooks08@gmail.com>
Why or what was the reason to bring up my husbands business? It has nothing to do with a personal
opinion. SincereJy, Diane Torrentera
Sent from my iPhone
Susan Brooks, Mayor
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
~ 310) 541-2971 home
r.:;) = .. =---_,-------~
1
CrrvoF
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JULY 2, 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.
2
Respectfully submitted,
c~Jc, ..po.-Carla Morreale
Description of Material
Emails from: City Manager Lehr; Murray and Valerie Blitz;
Mickey Rodich; Sharon Yarber; Dianne and Jim Hassen
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, July 1, 2013**.
W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas\20130702 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From: Carolyn Lehr
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, July 02, 2013 4:27 PM
cc
Cc:
Subject:
Les Jones; Ron Dragoo; Alan Braatvedt; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>
Corrected: Attendance Tonight San Ramon Mtg.
Attachments: FW: Staff Report regarding San Ramon
Corrected copy, with attachment.
Thanks,
Carolyn
From: Carolyn Lehr
Sent: Tuesday, July'02, 2013 4:18 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Cc: Les Jones; Alan Braatvedt; 'Ron Dragoo'; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carla Morreale
Subject: Attendance Tonight San Ramon Mtg.
Madam Mayor and Council Members,
As follow up to a request made by Brian Campbell to invite the late bidder and/or his attorney, as well
as the other firms involved in the San Ramon project to the Council meeting tonight where we will
discuss Sharon Yarber's memorandum,
Staff has received the following responses:
Permalok-Will not attend. See his response attached.
LH Woods -Mike Ireland will attend.
Kennedy Jenks -Dave Ferguson will attend.
Northwest Pipe -Michael De Mascio will attend.
Harris & Assoc. -Ehab Gergis will attend.
Mike Bubalo Construction -Will not attend.
Thank You,
Carolyn
1
From: AndyWinje
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 2:03 PM
To: Alan Braatvedt; Ron Dragoo; Carolyn Lehr; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Les
Jones
Subject: FW: Staff Report regarding San Ramon
See below
Andy Winje
RPV Public Works
310-544-5249
From: David Mittler [mailto:dmittler@permalok.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July.02, 2013 11:43 AM
To: Andy Winje
Subject: RE: Staff Report regarding San Ramon
We don't have anyone available to attend
From: Andy Winje [mailto:AndyW@rpv.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 1:34 PM
To: David Mittler
Subject: RE: Staff Report regarding San Ramon
Should we expect someone?
Andy Winje
RPV Public Works
310-544-5249
From: David Mittler [mailto:dmittler@permalok.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:29 AM
To: Andy Winje
Subject: RE: Staff Report regarding San Ramon
Andy-
Received and noted-
Dave
From: Andy Winje [mailto:AndyW@rpv.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12: 18 PM
To: David Mittler
Cc: Alan Braatvedt
Subject: FW: Staff Report regarding San Ramon
Dave, I was asked to follow up to be sure you received the email below. Thanks.
Best Regards,
1
Andy Winje PE, QSD
Associate Engineer
City of
Rancho Palos Verdes
Dept. of Public Works
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Ofc: (310) 544-5249
Fax: (310) 544-5292
From: Alan Braatvedt
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 3:08 PM
To: David Mittler (dmittler@permalok.com)
Cc: Andy Winje
Subject: FW: Staff Report regarding San Ramon
Dave
The City Council will be discussing the San Ramon Project at the Council meeting on Tuesday 7 /2/2013. You are welcome
to attend and if you have any questions please contact me or Andy Winje. (I'll be out of the office on Monday)
For context, the link to the staff report for the meeting is attached for your information.
http:Uwww.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2013 Agendas/MeetingDate-2013-07-
02/RPVCCA CC SR 2013 07 02 02 San Ramon Project Response To Yarber.pdf
Alan Braatvedt
City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Public Works Department
www.palosverdes.com/t:pv/
Tel (310) 544-5272
Fax (310) 544-5292
alanb@t:pv.com
2
From:
Sent:
Murray Blitz & Associates <murrayblitzassoc@cox.net>
Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:30 AM
To: cc
Subject: San Ramon Canyon -Independent Investigation Request
Hello RPV City Councilmembers,
There appears to be mishandling regarding the bidding on the San Ramon Project where compliance with the
California Public Contract Code is in question, resulting in negative consequences to our City, including, but
not limited to an apparent huge loss of over $315,000. There are other questions as well, including but not
limited to a rejection of a lower bid.
