20131119 Late CorrespondenceRESOLUTION 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 HEALTH, 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 there exists two above-ground tanks which hold 12.5 Million gallons of butane
per tank (Total: 25 million gallons); 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 to the RPV City Attorney 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 impacts 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);
5. Failing to develop an emergency response plan to protect t e
health, welfare, or safety; and
- 1 -
RECEIVED FROM COAD AT TH E
AND MADE A PART OF T ~ 1. f '1 . df>J.3_
COUNCIL MEETING OF 0.
OFFICE OF THE CITY 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 railroad fronting Gaffey in front of the Rancho facility operated
by PHL (Pacific Harbor Line) and the adjacent rail spur (leased to Rancho) are
assets of the Port of Los Angeles which are subject to the Tidelands Trust Doctrine;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes remains concerned about the
safety and 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 odds 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;
- 2 -
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.;
(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 acting contrary to law in allowing Port Assets (the
rail-line fronting the Rancho facility on Gaffey Street leased to PHL (Pacific Harbor Line)
and the rail spur which are subject to the Tidelands Trust to be unlawfully used to
benefit a private entity in violation of the Tidelands Trust; and
(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 by permitting Port Property to be
used to benefit a private entity in violation of the Tidelands Trust, and whether either the
- 3 -
City Council or the Port of Los Angeles should waive the conflict of interest or retain
separate counsel;
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 a field hearing of 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, impose 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.
-4 -
Risk Management Plan (RMP) Data for North Coles Levee, extended detail http ://data.rtknet.org/rmp/rmp.php?facility _id= l 0000014314 l&databas ...
1of12
North Coles Levee
Facility #1 : North Coles Levee
100000143141
No
Basic Facility Info 1
Facility ID
Deregistered (Yes/No)
Facility Name
Street Address Line 1
City
North Coles Levee
9224 Tupman Road
Tupman
State CA
Zip Code 93276
County Kem County
113th Congressional District CA21: California 21
Owner or Operator Name
Parent Company
Latitude
Longitude
Inergy Propane, LLC
Inergy Propane, LLC
35 .280555
-119.311943
Number of RMP Submissions
Most Recent Submission Info '?
RMP ID
Submission Type
Submission Date
Reason For Submission
Process Toxic Amount Total (lbs)
Process Flammable Amount Total (lbs)
Process Amount Total (lbs)
5
Number of Potential Offsite Consequence Processes
Potential Offsite Consequence Toxic Amount Total (lbs)
Potential Offsite Consequence Flammable Amount Total (lbs)
Potential Offsite Consequence Amount Total (lbs)
All Process NAICS
Exec Summary Submission Date
53503
revised submission for facility
01/23/2009
Search Criteria Used (Mw:i:)
Level of Detail [.Ext~ed j GO
Type of Report Output ~T<lxt (HTMIJ===-=-J GO
Newly regulated substance above TQ in already covered process (40 CFR 68 .190(b)(3))
37,955
117,012,000
117,049,955
3
211112
01/23/2009
37,955
117 ,012,000
117,049,955
Executive Summary ~ (Facil~y #1 : North Coles Levee, executive summary: all)
Executive Summary
Risk Management Plan and California Accidental Release Prevention Program
Inergy Propane, LLC
Inergy, LP acquired the North Coles Levee Fractionator on October 1, 2003, and is proposing to add a new butane isomerization (butamer) unit to the facility in
2008 . The facility is owned and operated by Inergy, LP. Facility operations are covered by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (Cal
OSHA) regulations in Title 8, California Code of Regulations (CCR), 5189, Process Safety Management of Acutely Hazardous Materials (PSM). The facility is also
subject to the Office of Emergency Service's regulations in Title 19 CCR, 2735, California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP). This Is a Federal Risk
Management Program (RMP) and CalARP Program Level 3 process.
Inergy installed the Aqueous Ammonia System at the North Coles Levee Facility in July 2005. The Aqueous Ammonia System is regulated by Title 19 California
Code of Regulations 2755, CalARP Program . This is a CalARP Level 2 process. The prevention program described below has been Implemented.
Inergy installed the Anhydrous Ammonia Refrigeration System at the North Coles Levee Facility in 2008. The Anhydrous Ammonia Refrigeration System is
regulated by Title 19 California Code of Regulations 2755 CalARP Program. This is a Cal ARP Level 2 process. The prevention program described below has been
implemented.
