Loading...
20130806 Late CorrespondenceSIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or I 5(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. February 26, 2009 February 26, 2009 PLAINS Ail AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P. By: PAA GP LLC, its general partner By: Plains AAP, LE, its sole member By: PLAINSALL AMERICAN GP LLC, its general partner By: Isl GREG L. ARMSTRONG Greg L. Armstrong, Chairman of the Board, Chief E'Cecutive Officer and Director of Plains All American GP LLC (Principal Executive Officer) By: Isl AL SWANSON Al Swanson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Plains All American GP LLC {Principal Financial Officer) Securities and Exchange Commission December 14, 2009 http://www.sec.gov /Archives! edgarl data! 107042310000950123090705911 ... RANCHO LPG HOLDINGS LLC By: Plains LPG Services, L.P., its sole member By: Plains LPG Services GP, LLC, its general _partner By: Plains Marketing, L.P., its sole member By: Plains Marketing GP. Inc., its general partner By: Isl TIM MOORE Name: Tim Moore Title: Vice President RESOLUTION NO. 2013---- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FINDING IN SUPPORT OF THE NECESSITY OF PROMPT LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL ACTION TO BEST PRESERVE THE HEAL TH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS AND PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES STEMMING FROM THE OPERATIONS OF RANCHO LPG HOLDINGS, LTD. OF THE TWO 12.5 MILLION GALLON ABOVE-GROUND STORAGE TANKS IT MAINTAINS AT ITS FACILITY ON 2110 GAFFEY STREET, SAN PEDRO, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, there is currently maintained by Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. a tank farm facility located at 2110 North Gaffey Street, in San Pedro, California on which t~ere exists two above-ground tanks which hold 12.5 Million gallons of butane; and WHEREAS, in October, 2011, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes had requested Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. to provide it with a copy of its insurance coverage demonstrating that Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. could financially respond to any damages incurred to the citizens and property owners as a result of Rancho's operations at the Gaffey Street facility; and WHEREAS, representatives of Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. promised to submit a copy of all insurance policies it possessed reflective of the insurance coverage it had in force to support its operations at the Gaffey Street facility, and most particularly, the coverage available for the benefit of the citizens and property owners of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes should an accident occur resulting in harm to property, or harm or death to individuals should an explosion occur at the facility; and WHEREAS, Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. later reneged on its promise by way of a letter dated January 29, 2013; and WHEREAS, Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. was cited by the EPA in March, 2013, for the following six violations: 1. Failing to include in the rail storage area of the site in its Risk Management Plan; 2. Failing to adequately evaluate seismic imacts upon the facility's emergency flare; 3. Failing to address the consequences of a loss of City water for fure suppression during an earthquake; 4. Failing to timely conduct a timely internal inspection of Tank 1 (storing ~/ 12.5 Million gallons of butane); No Weiss ~ 5. Failing to develop an emergency res · health' welfare, or safety; and AND MADE A PART OF TH REC RD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF ;wa OFFICE OF THE CIT CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK 6. Failing to include a drain pipe and value in the containment basin in the Mechanical Integrity Program; and WHEREAS, Mayor Susan Brooks sent letters to Councilman Joe Busciano of the City of Los Angeles, Congresswoman Janice Hahn, and Congressman Henry Waxman on June 18, 2013, asking them to respond to the concerns raised by Rancho's alleged errors and omissions; and WHEREAS, responses to the Mayor's letter were received from Congressman Janice Hahn, Congressman Henry Waxman, along with a letter from Senator Ted · Lieu which contained specific questions directed to the State Fire Marshall; but no written response was received from the office of Councilman Joe Busciano; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes remains concerned about the safety arid welfare of its residents and property owners, and thus remains concerned about the failure of the City of Los Angeles, the Port of Los Angeles, the State of California, or the United States Congress to discuss, debate, and decide the core issue of who, as between the citizens and property owners of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd., should bear the risk of loss of property and human life attendant to an accident or explosion at the Rancho Facility, regardless of the odd and risk that such an accident might occur, for whatever reason; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes remains concerned about the safety and welfare of its residents and property owners from harm or death resulting from an accident or terrorist event at the Rancho facility; Section 2: That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes believes the best way to protect the citizens and property owners of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is for the following actions to be promptly taken following a fair, open, transparent debate and discussion, where all of the facts are noted, evaluated, and a determination reached: a. That the City of Los Angeles to enact a robust and vigorous 'Risk Management Ordinance' fashioned and modeled off of the Risk Management Ordinance enacted by Contra Costa County which was praised by Senator Barbara Boxer at a hearing held in June, 2013, before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works which Senator Boxer chairs; b. That the Controller of the City of Los Angeles exercise the power possessed by him under Section 217 of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles to subpoena the insurance policy or policies held by Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. in connection with an evaluation of the cost to the City of Los Angeles should police and fire have to respond to an explosion involving one or both of the 12.5 million gallon tanks on the Rancho property; c. That the Mayor of Los Angeles convene a task force, backed by the power of subpoena he possesses under Section 217 of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles for the purpose of evaluating the facts and considering the full range of all public policy alternatives available to fully, competently, and fairly protect the public health, safety, and welfare from any damages occasioned by Rancho's operations at the Gaffey Street facility, including the employment of Professor Robert Bea to evaluate the risks attendant to Rancho's operations; d. That the City of Los Angeles direct the City Attorney of Los Angeles to do the following: (i) Issue a formal legal opinion on the full nature and extent of the liability of Rancho. LPG Holdings, Ltd. to the people of the City of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles occasioned by the occurrence of any accident or terrorist event at the Rancho facility, and whether as a matter of law the City of Los Angeles can enact an ordinance which imposes strict liability on Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. for all damages resulting from its operations at the Gaffey facility regardless of whether Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. was negligent; (ii) Issue a formal legal opinion on the full nature, and extent of the liability of the Port of Los Angeles to the City of Los Angeles and its residents as a result of any errors, omission, or failures by the Port in how it administers or manages the current rail-spur permit (lease) dated February 2, 2011, revocable without cause at any time on 30 days notice, granted to Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. on February 2, 2011; (iii) Issue a formal legal opinion on the issue of whether the Port in issuing the rail-spur permit is in violation of its obligations under the Tidelands Trust for a rental amount which is below fair market value is impermissibly subsidizing the operations of Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. and is otherwise allowing Port Assets subject to the Tidelands Trust to be unlawfully used to benefit a private entity; (iv) Issue a formal legal opinion on the issue of whether the City Attorney of Los Angeles has an ethical conflict of interest in his dual representation of the Port of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles in light of the claims which the City will have against the Port should it be determined that the Port was negligent in its administration of the Rail-Spur Permit, or otherwise acted unlawfully, and whether either the City Council or the Port of Los Angeles should waive the conflict or retain separate counsel; which the Port has granted Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. e. That the Port of Los Angeles undertake the following measures in connection with the rail-spur permit and its administration of the same: (i) Conduct a thorough internal analysis and