Loading...
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:<.