In view of these grave concerns, and considering the City ofRPV's past failures, I request that an independent
investigation be cohducted to get to the bottom of these issues. An internal investigation will not suffice, nor
will the special Council meeting you have planned where residents are not allowed to ask questions.
Thank you.
Murray Blitz
Valerie Blitz
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.
Thank you.
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:25 AM
cc
Fwd: Your doc
Docu mentl.docx
My initial email was not formatted as I liked. Would you please include it with the late correspondence for
tonight's meeting. Thank you
0
PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR, DECEPTION AND LIES:
My comments are aimed to show a pattern of bad behavior, deception and lies by the Staff of
RPV that I first recognized at the inception of the San Ramon Canyon Project (SRC) and it has
continued ever since. The RPV Staff has used all of these methods to further it's own goal. The
Staffs goal is to have total control of the City of RPV and allow the City Council (CC) to be a
figurehead. The CC gets limited or no information on many important aspects of RPV business.
The Staff is running RPV and the CC is just a bystander approving Staff recommendations
without adequate prior notification before CC meetings. The CC should be the ones that run the
City. I don't know how, you, the CC can sit here and allow the Staff to run our City. We elected,
you, the CC to run our City and not the Staff. The Staff was hired and should serve you and our
residents. Another shortcoming is the behavior of the City Attorney (CA). She is the person that
is to be an independent voice and advise the CC and Staff as to their obligations for the day to
day operations of our City. The CC is involved in drawing up Contracts that protect the CC and
Staff and should not cede control of decision making to the Staff which allows them to bypass
the CC. Another tool used by
Pattern Of Behavior:
I have followed the SRC project from it's inception and attended numerous meetings with Staff
and CC members, both public and private and the pattern of behavior was in place on SRC from
Day One and continues to this day. It is for this reason that I continue my fight for honesty,
transparency and accountability from our CC and Staff. Prior to our last CC elections, I attended
forums where the candidates spoke to the public and every candidate stated that fixing SRC was
the Number 1 priority in our City. They all got that part right. But after the election, the new CC
was kept out of the loop of information.
1) In the 5/12110 public meeting I attended on SRC at Miraleste School it quickly became
apparent that the Staff had already made up their mind to use Alternative# IA tunnel
alignment instead of less expensive Alternative # 2A canyon alignment. The audience
asked many questions and all of the Staffs answers were already slanted in favor of the
tunnel.
2) In the 7 /2/10 public meeting I attended it was more of the same. It was obvious they
already had their minds made up. Many well thought out suggestions were made and
nothing was accepted and included in their final report.
3) Another tool used by the Staff is to not take minutes of private meetings held, because
they are not on record and they can say anything they wish, true or not true
4) The Staff intentionally gives the CC the agenda items and reports on the Thursday before
the CC meetings. That does not give them adequate time to thoroughly review the packet
and form logical opinions, or make an in depth review, or do some probing or contact
anyone. It would make more sense to give them the packet a week earlier and the update
the CC on that Thursday before the meeting. This is intentional, because the Staff does
not want them to question their recommendations, by not giving them adequate time to
review and the CC follows virtually all of Staffs recommendations.
Deception;
The Staff uses deception to further their goals. This happens all the time. The Staff does
whatever it wants to do and does not inform the CC on major issues.
1) On 1/17/12 I attended a private meeting on SRC attended by Staff (Ray Holland, Tom
Odom, Ron Dragoo, Alan Bratveldt plus another City engineer) with Gene Dewey,
Mickey Rodi ch and Barry Hildebrand. Their deception is that the Staff never published
any minutes of that meeting. They did this intentionally so there is no record of what they
said or we said. They were able to making false statements and get away with it. I called
them a few days afterward, for the minutes, and they said they did not take any.
2) On 8/23112 I attended another private meeting on SRC attended by Staff (Andy Winje,
Ron Dragoo and Carolyn Lehr), City Council (Susan Brooks, Jim Knight), residents
(Mickey Rodich, Gene Dewey, Barry Hildebrand, Herb Stark, Ed Stevens and Ken
Dyda). Again the deception, Staff does not make notes, so there is no record of the
meeting. However I kept notes and a few days later, when Staff said they had no notes, I
emailed a copy to Andy Winje on 8/23/12 and never got a reply.