evaluation of whether its management of the rail-spur permit is fully in accordance with the Port's Risk Management Policies, and then report to the public on the reasons why, or why not; (ii) Retain private outside counsel to issue a legal opinion on the extent of the Port's liability to the citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes and the citizens of Los Angeles for any damages occasioned by an accident which occurs at the facility resulting in an explosion causing harm to property and harm or death to individuals; (iii) Retain the services of Professor Robert Bea to render a risk analysis in connection with Rancho's Gaffey Street operations and charge Rancho LPG . Holdings, Ltd. for the costs associated with that analysis and evaluation, as part of the Port's administration of the Rail-Spur permit; f. That the Congress of the United States hold a hearing in San Pedro for the purpose of hearing testimony about the public's concerns about the Rancho facility, the defects in the current regulatory regime, the need for an insurance mandate on Rancho, or some other viable financial method and means by which the public can be assured that Rancho assumes the full cost and financial burden of all damages to people and property occasioned by its operations, and that Representatives Janice Hahn and Henry Waxman do all that is necessary to effectuate the same, including having the Port Caucus of the House of Representatives hold its own hearing in the event the relevant Congressional Committees do not do so; g. That the California State Legislature immediately take steps to develop and pass legislation which would, as has the State of New York, strict liability on Rancho for any harm to citizens and property stemming from its operations, and to otherwise empower cities to enact robust and competent risk management ordinances backed by insurance, fees imposed on the operators to pay for regular bi-yearly (every six months) inspections; Section 3: That the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall forward a copy of the same to Councilman Joe Busciano, Congressman Janice Hahn, Congressman Henry Waxman, and State Senator Ted Lieu. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of August 2013. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Statement by Dennis Cavallari, owner's Representative. iStar Financial Citv Council. City of Rancho Palos Verdes August 6. 2013 On behalf of the ownership of Ponte Vista, iStar Financial, I want to think the Mayor and members of the City Council for giving me an opportunity to briefly discuss the proposed new Ponte Vista residential project. As you know, the Ponte Vista project is proposed for 26900 Western Avenue in the City of Los Angeles, across from Green Hills memorial park. The current project is proposed for 830 residential units, including nearly 50% of the site area dedicated to single-family homes. Many of you here tonight are aware that this project has been through several major design iterations since 2006, when Ponte Vista was first introduced to the public. Today, Ponte Vista is owned by iStar Financial, and the project being considered by the City of Los Angeles is completely different from the ultra-dense project proposed by Bob Bisno. When iStar took ownership of the project in 2010, they began the process of completely re-evaluating every part of the project. They hired new architecture and planning teams, and started over with a new EIR and a new traffic study. Much had been written and said about the previous plans submitted by the previous developer. Today represents a new day and a new way. In many ways, iStar had the benefit of hindsight and was able to review the comments that had taken place previously-from the recommendations of the City of Los Angeles Planning staff, to comments on the previous EIR, to feedback from the Council office and the broader community, including our neighbors to the west in Rancho Palos Verdes. The project team listened to the community in designing this new residential plan and released a plan that conforms with the overall density, number of units, and open space recommended for this site by the Los Angeles City Planning Commission. The new plan for Ponte Vista proposes only one-third the number of homes of previous projects-830 units versus over 2,200. In the new plan, half of the site will be devoted to single-family homes. There will be 208 single-family homes on the upper (northern) portion of the site. There will also be significant open space at Ponte Vista that has been designed to encourage outdoor recreation at the site for people of all ages, and which will be open to the entire community, including residents, neighbors, and visitors. The project has been consciously designed to reflect the adjacent uses around the property. As you can see, the site is surrounded by different uses including Mary Star of the Sea High School, Navy land, Western Avenue and high-density condos at the southern end of the project. The goal of the architecture team was to blend Ponte Vista in with its surroundings wherever possible. So, with that in mind, the project is designed to 'step down' from the adjacent high-density condominiums at Seaport Village and Casa Verde, into a lower-density condominium project, and then transition into even lower- density townhomes and single-family homes. For those wedded to the idea of a single-family home-only option, that was never envisioned for this .JI= S site by the City of Los Angeles. Such a project will not be considered by the City of Los Angeles. -;:J:'-ftnc_ RECEIVED FROM.,.w::;.w.ni:S!o!:.~.d&.ll.!::IJ:~"'---1 AND MADE A PART OF TH RECO -D ~L!HE COUNCIL MEETING OF·-LJ.~r-:·~:...:o<V,~"""- OFFICE OF THE CIT CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK Guidance from the Planning Department and Planning Commission has been for us to provide a range of household sizes from single family homes to townhomes to condominiums with a variety of floor plans and sizes to meet different needs and budgets. In fact, in 2009, the Planning Commission recommended that the site conform to a low medium residential density designation, which we have been able to accomplish throughout the site with the proposed specific plan under consideration. At 830 units, we are comfortably within the range of 775-886 units recommended for the site by the Planning Commission and Planning Staff. The Specific Plan lays out detailed guidelines for the zoning of each product type, as well as the design of the homes, building heights, setbacks from the street and other design features. The Specific Plan binds the project at 830 units and prevents this developer or any future owner from seeking a density bonus at Ponte Vista. Despite a lower density project, we are committed to designing and building a high quality residential neighborhood, one that fits into the existing community and responds to the market demands for housing on the Peninsula. The project includes substantial open space amenities including nearly 24 acres of open space with a 5-acre walking trail, and nearly 4 acres of publicly-accessible open space along the Mary Star of the Sea road. I understand from reading the draft resolution that there is concern about the effect of this project on RPV recreation facilities, specifically Eastview Park. We believe that the open space within the Ponte Vista community -the tot lots and recreation centers -coupled with the open space on the perimeter of Ponte Vista are more than adequate to meet the needs of Ponte Vista, as well as provide new recreation space for other Harbor-area residents. Additionally, the project will be making a sizable Quimby contribution. While we understand that Quimby funds are paid to the City of Los Angeles, in this instance, we are fully supportive of its use for the improvements at existing city parks within proximity to the site. Coupled with the new open space Ponte Vista is providing, we are hopeful that the Quimby funds will further provide improvements to local Los Angeles city neighborhood parks that can benefit all Harbor area residents. Nonetheless, we understand your City's concerns, and we are open to further discussions and dialogue with your staff on possible measures to further minimize impacts on RPV recreation facilities. In our conversations with your constituents, mostly from Rolling Hills Riviera, we understand that a top priority is Western Avenue streetscape and beautification. We could not agree more. From the very beginning of iStar's ownership in this project, they have committed to participation in the Western Avenue beautification. In fact, we are working directly with Councilman Joe Buscaino on our specific participation in whatever program is enacted between the two jurisdictions. However, I want to underscore Ponte Vista's support for and commitment to Western Avenue beautification. We intend that to be a significant part of our community benefit package and our contribution to helping to improve the overall neighborhood. Overall, the single most dramatic benefit to the community will be the removal of the existing blight on Western Avenue with a neighborhood that is in keeping with its suburban surroundings. That alone will immediately help RPV neighbors, who live across Western in the Rolling Hills Riviera. No doubt the existing site conditions have a negative impact on our neighbors. It is critical that we meet with RPV staff to discuss shared issues and