THE FACILITY AND THE REGULATED SUBSTANCE HANDLED
The facility processes, stores, and transfers natural gas, natural gasoline, propane, and butane.
8/18/2013 3:19 AM
Risk Management Plan (RMP) Data for North Coles Levee, extended detail http://data.rtknet.org/rmp/rmp.php?facility _id= 100000143141 &databas ...
2of12
• ' -·-, r 1' ' , , , •. ,-",-'"' • ' -. . ..... -·. , ... , ----.... ! •, • •, ~ • • r , • • • ,• _ ·, •.
The North Coles Levee Fractionator operates 24 hours per day receiving natural gas from
surrounding production fields. Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) are recovered from the natural gas through a refrigeration process. The remaining natural gas is sold to
Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulated utility companies for home use. NGL's are fractionated into propane, butane, iso-butane, normal butane, and gasoline
components for a multitude of industry uses. This facility has the ability to remove hydrogen sulfide that may be present in incoming liquid deliveries. In the
summer, the facility receives and stores liquid propane to be used as winter fuel in refrigerated storage tanks.
The butamer converts normal butane (n-butane) into iso-butane. The conversion of n-butane to iso-butane is accomplished catalytically in the
presence of hydrogen.
Inergy currently operates a cogeneration unit and is planning to install a new cogeneration unit, both of which utilize a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
System and oxidation catalyst to reduce oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and carbon monoxide in the exhaust gas. The system utilizes aqueous ammonia, which Is
mixed in dilution air in a vaporizer tower, vaporized, and directed to the reactor where it is injected upstream of the catalyst bed.
Inergy also utilizes a refrigeration system for the treatment and/or storage of natural gas and natural gas liquids, which contains approximately 950 pounds of
anhydrous ammonia. Anhydrous ammonia Is used as a refrigerant.
The accidental release prevention program is based on the requirements of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 68, and Title 19 CCR 2735 and 2755 . The
program includes the following elements; Offsite Consequence Analysis, Employee Participation, Process Safety Information, Process Hazard Analysis, Operating
Procedures, Training, C
ontractor Evaluation, Contractors and Visitor Orientation, Pre-job Start-up Review, Mechanical Integrity, Code of Safe Work Practices (Hot Work Permit, Confined
Space Entry, Control of Hazardous Energy), Management of Change, Incident Investigation, Emergency Planning and Response, and Compliance Audits. The
anhydrous ammonia system has been incorporated into the Plant Process Safety Management Program.
Inergy maintains an emergency response plan in compliance with local emergency response agencies. Inergy has a Hazardous Materials Business Plan on file
with the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department, which is the Certified Unified Program Agency for Kern County .
Training Includes employee responsibilities in the PSM and CalARP programs, emergency response, hot work permit procedures, code of safe work practices, and
operating procedures.
The process maintains mitigation measures consisting of relief valves, check valves, manual shut off valves, automatic shutoffs, startup and operating
procedures, grounding equipment, and containment area.
EXTERNAL EVENTS ANALYSIS
The butamer unit and anhydrous ammonia refrigeration system are new processes scheduled to start installation in 2008 as part of an expansion of the North
Coles Levee Facility. An earthquake is a possible external event at the facility. This facility resides outside the boundaries and contours of a Near-Source Fault
Zone according to the document "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," published by the International
Conference of Building Officials (ICBO).
In May 1999 an external events analysis consisting of a preliminary seismic walkthrough was conducted. This walkthrough was comprised of a visual inspection
of the above grade process piping and vessels. The references used for the 1999 walkthrough were the following:
AP! Standard 570 Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance Inspection, Rating Repair,
and Alteration.
Processes Unlimited International, Inc; Engineered Safety Section, CalARP Seismic Assessment Procedure, April 12, 1999.
8118/2013 3:19 AM
Risk Management Plan (RMP) Data for North Coles Levee, extended detail http://data.rtknet.org/rmp/rmp.php?facility _id= 100000143141 &databas ...
3of12
Uniform Build ing Code, 1997 Edition, International Conference of Building Officials.
ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE POLICY
An accidental release prevention and emergency response policy have been established by Inergy management and Implemented by the employees. In the
event of an accidental release, the facility operators are trained to shut off the source from a safe location or activate one of the emergency shutdown devices,
contact 911 and secure the area . The 911 system is used to notify the Fire Department.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM
Inergy maintains an emergency response plan in compliance with local emergency response agencies. The North Coles Levee Facility has a Hazardous Materials
Business Plan on file with the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department, the Certified Unified Program Agency for Kern County .
FIVE YEAR ACCIDENT HISTORY
Based on the criteria set forth in Title 19 CCR 2735.4, this facility has not had an accidental release. This information was verified by the reviewing of records
from the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department.
Planned changes to improve safety have been established based on process safety management audits and the process hazard analysis.
Two worst-case scenarios were modeled based on the materials being utilized and the process program levels (2 and 3):
The toxic worst-case scenario used aqueous ammonia as the modeled substance. The worst-case release of 37 ,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia indicates a
toxic endpoint distance of 1.4 miles . This distance does not impact any public receptors. The passive mitigation considered for this analysis includes enclosures
and berms. This scenario is based upon the RMP Comp Version 1. 07 software.
•••••ailll•••lllllilll••••iiiil•••lilii8Jh wo t~se of 73,000,000 P.C!Unds o bu e 1 di es a 1
,overpressure endpoint distance of 3.36 miles. Based on LandView 6 Population Estimator, this distance impacts public receptors in the form of 81 housing units
and 239 residents . This scenario uses EPA 's OCA Guidance Reference Tables or Equations model C-2, "Equations for Estimation of Distance to 1 psi Overpressure
for Vapor Cloud Explosions."
Three alternate release scenarios were modeled based on the materials being utilized and the process program levels (2 and 3):
The first toxic alternate release scenario used anhydrous ammonia as the modeled substance. The alternate release scenario of 60 pounds of anhydrous
8/18/2013 3:19 AM
Name of Respondent I This Oort Is: Date of Report Year/Period of Report
Plains LPG Services, LP (1) An Original (Mo, Da, Yr' -.
(2) n A Resubmission 04/15/20 End of 2012104
Receivables from Affiliated Companies
1.) Give particulars (details) of the various affiliated company debtors and the character of the transactions involved in the current
asset Account No. 13, Receivables from Affiliated Companies .
2.) In column (a), list every item amounting to $500,000 or more. For debtors whose balances were less than $500,000, a sing le entry
may be made under a capti on "Minor accounts, less than $500 ,000."
Line Name of Debtor Description of Assets or of Transaction Balance at End of Year
No . (a) (b) (in dollars)
(c)
1 Lone Star Trucking, LLC Trade activities 44,700
2 Rancho LPG Holdings LLC Trade activities 49,613,448
3 Plains Markeing, L.P . Operating and trade activities 106,441,087
4 Plains Midstream Superior, LLC Trade activities 678,772
5 Plains Pipeline, L.P . Trade Activities 10 ,593,448
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49 Total 167,371,455
FERC FORM No. 6/6·0 (ED. 12-00) Page 200
CHARTER OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
217. Investigations and Proceedings.
(a) Administration of Oaths. The Mayor, Controller, Treasurer, the Zoning
Administrator, and each member of the Council and of each board provided for in the
Charter, and the secretary of each of those boards, shall have the power to administer
oaths and affirmations in any investigation or proceeding pending before any of those
officers or bodies, or concerning any demand on the City Treasury, and the City Clerk shall
have the power to administer all oaths and affirmations required by the Charter.
(b) Witnesses and Subpoenas. The Mayor, Controller, Treasurer, the Zoning
Administrator, Council, and each board provided for in the Charter shall have the power
and authority to examine witnesses under oath and compel the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence before them. Upon the request of the Mayor,
Controller, Treasurer, President of the Council, or the presiding officer of anv board, the
City Clerk shall issue subpoenas in the name of the City, attested with the corporate seal,
requiring the attendance and testimony of the witness or production of documents at a
specified time and place before the Mayor, Controller, Treasurer, Council, or board requesting
the subpoena. Nothing in this section shall require Council, any board or officer, or the
Zoning Administrator to provide for examination of witnesses under oath in any particular
proceeding.