3) The handling of the Bubalo bid is of big concern. All bids were submitted within the last
5 minutes. The person that handled the Bubalo bid was not the 30 year employee, but an
assistant. She supposedly left the desk for a minute to go discuss something and when she
returned and stamped the time on a sheet of paper it was a minute late. The CC has the
authority to make the decision on accepting a bid that is one minute late, however the
Staff made that decision and the CC was never informed.
4) The Staff said that Harris is not a pipe specialist. Why did they use them for both sewer
projects when they knew they are not pipe specialists? Who actually made the pipe
selection?
5) In the 5/21/13 Staff report, they state that the Permalok pipe used in McCarrell Canyon
arrived with extensive damage and they had to do extensive amounts of repairs to the
pipe lining due to transportation problem and also due to 6" boulders in the pipe
damaging the lining. And all of this is happening during very little rain in the last 3 or 4
years. This was their justification for Change Order #1. However they knew about these
problems for over 2 years and never once mentioned anything to the CC until the Staff
report of 6/18/13 Staff report. Why?
The Staff has committed numerous lies to defend their position. They make unfounded and
inaccurate statements all the time and until SRC no one has questioned them on it.
1) In the 11/12/10 and 1/11/11 cost analyses they added unnecessary Bid Items (i.e. upgrade
the LA City pipe under the Mobile Home Park) even though they never saw the pipe or
knew its condition. the Staff based their construction costs on lies. They made both
alternatives come close to the same cost by falsely adding items (i.e.: upgrade the LA
City line under the mobile home park) so the final estimates matched.
2) In the 1/17/12 meeting, Ron Dragoo stated that he was aware of calculations that show
that the LA City storm sewer could handle a 100 year storm, but LA City was
uncooperative with RPV and never gave RPV any information. During the meeting, Staff
had a 12" high stack of papers on the table and we noticed that on top the had LA City
drawings, diagrams, and photos of their sewer. He had the information all along. That
was a lie.
3) In the 8/23/13 meeting, Andy Winje admitted that Staff had taken videos of the LA City
sewer and that he found the sewer to be inadequate. Later Ron Dragoo admitted that the
LA City sewer was in operable condition and could handle the 100 year storm.
4) In the 6/18/13 meeting Carolyn Lehr glowingly stated that Staff has received many
valuable suggestions from residents at the many SRC meetings they held and
incorporated them into their final report. I would like her to list all of the suggestions that
she recorded and show which ones were included in the final report?
5) I sent an email to cc@rpv on 6/5/13 that somehow got spammed or lost. Staff blames it
on their Barracuda Spam Program. The IT specialist on the Staff can set parameters for
the program. Obviously a Subject line stating "San Ramon Canyon" should not be
spammed out. When I disagreed, they then said that 100 to 300 emails are set aside each
day for human review and someone did not do their job. My previous emails got through,
so why did this one fail. I think we have another lie.
6) In the 5/21/13 Staff report, they state that the Permalok pipe used in Mccarrell Canyon
came damaged and they had to do extensive amounts of repairs to the pipe lining due to
transportation and also due to debris in the pipe damaging the lining. This was their
justification for Change Order #1. However they knew about these problems for over 2
years and never once mentioned anything to the CC until the Staff report of 6/18/13 Staff
report. Why? Because it is their pattern of behavior. They lied.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Madam Mayor:
Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Monday, July 01, 2013 6:00 PM
cc
Fwd: Mayor's Reply To Resident Emails on San Ramon
I have received copies of emails that you sent, in response to emails that residents of RPV sent to our City
Council, requesting an independent investigation into the San Ramon Canyon Project. I don't understand your
reasoning. These residents have a 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech. They are expressing that Right
when suggesting that our City Council start an independent investigation into the San Ramon Canyon Project.
They know what is going oh. They should not be belittled by our City Council or the Staff.
For your information, I want you to know that Ladera Linda is a close knit group of residents with an active
HOA that keeps all residents informed of what is happening in our City as well as in our neighborhood. Your
deliberate actions of denigrating residents, who are dissatisfied with RPV City Hall cronyism and threaten
citizens because of their beliefs is unacceptable and !think you must make a public apology for your misguided
actions.