find solutions that satisfy your concerns, as well as our project needs. We are committed to robust and ongoing discussions with your staff, and are ready to address the city's concerns and outstanding questions. To that end, we look forward to the August 15 meeting that has been scheduled between our team and your city staff. We hope that this is the first of whatever number of meetings it takes to find common ground to the remaining issues that the RPV has raised. As this is the first of hopefully many times that we will meet, I would respectfully ask that the Council not pass this motion and continue the item until we've at least had our first in-depth meeting with City staff on August 15. It is our intent to work vigorously and collaboratively to address the remaining issues that City staff believes have not been addressed adequately to date. Trying to work with city staff when the City has taken an official position against the project seems to be counter-productive and sets a tone that does not engender problem solving and collaboration. I would hope that RPV would want to join us in productive and constructive problem-solving to create a project that your city can join in supporting, along with many others who are on record as being supportive. I will reiterate the offer we've made to Kit Fox and to the Rolling Hills Riviera HOA, we are available to answer specific questions, address issues, including traffic or the Specific Plan. We can and will make our team available to arrange a presentation by our traffic engineer or land use team. We want productive dialogue and are seeking to work collaboratively with our stakeholder partners and neighbors in RPV. Again, thank you for your time and affording me the courtesy to speak this evening. CrrvoF TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK AUGUST 6, 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. G 2 5 Respectfully submitted, Description of Material Resolution correction Staff responses to inquiry from Joanne Lewis Email from Pat Nave; Letter from Senator Ted Lieu; Press Release from White House Office of the Press Secretary; Letter from Congresswoman Hahn; Los Angeles Times article; Palos Verdes Peninsula News article; Daily Breeze article; Emails from Sarojini Lall; Ron Conrow ~~ Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, August 5, 2013**. W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas\20130806 additions revisions to agenda.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORIALIZING THE CITY COUNCIL'S PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE CONVEYANCE OF A SMALL PORTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES Whereas, the San Ramon Canyon Storm Water Flood Reduction Project design calls for the partial filling of the San Ramon canyon from the upstream inlet structure in the canyon to the downstream City Boundary for a distance of 1, 140-feet; and Whereas, the last 240-feet of the canyon passes through a corner of Friendship Park, which is owned b the County of Los Angeles ("County"); and Whereas, the County is willing to transfer a 5.76 acre corner of the County's property that extends across the canyon ("the Property"), to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") at no cost to the City; and Whereas, the City retained the Source Group to perform a Phase 1 environmental assessment with respect to the Property, which demonstrated that there is no environmental contamination present on the Property; and Whereas, the EIR that was prepared for the San Ramon Project previously analyzed the environmental effects of the San Ramon Project, including the placement of the fill in the canyon and on the Property, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and Whereas, the City has obtained a preliminary title report to verify the condition of the title to the Property; and Whereas, the proposed acquisition of the Property was presented to the Planning Commission on April 9, 2013, where a finding was made that the proposal conforms to the City's General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 65402; and Whereas, the property is contiguous with City-owned open space and will allow for the development of trails in the future to connect Friendship Park with the City's trail system, and by the approval of the Agreement with the County, the City is obligated to operate the Property as a park or recreational facility with equal access to everyone; and Whereas, the City also is agreeing to acquire the Property subject to an existing Safe Harbor Agreement and Endangered Species Permit with which the City must continue to comply in its administration of the Property; and 6. Whereas, on July 16, 2013, the City Council of the City previously reviewed and approved the Agreement with the County to accept the Property and authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Each of the foregoing recitals is true and correct and is incorporated into this Resolution. Section 2. The City Council's prior approval of the Agreement with the County of Los Angeles, whereby the County will convey the Property to the City, and the City will accept the Property subject to the provisions of the Agreement, is hereby memorialized by the adoption of this Resolution. Section 3. The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to execute the Agreement for the transfer of the Property, and the City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized to execute the certificate of acceptance for the Property. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 6th day of August 2013. SUSAN BROOKS, Mayor ATTEST: CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2013-_, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on , 2013. CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk Subject: From: Abigail Harwell FW: CC Meeting August 6th -Public Hearing for Arterial Fences and Walls Code Amendment Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:12 AM Subject: RE: CC Meeting August 6th -Public Hearing for Arterial Fences and Walls Code Amendment Hi Ms. Lewis - Thank you for your e-mail and questions. First, I have confirmed with Public Works that these walls and fences abutting the major streets are not on City property, but on the private property, as they were installed as part of the tract development. If you have a survey showing something differently, I would be interested in seeing that survey. As far as fixing the wall, it is complicated and does require coordination with the adjacent property owners. The City has seen several cases where failed walls had to be removed and reconstructed. But with the appropriate engineering and coordination with the adjacent property owners, reconstruction of the wall is feasible. Hopefully my answers are helpful. I will be sure your comments are forwarded to the City Council as late correspondence for tonight's meeting. Thanks -Abigail Harwell Assistant Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv From: Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 5:29 PM To: Abigail Harwell Cc: Subject: Re: CC Meeting August 6th -Public Hearing for Arterial Fences and Walls Code Amendment Hi Abigail and thanks for your email. Just a question: What if the arterial wall in question is actually on RPV property?? Will RPV go ahead and replace a wall that could be leaning perilously close to PV Drive West? I ask simply because I am under the impression that there is a certain number of feet setback from the road that is actually property belonging to RPV. A recent survey indicates that the arterial wall that backs from my property at 30929 Rue Langlois to PV Dr. West might well be sitting on RPV property. What is the actual legal setback which would determine ownership of that wall? Please let me know. Thanks! That leads me to the next issue ... honestly, if the wall belongs to me I could be happy to replace it to ensure that it does not lean too far into PV Dr. West, or eventually topple into the roadway endangering motorists, cyclist's or what have you. However, just fixing my piece of the wall is fairly difficult as it is adjoining my neighbors walls to the left and right... in fact, I believe it is one long wall from the corner of Hawthorne Blvd and PV dr. West to PV dr. West and Rue Beaupre. How does the city intend to handle that situation? When one home owner (or the city, for that matter) decides to replace a section of the wall, how will it look when the rest of the wall on either side is not replaced?? How will it even stand securely without being attached on either side? Thanks very much for any light you might shed on this situation. Sincerely, Joanne Lewis On 08/02/13, Abigail Harwell<AbigailH@rpv.com> wrote: Good afternoon - You are receiving this e-mail because you had previously expressed an interest in the proposed code amendment to the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code regarding the repair and reconstruction of arterial walls and fences along the City's major arterial roadways. Below is a link to next Tuesday's (8/6) City Council Agenda, when the City Council will review the Planning Commission's recommendation and conduct a public hearing discussion on this topic. The Arterial Fences and Walls Code Amendment is Public Hearing item #2 on the agenda, and if you click on the link for that item, it will take you to the Staff Report presented to the City Council. http://www. palosverdes. com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2013 Agendas/Meeting Date-2013-08-06/ Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments at abigailh@rpv.com or (310) 544-5228. Thank you -Abigail Harwell Assistant Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.palosverdes.com/rpv 0 From: Sent: To: Subject: Kit Fox Tuesday, August 06, 2013 7:24 AM Teresa Takaoka FW: Ponte Vista Late Correspondence for Item 5 (Border Issues) Kit Fox, AICP Citlj of Rancho Palas Verdes (310)544-5226 kit£@mv.com From: pat nave [mailto:overbid2002@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:57 AM To: Kit Fox Subject: Fw: Ponte Vista Kit I tried to send this to Councilmen Campbell and Misetich but the emails baounced back. Could you forward this to them? Thanks! On Monday, August 5, 2013 9:55 AM, pat nave <overbid2002@yahoo.com> wrote: Jean Lacombe, RHRHOA Chuck Hart, SPHU Dick Brunner, PVHOA Lance Fujimoto, Casa Verde HOA Janet Gunter, Peninsula Coalition Al Sattler, Sierra Club Rob and Lucie Thorsen, RNeighborhoodsR1 You are getting this email because the groups you represent have made significant comments on the Ponte Vista project over the last several months. The hearing officer will prepare a report and the proposed amendment to the Community Plan, the tract map, the environmental documents etc., will proceed to the Planning Commission in September and after that, to the City Council of the City of Los Angeles. 