(c) Penalties and Procedure. The Chief of Police, or other officer designated by
ordinance, shall cause all such subpoenas to be served. The Council shall prescribe by
ordinance suitable penalties for disobedience of subpoenas, and the refusal of witnesses to
testify or produce evidence.
(d) Board Examiners. Under procedures prescribed by ordinance:
(1) Each board of commissioners may appoint one or more examiners , or may
designate one or more of its members to serve as examiners, whenever, under the Charter
or by any law, a right of appeal or protest to the board is given, or where it is required
to conduct anv investigation or hearing;
(2) Each board may adopt, reject or modify the report of any examiner in whole or in
part, or may reconsider the matter in whole or in part;
(3) Each examiner shall have power to administer oaths and require the City Clerk to
issue subpoenas; and
(4) Reference to an examiner shall not extend or curtail the time within which the action
of any board must be taken, as required by the Charter, any other law or by ordinance.
Comments summary on <Rancho (Plains) Description of California Activities (circa 200) on Use of Facility to Aid in P 1 Speculation in Butane and Butane Futures.pdf> age
Notes
(~/
~-------------------------------~, I
Marketing Segment Activities
Activity
Crude oil activity
·-630 mbld'
·-60 mbld Fo1eign•
·Significant use of captive
assets
•Ability lo capture qualily/
localion arb1lrages and
distressed crudes
t.J!iDilillli'i!llll g
·Average -100 mb/d•
•Primarlly seasonal
spollrack sales
•Significant use of captive
assets
Overview I Comments
• Represents approximately 80% of baseline segment cash flow
• Primarily related to lease gathering and foreign crude activities
• Hedge to protect and optimize margins
• Purchases are index related; no outright price risk
I
I
I
I
I
• Margins Impacted by quality, location and inter-month time d ~fu rentials
• Provide logistical and administrative services to our custoniers
· -3-5 million barrels of tankage support these activities 1_1 _____ ,
· Represents approximately 10 -15% of baseline seg m}!nt cash flow
· wllh product p11>-sold witH' physical
contracts ., I
• Propane -prlm•rlly wholesaler to large numb:it'if reta ilers or industrial
consumers (in excess of 750 customers)
• Butane -primarily used as feedstock for lsomerization faclllty In
C'allfornla, as diluent for heavy crude oil movements in Can•da,
'"Based on full year 2009 guidance rurnished via Form B-K on May 6, 2009.
46
I
I
I
1 Noel 11/18/201310:57:31
Storage of Butane at Rancho a speculative
activity ... Note reference to 'seasonal
storage' anrl referenGP. tn 'herlgino' of butane
contracts on NYMEX •..
This is rank speculation in Butane Futures. ,
•. What is going on is that Rancho buys (or
stores) Butane in the spring and summer
when it is 'cheap' and (relatively) 'plentiful' •..
Subject: Video Monitoring Systems
From: Bolin, Darrell B.(DBBolin@lasd.org)
To: susanbrooks01@yahoo.com;
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 4:59 PM
Mayor Brooks,
With respect to static video monitoring systems, the Sheriff's Department supports the
position to research the efficiency and effectiveness of this technology installed
elsewhere to determine if similar equipment would be feasible on the peninsula.
Similar technology (Advanced License Plate Reader -ALPR) is currently deployed
in two patrol cars on the peninsula, wherein several thousand license plates are
scanned and downloaded into a database during a 24 hour period.
Potential benefits of this system include:
Aiding law enforcement in criminal investigations and suspect identification
Crime prevention
Blaine
CfTYOF
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
NOVEMBER 19, 2013
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached c;tre revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
1 Email from Director Rojas to the City Council
Respectfully submitted,
{jJi6-~~
Carla Morreale
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, November 18, 2013**.
W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas\20131119 additions revisions to agenda through Tuesday afternoon.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mayor and Council Members
Joel Rojas
Tuesday, November 19, 2013 4:27 PM
cc
Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; Eduardo Schonborn
Green Hills
Back on October 1st, you were apprised by the City Attorney of concerns expressed by condo owners in the adjacent
City of Lomita with regards to a new mausoleum building that was recently completed at Green Hills. Green Hills has an
item on tonight's agenda that involves a time extension to allow two temporary modular buildings to remain at their
site. To avoid any confusion, I just want to clarify that the modular building time extension request item has no
relationship to the mausoleum issue.