You received an email from Bill Foster, a resident of Ladera Linda, and took it upon yourself to make
misleading, demeaning and unfounded statements with regard to his knowledge of the San Ramon Canyon
Project. You also stated, incorrectly, that his email was a "online version of a petition" and that you wanted to
"attach all those who signed as concerned residents/citizens together". Nothing is farther from the truth. This is
an outpouring of support, for an important cause, from residents and voters of RPV who feel disenfranchised. I
suggest that you have your factual information correct before you make any disparaging remarks about Bill
Foster's knowledge, or anyone else in Ladera Linda, of the San Ramon Canyon Project and what facts are in his
possession.
You received another email from Dian(;) Torrentera, who is also a resident of Ladera Linda and again took it
upon yourself to demean her. Mrs Torrentara is also well informed on the San Ramon Canyon Project. Your
sentence "I believe it's your husband's landscaping company that does a lot of business in my neighborhood" is
inappropriate. This sentence has nothing to do with San Ramon Canyon and she takes it as a veiled threat to
their business.
At the previous City Council meeting, during a break period I was in a conversation with you and you were
very upset with the word "Transparency". You were asking what is the real definition of the word? How should
it be used? You said you did not like to use the word. But I see that you changed your mind, because in the
letter to Mrs. Torrentera you state that" We stand for truth and Transparency" .
I think that the biggest problems that our City Staff has is truth and Transparency. It's time that you and the
Staff practice what you preach. I feel that we should be able to ask the Staff questions and expect honest
answers just as you do. You owe an apology to both Mr. Foster and Mrs. Torrentara for not knowing the facts
before you criticized them ..
Mickey Rodich
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
sharon yarber <momofyago@gmail.com>
Monday, July 01, 2013 8:12 PM
cc
Carla Morreale; Carolyn Lehr; Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>
Fwd:
Carla -please include this email in late correspondence for tomorrow evening's meeting
Dear Council,
I am writing to object to the manner in which the June 18th and Jul~ 2nd staff reports incorrectly and
inappropriately "frame the issues" that my Memorandum of June 4t posed, and to the character
assassination of me that is occurring in the community by Ms. Lehr and Ms. Brooks.
The staff report states one of my issues is "The City's refusal to accept a bid that was late". I have
never suggested that a late bid should be accepted. Indeed, at the June 18th meeting I stated
unequivocally during my speaking time that I completely agree that if a bid is late it is to be rejected.
That is the law, and as a lawyer I firmly believe in upholding the law. The issue is whether or not the
bid WAS late based on a clock at City Hall that was fast, was never tested for accuracy, never synced
to a reliable source of irrefutably accurate time (NIST), when there was reliable evidence that the
clock was, indeed, inaccurate. The cell phone of the Bubalo representative showed 10:58 (at least
that is what he stated in his declaration under penalty of perjury)·, and there is no evidence in the
record thus far that indicates whether anyone on staff checked their cell phones to verify or dispute
that contention or checked the clock for accuracy.
The City's clock should have immediately been tested for accuracy. I checked the City's stamp clock
myself on June 17th against my cell phone and the stamp clock was at least one minute fast (it does
not show seconds). It has since been adjusted.
Please read the Federal case that the June 18th staff report cited. It completely supports my position
that if the City's clock is wrong, the Bubalo bid should have been accepted. In the cited case, the
Navy's clock was tested three times on the morning the bids were due, it proved to be fast, and
therefore the rebuttable presumption of its reliability was overcome and the bidder who was initially
deemed "late" was not, in fact, late and was awarded the contract.
I also draw your attention to the fact that the Notice setting forth the time for delivery of the bids says
"11 :00 A.M.", not 11 :00 A.M. according to the City's clock regardless of how accurate it may or may
not be. The law unequivocally states that bids received after the time set forth in the Notice must
be rejected, not the Notice -as amended by oral statements that may or may not have been made by
staff. I must again point out that the June 18th and July 2nd staff reports unequivocally and falsely
state that California cases establish that the agency can abide by its customary procedures (using its
own clock) to determine when 11 :00 was; however, no California cases were cited to support that
statement because there are none. The Council should ask Ms. Lynch to cite the cases to which
reference was made in the staff report, and explain why such a false statement was included in the
staff reports.