5. We have done what we can within the hearing process. However, there is little indication that the developer is willing to compromise on anything and that we should consider preparing for litigation if needed. There are many strong arguments against approvmust. ng the Ponte Vista project as it proposed: they ignored a "build by right" R1 alternative, ignored traffic issues such as emergency vehicle access, ignored City design policies favoring density along transportation corridors, ignored policies favoring density where jobs are located, ignored the riparian drainage area along the southerly border of the property, and ignored dangerous storm run-off issues, among others. Experience tells me that the City and the developer will not listen until they must. RNeighborhoodsR1 has an attorney, Doug Carstens, who is very experienced in this area. There is no doubt that our position will be much stronger if the various groups who are interested in a better project join together. That is why I am contacting you. I am willing to spearhead an attempt to build a coalition around this part of the battle. I believe a consortium of groups including RNeighborhoodsR1, Rolling Hills Riviera HOA, Peninsula Verde HOA, Casa Verde HOA, San Pedro Home Owners United, Sierra Club, and Peninsula Coalition wuld be strong group indeed. It would be very strong in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes joins in or the City of Lomita. In terms of timing, we need to plan now, and I would hope that a representative of all groups that might be interested could meet the week of August 19th. Could you please let me know by return email with dates available to you? The purpose of the meeting would be to determine which groups are willing to explore a litigation effort. If enough are willing, then I would suggest we ask Doug Carstens to evaluate the written documents and our arguments and give his views on our chance of success, and to provide us with a suggested course of action. Thanks. Please let me now if you have any questions. CHAIR STATE CAPITOL. ROOM 4061 SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 TEI-(91 61 65 I -4028 BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FAX <9 H3J 323·6056 DlSTF~lCT OFFICt.-'. 2512 ARTESIA BLVD .. SUITE 320 REDONDO BEACH. CA 90278 TEL (310) 318··6994 FAX {310) 318·6733 SENATOR TED W. LIEU TWENTY-EIGHTH SENATE DISTRICT MEMBER AGRICULTURE GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION INSUHANCE VETERANS AFFAIRS WWW.SEN.CA.<.iiOViL!t:::U SENATQF~ LIEU@~»€:NAn::..C,.l\,GOV July31,2013 Chief Tonya Hoover State Fire Marshal PO Box 944246 Sacramento, CA 94244-2460 Via fax and mail Dear Chief Hoover: I represent the 28th Senate District, which includes San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes. There have been longstanding concerns raised by constituents and government officials regarding the safety of a liquid bulk storage facility located at 2110 North Gaffey Street in San Pedro. Owned and operated by Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC., this facility stores more than 25 million gallons of hazardous material, including butane in two large 40-year-old tanks and propane in other tanks. The tanks are located across a street from homes, businesses, and schools. The recent explosions at the Blue Rhino propane plant in Tavares, Florida on July 29th show the potentially catastrophic dangers of large butane and propane tanks. Such tanks should not be located near densely populated areas. In light of the recent propane explosions in Florida-and past explosions in Kansas, Texas, and other places-I am \.JVTiting to respectfully request that the Office of the State Fire Marshal conduct an investigation and risk analysis of the Rancho LPG facility. After the Rancho LPG facility was permitted, a Los Angeles Times article stated at the time that an adequate safety and risk analysis was not conducted. I am also informed the amount of explosive propane at this facility is 50 times more than the Blue Rhino facility in Tavares, Florida. I am also informed that butane is as hazardous, if not more hazardous, than propane. Some of the issues I would like you,r office to investigate include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Should massive butane and propane tanks be located near homes, businesses, and schools? If not, how far away from densely populated areas should such a facility be located? . · 2. If the butane or propane tanks at Rancho LPG exploded, what is the worst case scenario? 5 .. Page 2 3. What level earthquake could the Rancho LPG facility withstand without an explosion or other major catastrophe? What happens if an earthquake beyond the level of which Rancho LPG could withstand were to occur? 4. How susceptible is Rancho LPG to a terrorist attack? 5. What happens if the butane or propane tanks start leaking? 6. What type of insurance, and in what amount, does Rancho LPG carry, if any? 7. What recommendations, if any, are there that could make the facility safer? 8. Would relocating the facility to a further away location prevent loss of life or property should explosions or other catastrophic events occur at the Rancho LPG facility? As you know, butane and propane accidents have occurred in other locations and have resulted in deaths, injuries, and significant property damage. Last October, a propane company in Kansas relocated its facility after a deadly explosion killed a worker and destroyed homes. In 1987, a butane explosion at a chemical plant in Texas killed three people and blew out windows in buildings six miles away. Butane and propane explosions have also occurred around the world, causing deaths and property damage. Rancho LPG has already committed a series of environmental violations. The federal Environmental Protection Agency is handling those issues. I am requesting your office to address the safety, risk, and fire issues involved with having massive butane and propane tanks located near densely populated areas in San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. I am also happy to meet with you to discuss this issue. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (310) 318-6994. Sincerely, TEDW.LIEU Senator, 28th District cc: Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC. Congresswoman Janice Hahn Congressman Henry A. Waxman Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe Los Angeles City Councilman Joe Buscaino THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release August 1, 2013 EXECUTIVE ORDER IMPROVING CHEMICAL FACILITY SAFETY AND SECURITY By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Purpose. Chemicals, and the facilities where they are manufactured, stored, distributed, and used, are essential to today's economy. Past and recent tragedies have reminded us, however, that the handling and storage of chemicals are not without risk. The Federal Government has developed and implemented numerous programs aimed at reducing the safety risks and security risks associated with hazardous chemicals. However, additional measures can be taken by executive departments and agencies (agencies) with regulatory authority to .further improve chemical facility safety and security in coordination with owners and operators. Sec. 2. Establishment of the Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group. (a) There is established a Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group (Working Group) co-chaired by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , and the Secretary of Labor or their designated representatives at the Assistant Secretary level or higher. In addition, the Working Group shall consist of the head of each of the following agencies or their designated representatives at the Assistant Secretary level or higher: (i) the Department of Justice; (ii) the Department of Agriculture; and (iii) the Department of Transportation. (b) In carrying out its responsibilities under this order, the Working Group shall consult with representatives from: (i) the Council on Environmental Quality; (ii) the National Security