With regards to the mausoleum issue, Community Development Staff has met with a couple of condo owners to better
understand their issues and hear suggestions for how to mitigate their concerns. In addition, City Staff has met with
Green Hills officials to discuss ways to help create a better barrier between the Condo complex and the new mausoleum.
Green Hills has expressed their willingness to look into the matter to see what could be done. Since an annual review of
the Green Hills CUP by the Planning Commissions is overdue, it is Staff's intent to schedule the annual review as soon as
time permits to allow the PC to hear from the concerned condo owners at a noticed public hearing and consider the
proposals that will be forthcoming from Green Hills to address the matter.
Staff will continue to keep the Council apprised of this matter.
Joel Rojas
1 /.
CfTYOF
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
NOVEMBER 18, 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, November 19, 2013 City Council meeting:
Item No.
SS2a
G
1
3
Respectfully submitted,
~7J~
Carla Morreale
Description of Materials
Email exchange between Mayor Brooks and Merry An
Cejka
Email exchange between Staff and Sunshine
Email from Roger Metzler
Email from Sunshine
W:\AGENDA\2013 Additions Revisions to agendas\20131118 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
Subject: FW: Am I wrong? Thanks.a
From: Mayor Susan Brooks [mailto:subrooks08@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 8:38 AM
To: Merrmm@aol.com
Cc: CC; Joel Rojas
Subject: Re: Am I wrong? Thanks.a
Dear Merry An,
That is correct, but few have utilized this since the City started using a Mediator to work with all parties. Please
note that we will be addressing the issue of code compliance and tree impact at the next Study Session. I am
forwarding your email to our Director of Community Services for followup.
Best,
Susan Brooks
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:32 PM, <Merrmm@aol.com> wrote:
Is it REALLY TRUE it would cost $5,106.00 (non-refundable fee) for a view restoration permit?
That seems extremely punitive.
Is it true? If so, how is that cost justified for nothing more than a permit?
Thank you,
Merry An Cejka
View Restoration Step #3-If a private agreement cannot be reached in mediation, or the foliage owners have not responded to the City within the
specified time frame, a formal application for a View Restoration Permit may be submitted with a non-refundable fee of $5, 106.00. Thereafter,
a public hearing before the Planning Commission will be held and a written staff recommendation with an analysis of six criteria called View
Restoration findings will be provided for the Planning Commission's consideration. These findings are described in Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(c)
of the Municipal Code and in the View Restoration Guidelines Section V. If the Planning Commission approves the permit request, then the
applicant will be required to pay the initial costs of performing the required trimming, removal and/or planting replacement foliage. The foliage
owner is responsible for all subsequent trimming maintenance.
Susan Brooks, Mayor
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
(310) 541-2971 home
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Late Correspondence for Item 'G'
Kit Fox, AICP
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kit£@rpv.com
From: Kit Fox
Kit Fox
Monday, November 18, 2013 3:34 PM
Teresa Takaoka
FW: More than just the November 19 City Council Item G
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 3:33 PM
To: 'SunshineRPV@aol.com'; Ara Mihranian
Subject: RE: More than just the November 19 City Council Item G
Dear SUNSHINE:
Please see my replies in bold below.
Kit Fox, AICP
City 0£ Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kit£@rpv.com
From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 3:06 PM
To: Kit Fox; Ara Mihranian
Subject: More than just the November 19 City Council Item G
Hi Kit,
Transparency is supposed to reduce confusion. A map would help.
There is a map of the subject property included with Staff report.
The City of RPV has acquired several lots in the Cherry Hill area of Portuguese Bend and is current
on paying the Portuguese Bend Community Association (PBCA) dues on them, right?
That is my understanding.
A Ms. Warner has offered to donate a lot in the Cherry Hill area and the City is to pick up the tab
on the outstanding LA County property taxes. What is the status of the PBCA dues?
Ms. Werner's note of October 22°d (attached to the Staff report) states that she has paid the PBCA dues for the year.
APN 7572-008-014 is the lot which is not in the Cherry Hill area. So, even though I contend that my
home has never moved to the west, the location of my kitchen is no longer a City affair. YEA!
Since the back taxes were redeemed by the current owner, the City will not be pursuing the acquisition of APN 7572-
008-014.