The next inaccurately framed issue was "Staffs refusal to entertain an offer from the original pipe
manufacturer to receive monies directly from the original pipe manufacturer at the end of the project".
Please re-read my memorandum of June 4th wherein I stated in the third paragraph on page 2
"While in my view it was appropriate to reject such offer , I would like to learn from Council or the
City Attorney who ... made the determination .... I would also like to know whether the making of the
offer "colored" or in any way influenced the Council's decision to switch from the Permatok product
(which question still remains unanswered).
Mayor Brooks' email of June 27th to Mrs. Torrentera wrongly states "This stems from one person's
accusation about the bid process". Mayor Brooks, to which "one person" are you referring? Mayor Pro
Tern Duhovic, Councilman Campbell, former Mayor Ken Dyda, Mickey Rodich, Ken Delong, Barry
Hildebrand, Lowell Wedemeyer, all of the residents who have thus far sent in emails to the Council
requesting an independent investigation into this matter or me? Ms. Brooks, there are many more
people than "one" who are just as concerned about the bid process, indeed the entire matter, as I am.
Clearly this comment was designed to imply that I am the tone person who has concerns so as to
besmirch me. Further, the Mayor's email mentions irrelevantly that Mrs. Torrentera's husband is a
landscaper frequently working in Ms. Brooks' neighborhood. Was that intended as a veiled threat to
Mr. Torrentera's business? It sure appears so.
Ms. Leh r's email to the Council about "History and Reassurrance" is a classic example of "If you can't
attack the message, attack the messenger", and is an unabashed attack on me personally. She
states that the City has had "dozens of issues over the last 5 years" with me. That is interesting. I had
never written to the Council, appeared at a Council meeting or even been involved in any way with
City matters until June 2010. Since that time I have been involved in just a few items: (a) questioning
the City's decision to switch to once a week trash pick-up, (b) how Lower Hesse Park and Grandview
Park should be developed, (c) the Annenberg project, (d) Measure C to convert the City to a charter
city., and (e) this San Ramon issue. Her self-serving email written during the Charter City matter
falsely accused me of aggressively approaching members of her staff. You were provided with my
response. Needless to say, the requested sworn statements were never provided. Her email was
designed to intimidate me during the Measure C campaign, but her efforts failed.
Ms. Lehr goes on to state that she "can't think of an instance that catted for a course correction by the
City". Well, I can think of at least one. I pointed out to the Council that the drafting of the ordinance
regarding the process for placing properties into, or removing them from, the building Moratorium was
incorrectly and poorly drafted by Ms. Lynch. Ms. Lynch agreed and the ordinance was re-written.
Ms. Lehr has tremendous resentment of me because of the successful efforts I made as Chair of the
"No on C" political action committee in helping to resoundingly defeat Measure C by a landslide.
Such conduct by the Mayor and City Manager are clearly designed to silence me and other members
of the public from coming forth to address City issues. Such efforts to squelch public involvement and
infringe on the public's freedom of speech are intolerable and inexcusable. At a minimum, apologies
are in order.
Sharon Yarber
0
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council Members.
Dianne Hassen <dihassen@cox.net>
Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:46 PM
cc
San Ramon Contract Process
There are many questions and concerns, such as the possible misfeasance and possible malfeasance as to The San
Ramon Canon Contract process. Therefore, we are in support of an independent investigation into this matter.
Thank you.
Dianne and Jim Hassen -Rancho Palos Verdes residents residents
1
~-
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
JULY 1, 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, July 2, 2013 City Council meeting:
Item No.
CLOSED SESSION
2
Respectfully submitted,
-f>r Carla Morreale
Description of Material
Email from Tania and Yohan Haddad
Email exchanges between: Mayor Brooks and Bill and
Sandy Patton; Mayor Brooks and George Fink; Emails
from: Cathy McKee; Jack Downhill; Mickey Rodich;
Cheri Tanimura-lkeda; Don Richardson; Don Ershig;
Teresa Randall; Robert K. Marohn; Mayor Brooks
W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas\20130702 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Importance:
Dear Ms. Morreale,
Tania Haddad <taniaatwork@aol.com>
Saturday, June 29, 2013 8:41 PM
CityClerk
request for council addressing
High
I would like to request to be scheduled to address the council on Tuesday July 2nd. Myself and my husband will need to
speak. It is in regards to the encroachment situation to our property.