Staff; (iii) the Domestic Policy Council; (iv) the Office of Science and Technology Policy; (v) the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); (vi) the White House Off ice of Cabinet Affairs; and 5 2 (vii) such other agencies and offices as the President may designate. (c) The Working Group shall meet no less than quarterly to discuss the status of efforts to implement this order. The Working Group is encouraged to invite other affected agencies, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to attend these meetings as appropriate. Additionally, the Working Group shall provide, within 270 days of the date of this order, a status report to the President through the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Sec. l· Improving Operational Coordination with State, Local, and Tribal Partners. (a) Within 135 days of the date of this order, the Working Group shall develop a plan to support and further enable efforts by State regulators, State, local, and tribal emergency responders, chemical facility owners and ·operators, and local and tribal communities to work together to improve chemical facility safety and security. In developing this plan, the Working Group shall: (i) identify ways to improve coordination among the Federal Government, first responders, and State, local, and tribal entities; (ii) take into account the capabilities, limitations, and needs of the first responder community; (iii) identify ways to ensure that State homeland security advisors, State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs), Tribal Emergency Response Commissions (TERCs) , Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), Tribal Emergency Planning Committees (TEPCs), State regulators, and first responders have ready access to key information in a useable format, including by thoroughly reviewing categories of chemicals for which information is provided to first responders and the manner in which it is made available, so as to prevent, prepare for, and respond to chemical incidents; (iv) identify areas, in collaboration with State, local, and tribal governments and private sector partners, where joint collaborative programs can be developed or enhanced, including by better integrating existing authorities, jurisdictional responsibilities, and regulatory programs in order to achieve a more comprehensive engagement on chemical risk management; (v) identify opportunities and mechanisms to improve response procedures and to enhance information sharing and collaborative planning between chemical facility owners and operators, TEPCs, LEPCs, and first responders; 3 (vi) working with the National Response Team (NRT) and Regional Response Teams (RRTs), identify means for Federal technical assistance to support developing, implementing, exercising, and revising State, local, and tribal emergency contingency plans, including improved training; and (vii) examine opportunities to improve public access to information about chemical facility risks consistent with national security needs and appropriate protection of confidential business information. (b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General, through the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), shall assess the feasibility of sharing data related to the storage of explosive materials with SERCs, TEPCs, and LEPCs. (c) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall assess the feasibility of sharing Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) data with SERCs, TEPCs, and LEPCs on a categorical basis. Sec. 4. Enhanced Federal Coordination. In order to enhance Federal coordination regarding chemical facility safety and security: (a) Within 45 days of the date of this order, the Working Group shall deploy a pilot program, involving the EPA, Department of Labor, Department of Homeland Security, and any other appropriate agency, to validate best practices and to test innovative methods for Federal interagency collaboration regarding chemical facility safety and security. The pilot program shall operate in at least one region and shall integrate regional Federal, State, local, and tribal assets, where appropriate. The pilot program shall include innovative and effective methods of collecting, storing, and using facility information, stakeholder outreach, inspection planning, and, as appropriate, joint inspection efforts. The Working Group shall take into account the results of the pilot program in developing integrated standard operating procedures pursuant to subsection (bl of this section. (b) Within 270 days of the date of this order, the Working Group shall create comprehensive and integrated standard operating procedures for a unified Federal approach for identifying and responding to risks in chemical facilities (including during pre-inspection, inspection execution, post-inspection, and post-accident investigation activities), incident reporting and response procedures, enforcement, and collection, storage, and use of facility information. This effort shall reflect best practices and shall include agency-to- agency referrals and joint inspection procedures where possible and appropriate, as well as consultation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency on post-accident response activities. 4 (c) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Working Group shall consult with the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) and determine what, if any, changes are required to existing memorandums of understanding (MOUs) and processes between EPA and CSB, ATF and CSB, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and CSB for timely and full disclosure of information. To the extent appropriate, the Working Group may develop a single model MOU with CSB in lieu of existing agreements. Sec. ~· Enhanced Information Collection and Sharing. In order to enhance information collection by and sharing across agencies to support more informed decisionmaking, streamline reporting requirements, and reduce duplicative efforts: (a) Within 90 days of the date of this ~rder, the Working Group shall develop an analysis, including recommendations, on the potential to improve information collection by and sharing ·between agencies to help identify chemical facilities which may not have provided all required information or may be non- compliant with Federal requirements to ensure chemical facility safety. This analysis should consider ongoing data-sharing efforts, other federally collected information, and chemical facility reporting among agencies (including information shared with State, local, and tribal governments). (b) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Working Group shall produce a proposal for a coordinated, flexible data- sharing process which can be utilized to track data submitted to agencies for federally regulated chemical facilities, including locations, chemicals, regulated entities, previous infractions, and other relevant information. The proposal shall allow for the sharing of information with and by State, local, and tribal entities -where possible, consistent with section 3 of this order, and shall address computer-based and non-computer-based means for improving the process in the short-term, if they exist. (c) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Working Group shall identify and recommend possible changes to streamline and otherwise improve data collection to meet the needs of the public and Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies (including those charged with protecting workers and the public), consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act and other relevant authorities, including opportunities to lessen the reporting burden on regulated industries. To the extent feasible, efforts shall minimize the duplicative collection of information while ensuring that pertinent information is shared with all key entities. Sec. 6. Policy, Regulation, and Standards Modernization. (a) In order to enhance safety and security in chemical facilities by modernizing key policies, regulations, and standards, the Working Group shall: (i) within 90 days of the date of this order, develop options for improved chemical facility safety and security that identifies improvements to existing risk management practices through agency programs, private sector initiatives, Government guidance, outreach, standards, and regulations; 5 (ii) within 90 days of developing the options described in subsection (a} (i) of this section, engage key stakeholders to discuss the options and other means to improve chemical risk management that may be available; and (iii) within 90 days of completing the outreach and consultation effort described in subsection (a) (ii) of this section, develop a plan for implementing practical and effective improvements to chemical risk management identified pursuant to subsections (a} (i) and (ii) of this section. (b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Agriculture shall develop a list of potential regulatory and legislative proposals to improve the safe and secure storage, handling, and sale of ammonium nitrate and ·identify ways in which ammonium nitrate safety and security can be enhanced under existing authorities. (c) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Administrator of EPA and the Secretary of Labor shall review the chemical hazards covered by the Risk Management Program (RMP) and the Process Safety Management Standard (PSM) and determine if the RMP or PSM can and should be expanded to address additional regulated substances and types of hazards. In addition, the EPA and the Department of Labor shall develop a plan, including a timeline and resource requirements, to expand, implement, and enforce the RMP and PSM in a manner that addresses the additional regulated substances and types of hazards. (d) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall identify a list of chemicals, including poisons and reactive substances, that should be considered for addition to the CFATS Chemicals of Interest list. (e) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Labor shall: (i) identify any changes that need to be made in the retail and commercial grade exemptions in the PSM Standard; and (ii) issue a Request for Information designed to identify issues related to modernization of the PSM Standard and related standards necessary to meet the goal of preventing major chemical accidents. Sec. 7. Identification of Best Practices. The Working Group shall convene stakeholders, including chemical producers, chemical storage companies, agricultural supply companies, State and local regulators, chemical critical infrastructure owners and operators, first responders, labor organizations representing affected workers, environmental and community groups, and consensus standards organizations, in order to identify and share successes to date and best practices to reduce safety risks and security risks in the production and 6 storage of potentially harmful chemicals, including through the use of safer alternatives, adoption of best practices, and potential public-private partnerships. Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law, including international trade obligations, and subject to the availability of appropriations. (b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. THE WHITE HOUSE, August 1, 2013. BARACK OBAMA # # # JANICE HAHN 44TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA COMMITTEES: TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SMALL BUSINESS PORTS CAUCUS FOUNDER AND CO·CHAIR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WHIP GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION TASK FORCE Congress of tbt ntteb ~tates J)om;'e of l\epregentatitn1> Ua!ibington, 1.9<! 20515-0544 The Honorable Jeff Denham Chairman August 1, 2013 Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Corrine Brown Ranking Member Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Brown, W.A$!:11.N.GIQN.QE.F.lCE; 404 CANNON HOtJSf; OH~(:fl BIJIWING WASHINGTON. DC 20515 (202) 225·-8220 FAX: (202) 226-7290 01.S.Ifil{;LQE.BC.E; 140 W. 6TH STREET SAN PH>A<>. CA $07:l 1 {310\ 831-1799 FAX: {310) 831-1885 HITP:ilHAHN.HOUSE.GOV As a new member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, I write to urge the subcommittee to hold a field hearing in my district on the laws and regulations that govem hazardous facilities near residences and schools. I have one of these facilities in my home community of San Pedro, just outside my district. The Rancho LPG Tanks store millions of gallons of butane and propane dangerously near homes and an elementary school. If an accident at the Rancho facility released or ignited this gas, the devastation and loss oflife would be unimaginable. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Homeland Security have responsibility for ensuring the Rancho LPG facility is safe and secure. However, there are disturbing disparities between EPA and DHS's assessments of the facility. While EPA announced earlier this year that it was prepared to sue the facility over inadequate earthquake or accident preparedness, DHS has said that it found no significant or disqualifying problems. Clearly, DHS is not applying sufficient rigor to its oversight of these very dangerous facilities. We must work to strengthen our enforcement of existing regulation on these facilities. But I am concerned that existing regulation and existing law is not enough to protect the families and schoolchildren in my community who live in the shadow of this potential fireball. I am also troubled by the lack of information available to threatened communities about the insurance held by the owners and operators of hazardous facilities. The recent disaster in West, Texas reminds us that sometimes, the worst-case scenario is what happens. I hope that the subcommittee will take a fresh look at the laws and regulations that govern hazardous facilities like the Rancho LPG Tanks, and I look forward to working with you on this issue in the future. Sincerely, Janice Hahn Member of Congress Waxman wants federal review of San Pedro gas storage facility -latimes.com Page 1 of2 latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-waxman-butane-tanks-20130801,0,3159590 .story la times.com Waxman wants federal review of San Pedro gas storage facility By Dan Weikel 3:08 PM PDT, August l, 2013 A local congressman is urging federal officials to more thoroughly investigate the safety of a San Pedro butane storage facility that has become controversial because of its location near homes, schools and shopping areas in San Pedro. On Wednesday, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security demanding that the agency take additional steps to protect the public from the risk of explosion at the Rancho LPG Holdings site on North Gaffey Street. Waxman said he was concerned that an earlier homeland security inspection of the Rancho facility was cursory, did little to verify the company's safety advert!semenl information and seriously conflicted with recent findings by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "EPA says Rancho is not prepared for an accident; DHS says the company is prepared for an intentional attack," Waxman wrote. "The EPA's findings are alarming; the DHS conclusions are reassuring." The 20-acre facility includes two 80-foot-high storage tanks capable of holding up to 25 million gallons of liquified petroleum gas, such as highly flammable butane and propane. Built more than 40 years ago under an industrial zoning from World War II, the site is about 1,000 feet from residential areas that existed before construction of the tanks. Residents, local activists and elected officials contend the facility is unsafe and fear that a major explosion would destroy the nearby community. "We have faced rejection, rebuke and dismissal at every tum in our quest to address this extreme hazard," said Janet Schaaf-Gunter of San Pedro and Peninsula Homeowners United. "We applaud Congressman Waxman for his leadership in taking control of this incredibly hazardous situation before disaster strikes." Officials of Rancho LPG, a unit of Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline, say the tanks are well-maintained and equipped with an array of safety measures, including monitors, sprinkler systems, automatic shut-off valves and dikes to contain a gas spill. (!) http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-waxman-butane-tanks-20130801,0,6482505,p... 8/1/2013 S. Waxman wants federal review of San Pedro gas storage facility -latimes.com Page 2 of2 In his letter, Waxman mentioned the preliminary findings of an ongoing EPA investigation of the site. According to the agency, the company has not provided its emergency response plan to local public safety agencies, failed to assess the risk of its rail storage area and failed to plan for earthquakes. "Essentially, EPA said that Rancho is not prepared for an earthquake or accident," Waxman wrote. In contrast, the congressman noted that homeland security's anti-terrorism program for chemical facilities recently gave Rancho passing marks for safety after an inspection. Waxman added that the chemical facilities program has a long record of ineffectiveness and has shown "a distressing lack of progress in securing these facilities since the program was established six years ago." In addition to Waxman's request, State Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Redondo Beach) asked the state fire marshal this week to investigate the Rancho facility and assess the risks of the site. Both Lieq and Waxman cited the propane explosion last month in Florida at a Blue Rhino gas plant that was much smaller than the Rancho operation. The blast seriously injured some workers and forced an evacuation of the surrounding community. ALSO: Carson man, 78, diagnosed with West Nile virus dies Wendy Greuel faces campaign debt following mayor's race Two sought in fatal shooting near Ventura County Fairgrounds twitter: @LADeadline16 dan.weikel@latimes.com Copyright© 2013, Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-waxman-butane-tanks-20130801,0,6482505 ,p... 8/1/2013 Lieu asks for risk analysis of Rancho LPG -Palos Verdes Peninsula News: News Page 1of1 Lieu asks for risk analysis of Rancho LPG Posted: Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:25 am SAN PEDRO-State Sen. Ted Lieu has asked the Office of the State Fire Marshal to conduct an investigation and risk analysis of a liquid bulk storage facility owned and operated by Rancho LPG Holdings LLC in San Pedro. According to a letter :from Lieu to Chief Tonya Hoover, the facility stores more than 25 million gallons of hazardous material, including butane, in what are described as "two large 40-year-old tanks" and propane in other tanks. In his letter, Lieu cites the explosions at the Blue Rhino propane plant in Tm.rares, Fla., on July 29 and