If you contend that acquiring APN 7572-004-002 will give the City better access to Portuguese
Canyon, you might want to disclose what homeowner infrastructure you would have to go through.
Get it? In order to be a good neighbor in the moving community, RPV (Public Works?) needs to take
care of the fire fuel abatement and storm water drainage in relation to today's infrastructure just like
the rest of us.
To my knowledge, no specific plans or access routes have been identified at this time. Questions about the
maintenance of City property should be directed to the Public Works Department.
Recommend the possibility of accepting the donation of a lot with the understanding that the City of
RPV becomes r!3sponsible for it until it is sold. "Due Diligence" is important. Transparency is
important. It is the financial investment. This should not be a Consent Calendar item.
Staff does not recommend accepting the donation of this property with the intention of reselling it at some future
point. Staff recommends accepting the donation for the reasons discussed in the Staff report.
What is the status of budget adjustments to pursue offers of easement donations? ... S
I am not aware of any other forthcoming budget adjustments from the City Manager's Office to pursue the
acceptance or acquisition of easements.
In a message dated 11/18/2013 10:52:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, KitF@rpv.com writes:
Dear SUNSHINE:
I believe that you are confusing this donated property (APN 7572-004-002) with a tax-defaulted property that
the City was going to acquire (APN 7572-008-014). The back taxes were paid for APN 7572-008-014 and the City
is not going to acquire it. However, I confirmed this morning that Ms. Werner still desires to donate APN 7572-
004-002 to the City.
Sincerely,
Kit Pox, AICP
City o£RanchoPalos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpv.com
From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mail to:SunshineRPV@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 10:42 AM
To: Kit Fox
Subject: Re: November 19 City Council Item G
I read somewhere that the potential donor had paid her back taxes .... S
In a message dated 11/18/2013 8:11 :30 AM. Pacific Standard Time, KitF@rpv.com writes:
Dear SUNSHINE:
Thank you for your e-mail. What is the basis for your statement that "[this] offer has been withdrawn"?
Kit Fox, AICP
City 0£ Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5226
kitf@rpv.com
From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 2:24 PM
To: CC; Kit Fox; Carolyn Lehr; Cory Linder; Les Jones; Ara Mihranian
Subject: November 3 City Council Item G
This offer has been withdrawn. Who is pursuing the other offers of donations? "Due Diligence"
appears to be the magic term. It costs money up front in order for Staff to even consider an
offer. And, we have several of them which are not being considered.
Heaven forbid that Staff have funding to combine one goal with another. Why is there no pot of
money for Staff to draw on when it would clearly make sense for trail preservation/improvement
to be combined with storm drain repairs? How about they do have such a fund but one
department does not share with another.
This may be a too specific agenda item for Council to consider the bigger picture. Please find a
way to fix that. ... S
AGENDA
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2013
FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD
~t Adjustment for Payment of Property Taxes and "Due Diligence" Review to Accept the Donation of Vacant Property it
:t (Fox)
1tion: 1) Authorize the City Manager to accept the donation of a vacant property in the Cherry Hill Lane area (Assessor'
), subject to the verification of acceptable title and condition of the property; and,
~SOLUTION NO. 2013-_, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERI
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-43, THE BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR FY 2013-14, TO PAY FOR THE COST OF Tl
~OPERTY TAXES AND "DUE DILIGENCE" REVIEW FOR THE VACANT PROPERTY TO BE DONATED TOT
~ITY'S GENERAL FUND.
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Green Hills Public Hearing
Green H ills2013. pdf
From: Roger Metzler [mailto:metzler.roger@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2013 1:49 PM
To: Abigail Harwell
Subject: Green Hills Public Hearing
Hi Abigail,
I would like to submit the attached letter to the City Council in support of the staff report & recommendation
regarding the amendment to special use permit (case ZON2010-00366) concerning the Green Hills temporary
modular buildings.
I understand that since I did not submit the letter prior to November 12, that it could not be considered in the
staff report. However, I would be grateful if you could include it in the material submitted to the Council for
the November 19 public hearing.
I would appreciate it if you could acknowledge receipt of this email and attached letter to
metzler. roger@gmail.com.
Thank you.