Thank you,
Tania and Yohan Haddad
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Susan,
Bill Patton <bpatton@gores.com>
Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:36 AM
Susan Brooks <Subrooks08@gmail.com>
CC; Ken Delong PVP Watch
RE: San Ramon Canyon Project
Certainly agree and appreciate your response.
What facts do you feel have been distorted!
Perhaps the requested "Independent Investigation" would codify and clarify such areas very quickly and
stop the many such concerns?
Thanks, Bill & Sandy
From: Mayor Susan Brooks [mailto:subrooks08@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 3:54 PM
To: Bill Patton
Cc: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Re: San Ramon Canyon Project
Dear Bill and Sandy,
Thank you for your email. The Council will deliberate this issue and render a full and transparent decision,
either way. I shall keep you and all others apprised of the outcome. Everyone has a right to their own opinion,
but not a right to distort the facts.
Best,
Susan
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11 :39 AM, Bill Patton <bpatton@gores.com> wrote:
To Whom It May Concern -Hopefully that is all of our Elected Officials!
It seems to us that the contract and process for San Ramon Canyon Project is not being handled
properly. We have attended City Council meetings and have discussed the project with other
interested residents. We submit many are very concerned.
There are numerous problems and perhaps there are others that are unknown. Just as examples-----
1) It seems that the Director of Public Works is approving Change Orders without discussion
with or even the knowledge of the City Council.
O<.
2) We remember the commitment of Susan Brooks and other council members during their
campaigns to "Transparency"! Let's make that happen!
3) It appears City Manager Carolyn Lehr and Public Works Director Les Jones are opposed to
an independent investigation. But there should be one!
4) The PVP Watch Newsletter "pvpwatch.com" has articles that quite cogently and
convincingly pose valid and important questions with regard to the San Ramon Canyon Project.
All of the above deserve attention, discussion, and answers in the July 02 Council meeting.
Last, we would like to add our names to a formal request for an Independent Investigation of all
aspects of the project and it's handling by the city staff ASAP.
Bill & Sandy Patton
Residents of Rancho Palos Verdes
'Wilftam CB. <Patton
Cliainnan e:{, (!EO
'11i.e Pour Star qroup
71 :Marguerite <Dc.R.,
c.Rg,ncli.o <Pafos 'V'eraes, C;f. 90275
{310) 480 5130
wil liam.patton@thefourstargroup.com
www.tnefourstargroup.com
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Susan <subrooks08@gmail.com>
Sunday, June 30, 2013 10:03 AM
George Fink
CC; Mickey Rodich; <bjhilde@aol.com>; JIM BULLARD; <bfos@cox.net>; R. Gene
Dewey; William Schurmer
Subject: Re: SAN RAMON CANYON SLIDE REMEDIATION
Dear Mr. Fink.
Thank you for you letter noting specific concerns. This will be addressed at Tuesday's meeting.
As Mayor, I plan to respond to all of the emails regarding the San Ramon topic with the results of Tuesday's
meeting.
Best regards,
Susan Brooks
Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 29, 2013, at 9:51 PM, George Fink <gfinkl l@cox.net> wrote:
Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,
Because of seeing, to me, contracting flaws, I strongly recommend a thorough review of the criteria
employed to evaluate the engineering design of the remediation project, as well as the merits of the
details of the request for proposal from prospective contractors, and the written criteria employed to
evaluate proposals.
I strongly urge, and request, that the review of all of the above be presented to the public by the City
Council at the forthcoming City Council meeting, not of just the Value Engineering proposal to replace
specified pipe with a lower cost pipe, a City accepted proposal that redounded handsomely to the
contractor, and to the City, almost immediately upon issuing of the contract. This occurrence alone, begs
the questions: Given that the existence and merits of the alternate pipe was information widely available
to all professionals engaged in the engineering and contracting for work of the San Ramon Canyon slide
remediation type; who made the decision to specify the substantially more expensive pipe for the project,
and; who approved the decision on what technical basis? Had the alternate pipe been specified, or
included as a bid option, all, not half, of the benefit of the value engineering proposal could have
redounded to the City.