states that after the Rancho LPG facility was permitted, a Los Angeles Times article stated that an adequate safety and risk analysis was not conducted. Lieu asks for an investigation into whether "massive butane and propane tanks" should be located near homes, businesses and schools and for the worst-case scenario ifthe tanks at Rancho LPG explode. He also wants an assessment of the facility's vulnerability to earthquakes and terrorist attacks, and he asks what would happen if the tanks started leaking. Other questions concern insurance, safety recommendations and possible relocation. According to Rancho LPG's website, the facility includes two 12.5-million gallon refrigerated tanks constructed in 1973-7 4 by a "leading refrigerated tank manufacturer which is still in business today" as well as five 60,000-gallon horizontal storage tanks. According to Rancho LPG, the technology used to construct storage tanks has changed very little from when the tanks are constructed and it has "maintained robust mechanical integrity programs to ensure these standards are maintained." -City News Service http://www.pvnews.com/news/lieu-asks-for-risk-analysis-of-rancho-lpg/article _ 5d03 8c5a-fa... 8/2/2013 5 http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci.....23779863/lawmakers-want-ensure-san-pedro-lpg-tanks-are Lawmakers want to ensure San Pedro LPG tanks are safe By Donna Littlejohn, Staff Writer Daily Breeze Posted: DailyBreeze.com An explosion at a propane gas plant in Florida this week has triggered calls by South Bay lawmakers to take a closer look at San Pedro's Rancho LPG tanks that critics say pose a similar --if not worse --threat to surrounding homes, schools and businesses. The facility at 2110 N. Gaffey St. also faces a lawsuit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over alleged violations of the Clean Air Act that stem from safety risks at the tank farm. The tanks store highly volatile propane and butane and are located on an earthquake fault line. Activists also say they're a potential target for terrorists and are vulnerable to any number of accidental breaches caused by human or mechanical error. But the facility sits on private property and the owner, Plains LPG, has said it would cost millions of dollars to move the plant, a cost that would be prohibitive. For the time being, lawmakers this week called for stepped-up scrutiny. "While I continue to believe that the relocation of these tanks is the only permanent solution to the threat posed by this facility, it is critical that we ensure the Rancho LPG Tanks, and facilities like it across the country, are subject to the oversight necessary to protect the local community," said U.S. Rep. Janice Hahn, D-San Pedro, in a statement calling for a field hearing to be held by her colleagues on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subco~mittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials. "These tanks store millions of gallons of dangerous and explosive chemicals just blocks away from where families live and children go to school," Hahn said. "If an accident at the Rancho facility released or ignited this gas, the devastation and loss of life would be unimaginable." U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Manhattan Beach, also has urged the Department of Homeland Security to "take necessary steps to protect the public from the risk of explosion at the liquefied petroleum gas storage facility owned by Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC. "The Environmental Protection Agency and (Homeland Security) have reported conflicting data about the facility's preparedness for an accident or attack, which has the potential to create considerable confusion for the surrounding communities," Waxman wrote. "The explosions this week at a propane gas plant in Florida underscored the potential dangers to local communities from facilities that store liquefied gas." A number of injuries, some critical, were reported after a series of explosions rocked the Blue Rhino propane exchange plant in central Florida on Monday night. Five workers remained in critical condition Thursday as workers returned to the 10-acre plant for the first time. An investigation into the cause of the explosion continues. In a letter sent to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Waxman wrote: "Like the Blue Rhino facility that exploded in Florida, Rancho holds significant quantities of flammable gases, including 5 Page 1 of2 Aug 02, 2013 08:36:29AM MDT http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_,23779863/lawmakers-want-ensure-san-pedro-lpg-tanks-are propane. Unlike the Florida facility, the Rancho facility's holdings are stored in large tanks, posing a threat of a larger scale explosion than what was seen in Florida." Waxman is the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. On Thursday, state Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Redondo Beach, also called on the state fire marshal to review the risks associated with the tanks, saying they should not be located near such populated areas. "Rancho LPG has already committed a series of environmental violations," Lieu wrote in a letter to Chief Tonya Hoover, state fire marshal. "I am requesting your office to address the safety, risk, and fire issues involved with having massive butane and propane tanks located near densely populated areas in San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes." The 20-acre Rancho facility was established in 1976 by Petrolane and was later operated by Amerigas. Two above-ground butane storage tanks have a capacity of 12.6 million gallons each. There also are smaller tanks on the premises. The facility can store a total of 25.3 million gallons of butane. In the wake of recent chemical plant accidents in San Bruno and Texas --and now Florida -- support has grown to try to move the facility out of the area. donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com @donnalittlejohn on Twitter Page 2of2 Aug 02, 2013 08:36:29AM MDT From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kit Fox Tuesday, August 06, 2013 9:07 AM Teresa Takaoka Carolynn Petru FW: Presentation Late Correspondence for Item 5 (Border Issues) -the developer will be making a brief presentation of the Ponte Vista project tonight. Kit Fox, AICP City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5226 kitf@rpv.com -----Original Message----- From: Sarojini Lall [mailto:slall@marathon-com.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 8:43 AM To: Kit Fox Subject: Presentation Kit, I can have a member of our team give a brief overview of the Ponte Vista project at the City Council meeting tonight. Thank you, Sarojini Sent from my iPhone 5 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kit Fox Tuesday, August 06, 2013 12:01 PM Teresa Takaoka Carolynn Petru FW: Bea Flyer DOC130806-006.pdf; Central_Gunter-Bea Flyer 07292013.docx Late Correspondence for Item 5 (Border Issues). Kit From: Ronald Conrow [Ronald.Conrow@plainsmidstream.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:03 AM To: Kit Fox Cc: Susan Brooks; 'Hon. Rudy Svorinich, Jr.' Subject: FW: Bea Flyer MR. Fox, Please include these documents as late correspondence for tonights RPV City Council meeting on border issues. This information on the fraudulent Professor Bea flyer has been sent to SP Neighborhood Councils. I am on vacation until Aug 15. Regards, Ron Conrow Western District Manager 5 Ronald Conrow From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Mr. Conrow. Robert G. BEA [rgb251@berkeley.edu] Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:13 PM Ronald Conrow Re: Gunter_Professor Bea Flyer Bob Bea, Men's J .. pdf thank you for your email and the attached 'flyer'. this is the first time i have seen this document. the document was released without my review or approval. i can only attest to the statement that was contained in the original article that addressed the San Pedro LPG facilities. a copy of that article is attached. see the last three paragraphs. Bob Bea On Wed, Jul I 0, 2013 at 1 :44 PM, Ronald Conrow <Ronald.Conrow(cj),plainsmidstream.