Roger Metzler
I
City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear City Council Members:
1921 Avenida Feliciano
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
November 15, 2013
I urge you to deny the extension of the Special Use Pennit to allow Green HHls Memorial Park
continued use of two temporary modular buildings adjacent to the Administration Building
parking lot for 30 months, with an option for additional extensions. Rather, in order to remain,
these modular buildings should be submitted to the normal application, plan, and review process
that is rel1uired of any RPV homeovvner or business who wishes to add or significantly modify a
structure on their property.
The original Special Use Permit for these "temporary" buildings was granted in April 2005 for
use while the Administration Building was being remodeled. That work was completed in June
2007: The table below summarizes Green Hills' subsequent requests and appeals for continued
use of these "temporary" buildings. This is the same information that is captured in the
Community Development Staff report. More than 8 years is a long time for "temporary"!
~~os ~~::~::~~"~=-Foo,_---·---~
I remodeled I r·-()~!~f~f-.~-.Q--Q?-.-~-~--~~~~~~~:_T__,Y.,_·e .. _a._r ~tension ---·-·----·-··-··· .. ·tcfrani~ct-by-C-DD-·----................... ~-·-··
November 2008 Buildings remain permanently Denied by CDD; denied by
pc·
It seems fairly obvious that Green Hills has no intention to remove these "temporary" buildings.
Rather, it appears that Green Hills keeps r~questing extensions :for these buildings in order to
avoid the scrutiny, formality. and permit process that normally is required for permanent
structures. These buildings have not been su~jected to any of the permitting and review process
that homeowners and businesses in RPV must follow in order to make an addition or significant
modification to their property .. I believe it was the City Council's intent to provide Green Hills
the opportunity and time to pursue this process when they conditionally approved the 30 month
extension in May'20l L Green Hills has essentially "thumbed their nose" at the City Council's
approval.
Green Hills has repeatedly cited poor economic conditions and poor sales as a reason for
requesting extensions for the "temporary'' buildings. Yet they have constructed a new
mausoleum, are preparing to construct a second, have moved St. Peter's Church to the site, have
sponsored a Halloween festival. and are preparing to sponsor a Christmas festival in December.
That's a lot of expansion and activity under poor economic conditions. They have made a
conscious decision to not upgrade their modular buildings despite repeated urgings over the last
5 years from the Community Development Director, Planning Commission, and City Council to
do so. Why should Green Hills now be "bailed <mt" from their poor management decisions by
those same entities?
As a neighbor with property adjoining Green Hills, these relatively small modular buildings are
much preferable to a large, multi-story pennanent structure that Green Hills might seek as a
replacement. I've let my hedge grow high enough to block my view of them. But why should
Green Hills be allowed to circumvent the process that other homeowners and businesses in RPV
must follow in order to add to or significantly modify their home or business structure? If Green
Hills submitted these modular buildings to the normal application, plan, and review process that
is required of permanent stmctures and they passed, then they could be allowed to remain. The
City Council provided the opportunity to initiate this process in May 2011. Green Hills chose to
ignore it, so the City Council should deny their n~quest for continued use of the "temporary"
buildings.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views.
Sincerely,
Roger Metzler
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
MEMO from SUNSHINE
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Saturday, November 16, 2013 9:26 AM
CC; Leza Mikhail
Gordon.Leon@gmail.com; robert.cumby@cox.net; mcmaxwell@verizon.net;
aliderek@gmail.com
November 19, 2013 Agenda Item 3 Landslide moritorium exemptions
TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties.
RE: November 19, 2013 Agenda Item 3. Introduction of Ordinance -Code Amendment to Chapter 15.20
(Moratorium on Land Use Permits) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code to Establish an Exception
Category to Allow Minor, Non-Remedial Grading on Lots Developed with a Residential Structure or Other
Lawfully Existing Non-Residential Structure within the City's Landslide Moratorium Area (Mikhail)
Apparently no one has noticed that the RPV Landslide Moratorium ordinances have served their purpose. It has
been forty years since RPV incorporated and put a band-aid on the problem. We now have a GIS system. We
now know where the land is actually moving. We know what mitigation measures need to be implemented.
The LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM AREA should be abolished. The ban on accepting applications without
going through an exemption process is no longer relevant.
At the risk of sounding like Lois Knight LaRue, the antonym of mitigate is exacerbate. One should not
aggravate living things. . .. S
1 3.