1
George Fink
32353 Searaven Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
90275
d.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
cathy mckee <humbird1935@att.net>
Saturday, June 29, 2013 6:29 PM
cc
SAN RAMON
I AM INF A VOR OF AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE SAN RAMON PROJECT
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Susan <subrooks08@gmail.com>
Saturday, June 29, 2013 3:33 PM
cc
Subject:
Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Carolyn Lehr; Carla Morreale
San Ramon Fwd. message
Folks,
Jack Downhill sent this. He asked me to forward it to you. Carla, please enter this into the record as late
correspondence.
Thanks, Susan
Susan Brooks
Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
Resent-From: <susan. brooks@rpv.com>
From: JACK DOWNHILL <pdownjac@hotmail.com>
Date: June 29, 2013, 12:14:39 PM PDT
To: "susan.brooks@rpv.com" <susan.brooks@rpv.com>
Hi Susan, Thanks for the RDA message. New Subject: Next Council Meeting re.The San
Ramon Project:
I think it is ridiculous that the Council spend more than a few minutes responding to
the questions
raised by Ms. Yarbor: My comments item by item are as follows:
!. The late arriving proposal: Consider it ended. The contractor was late under
ridiculous
circumstances. Let them sue the City. The content of the proposal is of zero
importance ,low bid
or not. If bid arrival time is of concern for the future, specify UPS or FedEx
delivery. They log all
deliveries into their system. I expect their time device to be unchallengeable.
The content of their proposal should not be considered lower bid or not.
2. It is understood that the Study which preceded the project had defined the Goal
and conditions to be imposed. It considered all aspects of such a Storm Drain Installation such
as site preparation, materials to be used, their fabrication and installation. If it did not , the
Consultant as well as City staff were remiss. The use of the word "equal" does not mean any or
all products out there that are being used for the purpose. If that was not clear the staff should
have been in the loop. To have that topic in front of the City Council was and is still totally
inappropriate. The discussion of materials, their coatings, their Installation and connection
Q) ~
devices belongs in Public Works .
3. The sharing of project cost savings seems totally legit. Should be spelled out in the
contract.
4. The condition of the pipe used in the Mc Carrol Canyon Installation was cited as
of interest/ importance in the choice of piping for San Ramon. "Erosion /damage caused by 9
inch boulders". My question is: Was this info. available to the San Ramon Study contractor?. If
not Why not? It also suggests to me that Mc Carrol Canyon may need up steam improvement ie.
Catch Basin rework/redesign/added on.?
Any Questions? Jack.
From: Mickey Rodich
Sent: 6/29/2013 1:21 PM
To: CC
Subject: San Ramon Canyon Meeting -July 2,2013
I have heard of an email that says the City Manager and the City Attorney wish to limit the City
Council meeting on July 2nd only to "discuss and look into the rationale and process pertaining to the
bid specifications and the choice of the pipe". The Staff must have a poor memory. I sat at the City
Council meeting on June 18 th and heard our City Manager make an impassioned plea and offered to
answer any and all questions on the San Ramon Canyon Project that night because she and the whole
staff were there and ready to answer any and all questions. It was already well after 11 :00 PM and the
City Council agreed to a suggestion to have another City Council meeting on July 2 nd. Furthermore,
since the July 2 nd meeting is exclusively for the San Ramon Canyon Project, I feel that this should be
pointed out by emails to all residents, that this meeting is to discuss all issues involving the San Ramon
Canyon Project.
I strongly feel, that to have a true discussion of the San Ramon Canyon Project, and to show real
transparen~y, as our Mayor and Staff portend to do, the City Council should not only allow for
themselves to have a question and answer session with the Staff, but should allow for the audience to do
likewise. It is unfair to limit speakers from the audience to 3 minutes and then not allow them to have
their questions answered by our Staff. There should be plenty of time to do both.
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
From: Cheri Tanimura
Sent: Jun 28, 2013 2:22 PM
To: citymanager@rpv.com
Subject: San Ramon
Cheri Tanimura <ctanimura@earthlink.net>
Friday, June 28, 2013 3:09 PM
cc
Fw: San Ramon
To the City Manager and Staff of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
I have been following the discussions regarding the San Ramon bid process and would like to let you know that I feel you
handled the bid process and resulting discussions very well. This is not to say that after this "post mortem" some of the
procedures may be· tweaked; however, I feel you did minimize the liability for the city by following the prescribed
procedures during and after the bid process. By way of example, returning the late bid unopened and also by desisting
further communications regarding the pipe "rebate". The Public Works presentation was especially informative for those of
us not familiar with the regulations regarding Public Works projects.