<,.:om> wrote: Professor Bea, I have just received the attached flyer has been distributed by Janet Gunter and other members of the San Pedro Peni_nsula Homeowners United. Do you endorse this flyer and the information contained in the flyer? As the Western District Manager for the Rancho LPG facility in San Pedro, CA, we have concems about the \'alidity of much of this information. Regards, Ron Conrow Western District Manager Plains LPG Service, LP 19430 Beech Ave. Shafter, CA 93263 ronald.conrow@.Qlainsmidstream.com Office: 661-368-7917 Cell: 661-319-9978 Robert Bea Professor Emeritus Center for Catastrophic Risk Management University of California Berkeley Email: bcal(i)ce.berkelev.edu Risk Assessment & Management Services 60 Shuey Drive Moraga, CA 94556 925-631-1587 (office) August 01, 2013 Ms. Linda Alexander President, Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council 1840 South Gaffey Street, Box 212 San Pedro, CA 90731 Dear Ms. Alexander, It has come to our attention that at the Northwest and Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council meetings on July 8 and 9, 2013 respectively, the San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United (SPPHU) placed the ~nclosed two page flyer on the sign-in table for public dissemination. The cover page of the flyer features a picture of Professor Bob Bea of the University of California Berkeley, while the second page contains a familiar listing of unfounded claims against the Rancho Gaffey Street Facility along with contact information for Janet Gunter. It appears the intent of the SPPHU in featuring the picture of Professor Bea on the cover was to give the impression that he endorsed the flyer and supported the list of allegations? Upon review of the flyer it was obvious to me that a person of Professor Bea's background would never endorse those allegations without first conducting some type of detailed study to ensure they were valid. To my knowledge Professor Bea has not performed a detail.ed study of the Rancho facility? As a result, on July 10, 2013, I sent an e-mail (enclosed) to Professor Bea inquiring if he had seen the flyer and endorsed the information contained within. Professor Bea promptly sent the following reply; "Mr. Conrow, thank you for your email and the attached 'flyer'. this is the first time i have seen this document. the document was released without my review or approval. i can only attes.t to the statement that was contained in the original article that addressed the San Pedro LPG facilities. a copy of that article is attached. see the last three paragraphs. Bob Bea Professor Bea's own words clearly attest the SPPHU flyer was released without his approval. Moreover, he only validates his general statements contained in the February 2013 edition of the Men's Journal, but does not endorse the allegations contained in the flyer. It should be noted that nowhere in the Men's Journal article does Professor Bea directly make specific reference or identify the Rancho facility. As you know, over the years the SPPHU has led an ongoing campaign against the Rancho facility by making an assortment of unfounded claims to ferment fear mongering. If the list of allegations were true, then why the need to resort to this amateurish cut and paste ploy of transposing Professor Bea's picture onto their counterfeit flyer? The answer is clear; simply because they are unable to support their claims against Rancho with relevant regulatory or legal documentation. Therefore, they knowingly 1 employed this tactic of using the Professor's image hoping it would give some legitimacy to their baseless rhetoric. Obviously, neither the flyer nor its contents was authorized or supported by Professor Bea. It is noteworthy that the cover page features Professor Bea's picture above the "worst case" blast radius from the Cornerstone Report to give the impression he endorses that document. However, an SPPHU member has already provided an accurate assessment and endorsement of the Cornerstone Report in the October 7-20, 2011 edition of the Random Lengths, "(Janet) Gunter said the Coalition new the Cornerstone Report would have flaws given that the cost of financing the risk analysis report is $100,000. The coalition did not have anywhere near that amount Gunter said". However, the SPPHU continues to mislead the public about the inept Cornerstone Report knowing that it is, to say the least... flawed. Given the serious misrepresentation of this flyer it was my ambition to attend your next scheduled Neighbor Council meeting and present this information in person. However, I will be on vacation for several weeks in August. Therefore, please consider discussing this flyer and its lack of authenticity at your next Neighborhood Council meeting. It is important that your stakeholders are made aware this flyer is a fraud! Finally, on August 31, 2013, Congressman Henry Waxman issued a press release to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) expressing some concerns related to the Rancho facility. As a result; Rancho sent a response letter to Congressman Waxman on August 2, detailing a number of inaccuracies and mischaracterizations regarding the Rancho LPG facility. Rancho is committed to being a strong business and social partner in the San Pedro community. Since Plains purchased this facility in November 2008, it has endeavored to maintain an open, honest, and productive dialogue with the community, elected officials, regulatory agencies, and legal authorities. We remain committed to operating the facility in a prudent and responsible manner which safeguards our workforce and the community. Please advise should you require additional information concerning the Rancho LPG Holdings Gaffey Street facility in San Pedro, CA or to visit the facility for a tour. Sincerely, ieM~ Western District Manager Plains LPG Service, LP 19430 Beech Ave. Shafter, CA 93263 Office: 661-368-7917 ronald.conrow@plainsmidstream.com cc: Mr. Raymond Regalado, President of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council Mr. Dave Behar, Chairman and President of the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council Mr. Kit Fox, RPV City Council Mr. John Larson, Office of Councilman Joe Buscaino Ms. Elise Swanson, Office Congresswoman Janice Hahn Ms. Lisa Pinto, Office of Congressman Henry Waxman Mr. Doane Liu, Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles Mr. Justin Houterman, Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney Mr. Charlie Rausch, Hearing Officer, Department of City Planning, City of Los Angeles 2 USA GOVERNMENT'S "MASTER OF DISASTER" IDENTIFIES SAN PEDRO'S MASSIVE BUTANE FACILITY AS: "RISKY, VERY RISKY!" UC Berkeley Professor Bob Bea -Men's Journal Feb. 2013 ~·aramoum Selll!Owe< --""' . .,.~, ... ,. lakevlOOd "'""" ·-"'""" •"!' 6uen;1 ?aitc + ~ ...... r'•••,, .• Professor Bob Bea has been hired by the US government to identify the "why'' of major catastrophes including Katrina, San Bruno and the Gulf. His extensive research has indicated that ALL catastrophes were •preventablen. Bea's goal now is to prevent such tragedies from occurring. After reviewing the details of the 25 MILLION GALLON Rancho Liquid Petroleum Gas facility in San Pedro, Bea has expressed his concerns about the extraordinary risk exposure and potentlal for a cascading failure event at Rancho. This is due to the multitude of adjacent fuel resources surrounding this highly explosive and voluminous gas storage site. Comerstone Technologies provided a risk analysis that gives a 6.8 mile radius of impact from a worst case scenario at Rancho LPG. That analysis doesn't even acknowledge the cascading potential feared by Professor Bea. The map on the reverse shows how wide a range could be affected by a rupture and restllting blast from the 40 years old Rancho tanks. There are a multiple of opportunities for catastrophe from this facility stemming from antiquated infrastructure, human error, terrorism or earthquake. The tanks sit in a LA City Planning documented "Earthquake Rupture Zone" (Palos Verdes Fault mag. 7.3) in tanks built to a seismic sub-standard of 5.5 to 6.0. The 6.8 mile radius of impact (See Map) Includes San Pedro, the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula, Rolting Hills, Lomita, Wilmington, Torrance, Carson and Long Beach. Rancho has refused to share its insurance information with the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council calling it "proprietary information" and no "comprehensive" risk analysis has ever been performed. The facility was sent a letter of cause by the EPA on violations issued in 2010 and 2011. The date for compliance was April 15, 2013. As of July 1, these demands have not been complied with. The explosions. fires, death and destruction endured by West, TX, Louisiana, San Bruno, the Gulf and even Fukushima gave no previous warning to those affected by it. We have the enviable advantage of having received a formal warning. AND, that warning comes from an authority whose credentials are beyond reproach. What more do we need? Let's do something NOW .... while we still can! For more info: www.hazardsbeaone.co~ Contact: Janet Gunter (310) 251-7075 Contact your own City Council, and public officials demanding elimination of this threat! Senator Boxer(213) 894-5000 Senator Feinstein: (31Oj914-7300 Congressman Waxman (310) 321-7664 Congressmen1ber Hahn (310) 831-1799 Senator Ted Lieu (310) 318-6994 Senator Rod Wright (310) 412-0393 Assembly Muratsuchi (310) 316-2164 Assembly: Lowenthal ( 562) 495-2915 LA Mayor Carcetti (213) 978-0600 LA Councilman Buscaino (310) 732-4515 CITY OF TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK AUGUST 5, 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, August 6, 2013 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material 3 Email from Frank Lyon Respectfully submitted, ~ Carla Morreale W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas\20130806 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: F&P LYON <fnplyon@verizon.net> Thursday, August 01, 2013 3:43 PM cc Dennis Mclean; CityManager; lrw@transtalk.com Storm Drain Committee Annual Report Dear Mayor and City Council Members: Since I was unable to participate in the last meeting of the Storm Drain Oversight Committee at which our 2013 Annual Report to you was prepared (due to an unexpected visit to an Emergency Room), I thought you might be interested in my position on the Storm Drain Users Fee. I believe the Storm Drain Users Fee for FY 2013-14 should be increased the maximum amount to $96.27 per ERU for the reasons explained in the annual report. If I had been at the meeting I would have voted along with the other Committee members in favor of the Staff recommendation. Sincerely, Frank Lyon Member, Storm Drain Oversight Committee 1 3 •