While I respect the rights of residents to speak at the meetings, it is unfortunate that those who are the most vocal are
often quite negative or accusatory in tone. So, I wanted to take the opportunity to give a voice to the often too silent
residents who support and appreciate the work you do for our city.
Thank you,
Cheri Tanimura-lkeda
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
M and D Richardson < MEDON@COX.NET>
Friday, June 28, 2013 1:28 PM
cc
CityManager
San Ramon I Yarber
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing in support of Staff Recommendation for Regular Business Item 2 on the July 2 City Council Agenda. Having
watched the June 18 discussion of this issue, I understand the Council's decision to continue this matter to July 2, but
see no reason why you should not be able to resolve it at that meeting. The Staff Report for this item thoroughly
addresses and convincingly refutes all claims and insinuations of staff incompetence or misconduct. In addition, it
provides ample context to understand and evaluate the actions taken by staff in its management of this project.
In reviewing the Staff Report, I noted several emails -most of the "copy/paste" variety -supporting Ms. Yarber's request
for the appointment of an independent investigator. I would argue that not only is the City Council fully capable of
performing this role, it is your responsibility to do so. The facts are already documented, you will have plenty of time on
Tuesday to clarify any questions and resolve any misunderstandings that may yet exist, and a prompt resolution will
avoid significant additional unwarranted expenditure of city resources.
It is entirely possible that your review of this matter will lead to the discovery of one or more process improvement
opportunities and perhaps even the need for new or revised policies. Regardless, I urge you to put the "scandal"
mentality to rest. While thorough oversight by the Council is necessary and welcome, I for one am growing tired of the
frequent unjustified hounding of a City Staff that continues to serve the city ethically, effectively and efficiently.
Sincerely,
Don Richardson
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Irene Ing <irenei@cox.net>
Friday, June 28, 2013 11:18 AM
cc
San Ramon Canyon Project
I am in favor of an independent investigation of the City Staff's handling of the San Ramon Canyon
Project.
Don Ershig
Resident of Rancho Palos Verdes
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teresa Randall <GTRand@cox.net>
Friday, June 28, 2013 8:53 AM
cc
San Ramon Canyon Projject
I am in favor of an independent investigation of the City Staff handling of the San Ramon Canyon Project.
Teresa Randall
RPV resident
Sent from my personal secretary
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gentlepersons
Bob Marohn < rkmarohn@cox.net>
Friday, June 28, 2013 8:37 AM
cc
San Ramon Canyon Project
Having served on the first planning body of our City after it was formed in 1973 and as a member of the first General
Plan Goals Steering Committee, I have some appreciation for the complexities of the internal process of the city for large
projects such as the San Ramon Canyon undertaking. One of the principals our city embraced at the outset of
incorporation was transparency. There is a growing perception that transparency is not being practiced in the execution
of the San Ramon Canyon repair, arguably the largest such undertaking since the founding of Rancho Palos Verdes, To
put this perception behind us and reestablish full credibility with your constituents, I strongly urge you to commission an
independent look a.t how decisions have and are being made on this project leading to an open report that will either
correct the perception or put it to rest as unfounded.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Robert K. Marohn
3567 Heroic Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Office: (310) 265-4963
FAX: (310) 265-4973
CELL: (310) 251-4963
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Mickey,
Mayor Susan Brooks <subrooks08@gmail.com>
Monday, July 01, 2013 3:45 PM
Mickey Radich
cc
San Ramon Project Council Meeting
In answer to your questions about the proceedings for Tuesday's meeting, and in light of the flurry of
correspondence circulating, it's best to inform you that this meeting will take place much like the continuance
of any Regular Business Item. However, with concurrence of Council, I plan to offer each participant enough
time to have all questions asked and answered. That includes you, of course.
Best,
Susan
(City Council: Per Brown Act: Do NOT click 'reply' or 'reply all' to this email.)
Susan Brooks, Mayor
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
310 541-2971 home
r.;i ,,,, .. =,,.. .... ------
L!J
1 c:<.